What in the Hell is Wrong with these People?

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

Doh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the Unholy Alliance Is Taking Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War On Terror Is A Misnomer

by Isaiah Grant



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.theraphi.com/isaiah/twotiam.html
____________________
www.TheRaphi.com
Pro Israel Zionism
http://www.theraphi.com/isaiah/twotiam.html

The Hudna

Hal Lindsey Oracle - Politically Incorrect - Prophetically Correct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIFTH COLUMN ALERT: Rangel: Don't Call it 'Islamic Terrorism'

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphases mine)

What more do you need to know?

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

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

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

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

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

at February 22, 2005 11:31 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents, Citizens: Take Back Your Schools!

SOLDIER STUNNED BY LETTER KIDS' RANTS, by DAVID ANDREATTA, New York Post.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The letters were written as a social-studies assignment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Love Letter from an Englishman to America

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


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

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



AMERICA LEAVES A LASTING IMPRESSION

Rob Watson
BBC Washington correspondent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fond memories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happiness

The Declaration of Independence took place on 4 July 1776

But at the root of this love affair is personality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess we know which way she voted.

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

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

American dream

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So thanks for everything America.

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

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


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


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

Again and again and again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

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

MEMRI: Islam is Only Consummated through Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are excerpts from the interview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love death more than [prison]...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Big Stick to Use on the Fifth Column

New Website, by FrontPage Magazine, February 15, 2005

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


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

Valentine's Day Enrages Jihadists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are becoming paralyzed to do what self-preservation demands

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

What Is Wrong with Iraqis?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are Iraqis not rebelling against the "insurgents"?

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

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

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

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

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

On Constitutionally Protected Speech in Schools and Leftist Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mugging Ourselves: Perceived US Cowardice Fuels Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterterror Conference Sidesteps Issue of Defining Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check this out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arab Mind: Saudis Praised for Fighting Terror, But Incitement Continues

Saudis Praised for Fighting Terror, But Incitement Continues -- 02/08/2005, by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor, February 08, 2005.

You cannot understand the Arab mind by using a Western frame of reference. Raphael Patai wrote a brilliant book entitled The Arab Mind, in which he demonstrated how the Arab mind works and how that relates to what comes out of the Arab mouth and what shows up in Arab behavior.

Opening the [Counter-Terrorism] conference attended by representatives of 50 countries, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz said Saudi Arabia "was one of the first countries to suffer from terrorism and warn of its dangers. It has dealt with it vigilantly on the local, regional and international levels."

Abdullah also called for the establishment of an international center to combat and preempt terror.

Doesn't that sound good to Western ears and brains?

The government portrays al-Qaeda and its sympathizers as "miscreants" and "delinquents" who have - in the words of Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdel-Aziz - "forsaken the tolerant teachings of Islam, feeding instead on alien ideas."

Islamic Affairs Minister Saleh al-Sheikh told the conference the kingdom had succeeded in changing the thinking of more than 250 Saudis who were sympathetic toward al-Qaeda, via an Internet-based program that offers counseling and a hotline.

"We have reached out to them and have succeeded in convincing more than 250 to change their ways," he said, adding that "dialogue" was continuing with hundreds of others.

Have you bought the bridge in Brooklyn or that offshore Florida real estate yet?

Dr. Patai demonstrated how the Arab mind works for show, and words are meant to replace actions as though actions have been taken. This conference was about as useful as a feel-good talk by a motivational speaker.

Here is what the Saudis are really doing, from the same article:

"During the past week leading up to and during the opening of the conference, Saudi government-controlled TV has continued to air programs and shows that incite their viewers to jihad and hatred of Christians and Jews," MEMRI said.

In one example, Saudi cleric Musa al-Qarni told the Iqra religious television network on Feb. 3: "I emphasize that the jihad that the Muslims are fighting in Iraq in order to repel the enemy aggressor, the Jews and the Christians, who are attacking land and honor - I emphasize that this jihad is legitimate jihad, jihad for Allah's sake, and it is considered defense of Muslim countries, their lands and their honor."

And, as for fundamental change of mind, heart, attitude, or whatever term you want:

Another Saudi cleric, Sheikh Sa'd al-Breik, referring during a Jan. 27 Saudi TV interview to suicide bombings, spoke in support of the "jihad to get rid of the occupier and to confront the enemy [in Iraq]. We pray to Allah that he grants them victory until the last of the foreign soldiers leaves their country."

And in an earlier Iqra interview, cleric 'Aed al-Qarni said: "I pray to Allah that he will make the enemies fall into their own trap and that he will destroy the Jews and their helpers from among the Christians and the Communists, and that he will turn them into the Muslims' spoils.

"I praise the jihad, the sacrifice, and the resistance against the occupiers in Iraq. We curse them all of them every night and pray that Allah will annihilate them, tear them apart, and grant us victory over them."

Late last month, the American human rights group Freedom House released a report charging that the Saudi government was involved in disseminating "hate propaganda" among American Muslims.

Having studied more than 200 pieces of literature produced or provided by various Saudi ministries and other bodies and available in mosques in the U.S., the organization concluded that they reflected a "totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence."

Only Bushies and the State Department could come away from this conference happy about the new bridge they just bought.

Give Me Expediency or Give Me Death--Whichever Comes First

Rice: $100 A Month To Terrorists "on Pension" , Arutz Sheva - IsraelNationalNews.com, Friday, February 4, 2005.

If this article is true, this is Bush Administration moral terpitude at its extreme. Tribute to Islamic barbarians is beyond bearability. If this is true, Dr. Rice loses moral standing she struggled so hard and successfully to obtain.

This kind of thing is why I never call myself a "conservative" or Rightist. Nor am I a "liberal" or "moderate." Not one of these labels carries any moral stature. This proposal, however, fits right in with conservative thinking which has descended to the same depths as liberal thinking.

The Bushies refuse to see Islam for what it is. They twist and turn to evade and deny the total evil of Islam, all of it, not just part of it. Like Islam, they accept altruistic self-sacrifice as their ethics. Like liberalism, they accept relativism in thinking which permits even considering tribute even for a nanosecond.

The step from there to moral relativism, to anything goes, is a short step. It makes moral men and women want to barf.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has proposed a $100 monthly allowance to terrorists who agree to lay down their arms and retire or find another profession.

The money would be part of a $350 million package deal announced by U.S. President George Bush this past week. The Bush administration suggested that Congress consent to send $41 million immediately for an “immediate impact in support of democratic transition.” Under Congressional rules, the money would go for specific projects, and not directly to the Palestinian Administration (PA).

Rice, about to pay her first visit to the Middle East in her new position as successor to Colin Powell, wants part of the money to go directly to “retired” terrorists. Speaking between visits to European countries, she proposed a pension fund for at least 1,000 terrorists.

President Bush's offer of $350 million came after American disappointment at assistance that Arab states have offered. The American aid is to be earmarked for new and modern border crossings, road and water infrastructure, and education and health programs.

The Two Shields

Folks,


There are two major shields protecting Islam from any effective response from us, and they are:

1) Political Correctness, a Post-Modernist concept, and

2) The idea that a major monotheistic religion can never be an evil construct.

Until and unless we are willing to deal with each of these shields, we will remain at risk, and condemned to living on the defensive for all time.

As time passes, more and more of our energy and resources will be committed to defending ourselves from the unremitting attacks of Islam. This defensive posture will leach from us the quality of life we enjoy today, replacing it with one where we are in high-security psychological prisons.

For starters, just watch the background talks about all the security at the Super Bowl today. No celebration should have to undergo this sort of process.

It is insane to accept the need to live this way. The only way to rid ourselves of the progressively defensive way of life we find ourselves adopting is to pull back the "PC Curtain" and to acknowledge that Islam is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

WINNING THE WAR AND LOSING THE PEACE: Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq, February 6, 2005 vy EDWARD WONG.

Maybe the Bush people did not see this coming, but those of us willing to face the truth and call it for what it is, certainly did. Here are some snippets from this New York Times article painting the stark reality in terms of reality:

With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.

Exactly how Islamic to make the document is the subject of debate.

Such a constitution would be a sharp departure from the transitional law that the Americans enacted before appointing the interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. American officials pressed Iraqi politicians drafting that law in early 2004 to guarantee equal rights for women and minorities. The Americans also persuaded the authors to designate Islam as just "a source" of legislation.

Stop right there, on that very last sentence. There can be no compromise between freedom and all that entails with Islam and all that entails. Either the Bushies do not know this, or they think they can attain the world's first successful, typical political compromise, having persistent benefits as wished. Compromise here cannot be accomplished. A compromise hands the win to Islam.

That irked senior Shiite clerics here, who, confident they now have a popular mandate from the elections, are advocating for Islam to be acknowledged as the underpinning of the government. They also insist that the Americans stay away from the writing of the new constitution.


"The constitution is the most dangerous document in the country and the most important one affecting the future of the country," said Alaadeen Muhammad al-Hakim, a son of and spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Said al-Hakim, one of the most senior Shiite clerics in Iraq. "It should be written extremely carefully."

The clerics, like Zarqawi, and all of the Islamic militants know their stuff and ours far better than we do. They know to be consistent and persistent, and they know how pitiful are those in our government, particularly the State Department. The Islamists know that the State Department will hand them the victory they seek, if they persist.

What kind of Iraq do the Islamists want?

Some effects are already being felt locally. In Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, where one of Ayatollah Sistani's closest aides has enormous influence, Shiite religious parties have been transforming the city into an Islamic fief since the toppling of Mr. Hussein. Militias have driven alcohol sellers off the streets. Women are harassed if they walk the streets in anything less than head-to-toe black. Conservative judges are invoking Shariah in some courts.

The clerics generally agree that the constitution must ensure that no laws passed by the state contradict a basic understanding of Shariah as laid out in the Koran. Women should not be treated as the equals of men in matters of marriage, divorce and family inheritance, they say. Nor should men be prevented from having multiple wives, they add.

"There was no clear point about Islam," he said. "It just said that Islam should be respected. But we want a legal article that states frankly that no laws should violate Islamic law.

"The religious people should have a role in writing the constitution," he said. "Islamic law is so broad, and Shiite Islamic law has so many branches. There is an answer from Islam for everything in society."

"The infidel coalition forces want to make a constitution for our dear Iraq and carry out their infidel agenda through the current government," Ayatollah Haeri wrote. "This is the most dangerous thing for Iraq and Islam. They want to change our identity, habits, morals and Islamic way of life."

And "our" response?

The Americans also persuaded the authors to designate Islam as just "a source" of legislation.

A State Department official said the United States "would urge an inclusive and participatory process," but that for now the Bush administration was simply watching the debate unfold. "This is an Iraqi process," said Edgar Vasquez, a State Department spokesman.

Just this week, President Bush, in his State of the Union address, told these Islamists in Iraq that we Americans have no intention of dictating what kind of government they should have. It is up to them to choose their own.

That is the most immoral statement I have ever heard from President Bush. However, it is typical of thinking on the Right. Liberals or Conservatives make up dominant choices now for us in America. The Left want to destroy America directly while the Right seem unable to catch on that their muddled minds and approaches have exactly the same ends as those on the Left.

How dare we have some 1500 Americans killed and well over 10,000 maimed in that cess pool of Iraq so that sand savages can vote themselves into theocracy! Which is worse, Saddam Hussein or Islam? I know that Saddam crushed humanity for only 35 years while Islam is going into its 15 century. On the basis of sheer numbers, Islam is far worse. And the President is willing to spend our blood and treasure to let Iraq jump from the frying pan into the fire.

The Right will kill us with their damned religion. They have incorrectly identified it as the source of life, of values, of all that is good. Which religion? It does not matter. To them all are equally good. Just listen to Bush. Just listen to right wing talk radio--they all are mentally corrupted and constipated by their completely uncritical acceptance of religion as good. They extend this to Islam.

Then they start parsing Islam into "extreme, radical, fundamentalist, and hijacked" Islam, in order to avoid having to look religion in the face and see it for what it is. I have yet to hear one of these Rightists indicate that he or she has read even the first book telling the truth about Islam. They "just know."

If we do not impose--by force if necessary--a rights based government in Iraq, then we will have engaged in the most heinous exercise of altruistic self-sacrifice since Vietnam. We would also have demonstrated the really poisonous nature of this term "democracy." This temporary Iraqi democracy will have voted itself into tyranny because we refused to impose a republican form of government in which democracy is a means of participating through voting for citizens.

All of the people who fought, died, and live maimed for life from Vietnam did so in vain. It was a war of altruistic self-sacrifice, and America did the sacrificing. We allowed Afghanistan to establish an Islamic constitution. It is just a matter of time before it is a full tyranny again. Now comes Iraq and another altruistic failure, but one with horrendous consequences far worse than Vietnam.

The rational self-interest of America and the cause of individual freedom require a republican form of government in Iraq. If we have to cram it down their throats, we should. This is the reality we should face but are not.

Listen to Them, Western Civilization

Listen to them, Western civilization, because they will tell you what they are, how they think, what they will do, and, above all, their fatal weaknesses.

Case in point from Ayatollah Khomeini, the man who brought the troubles from Islamia to its present state:

Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam--begging to have their blood shed for Islam.

(From The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini & the Islamic Revolution, by Amir Taheri, Adler and Adler, New York, 1986; ISBN 0-917561-04-X; p. 53.)

Democrats Do Not Want You to Know This About Social Security

Social Security Alternative Already Working in Texas -- 02/03/2005

We don't ordinarily get into these kinds of issues on Sixth Column, but lying Democrats and other liberals need binding, gagging, tarring, feathering, and ridden out of the country on rails about Social Security reform. Our fundamental position is and has been that social security is morally wrong, thus practically wrong. The full, proper reform is to make it entire voluntary, entirely private, and totally insulated from government intervention and theft.

Would that "work"? Well, the moral is always practical.
In 1981, municipal workers in Galveston, Texas, opted out of standard social security in favor of private retirement accounts. The whole process has been clearly documented in the article cited above and should be read for all details.

What happened?

While the employee-employer funding formulas are nearly identical under both Social Security and the Galveston Alternate Plan, the results are very different.

The U.S. Treasury Bonds purchased with money from the Social Security "trust fund" pay approximately two percent. But for the period from 1982 through 1997 the rate of return on funds invested in the Galveston plan has averaged 8.6 percent, a return more than 400 percent greater than Social Security.

Data from First Financial Benefits, which administers the Galveston Alternate Plan, shows that county workers earning slightly more than $17,000 a year can retire at age 65 with a monthly payment of $1,285 compared with $782 a month under Social Security.

Due to having more money withheld and the effects of compounding interest, higher income employees in Galveston see even larger benefits under the Alternate Plan. Workers earning $51,263 a year could retire at 65 with a monthly benefit of $3,846, while the same worker participating in Social Security would receive $1,540 each month.

Even the relatively low "guaranteed rate of return" in the Galveston plan roughly doubles the rate of return for Social Security. Funds already invested in annuities have a guaranteed yield of 3.75 percent, according to Bazaman. As for money being placed into private accounts today, Bazaman said the rate is slightly higher at 4.24 percent.

"They have never lost money. They have gone through double recessions in the 1980s, recessions in the 90s, and a tech boom and bust in the 1990s and into 2000," said Charles Jarvis, chairman and CEO of USA Next-United Seniors. "They've gone through another recession, an attack on this country and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they have steadily provided income for people."

The Galveston County, Texas Alternate Plan enacted in 1981 with the approval of 78 percent of local employees proved popular locally. By 1983, local government workers in three nearby municipalities -- Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, and Texas City -- also voted to quit Social Security in favor of private retirement plans.

Peru has a similar nation-wide program, one meeting with the same expected success.

Well, nothing upsets the Left more than individual freedom in any form. So, what happened when the success of the Galveston program became overwhelmingly obvious?

Amid growing enthusiasm for an alternative to Social Security, the Democrat-controlled Congress voted in 1983 to end the provisions giving municipal workers the option to leave the federal system.

What President Bush proposes is a paltry change. The really moral thing to do is to privatize social security totally. You have the practical results. Now just expand these results to all citizens. That's what any real "humanitarian" would do. What is motivating the Democrats?

FIFTH COLUMN FOLLIES: Fingers with ink comparable to Nazi salute

WorldNetDaily: Garofalo: Fingers with ink comparable to Nazi salute,Thursday, February 3, 2005.

Did we not make the point that derision is the best medicine for the Fifth Column American Left and their Islamic Unholy Alliance?

Here is intellectually out-of-gas but anatomically full-of-gas, ferociously unfunny "comedienne," Janeane Garofolo demonstrating her own self-appointed status as court jester (a.k.a., fool). Were this not an instance of "temperature taking" about the intellectual status of the American Left, this Garofoolishness would not be worth anyone's time.

Laugh at, deride, and above all, point a purple finger at these rabble and guffaw. They cannot stand being the subject of derision, and they cannot stop making themselves become that same subject.

HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
Garofalo: Fingers with ink comparable to Nazi salute
Actress, liberal radio host calls Republican gesture 'disgusting'

Janeane Garofalo makes a Nazi salute on MSNBC to mock Republicans who dipped their fingers in ink

Actress and liberal talk-radio host Janeane Garofalo is taking issue with congressional Republicans who dipped their fingers in ink for President Bush's State of the Union speech as a sign of solidarity with Iraqi voters, likening it to a Nazi salute.

Garofalo actually made the salute this morning as she provided post-speech commentary on MSNBC's "After Hours" program.

"The inked fingers was disgusting," said Garofalo, who is one of the hosts on the Air America radio network.

"The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a 'Daily Show' photo already, of them signaling in this manner [Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that."

Iraqi citizens who voted in last weekend's elections dipped their fingers in colored ink to indicate they had voted.

During numerous standing ovations, television cameras showed many members of Congress displaying a finger which had been dipped in blue ink, as a sign of solidarity with the Iraqis who braved violence over the weekend to cast their ballots for the first time in a post Saddam Hussein-era.

"This blue finger is a sign of incredible courage on the part of the Iraqi people," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said after the speech, noting the ink stays on for a week in Iraq.

Garofalo was among several guests on "After Hours," which also featured former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Ron Reagan, the son of the late president, and former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC.

A transcript of the exchange leading up to the salute has been posted today by the Media Research Center.

Buchanan had asked Garofalo about jeers Democrats uttered in the course of the president's address.

Buchanan: "Janeane, do you think what Mike Barnicle described as 'Animal House' behavior in the Congress helps the Democratic Party when you got a State of the Union, solemn occasion, Supreme Court there, both houses, first lady, and they're hooting and jeering the way they would at, you know, at some rock concert when they were in college? Do you think that's helpful?"

Garofalo: "No, what I don't think is helpful is a Republican Party that has been nothing but partisan and dishonest in service of this president who lied about weapons of mass destruction, has lied about Social Security –"

Buchanan: "I'm not sure if that's addressed to my question."

Garofalo: "Yeah, I am answering your question. It wasn't 'Animal House' behavior, and it was a very short, vocal response. And the inked fingers was disgusting. And the standing ovations were such mediocrity. You guys are so easily impressed, it's shocking. But the inked fingers showing solidarity –"

Joe Scarborough: "I'm glad we could shock you."

Buchanan: "You got the whole gang, you got the whole gang you're going after now."

Garofalo: "Yeah, except for Ron Reagan, who actually is the only one who is being reasonable there –"

Scarborough: "God bless you, Ron. That's why we have you on."

Garofalo: "The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a 'Daily Show' photo already, of them signaling in this manner [does the Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that. And also, the bit of theater about the very distraught parents of the soldier who had died, the point is not if this was a real moment, if it was staged, if it was PR. The point is, is those parents and their son were misled about why that young man went into Iraq. And when he wrote a letter to his mother saying, 'It's my job to protect you now,' protect her from what? The imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction? So don't bring up, 'Is it helpful if the Democrats make some noise' when they're being lied to. That's not helpful, that's not helpful to pundits like you maybe, but it is not helpful to the country when a Republican President and his partisan Republican Party continue to perpetuate myth and dishonesty on the country."

State of the Union Address Comments

In our mixed economy, politicians pander, regardless of party. Few if any politicians can think their way out of wet toilet paper, so they pander and oppose, i.e., propose and counter-propose to create the illusion of something important happening. The State of the Union address and its Democrat responses followed this familiar pattern. Nothing domestic was of any import.

Five paragraphs, all regarding foreign policy, merit some commentary.

The President said these four paragraphs:

To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act, and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom.


Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.


Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.


And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.

He was correct in the two paragraphs about Iraq, and these are self-evident to all but Democrats.

Singling out Syria and Iran was completely appropriate, but what he said was nowhere nearly tough enough. Pres. Bush is a resolute man, so I hope he plans to take these regimes to task in a definitive way. He should have thrown in Saudi Arabia with them, but something in him inhibits his seeing the truth about Saudi Arabia. He puts this country into the same pabulum that he does immigration control.

We need to hurt Syria and Iran so bad that they start to fold from within. We need to give them some existential demonstrations, administered without warning. If they do not shape up or undergo internal revolt, then we need to render them ineffective.

Will we do these obviously necessary acts on our behalf? I tend to doubt it. The following paragraph is truly the low point of the speech and very accurately reflects everything that is wrong with American foreign policy regarding aggressors against America.

The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life.

Only someone thoroughly corrupted by the ethics of self-sacrifice, which in the president's case comes from his religion, would expend American lives and productivity ("blood and treasure") with the goal of allowing barbarians to establish or reestablish barbarian governments of THEIR choosing. Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point. We have spent blood and treasure mightily, yet we are willing for these regimes to establish Islamic states, with shari'a law. This means that we authorize them to undo all we have done. This means that all those killed and maimed have been killed and maimed in vain.

Any country that we have to take on should have an America-friendly government forced down their throats, if necessary, so that they never again become a threat to our country. To do that, we have to uphold America's rational self-interest.

In a era dominated by Kantian self-sacrificial ethics on the Left and Judeo-Christian self-sacrificial ethics on the Right, we are hosed.

One more time, this is a war of ideas. The consistent and persistent side will win. Right now, the consistent and persistent side is THEM.

Ayn Rand Centenary

In St. Petersburg. Russia, of all places, the beginning of the end came, 02 February 1905. A child was born, a child destined to change the world. We came to know the child as Ayn Rand. She lived until 1982. Her legacy lives on and on, widening, deepening, and taking in more and more of the world.

So many tributes have been written about Ayn Rand that I want to try to write what she means to me instead. Superficial people condemn almost every real and imagined aspect of this woman and her work, whether they have read anything she wrote or not. Some very fortunate persons have read, absorbed, studied, digested, and applied the principles she presented so clearly, and their lives have changed greatly, for the better. Some have tried to take on the principles she wrote about by short-cutting the learning process, and they crashed, sourly joining her detractors.

I found Ayn Rand in 1965, in my senior year of medical school. I read Atlas Shrugged, her tour de force and last novel. I was never the same again, thankfully. Over the years, I read and re-read it all many times, listened to it, and took in everything her associates ever had to offer. My mind grew beyond adequate description as I came to understand reality in terms of principles. She wrote them, but I made them mine. Over the decades, I had to rework a lot of mixed premises absorbed since birth, but oh, the sunlit universe I have experienced and continue to experience to this day.

My gratitude cannot be expressed the way I want. I just have to feel it and sort of tell you about it. It is open to you also, in fact to anyone, willing to pay the only price it requires: to think. Thinking is hard work, and it takes continuous application across time, which is probably why some bail out so easily.

I gloat just thinking about Ayn Rand's role in the future. Alas, I will not live long enough to see it. I have been fortunate enough to be there in the early stages. And, as a conceptual being, I can project today into tomorrow.

Part of my gloating comes from knowing her place already in the history of thought. In all of the history of Western civilization, there have been three, and only three, builders of full philosophical systems. The first was Plato, and he had profound influence, and still does. The second was his pupil, Aristotle, the thinker who gave us the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, America, and capitalism. The third was Immanuel Kant who launched the Counter-Enlightenment Revolution, spawning all sorts of anti-reason mystic philosophers of great influence through the 19th and 20th centuries, and made inevitable both Nazism and Communism. Immanuel Kant more than any other thinker has almost destroyed post-Enlightenment progress and culture. His current heirs infest the colleges and universities as postmodernist deconstructionists, flowering nihilists all--corpse flower, of course.

The point here is that systematic philosophers move civilizations while their lessers just influence cultures to some extent. Think of the profound impact three thinkers have had in human history. And, they have been only three in number. Kant died in 1804, and he was the last. Thinkers of this import are scarce.

Ayn Rand is the fourth systematic thinker, and she is in the tradition of Aristotle. She is the antidote to the diseases of Western civilization unleashed by Kant and his intellectual father, Plato.

Tomorrow has great hope and promise, much more than today has. Tomorrow belongs to Ayn Rand and to all of those whom she will return to reality, reason, freedom, invidualism, and full capitalism. With the birth of Ayn Rand came the beginning of the end of the stranglehold that Kant and his intellectual spawn have had on Western civilization.

If anyone doubts, just one fact alone should bring that doubter to his or her knees. The fact is that Ayn Rand in her many works remains a best seller to this very day, one hundred years after her birth. Only sales of the Bible rival hers.

She loved the works of Victor Hugo, and I know she would enjoy the truth and the joke in something Hugo said because it applies so totally to her: "Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come."

Thank you, Ayn Rand.

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

How to Cleanse Campuses of Ward Churchills

Ward Churchill is a professor in Colorado who recently made the news because he called the VICTIMS of 9-11-2001 "Nazis" and "Eichmanns" in some anti-American screed he wrote in 2002 and which he proudly stands behind to this very day. He was scheduled to speak this week at Hamilton College in upstate New York. When Churchill became a news item, the college president disinvited him. This president claimed that the reason she disinvited the professor was because the college had received death threats, and she was acting on behalf of the students.

Bull feathers!

IF there were any death threats, they were totally subsidiary to the real reason ol' prez dropped Churchill. The real reason is that alumni support and all sources of funding input to the college were drying up very quickly with promises of a severe and prolonged drought.

Therein lies the lesson.

Churchill is a disgusting postmodernist full of nihilistic hate for America. If you read Stephen Hicks' new book Explaining Postmodernism, you get the clearest mind-full of what Churchill and his clones are like. They dominate almost all colleges and universities in the USA, and they mostly infest the liberal arts or humanities departments.

If you want to understand the severity of fundamental evil, at the basic idea or philosophical level, you will encounter it in great clarity in Hicks' book. If you want to know where all of this hate America first stuff comes from, why liberals are the way they are, why journalism is rife with postmodern nihilism and hate for values and valuers, and the real meaning of the "blue state-red state" gap, you find it in postmodernism and its infamous "deconstruction."

My point here is not to expound on postmodernism. I will do that soon in a review. My point here is that the Churchill kerfuffle confirmed how we can begin to remove the postmodern power base in our schools of higher learning before they kill off our wonderful America.

Before getting to what we can do, I want to acknowledge the great value of exposure in this process. People like Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News) and David Horowitz (Front Page Magazine) shine the disinfecting sunshine on these subversives who have been getting away with murder of the minds of our young while hidden from public awareness.

It comes down to MONEY. Funding sources, particularly from alumni, changed Hamilton College by threatening to stop donating and funding. THAT'S IT, FOLKS! Many have said it many times, but there it is in action. IT WORKS--EVERY TIME.

Take heart. We can clean up our universities and our culture. We learn what the scum are about while we cut off their monetary input, until they send the evil packing, end political correctness, stop pushing multiculturalism, and get totally away from epistemological and ethical subjectivism (relativism)--which means returning to reason.

We can do it!

If you think this war with Islam is not a war of ideas, read this.

How many Americans and other Westerners can articulate the major errors of Islam as well as Zarqawi can about "democracy"? When you read this, you cannot help but be struck that these Islamic zealots live their ideology, their philosophy, of Islam. To them, our way of life, "democracy," is anathema, and they can state why.

Remember that in a conflict of ideas, the consistent and persistent side wins. Americans who kinda, sorta know what is wrong with Islam and have a general feel about what is right about America are no match for these explicit ideologues.

Keep this piece from Zarqawi. No one has ever stated more clearly why we are at war with Islam, a war they started. Even the various echoing statements from others within the rest of the MEMRI Special Dispatch, never reach the clarity or the fundamentalness of this statement by Zarqawi.

Your life, the lives of your loved ones, your culture and your country are under full attack by people who can tell you why you must be destroyed. You need to match and surpass them.


From MEMRI: Special Dispatch - Iraq/Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project, February 1, 2005,No. 856. To view this Special Dispatch in HTML format, visit
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD85605

Zarqawi and Other Islamists to the Iraqi People: Elections and Democracy are Heresy


In a taped speech from January 23, Al-Qa'ida's leader in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, raised seven arguments for why democracy equals heresy:

"What harvest has the American aggressors and their Shi'ite allies reaped from the invasion of and aggression against the peaceful lands of Islam? Their outrages and blatant lies have become apparent to the entire world, and their arguments and false claims of achieving security and safety for the apostate Iraqi government have all collapsed. Now they are completely preoccupied with making the big American lie called 'democracy' successful. Americans have been playing with the minds of many peoples with the lie of 'civilized democracy;' they have deluded them that their happiness and prosperity is conditional upon this inadequate human system, and subsequently the infidel American administration declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan because it is the primary protector and guardian of democracy in the world…

"Democracy has come to tell us that the people in a democratic regime constitute both the executive power and the source of authority and that it has the last say in all matters, and no one can appeal [the people's] decisions and no one can criticize [the people's] rulings, for it has full power and it is the source of authority. Its will is sacred, its choice is binding… That which the people permits is permitted, that which it forbids is forbidden, and that which it accepts as law and regime must be accepted as such. Anything else has not sanctity nor value nor weight, even if it is religion or divine law given by the Lord of the world.

"This principle – that is, government of the people [and] by the people – is the very core of the democratic system … and it exists only through this [principle]. This, then, is the 'religion of democracy' which is being praised and glorified with much fanfare. This is what its theoreticians and thinkers and missionaries keep publicizing, and this in fact is what we see and experience in the reality from which we suffer. Democracy, in all its variations and interpretations, is based on principles and foundations, the most important of which may be summarized as follows:

"First: Democracy is based on the principle that the people are the source of all authority, including the legislative [authority]. This is carried out by choosing representatives who act as proxies for the people in the task of legislating and making laws. In other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not Allah. That means that the one who is worshiped and obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error, as it contradicts the bases of the faith [of Islam] and monotheism, and because it makes the weak, ignorant man Allah's partner in His most central divine prerogative – namely, ruling and legislating. Allah said: 'Sovereignty is Allah's alone. He has commanded you to worship none but Him' [Koran 12:40]. 'He allows none to share His sovereignty' [Koran 18:26]…

"Second: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah… This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.' "One may not make a [peace] treaty with an apostate, nor grant him safe passage or protection. According to Allah's religion, he has only one choice: 'Repent or be killed.'

"Third: Democracy is based on considering the people to be the sole sovereign, to whom all juridical matters and conflicts should be referred, and if there is any controversy or conflict between governor and governed, each of them threatens the other to refer to the will of the people and its choice, so that the people should decide on the matter on which is disagreed. This conflicts with and is contradictory to the principles of monotheism, which determines that the arbiter, deciding by His judgment in matters of discord, is Allah and none else. Allah said [Koran 42:10]: ' And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to Allah.' Democracy, on the other hand, says: 'And in whatever things you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to the people and to none beside the people…'

"Fourth: Democracy is based on the principal of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it.

"Fifth: Democracy is based on the principle of separation between religion and state, politics, and life; what is Allah's is rendered unto Allah, which is just worship in the places designed for it. All other aspects of life - political, economic, social, etc. - are the people's prerogative…

"Sixth: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of association and of forming political parties and the like, no matter what the creed, ideas, and ethics of these parties may be. This principle is null and void according to [Islamic] law for a number of reasons… One of them is that voluntary recognition of the legality of heretical parties implies acquiescence in heresy… Acquiescence in heresy is heresy…
"Seventh: Democracy is based on the principle of considering the position of the majority and adopting what is agreed upon by the majority, even if they agree upon falsehood, error, and blatant heresy… This principle is totally wrong and void because truth according to Islam is that which is in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna [i.e., the tradition of the Prophet], whether its supporters are few or many; and that which contradicts the Koran and the Sunna is false even if all the people of the world agree on it…"

"It is both noteworthy and surprising that despite the fact that democratic experiments have had damaging consequences for the Muslims, causing weakness, controversy, division, and conflict … despite all this, many people continue to admire democracy and defend it as though they were its owners and creators; their hearts are imbued with the love of democracy as the Children of Israel were imbued with the love of the [golden] calf… Allah has decided this matter: 'I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship' [Koran 109:1], and at the end of the same chapter [He says]: 'You have your religion and I have mine' [109:6]. The matter, then, is a matter of principle; it is non-negotiable, and there can be no concession regarding it whatsoever… It is a matter relating to the principles of our creed – nay, it is the very essence of our creed." [1]


Endnotes:
(1) http://www.islah300.org/vboard/showthread.php?t=120471 , January 23, 2005.

PERSISTENCE OF FAILING BEHAVIORS AMONG MUSLIMS

Muslims, even many of the “best” among them (that is, the ones who can interact the least offensively with other human beings, rather than using murder and mayhem), practice a system that will bring them no advantage, now or in the future.

Why? Why do they keep doing it, century after century? They aren’t stupid, after all. You’d think they could look around them and understand that what they are doing may have worked in the first couple of hundred years of their history, but hasn’t gotten them anywhere at all in recent centuries, especially now, in the 21st century.

First, we human beings are “groupies.” We are “herd animals.” There is “power in numbers” with respect to our survival as a species;we band together for our mutual benefit. So strong is our desire to live as groups that we prefer to live among our own kind even when we treat each other badly.

Groups can be a nuclear family, a tribe, a sports team, a club, or political party, or nation, or even the entire population of the planet. Whatever the composition of the group, there are certain things it does to maintain its integrity as a group.

As a group, Islam has many characteristics that identify it as such. So do Jews, so do Catholics, so do Buddhists, so do birdwatchers, so do garden societies, so do Nascar fans, so do cancer survivors, so do Americans, so do the Irish, so do the Latvians, so do the Democrats, so do the Republicans—well, you understand. We form group alliances, and we "advertise" ourselves in various ways.

It would be unusual and all but impossible for us to identify closely with the entire population of humans on earth, if for no other reason than the number is so large that we have a problem holding it in our heads. One reason for breaking the entire population into smaller groups such as a kinship or a nation is simply because the number of individuals is easier for us to grasp.

We form groups where the individual members have interests in common with each other. It’s very important for us to have some means of demonstrating to our fellows just what those interests are. We wear uniforms, display flags and banners, wear lapel pins, dress in certain ways such as dark suits, surgical scrubs, tartans, choir robes, crowns, and so on.

What is it that leads a group to persist in a certain behavior? More to the point, what makes Muslims persist in behavior that is, to the rest of us, so obviously self-defeating?

FIRST, many groups tend to insulate themselves from “outsiders.” They talk to each other about the interests they have in common primarily with each other, often to the exclusion of others. Their interests they share with other members of the group are so consuming that they seldom understand how it is that EVERYONE doesn’t share them!

Islam is particularly good at self-insulation. For example, it has explicit rules against making friends with the Infidel (everyone but them). There are many such rules, even up to and including religious commandments to kill Infidels.

SECOND, groups get a very important part of their identity through a shared goal. The local kennel club would love to win the big one in Madison Square Garden, a bird-watching group would love to spot that bird thought to be a member of a species long considered extinct, and so on.

Islam's goal is to have every human being on the face of the planet convert to Islam. That’s its goal. That’s why it exists, its very raison d'etre. That’s the reason for their anti-everything-and-everyone-else but them behavior. Other people aren’t particularly interested in being converted; they’re usually reasonably content with whatever belief system they have. So, in the interests of achieving the goal of an Islamic planet, Muslims behave the way they do. If jihad, “the struggle,” ever stopped short of world conversion, Islam would lose the very reason for its existence—the implementation of its goal of implementing Islam everywhere on earth.

THIRD, every group recognizes that its effectiveness as a group relies on its ability to influence others in some way. That’s where its power comes from. It has a goal to achieve, but even if it fails in the short run, it needs to retain its ability to exert influence. It does this by attention-getting behavior, by being certain that even if it hasn’t achieved its goal successfully, it will remain in the limelight in some way so that it won’t be forgotten, and it can try again some time in the future.

Islam was quite successful in its initial efforts to convert the world. Eventually, however, it ran into others, especially the Christians, who didn’t share its goal, and who were successful in bringing the Islamic effort of world conquest to a halt. Islam ran out of steam for a while, and lost quite a bit of ground before retreating into a more or less quiescent phase. It kept practicing, though; sub-groups of Muslims fought each other as if they were Infidels. Then the discovery of oil gave their goal of world conquest new life, and jihad once again became active. By turning off and on the oil spigot, by encouraging and funding jihadists, by building mosques and madrassas, by forbidding birth control, by forming political pressure groups, and so on, it continues to demonstrate its influence, it continues to show that it is powerful.

It hasn't achieved its goal yet, but it's persisting in its effort by 1) insulating itself from competing beliefs, 2) by keeping its goal always in front of its members, and 3) by staying in a position of power and influence wherever possible. By behaving in this way, members of the group maintain a strong sense of identity; they think of the goal of Islam as their very reason for existing, for living.

So there are three basic reasons why a group like Islam persists in a particular behavior:

1) It insulates itself from others, not allowing new ways of thinking to enter.

2) It works to achieve a goal, which is its identity, its very reason for existing at all.

3) It works hard to maintain influence, which is a version of power, even when it is not making progress towards the goal.


In short, for Islam to stop having temper tantrums,1) it must allow “Newthink” to enter its thought processes; otherwise, it cannot adapt to changing circumstances; 2) it must acquire a different goal, a new identity, one that is more consistent with changing circumstances; and 3) it must demonstrate that it has influence, or power, in a way that is acceptable to others.

If it is unsuccessful at adapting to 21st century thinking, it will go the way of the dinosaurs.

A Really Exciting New Book

I am so excited about a book I just read that I am rereading it and enjoying it even more the second time through. It is Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen R. C. Hicks, Scholargy Publishing, Tempe, 2004; ISBN 1-59247-642-2. Prof. Hicks teaches philosophy at Rockford College in Illinois.

What would make such a dusty-sounding book of philosophy so fascinating? I will publish a review of it for our website soon, but, until then, let me offer some teases.

Have you wondered about any of these questions?

• Why so many universities, their administrations and faculties, are so anti-America?
• Why there is so much negativism in entertainment and journalistic media?
• Why modern liberals are they way they are?
• Why the Left are nihilists and want to destroy the West and America?
• What happened to America’s founding principles?
• Whether there is any hope for the future of America?

You may have to make some of the connections yourself, but Dr. Hicks gives you the intellectual ammunition to do it.