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

New Email Address:

Sunday, July 31, 2005

A Kinder, Gentler Terrorism


Did you hear? One of the arrested terrorists from the failed second London attack has said that it was never intended to actually explode, it was just intended to send a message.


Little by Little, The Word is Getting Out

This morning, I woke up to hear, for the first time, a radio talk show host in our area discussing the implications of the threats being made by Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad. Not only the host's views, but those of the callers was very encouraging. I wanted to share with you the email I sent to him a few minutes ago:

Dear Dan,

I listened to your show this morning for the first time, and it pleases me no end that Mme. Reality is beginning to knock at our door!

The information you gave on Muslim cleric Bakri (to say nothing of the fact that his views are typical) is much needed in the PC World. Inasmuch as you are interested in him, and inasmuch as you mentioned his desire to fly the flag of the Ummah all over the world, I thought you'd enjoy one of his more revealing publications, called "Khilifah: The First 24 Hours" available at: . It was written by our friend (the Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad), and published by Al-Muhajiroun publications (

Along those lines, Siraj Wahhaj, who was the Imam of Masjid al-Taqwa in Brooklyn, New York, said "Take my word; if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us."

The reason for all the changes proposed by the Sheikh is the fact that state and religion are inextricably fused in Islam; the Koran is their constitution, and sharia, their law, is derived from it, and considered to be the word of Allah. Since they consider the word of Allah to be supreme, no man-made government, and no man-made law (such as our Constitution) can take precedence over the Koran or sharia. To that end, the former Muslim chaplain and political science professor at Yale, Imam Zaid Shakir, said: "The Koran pushes us in the exact opposite direction to the forces at work in the American political spectrum." As a result, he maintains that Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing (American) system.

And did you hear the one about a Muslim convention held in San Jose a month after 9/11, where one of the speakers said "By the year 2020, we should have an American Muslim president of the United States."

I simply must take this opportunity to mention a very fine resource that deserves to be more widespread; this is an on-line book written by Vernon Richards, and given a "thumbs up" by Robert Spencer, a scholar-author doubtless already known to you. It is the best "overview" of Islam I have ever seen, written in chronological fashion, and should be the textbook of choice about Islam in every high school and college in the United States. It is called "Islam Undressed," and it is available at: [Updated link as of 31 July 2005, 1402 hours, PDT (gm)] . It is extremely well documented, and a great resource.

I don't know if the author would be available to be interviewed, but I'd sure tune in if he were.

Until the canonical documents of Islam--the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirat Rasul Allah--delete the exhortations to convert the earth into an Islamic planet, there will ALWAYS be those in EVERY generation who will respond to the religious obligation to carry out the plan, and who will take seriously the moral authority these documents grant to the followers of Islam to do anything, including murder and mayhem, that they deem necessary to accomplish the goal. It won't matter that some Muslims would prefer to live in peace--the fact that the religious obligation to conquer the world by any means necessary is the "word of Allah" makes their desires for peace with the Infidel an act of heresy, which is punishable by death under sharia.

World conquest is the raison d'etre of Islam; it is its whole identity, it's whole purpose for existing. No individual, and no group, can tolerate loss of purpose or identity, so this conflict isn't going away any time soon. Iraq has NOTHING to do with the attacks on the non-Muslim world. It is the fact that there are non-Muslims (pagans, according to them) on the planet that "provokes" violence by Islam.

It is interesting to note that by plotting the location of every conflict in the world today, you see that they occur at the interface between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds respectively), and not just in Iraq. I like to call the picture that is produced by plotting these conflicts the "Ring of Fire," only it doesn't refer to geologic activity. It is the Infidel, the "Not-Muslim," be he Christian, Bhuddist, Jew, Confucian, animist, agnostic, or atheist, that provides the excuse for Muslims to throw their lethal temper tantrums.

Reality always wins in the end, and eventually, the PC Curtain will be drawn back enough even for some of the "make-nice" people to see how hopeless their dreams of appeasement with this implacable, intransigent foe are. One day, even they will get the picture--the Golden Rule is meaningless to Islam. As Our Friend Bakri said, "We don't make a distinction between
civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between
Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has
no sanctity."

Best regards,


P.S. Aside from the English-language versions of the Koran etc., the greatest reference text for your book shelf is Craig Winn's "Prophet of Doom." He has used the founding documents of Islam to expose it for what it is, and as a result, receives frequent death threats. It's not an easy read, but it's something that everyone interested in the nature of Islam should have available.

P.P.S. The government-religion "fusion" issue is important, and what has happened in Islam is PRECISELY the sort of thing that the Founders feared could happen to us if separation between religion and state weren't maintained. There was a guy named Robert Molesworth, who was a pre-Revolutionary author (whose friends later wrote a series of pamphlets that became known as "Cato's Letters" that were considered pivotal justification for the American Revolution) who studied the relationship between religion and government extensively, and concluded that if religion and government were fused, then government could be considered an agent of God, and not merely a human production. Where that is the case, criticism of government is considered a sin, and not honest intellectual disagreement.

The Founders were in agreement with this concern, and to protect the freedom of the citizen to disagree with and criticize the government, and to prevent the situation we now see with Islam, they inserted the "separation clause" that so many today think is such a bad thing.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Here's How to Select Judges for the Supreme Court

If all of this persiflage from the Left and the Right leaves you confounded about picking criteria for a judge to sit on the Supreme Court and not make the mess any worse (godforbid making things better!), then you can resort to that always reliable, old stand-by. Just step back and consult fundamental principles. When you do, you find that the criteria of the Left are totally socialist while those of the Right are excessively religious. Neither has any place on a Constitutional Supreme Court. Tara Smith clearly explains the right way to select a Supreme Court justice in this Ayn Rand Institute op-ed.

The Need for an Active Supreme Court Justice

Only a judge who will actively uphold individual rights is fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

By Tara Smith

As the battle over John Roberts' Supreme Court confirmation begins, the one widely agreed upon measure of qualification is that he not be a "judicial activist." While conservatives have long railed against "activist" judges "making" law by legislating from the bench, many on the left in recent years have similarly criticized the Rehnquist court as "activist" (on behalf of executive powers, for instance). Charges of "activism" have essentially become a smear intended to discredit any decision with which one disagrees. More damaging, however, the use of this label, on all sides, fosters a serious confusion about the role of the judiciary.

The charge of "judicial activism" typically condemns proper activity on the part of judges along with improper activity. It has become dangerously commonplace to equate a judge's support for overturning a law with pernicious activism. Prevailing wisdom holds that we can identify "activists" simply by counting up the number of times a judge rules against existing laws or government practices. Notice that by that logic, the only way for a judge to avoid overstepping his authority is to engage in no activity--to simply rubberstamp whatever the legislature and other agencies of government serve up. What, by this reasoning, is the point of having a Supreme Court? Some laws should be struck down. Because the United States is a constitutional republic, we are all bound--private citizens and government alike--to abide by the Constitution. It is precisely the role of the judiciary to strike down laws and prohibit government actions that fail to do so. Judges who so rule are acting responsibly and fulfilling their function.

Laws are necessarily written in broad terms, designed to govern an array of cases that are similar in principle but different in particulars. Judicial rulings are needed when the proper application of those laws, in a specific case, is not transparent. The logical application of a Constitutional provision to novel circumstances is not, therefore, a case of creating new rules ex nihilo. Rather, it is exactly what we need judges to often do. While Article I, for instance, provides for the common defense and the specific maintenance of an army and navy, courts have not been activist dictators by also allowing an air force. While the First Amendment protects freedom of "speech" and of "the press," courts have not brazenly "legislated" by treating written letters as also protected.

In doing their job, judges must be mindful of the 9th Amendment. The Constitution does not provide an exhaustive catalog of every right that citizens possess. The 9th Amendment explicitly instructs us that those rights not named in the Constitution are retained by the people. It is thereby laying down a principle to guide Constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, judges must apply the law in a way that respects all the rights of the citizens, unenumerated as well as enumerated. It is no more legitimate to subtract from the Constitution, by ignoring this provision, than to arbitrarily add to it.

The salient question in assessing any nominee, then, is not whether a judge takes action, but the factors that guide his actions. To be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a person must, at minimum, understand three basic facts: First, that individual rights are broad principles defining the individual's freedom of action. The familiar rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness subsume a vast array of particular exercises of this freedom, some explicitly named in the constitution (e.g., the freedom of speech) and some not (the right to travel). Second, he must understand that the government's sole function is to protect individuals' freedom of action. As Jefferson explained, it is "to secure these rights, [that] governments are instituted among men." Third, he must recognize that our government properly acts exclusively by permission. Articles I, II and III specify the powers of the three branches of government and the 10th Amendment expressly decrees that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or by the people. The government, in other words, may do only what it is legally authorized to do.

These, correspondingly, are the considerations that should guide a judge's decision-making. It is precisely because action from judges is often needed that principled action--action premised on the basic principles of our republic--is essential. Only a nominee whose record demonstrates that he is so guided is fit to be entrusted a place on the Court.

Tara Smith, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, is a contributing writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

Copyright © 2005 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606

Friday, July 29, 2005

Is It Time to Get Real?

Have you ever dreamed of a really super adventure movie?

Well, here's some material that some creative person out there might enjoy. The material from NASA is for real; I can't vouch for Osama's dream of an "American Hiroshima," but even if it isn't true, if Osama's dream were combined with the NASA information, it would make one hell of a movie!

Here's the scoop:

First, the real part. There are concerns being floated about that NASA is trying to figure out a way to keep an asteroid that's headed our way from slamming into the earth. The asteroid will have a relatively near fly-by in 2029, and seven years later, in 2036, there is apparently a real risk that because of a gravitational "sweet spot," it will impact the earth.

Using today's technology, if we act by 2013, we could nudge the asteroid
about a half mile off its present course, thereby averting certain disaster.
If we wait any longer, it would take a "nudge" equal to the distance of the
diameter of the earth to effect a change in the asteroid's course sufficient to be sure it would miss the earth. Unfortunately, there is no technology on the horizon that could accomplish that task.

Guess which countries have the ability to carry out a rescue mission by

Uh-huh, that's right--one. The U.S. Maybe Russia could help. That would be nice.

But there may be some sand in the gears of the rescue plan, and that's where the speculative part about Osama comes in.

Paul Williams, author of "Osama's Revenge," contends rather convincingly that
Osama's mention of an "American Hiroshima" is a reference to a planned
nuclear attack on several cities in the U.S., using tactical weapons already
in place and currently being warehoused in mosques. Williams believes that Mexico was the "port of entry," so-to-speak, for the weapons. Economist David Hawkins
(, on the other hand, believes there is evidence to suggest that weapons were transported into the U.S. via Canada.

There's no particular reason, I suppose, that given the lack of interest
shown by our government in border security that both borders couldn't be
used for such a purpose.

Anyway, Osama has said that he wants four million Americans to die, and that
at least two million of these must be children. In Osama's mind, this would
achieve some sort of "parity." According to Williams, neither biological nor
chemical weapons could do the trick; only multiple nuclear weapons
could achieve Osama's dream.

OK, let's say for the sake of discussion that Osama's desire for "parity"
actually succeeds. Williams thinks that it will be sooner rather than later,
possibly even as early as October of this year. The cities that are the
primary targets are those with the largest Jewish populations--New York,
Miami, etc.--but not restricted to them. Other large cities, as well as small
towns, are also targets.

The U.S. wouldn't be destroyed by such an attack, of course, but it would
take a hell of a lot longer to recover from something like that than it did to recover from the attack on the Twin Towers.

The possibility that something like this might be in the works is Tom Tancredo's
reason for wanting to keep open all options, including the option of destroying Mecca, Medina, etc. It would be certifiably insane to turn the other cheek should something like this happen.

But I digress. Now, let's see; Osama nukes a number of U.S. cities--rumor has
it at between twenty and forty are targeted--sometime BEFORE 2013. Would we
be able to recover sufficiently in time to alter the course of that asteroid? Maybe so,if the proposed attack occurs no later than the October '05 date, which would give us about seven or eight years to get back on our feet. Maybe not, if it
comes after 2013.

See what I mean about a great movie?


Take heart Americans, there are people with morality, fortitude, and fearless dedication to the truth. The firing of Michael Graham reflects on the cowardly corporate mentalities of ABC, Disney, and WMAL. They have become overnight DHIMMIS. No they probably have been all along.

You and I, we can push back. CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) and its fellow travellers have been intimidating the morally uncertain in government, corporations, and wherever they can by threatening suits from their strangely deep pockets which seem to go all the way back to Saudi Arabia, and by mobilizing their rent-a-crowd Muslim handpuppets. These people, Muslims chronically pissed off at absolutely everything, just await the email "Daily Whines" from CAIR to act on their endless rage to fax, email, and telephone whomever CAIR orders them to do. They are utterly mindless, which is why CAIR can manipulate them so successfully and so often.

The one thing that CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and the latest names the Muslim Brotherhood use is Americans standing up, like Congressman Tancredo, ON PRINCIPLE, WITHOUT APOLOGY. Our standing up for Michael Graham is vital to undercutting the dhimmitude groups like CAIR have instilled in governmental and corporate cowards.



Here is a terrific email from Anti-CAIR (subscribe if you don't already):

(ACAIR received the following announcement; in the interest of keeping the public informed of the activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), we are presenting the following as a public service. The following is unedited.)


Conservative talk-show host Michael Graham was suspended without pay today by ABC Disney after threats from the Council for American-Islamic Relations over his on-air comments regarding terrorism and Islam. Despite repeated statements of support for Graham's free-speech rights by management at 630 WMAL in Washington, D.C. ----- the ABC-owned radio station where Graham works as mid-morning host ---- he was summarily suspended pending an "investigation."

"I honestly don't know what Disney is investigating me for, unless it's for doing a compelling talk show that gets people's attention," Graham said. "I thought that was my job."

Graham has been harshly criticized by CAIR for public comments linking the current theology and structure of Islam to the repeated acts of terror in its name. CAIR sent mass e-mails to its members urging them to contact ABC and demand the company to punish Graham for his remarks.

The statements at the heart of the controversy reflect Graham's opinion that, as he puts it, "Because of the mix of Islamic theology that --- rightly or wrongly --- is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion."

Ironically, CAIR announced today that a group of US Muslim scholars were issuing a fatwa against terrorism. According to Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, the fatwa was issued in part due to criticism from talk radio hosts like Michael Graham. "Nearly four years after the World Trade Center fell, CAIR is participating in a blanket denunciation of terrorism, and my attitude is "better late than never."

If our conversation on 630 WMAL helped CAIR finally take this long-needed step, then we've done something good for the future of Islam," Graham said. Graham acknowledged that his statement has upset some people, but he refuses to recant. "Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, an Iraqi-American who has taught Arabic and Islamic studies at Harvard, wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week about a prominent Egyptian moderate who criticized the Islamists and their influence on all of Islam, and was threatened with death. He recanted and promised to be silent to save his life." "I can't blame him." "But I'm an American, and if fighting for free speech and for the truth in the war on terrorism means getting fired by some corporate suit at ABC Disney who can't stand up for free speech ----so be it. But I will not recant," Graham said.

To contact ABC Radio in Washington and express your opinion about their decision to cave into pressure from CAIR, call the General Manager, Chris Berry, at 202-686-3100 or email

ACAIR Note: (Listen to Michael Graham's full Tuesday show from link below)

Andrew WhiteheadDirectorAnti-CAIR (ACAIR),


Do not forget the fortitude of those very fine Americans at Jewish World Review, , Wknd of July 29-31, 2005. (This magazine is also very valuable in learning truth about a wide range of issues. Subscribe if you haven't, and donate).


Michael Graham was suspended without pay by his station just hours after his column appeared here.

Please take a moment and send a note to management. CAIR told THEIR sympathizers to --- and THEY did!

Details and easy to use technology at:


By Binyamin L. Jolkovsky

Yesterday Michael Graham wrote in his column: "I take no pleasure in
saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in
talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth: Islam is a
terror organization."

And then his fears came true.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE ACTION, FOLKS! We've made it easy.


Wonderfully gutsy Jewish World Review published Michael Graham's explanations of his position in an article 28 July 2005.

It reads, in part:

Jewish World Review July 28, 2005 / 21 Tamuz, 5765


By Michael Graham I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:

Islam is a terror organization.

For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9/11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.

Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."

But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."

Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."

Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews.

That is part of the state of modern Islam.

Read the entire article at

We were so very proud of the moral fortitude of Jewish World Review and Mr. Graham for speaking their minds and exercising the First Amendment to its proper use. We sent the following email both to JWR and Mr. Graham.

In response to Michael Graham's article, "The Tragedy of Islam" in JWR today.

First, I bow in moral admiration to Jewish World Review for publishing this article. Given the context of the times, the article is not politically correct. It is even worse--it tells the truth, the core truth. This kind of article would scare the panties off a number of conservative and other right wing publications because of their own (suicidal) political correctness; they would fear to publish, thus would not. While over the past year, JWR has become one of my favorite publications because of the quality of its publications, its publishing Mr. Graham's article, however, pushes JWR a quantum leap. JWR frankly makes me feel very proud displaying such moral fortitude and integrity. Both are rare these days.

Second, I support Mr. Graham. I support his right to say and write, according to the creation of my hero (George Mason), codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I support Mr. Graham because he is someone on the right and in broadcasting who really is "getting it" about Islam (too few are), and he refuses to buckle to the intimidation machine of CAIR and its ilk.

As soon as CAIR sent out its email, which we call its "Daily Whine," we saw that it had set out to damage, if not destroy, Mr. Graham, WMAL, and scare the pantaloons off of WMAL advertisers following on-air comments Mr. Graham made on his program. CAIR uses this trick over and over--because it works. We read CAIR's Daily Whine and promptly blogged our support for Mr. Graham, based on the comments contained in the Daily Whine. CAIR had gone to great lengths to select those comments and to arrange them in such a way to make Mr. Graham look the worst. But, our minds do not belong to CAIR. The truth came through. We are only sorry that we live so far away in fly-over country that we are still using a modem and cannot listen to his program at all.

Within two weeks, two important phenomena have occurred, and they are strongly related at the level of fundamental principles. Representative Tom Tancredo has been under severe attack by CAIR and related groups for his remarks, which they want their handpuppets to interpret to mean that Rep. Tancredo wants to nuke Mecca, Medina, and so on. We read his remarks. We know what he said, and we have heard him interviewed since then. Both Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Graham made the same "mistakes": (1.) Both broke "omerta," the politically correct code of silence (yes, I am borrowing this from the mafia) and said things which the politically correct police do not want said; and, (2.) both told the God's honest truth. Mr. Tancredo rose enormously in our eyes by his refusal to apologize or back down, and he wrote a great piece elaborating his views in the Denver Post.

By the way, CAIR met someone who did not even blink before its intimidation machine. It might have been a first for CAIR. CAIR subsequently sputtered and made a great deal of vacuous noise and sank into choruses of "woe is us, what is the world coming to." By standing up to CAIR, Mr. Tancredo showed just how really weak CAIR, and its like truly are. They have developed the appearance of being strong because they ran over so many who were much more cowardly than them--until Rep. Tancredo. Hopefully, Mr. Graham joins this moral elite. CAIR and its ilk fight the "covert jihad," as we prefer to call it, leaving al-Qaeda, etc., to fight the overt jihad. As a result, CAIR et al are spreaders of the poisonous intent of Islam, just as Mr. Graham points out.

Two public figures of honesty, integrity, and principles, speaking courageously and truthfully, and both within two weeks of each other. America has two sons it can be very proud of, and let us throw in the folks at JWR who dared to print the politically incorrect--they are among America's proud sons and daughters as well.

Readers should sally forth to support Mr. Graham directly and to let WMAL and its advertisers know that the "truth shall make you free."

Please ask Mr. Graham to write frequently for JWR so that those of us "out here" can get that shot in the arm provided by good moral examples.

And, as for Islam, CAIR, and all of the ugly pressure out to damage if not destroy Mr. Graham, Rep. Tancredo, and all others who stand UP for principles and speak the TRUTH: Reality always wins in the end!

George Mason


"History is philosophy teaching by example."
Lord Bolingbroke

Some Background

In case you might be behind the curve a bit regarding the Michael Graham firing from radio WMAL in Washington by sheer dhimmitude on the part of ABC-Disney and the station, this article from the Washington Post will update you. We also blogged on Sixth Column this attack on Michael Graham on 25 July in "Time to Defy CAIR Again." That blog had the full "daily whine" from CAIR about Graham.

Muslims Call Comments by WMAL Host 'Hate-Filled'
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 26, 2005; C01

A local radio talk show host touched off complaints from an Islamic civil rights organization yesterday after repeatedly describing Islam on the air as "a terrorist organization" that is "at war with America."

The organization, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked the station to take disciplinary action against Michael Graham, who hosts WMAL-AM's late-morning call-in program.

A station executive, Randall Bloomquist, said yesterday that Graham's comments were "amped up" but justified within the context of the program. He said the station, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., had no plans to reprimand Graham.

The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. "The problem is not extremism," Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. "The problem is Islam." He also said, "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

CAIR denounced the comments yesterday as "hate-filled" and "Islamophobic" and asked its members to contact the station's advertisers to express their dismay.

"It's amazing," said Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communications director. "I talked with Mr. Bloomquist and asked him if he would reprimand someone who used the n-word on the air. He said yes. I asked him if he would reprimand someone who read [approvingly] from the [anti-Semitic] 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' He said yes. So I asked him if he would do the same if someone had called Islam a terroristic organization. Well, he said, it's all about context, but he never quite explained it to me."

Added Hooper, "The First Amendment allows people to be idiots and bigots. All you can do is embarrass people and have them defend their reputation. If WMAL doesn't feel embarrassed and doesn't want to defend its reputation in the face of anti-Muslim bigotry, then there's not much we can do about it."

Graham, who broadcasts locally, is one of several conservative hosts heard on WMAL (630). The station's daily lineup includes the syndicated Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs.

After rising slightly during the months preceding the presidential election last year, WMAL's audience ratings have fallen precipitously. Exact ratings for Graham's 9-11:45 a.m. time slot are unavailable, but WMAL's morning programming, which includes part of Graham's program, are off 25 percent since last year. The station overall has lost 41 percent of its core 25-to-54-year-old audience in the past 12 months, dropping from 158,200 individual listeners per week to 116,600.

Graham declined to comment when contacted yesterday, saying, "I'm saving all my comments for my show. You'll just have to listen." But in his weekly column, which will appear on WMAL's Web site today, he repeats the statement that "Islam is a terror organization" and makes the following analogy:

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder --and the scoutmasters responded by saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.

"Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not."
Bloomquist said his station had received more than 100 e-mails protesting Graham's comments, many of them, he said, apparently generated by CAIR's e-mails to its members. He went on to defend Graham, saying, "Remember that this is talk radio. We don't do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It's not 'Washington Week in Review.' It depends on pungent statements to drive it. Michael is rattling the cage. It's designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that."

Graham made waves earlier this year when he scuffled with Montgomery County police after he tried to attend an event for illegal immigrants while wearing a T-shirt that read "INS (I Need Border Security)." He also recently led a rally in front of The Washington Post's building in the District seeking the dismissal of Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who wrote a story that inaccurately reported on alleged abuses of the Koran in the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post Co.).

Graham has also clashed with CAIR in the past. The group last year cited him in a campaign called "Hate Hurts America" for what CAIR described as implicitly advocating violence against Muslims.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Two or three days ago, Washington, DC, radio talk show host Michael Graham spoke the frank truth about Islam on his WMAL radio show. The CAIR rent-a-crowd swung into high gear to initimidate WMAL and its advertisers. Yesterday, Mr. Graham published an article explaining his views on Jewish World Review. What was the Disney-ABC-WMAL response?

From the WMAL website this morning:

630 WMAL Suspends Michael Graham General manager Chris Berry announced late Thursday the midday talk show host would be suspended indefinitely, citing Graham's on-air remarks on July 25 that Muslim leaders were complicit in terrorism.

The response by Disney-ABC-WMAL is just exactly the dhimmitude that the covert jihadist seek: Intimidate them into submission.

I just wrote the General Manager, Chris Berry, at WMAL:

Re: Firing Michael Graham

Yesterday, I held you in high moral esteem for the proper stance you took regarding the storm set off by Michael Graham TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM. This morning, I find you were just an illusion. I was so proud of you--you walked with moral men, I rejoiced. Now, you have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Chances are, you have never read one damned word about Islam. You don't know a single true fact. You might start to redeem yourself by getting Robert Spencer's new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. It is quick and very truthful.

You also need to read again the famous lines by Pastor Niemoeller who spoke about who failed to speak for whom, and, when the Nazis came for him, there was no one left to speak up. Your firing of Michael Graham made you an instant dhimmi. You furthered the cause of Islamic terror in America by losing your spine. Do you not know that Michael Graham recognized and was fighting against the COVERT JIHAD, the fifth column work going on in America by CAIR and the like?

CAIR et al are professional protestors whose sole aim is to intimidate Americans into dhimmitude. They won with you. But it is not too late. You can educate yourself, and you can stand up on two moral American feet. Do it, dammit!.

Rehire Michael Graham!

Good folks, this is a good cause to take a few minutes to engage. Write WMAL radio ( and its general manager. CAIR mobilized its Muslim puppets to work this covert jihad maneuver. Let's fight dhimmitude and get Mr. Graham back on the air.

Until the West asserts its moral right to exist, we will not be safe from Islamic totalitarianism.

We feel so tempted to say about this op-ed by Brook and Ghate from the Ayn Rand Institute that we could not have said it better ourselves. This op-ed deserves very careful reading and digesting. Our leaders and our national policies, based on very flawed ideas dominating contemporary culture, are taking us to the abyss, as though we are nations of lemmings. If Bush and Blair are the best we have, we have nothing. Bush is flawed beyond tolerance, and there is no one among the Democrats who is as good as he is. So often we want to grab Bush, at least, and shake him until he gets the notion that Americans do not live by permission. We do not apologize for success. And, it is up to the rest of the stinking world to join us, not for us to slime down to them.

The Foreign Policy of Guilt

By Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate

In the aftermath of the bombings in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked the British people to remain calm and maintain their daily routines; the terrorists win, he says, if one gives in to fear. This, you may remember, was also George W. Bush's response after Sept. 11, when he called on Americans to return to our shopping malls and not be afraid.

But we should be afraid--precisely because of Blair's and Bush's policies.

We face an enemy, Islamic totalitarianism, committed to our deaths. Its agents have shown an eagerness to kill indiscriminately in London, Madrid, New York and elsewhere, even at the cost of their own lives. They continually seek chemical and nuclear weapons; imagine the death toll if such devices had been used in London's subway bombings. In the face of this mounting threat, what is our response?

Do we proudly proclaim our unconditional right to exist? Do we resolutely affirm to eradicate power base after power base of the Islamic totalitarians, until they drop their arms, and foreign governments and civilian populations no longer have the nerve to support them?

No. Blair's response to the London bombings, with Bush and the other members of the G8 by his side, was, in meaning if not in explicit statement, to apologize and do penance for our existence.

Somehow we in the West and not the Palestinians--with their rejection of the freedoms attainable in Israel and their embrace of thugs and killers--are responsible for their degradation. Thus, we must help build them up by supplying the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority with billions in aid. And somehow we in the West and not the Africans--with their decades of tribal, collectivist and anticapitalist ideas--are responsible for their poverty. Thus we must lift them out of their plight with $50 billion in aid. This, Blair claims, will help us "triumph over terrorism."

The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq might be considered exceptions to this orgy of penance, but that would be an error. In neither war was the aim to smash the enemy. Unlike in WWII, when the Allies would flatten cities to achieve victory, the American and British armies, by explicit order, tiptoed in the Middle East. Terrorists and insurgents went free, free to return to kill our young men, because we subordinated the lives of our soldiers to concern for the enemy's well-being and civilian casualties. Our goal was not victory but, as Bush so often tells us, to bestow with our soldiers' blood an unearned gift on these people, "freedom" and "democracy," with the hope that they would then stop killing us.

According to Blair, our duty is to shower the globe with money. According to Bush, our duty is to shower the globe with "democracy." Taken together, the meaning of their foreign policy is clear. The West has no moral right to exist, because it is productive, prosperous and free; materially and spiritually, with its money and its soldiers' lives, the West must buy permission to exist from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world has an unquestionable right to exist, because it is unproductive, poor and unfree.

Until we in the West reject this monstrous moral premise, we will never have cause to feel safe.

What we desperately need is a leader who proclaims that the rational ideals of the West, reason, science, individual rights and capitalism, are good--that we have a moral right to exist for our own sake--that we don't owe the rest of the world anything--and that we should be admired and emulated for our virtues and accomplishments, not denounced. This leader would then demonstrate, in word and deed, that if those opposed to these ideals take up arms against us, they will be crushed.

Support for totalitarian Islam will wither only when the Islamic world is convinced that the West will fight--and fight aggressively. As long as the insurgents continue with their brutal acts in Iraq, unharmed by the mightiest military force in human history, as long as the citizens of London return to "normal" lives with subways exploding all around them, as long as the West continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons--as long as the West continues to appease its enemies, because it believes it has no moral right to destroy them, totalitarian Islam is emboldened.

It is the West's moral weakness that feeds terrorism and brings it fresh recruits. It is the prospect of success against the West, fueled by the West's apologetic response, that allows totalitarian Islam to thrive.

Bush has said repeatedly, in unguarded moments, that this war is un-winnable. By his foreign policy, it is. But if the British and American people gain the self-esteem to assert our moral right to exist--with everything this entails--victory will be ours.

Yaron Brook is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at ARI. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

Copyright © 2005 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Let Us Not Forget the 9-11 Memorial Issue

Fifteen Major September 11 Family Organizations Announce Two New Initiatives

New York, N.Y., July 27, 2005 - Fifteen September 11 organizations representing the majority of the families of victims lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 today announced the launch of two new initiatives that will help America 'Take Back the Memorial' at
Ground Zero.

"Campaign America {}" is the way that concerned communities across the country can show their support to "Take Back the Memorial." Concerned citizens are encouraged to download the Campaign America Resolution located at and present it to their local city or town councils for consideration. Municipalities which have passed the resolution, will be listed on the Campaign America Honor Roll located at The passing of the Campaign America Resolution by communities across America will send a powerful message that this is America's 9/11 Memorial, and American communities will not stand for the International Freedom Center and Drawing Center being located on the World Trade Center site.

The "Offline Petition Drive

{}" is an extension of the widely successful online petition by Currently the online petition has garnered over 36,000 signatures including nearly 1900 family relatives of September 11 victims. The offline petition will reach supporters without easy access to the internet. We encourage supporters to printout the Petition kit and instructions (available at ( and gather the signatures of friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

The Coalition of Family Member Organizations

Advocates for 9/11 Fallen Heroes { }
Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund { }
Coalition of 9/11 Families { }
Fix the Fund { }
Give Your Voice { }
9/11 Familes for a Safe & Strong America
9/11 Familes for a Secure America {}
September 11th Families Association { }
September's Mission { }
Skyscraper Safety Campaign { }
Voices of September 11th { }
W. Doyle Support Group { }
WTC Families for Proper Burial
{ }
WTC Family Center { }
World Trade Center United Family Group {}

The D.C. Watson Invitational: A Politically Incorrect Poll on Islam (UPDATED)

The D.C. Watson Invitational: A Politically Incorrect Poll on Islam.

The recently published Pew poll has announced that fewer Americans are linking Islam with violence, dropping from 44% in 2003 to 36% presently. No surprise here: the Council on American Islamic Relations has welcomed the results of this survey, which is in sharp contrast to their reaction to the Cornell University Poll, which resulted in 44% of Americans wanting the civil rights of Muslims curtailed.

The Pew survey results can be reviewed here:

Forget the phone surveys. Americans, and our many friends abroad, since these pollsters never seem to call YOUR house, this is a chance to be open and honest, and make your opinions known. Let not the politicians dictate what is good for you and what is not. This is an open survey, not a limited one. All opinions on Islam are welcome, and everyone is welcome to participate.

1. Agree or Disagree

Islam promotes peace and tolerance of all people, Muslim and non-Muslim, and promotes equal rights for both men and women.

2. Agree or Disagree

Muslims do not commit terrorist acts any more frequently than Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

3. Agree or Disagree

Many Muslim immigrants living in Western nations have refused to integrate into the societies of their host nations.

4. Agree or Disagree

Many Muslims living in Western nations are disrespectful to the citizens of their host countries.

5. Agree or Disagree

Muslims living in Western nations would benefit, and better assimilate into Western societies if the constant interference of sneaking, lying Islamic civil rights and advocacy organizations, radical Muslim street barkers, and fanatical Imams in the mosques were eliminated.

TERRORISM: Why Choices of Judges Is So Important (UPDATED)

Washington State has been seriously diseased with "liberalism" for many years. Congressional and state representatives reflect that orientation, and many in the state feel unrepresented in Washington, DC. Whether state or federal, the court system in Western Washington State reflects dangerous liberalism.

Today's decision regarding the Algerian terrorist who renigged on his information sharing deal comes from a dewy-eyed, tearful (a la Sen. Voinovich) judge. This judge's statements focus more on his personal animus against George W. Bush than the issue at hand. U. S. District Judge Coughenour warbled, choked, and even teared up, according to reporters present as he sentenced Ressam. He got all noble sounding about his preserving the Constitution, while he gave the finger to the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and to the policies of the Bush administration. Actually, he gave the finger to America.

The judge's compromise sentence guarantees no further cooperation from Ressam who should have been threatened with absolutely all the law had to give him, i.e., 35 years and careful placement in prison to become "bubba's bitch." Instead this judge's "sensitivity" killed the cases against two other terrorists. Ressam had stopped giving information about them, so they will probably be LET GO INTO SOCIETY. To do what, again?

This is the same judge, by the way, who refused to carry out the death penalty of hanging on a chronic murderer a few years ago. Why, you ask? It seems that the murderer weighed well over 400 pounds. The judge concluded that the murdered was TOO HEAVY TO HANG. Yes, that's right.

Read this monument to liberalism and redouble your efforts to make sure about what kind of judges to choose and which to avoid.

My Way News, Would-Be Millennium Bomber Gets 22 Years, Jul 27, 6:47 PM (ET) , By GENE JOHNSON

SEATTLE (AP) - An Algerian who plotted to bomb the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium was sentenced to 22 years in prison Wednesday by a judge who used the opportunity to sternly criticize the Bush administration's anti-terrorism tactics.

"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel," U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said. "The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."

The sentence against Ahmed Ressam was significantly lower than the 35 years recommended by prosecutors, but it could have been even shorter had Ressam agreed to testify against two of his alleged co-conspirators.

Ressam, 38, cooperated with the government for about two years, but had quit by 2003, claiming the many months of solitary confinement had taken their toll on his mental state.

The sentencing hearing may be best remembered for the judge's strong remarks against the Bush administration's efforts to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges.

"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism," Coughenour said. "Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete ... If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won."

After noting that Ressam's sentence would be "perhaps the most important sentence this court has ever had," Hamilton told the judge that Ressam's reluctance to cooperate should weigh heavily.

"You can't be a cooperator and a terrorist," he said. "When he stopped cooperating, he went back to being what he was."

With credit for time served and three years off for good behavior, Ressam could be out of prison in 14 years.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Pet Owners, Read This (Some more of that fine old Islamic thinking)


We have all run across instances that illustrate the breathtakingly micromanagerial ends that Islam goes to in order to take up the time of its members. If they can be preoccupied with concerns such as these, at levels such as this (you ought to see the one about the proper way to trim your nails--I'm not kidding!), then they don't have the time to "rock the boat" by asking more penetrating questions.

Well, here is another illustration from an informative (and amusing) "Ask the Expert" sort of site where Muslims can go for avice with their most pressing issues. The site is .

The questioner is a Muslim from a non-Muslim family that has a pet dog. Muslims, I'm sure you know, hate dogs (among so many other things). I've done a teensy-weensy bit of editing to make it a little easier to read, so if you want to read the original, I've given the address above.


". . . one difficultly is regarding dog hair. My family keeps the dog confined to only certain areas in the home and keeps him out all day when we are around. They are very respectful of our practices. However, the dog sheds hair almost all year round. Almost everywhere you go, you will find the dog's hair. My mother vacums the house every day to try to keep it under control. Many times I will find dog hair on my clothing and also this dog hair has definitely (with yaqin) entered the washing machine which I use when I am there. Dog hair or any hair from an animal (that cannot be eaten) is impure when separated from the creature. I remember you mentioned checking yourself for cat hair before prayer. Can I pray with a small amount of dry dog hair on my person if it cannot be seen (with the eye) from a distance. Am I excused for all the filth of dogs that cannot be seen even with close inspection, that is invisible filth? (These questions present more difficultly then simply saliva because saliva is relatively easy to avoid and wash if the dispensation of substitution is apllied.)

My family's washing machine has been contaminated (with yaqin) with both dog saliva and wet hair. If I wash my clothes in this machine, do they then become contaminated or does the washing with detergent (according to the substitution position) make the machine pure?

Dog hair does not remain in the washing machine and I don't find it in the machine when I go to wash my clothing. However, dog hair and saliva have definitely been on my family's clothing and then they have washed it in the washing machine. No traces of saliva or hair remain. Is the washing machine pure from the ibdal position (because they are washing the clothing with soap and washing it in the machine)?


Some sensible measures you can take before Salat (in logical steps): (1) use a different garment to pray (like the Malays like to do, changing their still clean garments into their 'sarong', etc. everytime before prayer - even in mosques - that is why we have changing rooms in most Malaysian + Indonesian mosques); (2) use a sajjada; at this point there might not be anymore dog hair remaining but you should still try to (3) remove as much as humanly possible any dog hair from your body and clothes (and if there are still a small amount of impurities remaining that missed your notice after this point (even if they are visible), then the remaining impurities - since it is a great difficulty to remove all of it - are excused [maf'uw]). Remember that dog hair when it is dry, is only impure in itself (i.e., its 'ayn) and it does not make other things impure. If after checking your clothing and your body and then you proceeded to pray but then later you find a few hairs remaining on you or on your clothing or on your immediate place of prayer, then your prayer is still valid. This is because the remaining hair is considered to be athar najasa [traces of impurity] that are difficult to remove and these athar najasa are therefore excused, in the same way as when a small amount of blood for example, if found on you, is excused. (There is tafsil in this ruling. The original fiqh ruling is in fact, dog hair, even if a little (meaning even one hair) is not excused (due to the severity of this type of impurity, the Mughallaza), but in your very unique case ['udhr nadir; or literally, rare excuse], after taking all of the above necessary and other possible precautions that humans could, if dog hair are still found (and there is no more choice or way around it because it is beyond what humans are accustomed to bear), then this is considered a Darura [necessity], and necessity excuses one from the rule to the degree demanded by necessity. Once considered a Darura situation, there are two positions in our school. The less-than-the-standard fiqhi position is one does not need to repeat the prayer: in this Darura situation (for which one is allowed to pray even in a state of Najasa (for dog hair is not maf'uw) and the prayer is valid and one does not sin), know that you will be following the alternative position [Qawl Marjuh] (which is actually the Qawl Qadim [the Early Position] of our Imam). The alternative to following this alternative position (namely following the Qawl Azhar) would mean that you have to [Wajib] keep on repeating that same prayer until you stop discovering dog hair during the course of your prayer. Of course, this applies only when that dog hair discovered immediately after the prayer is, with yaqin, there during the course of the whole prayer. If there is the slightest doubt or thought that the dog hair came about (such as being blown by the wind - hubub al-rih and the like) after the prayer is finished, or there is some delay in the discovery of that hair after the taslim or that it could still be some other hair, then there is no need to follow the weak position of our school, since there is no question of the validity of the prayer in the first place and the possibility of you continuously repeating your prayer does not arise. There is a second way out of this dilemma (for which its legal basis ['illa] is in fact, an extension of that first position, but with the added difference that you repeat the prayer at a later time), and this is the more precautionary opinion, the Ihtiyat (and it is better to follow this one, since one will not in the end follow the alternative position, and our later Imams agree on this one and also, it is the way of Ihsan). Again, if you find yourself in this Darura situation, then you can pray even in a state of Najasa, but you must [Wajib] make up the prayer (but not because that prayer was invalid) at a later time (when you are no longer in that Darura situation, such as when you depart from your mother's house to go the mosque or some other place), whereas the prayer performed while in Darura and during that rare excuse is what is known in our school as the Salat li-Hurma al-Waqt, or the prayer, however incomplete (its pre-conditions), is nevertheless performed in deference to the Prayer Time (in case that if you were to die before the repeat or i'ada of that prayer, then you will be free from any blame for missing that prayer). (If you do this, then you have to be aware that you are praying the Salat li-Hurma al-Waqt and intending it as such during the niyya of that prayer--just like for the prayer performed in a place where there is normally water but you have to make Tayammum or the Fard Salat on the train and the like.) Again, if there is the slightest doubt that it is not dog hair (ask yourself please, how can you be so sure that this is dog hair: could it not be from the sajjada perhaps)? I cannot make this more clearer than to say that as a rule, if there is the slightest doubt whether the hair is pure or impure, then it must be deemed pure because of al-Aslu 'Adamu.)

Since the washing machine is - as you say, with yaqin - contaminated by the Mughallaza, then it would be better for you to do the laundry at another place (for even if the other place is also contaminated with Mughallaza but you do not know of that fact and therefore have no yaqin knowledge of it). I know this is unusual but unfortunately even if you take the takhfif of ibdal and use soap, dog hair will still be around. And since you are certain that it is dog hair that remains in the machine, then it becomes Mughallaza every time it is moist and wet. Clearly if this is the case, there is great hardship. This is a good illustration of what I have said regarding the act of judging whether there is Mughallaza or not in the first place with yaqin, is the one that is going to make a difference between whether it is going to be 'easy' or not for you.

Now an equally good illustration of our scholars going at length to uphold the rule of judging things by its al-asl (and that originally it is pure) is that their immediate and automatic response upon seeing hair in the machine is they will not consider it dog hair with yaqin since there is the possibility that it may be some other animal hair or even human hair despite however unlikely (but not impossible) this might be; the point being: the possibility of it being non-Mughallaza exists. They will try to give every excuse that it is pure in the first place as in the case of the dog and the container. However, if you have already reached the state of certainty (presumably by inferring for example that the colour of the dog's fur is brown and you find brown hair in the machine even when you do not physically see the dog's brown hair going into the machine (technically, there is still room for doubt to arise here) and there is nothing we can do to change your mind about this, is there?) that it is dog hair, then you have to treat it as such (however, if you begin to doubt yourself, then this is an indication that it is not knowledge based on yaqin but zann which is, by definition, the element that you know is more or higher than the element you do not know (while for yaqin, there is no element that you do not know) - but if no doubt comes to you, then it is Mughallaza). Well, it is your own personal ijtihad [i.e, the judgement or decision you make] in deciding whether the hair found is dog hair. In any case, doing your laundry at another place is still the safest option.

Now, if on the other hand, dog hair does not remain in the washing machine but dog hair and dog saliva for example, have contaminated your family's clothing after which they have washed it in the washing machine using soaps and detergents (and there are no traces of dog hair in the machine - as far as you are able to tell), then if you have to follow the ibdal position, the area affected by the impurity [mahall mutanajjis] becomes pure. It follows from this that the washing machine is also pure and is not contaminated by the Mughallaza.

Anyway, I can now see the hikma of why when we were children, we have always been discouraged by our teachers from investigating a matter further into hair-splitting detail (you don't say!) for fear of finding some sabab or cause for great hardship. As the wisdom of the Prophetic Sunna goes: yasiru wa la-tu'asiru [when it is easy don't make it harder].
May this help, and only Allah and His Messenger know the best ruling.

Your poor brother,

Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti

Discovery versus Anti-discovery

On schedule, the morning of 26 July 2005, American shuttle Discovery launched into space. It was commanded by an American woman, a first, and the crew manifested a Japanese astronaut and another American woman astronaut, among the whole group. Whatever else it was, the return to space was an event celebrating human achievement.

Ayn Rand once answered someone who asked, "What keeps an airplane up?" by saying, "man's mind." That is what Discovery is all about.

Discovery demonstrates philosophy in action. No, not the stuff most people very mistakenly think of when they think of "philosophy," that university grab-bag of nonsense. This is about the real stuff, real philosophy.

Human beings readied Discovery, and human beings took the craft up. To do this, there had to be many people totally dedicated to following the dictates of reality. Twice before, they had learned tragically the meaning of failing to adhere fully to reality, to the data provided by their senses, and to the rigorous application of reason. To ready Discovery, minds had to journey ceaselessly between the concretes to the abstracts, back to the concretes, with almost endless repetitions. The products of many minds and the actions of many persons had to come together to modify what others created earlier, to ensure a safe Discovery mission. They had to push the limits of their knowledge in every way, which included trying to catch every possible error.

They did all of this because this is what human beings are capable of doing at their best. Discovery is all about the application of human capabilities, which are the metaphysical nature of mankind. Morally, all readying Discovery had to do everything they could, to do their best and slouch on nothing. They had to live their values, and to value those who would ride this torch into space--and return. Human morality governed every action as did reality and reason.

Where did this launch into space take place? In Florida, in the United States of America, in this sole remaining bastion of capitalism on the globe. Only a society which frees men from predation from other men could provide the key intellectual climate for this accomplishment. The Rights of Man, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the Industrial Revolution fused into that greatest of all social-political systems ever devised by humans: capitalism. That our nation has negatives to work out with regard to its culture, its government, and its governing philosophy does not take away from the essential meanings contained within the launch of Discovery.

It was beautiful. It was inspiring. It made people glad to be Americans.

Meanwhile, back on the planet, we ineptly grind out handling national and international savages who call themselves Muslims and follow the Nazi-like ideology called "Islam."

After Discovery achieved orbit, news organizations returned to dealing with these chronically petulant and obnoxiously angry people with ugly beards, hats, and clothes, the complete opposite of everything Discovery represents. Calling themselves Muslims, meaning followers of Islam, they originated from a wretched and stagnant sandbox, from ideas not even suited to their miserable 7th century C.E. existences. They launched war on all of humanity everywhere and have been at it since about 622 C.E. It is their raison d'etre, and the only reason they have survived this long.

They killed what could have been their own renaissance after pilfering the works of the great thinkers of the early world, including Aristotle and extant Greek philosophy. Inventing nothing and discovering nothing, they managed to cash in on the ideas taken from those whom they conquered. All sorts of these new ideas took root in Islamia and severely threatened the continued existence of Islam. Muslims reached a nexus. They had either to accept orthodox Islam or accept freedom of minds. They chose the former.

They killed their philosophers, their scientists, and their artists. Those not physically destroyed, perished under a philosophy so anti-life that it could not be equalled until the 20th century C.E. Progress stopped, and beauty withered into ugliness. So they remained for century after century, with plenty of nothing.

They could not qualify for being classified as a "civilization." They had a raw meat, totalitarian theocracy. It was and is anti-man, anti-life, anti-reality, anti-reason, anti-individual, anti-freedom, and even anti-art. It is today as it has always been, for about 1400 years.

Islam is the opposite of Discovery. It is the monument to anti-discovery.

The only problem we have with this Islam today is one of our own making. We ought to put Islam and Muslims out of our misery, and do it with completeness and rapidity. We can then return to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, concepts abhored by Islam.

Were it not for Muslims using our own discoveries and inventions against us, by our inept acquiescence, these Muslims would be lucky to be able to swing a scimitar, which they would have to steal--not produce. They ignite our gunpowder in our projectiles with our cell phones. The communicate using our computers. And on it goes. They are the most worthless and useless human beings on earth.

Those Muslims, who have infested our homeland, act uncivilly by demanding that we cater to their 7th century narcissism, while they continue to live as parasites on us and the world. They do not want to join us in the joys of living. They want to kill us and destroy our joy of living. They do not deserve to be here or stay here. Were it not for our irrationality which provides support for Muslim behaviors here and abroad, they could not threaten anyone beyond the reach of a trip by camel.

Discovery goes up, exalting the glory of man and life on earth. On earth, we let the forces of anti-discovery continue to exist and tear away at our lives.

What a contrast.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Ass on the Way Out

Potentially promising news comes from England.


Unlimited Special reports Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK

Download today's poll in full (pdf) [link in article]

Vikram Dodd
Tuesday July 26, 2005

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.

Nearly two-thirds of Muslims told pollsters that they had thought about their future in Britain after the attacks, with 63% saying they had considered whether they wanted to remain in the UK. Older Muslims were more uneasy about their future, with 67% of those 35 or over having contemplated their future home country compared to 61% among those 34 or under.

It is obvious that too many still want to stay.

Britain's Muslim population is estimated at 1.6million, with 1.1 million over 18, meaning more than half a million may have considered the possibility of leaving.

If Muslims can be trusted to tell the truth, those remaining in England could make themselves welcomed.

The poll finds a huge rejection of violence by Muslims with nine in 10 believing it has no place in a political struggle. Nearly nine out of 10 said they should help the police tackle extremists in the Islamic communities in Britain.

But, then, there are those who really do tell the truth:

A small rump,potentially running into thousands, told ICM of their support for the attacks on July 7 which killed 56 and left hundreds wounded - and 5% said that more attacks would be justified. Those findings are troubling for those urgently trying to assess the pool of potential suicide bombers.

One in five polled said Muslim communities had integrated with society too much already, while 40% said more was needed and a third said the level was about right.

More than half wanted foreign Muslim clerics barred or thrown out of Britain, but a very sizeable minority, 38%, opposed that.

Only HALF?

Half of Muslims thought that they needed to do more to prevent extremists infiltrating their community.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults aged 18+ by telephone on July 15-17 2005. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

· Further information at

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Getting them to want to leave your country is surpassed only by them actually leaving, one way.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Time to Defy CAIR Again

Once more, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) wants to crush someone. We must do the opposite of their recommendations, which follow. It is time to thwart this and their every effort.

Why do those at CAIR want to destroy radio host Michael Graham? Here is what they say (sent out 25 July 2005):



Ask WMAL to reprimand Michael Graham for 'hate-filled' remarks WASHINGTON, D.C., 7/25/05) - CAIR today called on a Washington, D.C., radio station to reprimand a talk show host who states repeatedly that "Islam is a terrorist organization." American Muslims are also being urged to contact the station's advertisers to express their concerns about the host's Islamophobic views.

CAIR says it has received complaints today from Muslim listeners who heard WMAL-AM's Michael Graham state: 1. "Islam is a terrorist organization." 2. "Islam is at war with America." 3. "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam." 4. "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

When contacted by CAIR, WMAL's Program Director Randall Bloomquist said he stands behind Graham. He said that while WMAL would not permit the use of the "N-word" or anti-Semitic slurs, Graham's remarks about Islam do not require disciplinary action.

"Such hate-filled and inflammatory remarks only serve to encourage those who would turn bigoted views into violent or discriminatory actions against ordinary American Muslims," said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. Reasoned discussion on issues related to terrorism should be encouraged, but extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric harms our nation's image worldwide and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists."

Hooper said CAIR is asking American Muslims and other people of conscience to contact WMAL advertisers and express their concerns about Graham's remarks.

Last year, CAIR challenged on-air remarks by Graham that seemed to make an implicit call for violence against Muslims. He said: "I don't wanna say we should kill 'em all [Muslims], but unless there's reform [within Islam], there aren't a lot of other solutions that work in the ground struggle for survival." (Graham later claimed he was only referring to so-called "Islamists," but the context of the quote indicated otherwise.)

Graham also said: "Would you hire an Arab-Muslim group for a friend's daughter's Bat Mitzvah, I wouldn't, if you would you're a dope, that's not bigotry, that completely reasonable smart discrimination." Graham's remarks were highlighted in the announcement of CAIR's "Hate Hurts America" campaign designed to counter anti-Muslim hate on radio talk shows.



1. CONTACT WMAL to urge that Michael Graham be reprimanded for his anti-Islam statements. CONTACT: Mr. Randall BloomquistProgram Director, WMAL, 4400 Jenifer Street NW Washington DC 20015, Switchboard: 202-686-3100, Direct: 202-895-2327. To be on a WMAL talk show, call 202-432-WMAL, Toll Free 888-630-WMAL. E-Mail:,,

2. CONTACT the first of WMAL's advertisers: Mr. Dan Testa President TCI - Telcept Holdings, LCC5554 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22151,TEL (703) 321-3030, 1-800-824-1001Fax: (703) 321-5046, E-Mail:,, COPY TO: (Other advertisers will be listed as required. To see a list of all WMAL's advertisers, go to: Please copy this list as it may be taken down later.)

(All emphases mine)

Take CAIR's recommendations and convenient contact details but do just the opposite with them. Support Mr. Graham, WMAL, and WMAL's advertisers.

For those of us who can and do read, and have read and continue to read about Islam, while always keeping our feet in reality and our heads in reason, know that Mr. Graham's remarks as reported by CAIR are correct. These totalitarian-minded Islamists must not be able to shut down expressing the truth.

Don't forget the lesson just taught to the world by Congressman Tom Tancredo. He made remarks which produced the usual CAIR response demanding that Mr. Tancredo be intimidated and made to back down. CAIR has been getting away with this kind of q'rap for far too long. Until Tancredo, it worked.

However, Congressman Tancredo would not back down, and he would not apologize. He knew he was right, and he had the courage of his convictions to stand by his remarks. Guess who blinked? CAIR did. How do we know? The warbling and whining from the loquacious mouthpieces of CAIR began a protracted weak chorus of "woe is us." Someone had finally, in essence, told these Muslim intimidation organizations to go pound sand (an interesting metaphor for them).

These people in CAIR and similar organizations must not be allowed another victory. They must be defeated at every turn until even governmental cowards no longer fear them.

Stand up for Mr. Graham and WMAL. Do it for the truth and for America.

Rep. Tancredo Has Spine and a Clear Mind: Three Cheers (at least!)

Sampson used the jawbone of an ass to "whup" his foes. Representative Tom Tancredo uses his spine to whup up on the asses out there.

The more we see and hear of Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the bigger the man he becomes in our esteem, in the very best sense of the word. This "guest commentary" from the Denver Post is self-explanatory and well worth reading, and it shows how the man has integrity--loyalty to his principles.

Later today, CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) will issue its "daily whine," in which it will try to mobilize the seething rage which seems chronically present in its Muslim hand-puppets, entreating them to fax, email, and telephone everyone in the Republican Party universe to protest. Later today, the Left will issue pre-canned responses to Rep. Tancredo's refusal to go "P.C." Sadly, later today, the P. C. Right will show its running colors as well.

As for us Americans, let's send Representative Tancredo emails of thanks and congratulations for this commentary, with copies to the White House, Congress, CAIR, and all of those who belly-ache about naming the truth. [I still say that it is too bad we have to save them along with us.]

Bigger sins than offending

By Rep. Tom Tancredo

By now, many people in America - and likely around the world - are familiar with my statements regarding a possible response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

Without question, my comments have prompted strong reactions from many quarters, but they have also served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists.

Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.

Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.

That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.

Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.

But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.

People have accused me of creating more terrorism by making these statements. Indeed, we often hear that Western governments bring these attacks on themselves. Just days after the London subway attacks two weeks ago, for example, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest that London residents "paid the price" for British support in the Iraq campaign.

A professor in Lebanon, Dr. George Hajjar, went even further, proclaiming, "I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift the war not only to America, but to ... wherever America may be." Hajjar went on to say that "there are no innocent people," and referred to the victims of the attack as "collateral casualties."

These are fairly "offensive" statements, to be sure, but the sentiments expressed by Ali and Hajjar are sadly commonplace in the "mainstream" Muslim world, where justification for terrorist attacks like the ones that rocked London, New York and Washington is never in short supply.

Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.

In many respects, the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves.

Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.

Republican Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Sense from Berkley: Go on the offensive against terror

Go on the offensive against terror

By John Yoo, July 13, 2005

John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served in the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003.

The bombings in London demonstrate the perils of playing defense, rather than offense, in the war on terrorism.

Yet almost four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, many of our political leaders have become complacent. Prominent Democrats, such as Jimmy Carter and once-again presidential candidate Joe Biden, demand the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but they have no idea where the Al Qaeda prisoners should go. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin compares American guards there to Nazis or Soviets and wants terrorists treated as civilians, not enemy combatants.

For its part, the administration has emphasized its successes in capturing Al Qaeda leaders and disrupting cells, such as the recent arrests of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists in California.

Our problem is that we still think of Al Qaeda as organized along the lines of a national army or an organized crime family, with a top-down hierarchy, chains of command and officers and foot soldiers. Unfortunately, however, Al Qaeda does not resemble the Corleone family or the Sopranos.

A pyramid-shaped hierarchy would have collapsed after suffering the kinds of losses inflicting by the armed forces and the CIA — thousands of operatives killed, two-thirds of its leadership killed or captured and its bases and infrastructure in Afghanistan destroyed. But Al Qaeda has demonstrated astounding resiliency. Fallen leaders seem to be quickly replaced by junior members, and the attacks continue.

These are the characteristics not of an army but of a network. A human network does not form randomly — its nodes connect to each other for some purpose. But decentralization allows it to collect and process information from myriad sources and gather the collective efforts of thousands located in different places. If a node or hub disappears, new ones take its place, making networks resistant to attack.

Al Qaeda is just such a network. Its nodes are terrorists brought together through violent Islamic fundamentalism, and its hubs are planners like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or Ramzi Binalshibh.While Osama bin Laden is its symbolic or even spiritual leader, Al Qaeda's cells appear to have the authority to plan and launch terrorist attacks on their own. Understanding terrorist organizations as networks provides us with new ways to go on the offensive.

Most directly, the U.S. should destroy the hubs of the network. Only a coordinated, simultaneous attack on several major hubs will leave a network in isolated and relatively harmless pieces.Can we do this? In wartime, the military may legally kill members of the enemy's armed forces. If we are at war, the U.S. can carry out selective attacks on Al Qaeda's senior members, such as the 2002 Predator missile strike in Yemen. If we're not at war, we may have to rethink the 1970s-era presidential order banning assassination.

To succeed more completely, we must carry out attacks on its leaders simultaneously. That is why it is critical to continue treating the war on terrorism as a war and not as crime, as many in the liberal media and academia urge.

Second, the U.S. could give Al Qaeda some competition. One way to destroy a network is to cause its nodes to switch allegiances, much in the way that competitors in the computer market seek to convince users to switch products. Arguments that the U.S. must bring democracy and capitalism to the Middle East, in order to provide a productive alternative for young Muslim men, are efforts to create a Western-style social network.This could require a change in the way the United States deals with Islam.

Under the Constitution's religion clauses, government neither can support nor interfere with religion — as the Supreme Court has reminded us. To create an alternative network, however, the U.S. must discredit Al Qaeda's fundamentalist vision of Islam, and it must support moderate versions compatible with democracy and markets. The U.S. must ask the courts to give us flexibility to combat fundamentalist Islam as it would any other hostile ideology, such as communism during the Cold War.

Another tool would have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within Al Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications.

Renewing the Patriot Act and staying the course at Guantanamo Bay remain important tools for gaining the intelligence that can prevent another Sept. 11. But we should realize that these measures remain fundamentally defensive. In order to prevail, we must develop an offensive strategy that focuses less on controlling territory or cities, none of which Al Qaeda possesses, and more on new ways to disrupt and destroy networks.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Did You Know This?

We all know that there are things besides terrorist bombings going on Iraq, but we don't hear much about them. If we all knew that these sorts of things were happening, then there would be more support for Coalition, Americans would be less discouraged about Iraq, and it would be harder for anti-American elements at home and abroad to speak convincingly of what bad guys we are.

With thanks to Mustang, who runs, and the DoD website, I'd like to let you know some of the news that the media aren't interested in reporting:

1) Forty-seven countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq.

2) The Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqis.

3) 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 are being rehabilitated, 263 are now under construction, and 38 new schools have been completed.

4) Iraq's higher education structure consists of 20 universities, 46 institutes or colleges, and 4 research centers, all currently operating.

5) Twenty-five Iraqi students departed for the United States in January, 2005, for the re-established Fulbright program.

6) The Iraqi Navy is operational; they have five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels, and a naval infantry regiment.

7) Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and three US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operates day and night, and will soon add sixteen UH-1 helicopters and four Bell Jet Rangers.

8) Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a commando battalion.

9) The Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers.

10) There are five police academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each eight weeks.

11) There are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq, including 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities, and 69 electrical facilities.

12) 96% of Iraqi children under the age of five have received the first two series of polio vaccinations.

13) 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid-October, 2004.

14) There are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%.

15) Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers, and 10 television stations.

16) The Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004.

17) Two candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Repeat Until It Sinks In: The Terrorists' Motivation Is ISLAM

A new op-ed from the Ayn Rand Institute.

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke

The continued attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West--most recently, the horrific suicide bombings in London--have led many to ask, what is the motivation of the terrorists? Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists' actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word "Islam" means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West--it was called the Dark Ages.

Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot persuade someone of the non-rational). The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell."

These ideas easily lead to fanaticism and terrorism. In fact, what is often referred to as the "fanaticism" of many Muslims is explicitly endorsed by their religion. Consider the following characteristics of religious fanatics. The fanatic demands unquestioning obedience to religious dogma--so does Islam. The fanatic cannot be reasoned with, because he rejects reason--so does Islam. The fanatic eagerly embraces any call to impose his dogma by force on those who will not adopt it voluntarily--so does Islam.

The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion.

It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion--and from a society that imposes it--that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace.

In the last year, there has been more and more of a call for a "War of Ideas"--an intellectual campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the Arab world that will discourage and discredit Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this campaign so far has been to appeal to Muslims with claims that Islam is perfectly consistent with Western ideals, and inconsistent with terrorism. America has groveled to so-called "moderate" Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism, with little success. (Those leaders have focused little energy on damning Islamic fanaticism, and much on the alleged sins of the US government.) Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these "moderates" accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name. A true "War of Ideas" would be one in which we proclaim loudly and with moral certainty the secular values we stand for: reason, rights, freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness on this earth.

Edwin A. Locke, a Professor Emeritus of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606