Those Whom We Must Take Back the Memorial FROM

Thursday morning, 30 June 2005, Debra Burlingame was interviewed by Tony Snow on his radio talk show. Apparently the New York Post has looked into what the Leftist hijackers of the 9-11 Memorial plan, and it is worse than anything we have heard previously. At this moment, those data are not available to us, but we will look for them and ask any readers to send us links, please.

Another important idea that came out of the interview this morning with Debra Burlingame was a reminder. Recall that the "historian" for this Leftist abortus is Eric Foner, of Columbia University. I knew that I had heard that name before the issue of the 9-11 Memorial hijacking, but I had forgotten a crucial detail. Alas, it became crystal clear when listening to Ms. Burlingame.

Eric Foner is best know for his public comments at Columbia University that America deserves "a million more Mogadishus."

Go, sign the petition at Take Back the Memorial. Let's get rid of these scum. Where are the tar, feathers, and rails when you really need them?

Update on Al-Jazeera's Plan to "Cover the Border"

Al-Jazeera kills Arizona border reports

"I am a professional journalist. They think bin Laden himself is sending me out there," he said. "I find it a little bit racist."

Funny how the old chessnut, the accusation of "racism" seems to pop up whenever certain people don't get their way. Last time I looked, Islam is not a race and Muslims come in all shapes and colors.

The Arab television network Al-Jazeera pulled the plug Monday on a series of news reports about the Arizona-Mexico border amid criticism that the information could help terrorists slip into the United States.
 
Al-Jazeera planned to launch the series this week with coverage of a Phoenix rally by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a volunteer civilian border-watch group that has attracted international media attention.
 
"I wanted to cover the story from the human point of view," said Nasreddine Hssaini, the Washington, D.C.-based Al-Jazeera reporter behind the series. "I wanted to go to Tombstone and Sasabe. I wanted to tell the story of democracy in action."
 
The network canceled the project, Hssaini said, after Minuteman organizer Chris Simcox refused to cooperate and then notified the Border Patrol and members of the state's congressional delegation about Al-Jazeera's plans.
 
"They decided it wasn't worth it," the reporter said.
 
Al-Jazeera has attracted millions of viewers throughout the Arab world with its coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its airing of tapes of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
 
But Al-Jazeera's growing popularity has brought greater scrutiny. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused the Qatar-based network of encouraging militants by airing hostage executions.
 
For Simcox, Al-Jazeera and al-Qaida are virtually one and the same. They wanted to come to Arizona "to do reconnaissance," he said. "I will not have a part in that. I will not work with the enemy."
 
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., noting that Al-Jazeera has been known to broadcast messages from the al-Qaida leadership to terrorist cells around the globe, was outraged that the network planned to visit Arizona.
 
"It is insane policy to allow Al-Jazeera to film Arizona's unsecured border with Mexico and then broadcast it to the very people who perpetrated 9/11," Franks said. Hssaini, who described himself as a Moroccan-born citizen of Canada working legally in the United States, dismissed the suggestion that his motive for coming to Arizona concerned something other than journalism.

Al-Jazeera doesn't need to show the way. Hundreds of Middle Easterners are caught every year attempting to cross the southern and northern borders. The Border Patrol estimates that one out of four is caught. Nevertheless, such coverage would be insane.

WorldNetDaily: Souter suitor wants real hotel company

Bless World Net Daily for keeping the Supreme Court property rights abrogation on the front burner. A couple of days ago, WND published the breaking story of Logan Darrow Clements putting the move on Justice David Souter's home in Weare, NH, to demonstrate the meaning of the Leftist assault on liberty by Souter and the other Leftists on SCOTUS. (See our blog).

LOOK OUT. What started as sparks is turning into an inferno. Americans are furious, and well they should be.

Stay with these stories--the revolution against SCOTUS as well as this particular story about Souter's property. Today, WND published an update, which we excerpted below.

WorldNetDaily: Souter suitor wants real hotel company, Wednesday, June 29, 2005

New Hampshire town inundated with support to take justice's home

Logan Darrow Clements, the man looking to oust Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his New Hampshire home following last week's ruling on eminent domain, says he's willing to turn over his effort to professional developers. "To make this project more viable," he said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, "to let you know that it's not a prank, that it's a real project that's gonna go forward, I want to hand this project off to an actual hotel-development company that has actually built hotels in the past, and I'll simply act as the spokesperson."

His statement comes as the town of Weare, N.H., has reportedly been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story. "There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me," Clements said. "Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. ... We're trying to make a larger point that we're losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we're doing and take a stand and fight it."

Monday, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," Meany told the Associated Press. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn't go after Justice John Paul Stevens' abode as well, Clements responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations."

"Logan Darrow Clements," whose name is fabulous (whether original or assumed), gave an impressive appearance on the Hannnity and Colmes program last evening. Stay attuned to Fox News Channel programming because Mr. Clements, et and al, will not be on any of the failing networks, and you really should not miss a beat of these developments (a pun, again) as they unfold.

Yesterday, Dr. Walter Williams in his column in Jewish World Review closed with this wonderful statement: "I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who'd use framer-intent in their interpretation of the Constitution might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don't want to risk buckshot in their but-s."

This righteous rage is going to turn this 4th of July into the most meaningful in years. That meaning is original intent of the Founders. We shall not lose their legacy!

Being Taken Seriously, and Not

Yesterday afternoon, while engaged in some overdue physical labor out in the back of my home, I heard the radio newsreader report that another aircraft had violated the Washington, D.C., No-Fly Zone. This time, it was a much more powerful and speedy aircraft of the corporate variety. At least part of the government evacuated. Then, to my astonishment, the lady newsreader said that this was the THIRD AIRCRAFT THIS DAY TO VIOLATE THE CAPITAL NO-FLY ZONE.

All sorts of things ran through my mind. First and foremost was this so-called "war on terror." Right behind it came the issue involving the aircraft. My mind matched them and told me why.

First, let me ask the rhetorical question of why we are having such a hard time being taken seriously in the world. The truly bad guys, e.g., jihadists and their sponsors Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria really laugh at us. In fact, so does that caricature figure in North Korea. China is wary but still plays us like a Wurlitzer. Many other countries look at us with disregarding disdain, including those self-appointed saints populating "old Europe."

Now, leap ahead a bit to the Washington, D.C., and the "invading aircraft" issue.

The last big public kerfuffle involved two persons flying with Lindbergh era technology over the capital, coming dangerously close to the capitol before we spent a jillion dollars scrambling two 21st century military aircraft to "advise" these "Maryland hillbillies" to veer away. A few more seconds, and they would have been right over Nancy Pelosi who had already panicked right out of her pumps. You can imagine how a dropped "trucker bomb" filled with Sarin might have stirred the fleeing "sand crabs."

Much, much too much, talk followed. Fingers pointed. Tongues wagged. And, "at the end of the day," to cite another contemporary cliche', not a damned thing changed. The guys flying the "Ma and Pa Kettle Express" got into a heap of trouble, and they took the hit for all the others who managed to make it to the cover-your-a__ dispenser just in time to fog up the issue beyond recognition or management.

Later, it comes out that over 60 incidents per month like this happen. All the king's men and all the king's horses can't stop Humpty Dumpty from repeating this stuff at an average of twice a day. And what is the "national response"? It goes something like this: You know, we have the full authority to shoot you from the sky many miles away from the Capitol, when you enter forbidden air space. You know this because it has been disseminated to all airports, flight schools and businesses, airlines, newspapers, and all other electronic and print news media. And, stern warnings have gone out over and over and over and over and over; well, you know, a whole bunch. Don't you ever, ever, ever do this again, or we might just refer you to the U.N. Security Council for a "stern resolution."

Guess what happens? No change, that is what happens. Why does nothing happen? It is really very simple: No one who flies takes our government seriously.

The same thing goes on internationally. We find endless ways to insert our national head deep into our rectum and tell ourselves that no one can see anything. At least we can't hear them laughing at us while our head is so placed.

Everybody in government has talked enough. Everybody in America as well as everybody all over the world knows our principles. No further education is needed. We have been speaking softly while saying we have the big stick. Now it is time to shut up and thump with the big stick, over and over until we get the results that matter to us.

Try this on. Tomorrow, every airplane violating the Washington no-fly security zone is shot down within the first two miles of entering the forbidden zone. If three doufuses trespass, then three doufuses learn about air-to-air missles. Everybody else learns that WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY.

Now, guess what happens the day after? Why, bless my soul, no more aircraft violate the zone. It will be a cold day in hell before another plane "forgets."

Now, suppose we let our Marine, Navy, Air Force, and Army pilots use anything in Syria for target practice one day. We tell the old eye doctor that this was really just scrimmage; we plan to turn these guys loose the next day and the days to follow unless his support of all this jihadic crap ceases permanently. He, of course, will look at our past behavior and laugh at us. But, the next day, our guys carve up Syria into four zones and come in from the Mediterranean and Iraq, just itching to try everything they have ever wanted to try. Syria goes silent because no one is left to speak for it.

Then we ask Saudi Arabia and Iran if they "feel lucky." When they laugh, we thank them for "making our day," tomorrow. Then we provide them a sample of what that means.

Guess what? The "insurgency" in Iraq goes very quiet, and Iraq gets on with the business of updating itself from the 7th century C.E. Our men and women stop dying, as well as the Iraqis, and we start getting the hell out of there.

The old principle is "mean what you say," along with its counterpart, "say what you mean."

All the politicians, bureaucrats, academics, journalists, etc., make everything much too complicated. They "nuance" life into morasses, impasses, and total constipation. Think of what would happen, given the moral chimeras of today:

The ClapTrap-o-Crats arise in unison, become like Dervishes, chanting their prepared scripts while whirling mindlessly. The White Rabbit Republicans grab their quarters and head for the Compromise-for-Every-Occasion vending machine. Every cabinet department turns its spin cycle to high. All of the bore-you-to-death news networks book everybody they can find who has a negative opinion, in hopes that someone, other than their staff members, will watch. Fox runs the same damned story every five minutes around the clock until people begin throwing brickbats at their televisions. Every windbag lawyer who can find a television camera bleats, sounding like an ailing bagpipe. Every "people's organization" lights up its internet websites. Everybody scares everybody else into total stagnation. Nothing gets done.

Tomorrow, the planes violate D.C. airspace, and every worthless tyrant in every worthless country laughs at us anew.

The solution is not hard to understand. All it takes is opening one's eyes, seeing the facts of reality, identifying the principles involved, and acting in accordance with those principles. It is called morality.

"Respect the decision of the Supreme Court?" SAY WHAT?

President Bush's press marshmallow, Scott McClellan, said the wrong thing at the wrong time, big time. Tom Ambrose of World Net Daily reported on how McClellan was able so deftly to insert his foot into his mouth. Mr. McClellan was asked about that infamous Supreme Court decision of 6-23-05 which abolished one of the key Constitutionally protected Rights of Man-- the right to property:

Amidst a lot of doublespeak, McClellan had a moment of clarity:

I think the president has made his views clear when it comes to private property rights. In terms of Supreme Court decisions, we obviously have to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Tom Ambrose rose in high dudgeon to say so much so well about this awful fifth column third of three powers of the American government. Read his entire article. It is wonderful. I must restrict myself to only a smidgen of its flavor:

It's past time for all of us to wake up. Prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock said, "We must be unanimous, there must be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together." "Yes," replied Ben Franklin, "we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Is this not so now?

Will you join me now so we can save America while it is still possible?

He "gets it" and gets it well.

More and more Americans are arising in frank revolt against this decision made by the Supreme Court. Some televised coverage on 28 June 2005 featured residents of New London, Connecticut, who plan every form of legal resistance.

With the 4th of July almost upon us, what is happening across America adds significantly to my pride as an American. We must revolt, and it looks like that is what more and more of us are doing.

No, we do not need to take up muskets and fire at the Supremes in their red coats, not yet. We have legal options we have not begun to tap.

For example, a year or so ago, the Tennessee governor and legislature tried to ride roughshod over Tennesseans to institute an income tax, after vowing NOT to do so. A Nashville talk radio host served as fuse striker to a mentally well-prepared populace. Reminiscent of the peasants with torches and pitchforks in the movie, Frankenstein, Tennesseans flooded into the capital city with automobiles, trucks, tractors, and whatever other motorized conveyances they could find. The drove around the capitol blowing their horns and blinking their lights.

You know what? They scared the legislators sh__less. Thus ended the Tennessee takeover by the governor and legislature.

This was fully legal, and the legislators "got it."

I do not know what other local revolts are coming, but I do know of one national revolt that we should all get behind. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has introduced Senate Bill S. 1313, The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. His website offers the the bill text as a pdf file. The intent of his bill is to "... prohibit ... transfers of private property, without the owner’s consent, if federal funds were used, and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use."

Right now, this is the best course available to us citizens. It is unrealistic, probably, to expect the kind of fuller thinking and language our Founders might put into a bill, but Senator Cornyn's bill goes far toward rectification. We must support S. 1313 and Senator Cornyn. Reach him by his website and via his District Office, Washington DC, 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510, Tel: 202-224-2934, Fax: 202-228-2856.

In addition, we must animate our own legislative garden slugs hiding in the dark, wet corners of Washington and who just raised their own salaries (doubtless as a reward for all their good works), to get behind S. 1313 and "git 'r done'! Whether by telephone, or by fax, or by email, FEDEX, or barging into their offices, we must animate our representatives and senators to nullify the 23 June 2005 Supreme Court decision. We have no time to waste, and our cause could not be more important for the long-range future of America and the freedom of Americans.

We can do it. The citizens of Tennessee did it, and there are jillions of other examples. Once raised, our voices not only deafen elected officials and bureaucrats, but we scare them into doing what is right. The worst course we can do is follow the White House press marshmallow's malaise of "... we obviously have to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court." Why must we? They are wrong, morally wrong!

N.Y. Times Comes Out Against Pataki

The fight for the 9-11 Memorial is not over. Those that want to create an exhibit that shows all the blemishes of America's past are on the offensive.

Gov. George Pataki's decision to side with increasingly vocal critics of the cultural plans for the World Trade Center site is not surprising, but it is alarming. The governor has been deeply and rightly sensitive to the concerns of the families of the victims of 9/11. Like all of us, he honors their loss and their grief. But by bowing to some of the survivors' growing hostility to any version of 9/11 except their own, Mr. Pataki is doing a disservice to history and to the very idea of freedom.

The protesters have objected to the proposed International Freedom Center, which they fear might someday sponsor discussions that cast America in a negative light, and to the Drawing Center, one of the cultural institutions invited to move to ground zero, which has displayed art that appears to criticize the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

The protesters - and the governor - seem to have little faith in the emotional power of the memorial to the victims, which will be the central focus of ground zero, emotionally, politically and architecturally. The memorial's force will not be diminished by any other activities at the site, and it will inevitably serve as a locus of grief and remembrance for everyone who was touched by 9/11. But it is meant to remember something more than a day of tragedy. It's meant to remember the lives of those who died there, lives that were rich, complex and politically and culturally divided.

I reiterate: Freedom of speech allows haters of America to voice their opinion. However the 9-11 Memorial is not the proper venue. The purpose of a memorial is to remember the dead and the occasion on which they died. The offensive display of the proposed Freedom Center is not a memorial to the dead from that occasion. Put the Freedom Center somewhere else.

New York Imam Ahmad Dwidar: In 1995, I Heard Sermons Calling on Muslims to March on the White House and Turn It into the Muslim House

The Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) provides insightful glimpses into the the minds of Middle Eastern Muslims. They offer a variety of servicesincluding reports on "Sermons from Mosques in the Middle East" and "Suicide (Martyrdom) Operations." They also give clips of various videos, some of which are directly from television news broadcasts. The following is the transcript of an interview with an Imam living here in the United States.

Hattip: JihadWatch

6/9/2005
Clip No. 730

Dwidar: In 1995 I heard some sermons, saying that Muslims should march on the White House from some of the mosques.

Host: What do you mean by "march on the White House"?

Dwidar: One cleric said in his sermon: "We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into the Muslim house."

Host: How? I don't understand.

Dwidar: This is simply a slogan. I'm only saying this to...

Host: Are they going to occupy the White House or what?

Dwidar: No, they say that through the domination of Islam and its ideas, the White House will change.

Host: This will happen one day, but not this way. Islam will be victorious, no doubt, but not this way.

Dwidar: It will not happen unless the Muslims abandon their slogans and become a role model. If a Muslim doctor who invents a cure in the hospital or performs an important operation successfully – all the media will broadcast it live and announce it worldwide. The Muslim who makes do with breaking the wooden podium, with screaming, and with patronizing, condescending rhetoric that "Islam is coming, and it will change the face of the earth," while at the same time he cannot even change the face of the Islamic capitals, which overflow with garbage – this path will lead to no good.

Muslims do believe that Islam will indeed rule the world. They truly believe they have earthly rights conferred upon them simply because the Muslim that include the ownership and use of all the world's assets and the right to the use and benefit of the world's human capital if not the outright ownership of some of them.

Their confidence will not be shaken and the fact that they really don't care how some Muslims or their enablers achieve this ultimate goal is sobering and frightening. For them the ends justify the means, and any means necessary is a common slogan. The sacrifice of some of their lives and many of ours is irrelevant because world domination is the brass ring that they intend to have at any cost.

We notice that they Imam speaking above doesn't allude to violence. Implied is that the "White House will be changed" through other means such as: Da'wa, the calling to Islam; economic means through trade (oil?) or installing the Muslim commercial system; through demographics -- through immigration or natural increase that would put political pressure on the White House, perhaps through the election of a American President that is a Muslim backed up by Muslim Congressmen. Conquest doesn't always include violence.

As people, individual Muslims do seem decent enough. But as a group, from history and from "history's first draft," current events, we know how dangerous they are to freedom and the Western way of freedom -- freedom of speech, thought, religion, action, and so on. Freedom is antithetical because freedom and free will is incompatible with the will of Allah. Allah provides the explanation for the need of every thought, word and deed, and variance from the will of Allah is unacceptable and a punishable offense.

From the conversation with Muslims of every caste and from the writings of scholars, historians, and from the the transcripts of Friday Sermons and interviews with Imam, such as this one, we have come to know what they are thinking. They are thinking about triumphalism and we know they hold us in disdain and hate us for our disbelief. Even though so do keep such opinions to themselves they are hate mongers a because they refuse to repudiate Jihad and the acts of the jihadists. They are terrorists, bigots and slavers in their hearts, for to hold the sentiment is only a step away from actualizing the activity, and all activities whether evil or good begin with the first impulse within the human mind.

Supreme Court justice faces boot from home? WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

This is hot off the presses and is rich in irony, humor, and a sense of justice (yes, that can be taken as a pun). We did not delete a single, delicious word...

WorldNetDaily: Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Developer seeks
Souter's property
Looks to build 'Lost Liberty Hotel' at home of Supreme Court justice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 28, 2005
1:45 p.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clements, the proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, "featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." Instead of a Gideon's Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site – "being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

WE MUST GET BEHIND THIS LEGISLATION, RIGHT NOW!

Not a single one of us can afford not to rally behind this bill introduced by Senator Cornyn. It is how we reverse that infamous Supreme Court decision of 23 June 2005, which abolished property rights (and rights, period). We cannot expect the legislators of today to see deeper than the literal words on the Constitution, but that they can get that far should delight us. Let's take this because it will accomplish the overthrow of that SCOTUS decision!

WRITE, EMAIL, PHONE, WHATEVER, your Representatives and Senators.

Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling -- 06/28/2005, By Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor, June 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - ...[A] property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London .

The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.

"It is appropriate for Congress to take action...to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.

In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders." He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."

Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.

(Emphases mine)

What George Bush Should Talk About Tonight

Iran has gone from bad to worse, just has Syria has. Why? Because we, among others, are letting them. This new president of Iran is Saddam Hussein reincarnate.


MEMRI:

Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 229
June 28, 2005 No.229

Iran's "Second Islamic Revolution": Fulfilled by Election of Conservative President
By: A. Savyon*

Introduction

The victory of conservative president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad over rival candidate and past president 'Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani in the second round of voting in Iran's presidential election took Iran, and the rest of the world, by surprise. With approximately 17 million votes, Ahmadi-Nejad garnered about 62% of the runoff vote, while Rafsanjani, with 10 million votes, took about 33%. In all, 27.5 million voters, or 60%, turned out for the election. [1]

With the results of this election, the "Second Islamic Revolution" of Iranian Leader 'Ali Khamenei and his conservative followers is complete. Prior to this, the military apparatus, the judicial system, and the religious establishment were already in the hands of the conservative circles. After winning the municipal elections two years ago, and the Majlis (parliament) elections earlier this year, the conservatives now have total control of the centers of power at all levels; no reformists remain in any top posts.

The Reformist Election Boycott and the "Second Islamic Revolution"

The "Second Revolution" came about, in part, due to the voting pattern of the supporters of reform over the past two years – that is, boycotting elections to protest against the reform movements' failure to make good on their promises in the sphere of individual and political freedom. Along with reformists' political protests in the form of boycotting elections, it appears that the reform-supporting electorate is disappointed, alienated, and indifferent – particularly in light of the repressive measures employed by the conservatives.

These measures include closing some 100 reformist newspapers over the past four years; imprisoning journalists and bloggers for criticizing the regime; charging reformists who called for renewing relations with the U.S. with treason; and disqualifying reformist candidates – some in office at the time – from running in elections. As a result, the various students' and intellectuals' organizations announced that they would boycott the presidential elections. [2]

In the February 2003 municipal authority elections, and in the February 2004 elections for the Seventh Majlis, voter turnout was only about 50%. Reform-minded voters stayed away from the polls because of Iran 's Guardian Council's mass disqualification of reformist candidates, and also following the conservatives' judicial measures against Tehran 's mayors. [3]

The Poor People's Vote and the "Second Islamic Revolution"

A further pattern in electoral protest in the presidential election was seen amongst the poorer classes, who apparently refused to support Rafsanjani despite mass public support for him from the reformist political camp and from the reformist press following the first round of voting. Reformist politicians such as Mehdi Karroubi and Mostafa Mo'in (who dropped out in the first round along with Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf); members of reformist movements such as Iran's Islamic Participation Front, the Islamic Republic Mojahideen Organization, the Association of Combatant Clerics, and the Qom Seminary Teachers; ayatollahs such as Ayatollah Taheri Esfahani; and intellectuals, journalists, and artists all called unanimously to support Rafsanjani against conservative candidate Ahmadi-Nejad. However, the poor voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadi-Nejad.

Rafsanjani, who was an ally of the father of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, is also a billionaire and a highly influential senior politician, and is apparently identified with the current corrupt regime by the poorer classes in Iran. Despite his campaign promise last week to provide unemployment benefits of $100-$135 a month to every unemployed person in Iran, [4] and despite his commitment to advancing reforms in Iran, he could not persuade the have-nots, the unemployed, and the supporters of reform to vote for him. [5]

In contrast, the conservative Ahmadi-Nejad succeeded in enlisting regime apparatuses – the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij – to assure support for his candidacy, and also used the network of mosques across Iran by having Friday prayer leaders call to vote for him.

Ahmadi-Nejad presented himself to the public as a conservative with clean hands who would fight the corruption that had spread throughout Iran 's government apparatuses. In addition to this was his socio-economic platform, which underlined the values of justice and Islamic morality, social justice, fairness, integrity, and modesty – all in accordance with the principles of the Islamic Revolution. [6]

Another part of Ahmadi-Nejad's election platform was presenting himself as in touch with the people. One example of this was a verbal clash between him and outgoing president Mohammad Khatami, in late April 2005 when Ahmadi-Nejad was mayor of Tehran. Arriving late at the degree awards ceremony at Tehran University, where he was to receive an honorary PhD, President Khatami blamed Tehran traffic jams and told the audience, "T hose in charge of running the city are unable to fulfill their obligation properly… I apologize to you on behalf of those who are incapable of running this city." In response, Ahmadi-Nejad advised Khatami to "take a bus," saying that had Khatami remained in his downtown office instead of moving to a complex in the fashionable and wealthy northern part of the city, he would be more in touch with the people's everyday problems. He pronounced himself "delighted to see that the president got stuck in Tehran traffic at least once, in order to experience up close what it feels like." [7]

The Changing of the Guard – The Rise of the "Middle Generation" of the Revolution; No Reformists Left in Top Positions.

Ahmadi-Nejad, as well as Majlis Chairman Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, are among the younger members of the "middle" generation of the Islamic Revolution who are faithful to the revolution's values, and who grew up in the establishment apparatuses. Unlike some in the "old guard," they are not clerics. Ahmadi-Nejad is a former Revolutionary Guards commander, and had the support of the conservative bloc in the Majlis and of the prominent conservative party, The Coalition of Iran's Developers (Abadgoran). [8]

The country's executive positions are now also being held by "middle-generation" conservatives. Despite statements by Iranian Leader Khamenei that the regime is based on two "wings," i.e. the reformist and the conservative, all branches of the government are now in the hands of the conservatives. [9] It seems that the conservative regime prefers its own followers – who grew up in the institutions of the regime – over members of the founding generation such as Rafsanjani and Mehdi Karroubi.

If up until now Iranian reformists had some representation – even if only nominal – in the form of figures such as outgoing President Mohammad Khatami, they now have no representation at all.


Was There Electoral Fraud?

Three questions remain regarding whether there was electoral fraud:

1) On the morning of June 18, the day after the first round of voting, the conservative daily Kayhan (which is close to Iranian Leader Khamenei) published the results of the very close race between Ahmadi-Nejad and Karroubi – even though the outcome of the count was not officially released until that evening. How did Kayhan know in advance?

2) Ahmadi-Nejad jumped from 5.7 million votes in the first round to over 17 million in the second round – a jump that seems suspicious.

3) The number of votes cast for Ahmadi-Nejad in the second round (17 million) exceeded (by nearly 6 million) the total number of votes (11.4 million) cast by the entire conservative camp. [10]

A Brief Bio of Ahmadi-Nejad

Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, 49, was born in Garmsar, southeast of Tehran, and was the fourth of eight children. His father, a blacksmith, moved the family to Tehran when Ahmadi-Nejad was one year-old.

In 1980, he was active in the revolutionary student gatherings which brought about the Islamic Revolution. At the onset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, Ahmadi-Nejad joined the Iranian fighters on the western front.

In 1986 he joined the Revolutionary Guards, playing a role in covert operations in Kirkuk, Iraq. Later, he became chief engineer of the Revolutionary Guards' Sixth Army, and corps staff head of the Revolutionary Guards in the western provinces.

Ahmedi-Nejad received his doctoral degree in traffic and transportation engineering and planning from the University of Science and Technology in 1987.

Ahmadi-Nejad served as governor of Maku and Khov, two cities in the province of Western Azerbaijan, for four years in the 1980s, and as advisor to the governor-general of Kurdistan province for two years.

In 1993, while serving as advisor in the Ministry of Culture, he was appointed governor-general of the northwest province of Ardebil. He was chosen "exemplary governor" for three years running.

With the end of his gubernatorial term in 1997, Ahmadi-Nejad joined the scientific board of directors of the Civil Engineering College of the University of Science and Technology. In 2003, he was elected mayor of Tehran. [11]

* Ayelet Savyon is Director of MEMRI's Iranian Media Project.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] IRNA (Iran), June 25, 2005.

[2] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 226, "The Upcoming Presidential Elections in Iran (Part II)," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA22605#_edn28; June 16, 2005.

[3] In the election for the Seventh Majlis, the Guardian Council disqualified over 2,000 reformist candidates, including some who were in office at the time. Over the course of several years, conservatives obstructed several reformist Tehran mayors and accused them of financial corruption, ultimately forcing them to resign. These measures led to a 15% voter turnout in the 2003 municipal elections, and Ahmadi-Nejad was elected mayor.

[4] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 22, 2005.

[5] Iran(Iran), June 22, 2005.

[6] Sharq (Iran), June 20, 2005; Aftab-e Yazd(Iran), June 21, 2005.

[7] Iran Daily (Iran), May 1, 2005.

[8] Sharq (Iran), June 21, 2005.

[9] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 226, "The Upcoming Presidential Elections in Iran (Part II)," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA22605#_edn28; June 16, 2005.

[10] The votes of the conservative camp in the first round of voting: Ahmadi-Nejad, 5.7 million; Qalibaf, 4 million; Larijani, 1.7 million; the total was 11.4 million votes cast. In the first round, Rafsanjani garnered about 6 million votes; Karroubi, 5 million; Mo'in, 4 million, while Mehralizadeh got 1.2 million; the total votes cast for reformists in the first round numbered 16 million. In contrast, in the second round, Rafsanjani garnered only 10 million votes.

[11] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 26, 2005.

Your castle no more--Commentary

Your castle no more-Commentary-The Washington Times, America's Newspaper , By Edward Hudgins, Published June 27, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the house in which she was born 87-year-old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived there with her for 60 years. Why? The government wants to seize their property, bulldoze their house and many others and sell the land to businesses and developers for private uses.

One must very carefully choose words in political discussions but must not mince them either. This decision in the Kelo v. New London case is another giant step toward classical corporatism or fascism in America.

In this case the city council of New London, Conn., decided to condemn and take the homes and businesses of a number of citizens, including the Derys and Susette Kelo, who filed the case, in the name of economic development.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows governments to take property by eminent domain, as long as just compensation is paid, but only for public uses. These uses have always been understood to be necessary government-provided infrastructure such as courthouses or roads.

Otherwise, property should be sacrosanct. Individuals, businesses or governments might seek to purchase it, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is his or her right -- meaning one need not secure the permission or blessing of neighbors, government or "society"to own property.

But in recent decades politicians have made increasingly brazen elitist attempts to remodel our lives and communities. They more and more have welded eminent domain to seize private homes and enterprises in order to turn them over to different businesses or developers they believe will use the property in ways that better serve the community.

Now the Supreme Court has undermined fundamental private property rights by ruling, in effect, that governments can pretty much seize property for any reason they see fit.

Thus we have a situation in which, unlike under socialism, individuals can still hold title to their own property. But unlike a free-market system, they do not own their property by right. They hold it at the discretion of political authorities who can yank it away at a whim. This is the economic principle of the classical corporatist or fascist regime.

To call it corporatist or fascist is no mere epithet. It designates a system that maintains the veneer of property while political authorities have extensive powers to limit rights in the name of economic planning. This system necessarily means political conflict is the normal state of affairs -- either in open elections and legislation or closed-doors deals between lobbyists and politicians. It means no one's property is truly secure.

Some pundits complain Americans are too apathetic about politics. Yet in a corporatist regime, everyone will be politically involved but for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals, whether through misplaced idealism, pandering paternalism or pure predation, will threaten the liberties of their neighbors while others will face a never-ending battle to defend their lives, liberties and property. Everyone will need be on guard against his neighbors. Instead of a peaceful society, we will have a war of all against all.

Pundits complain our society has become too nasty and uncivil, with every issue in life a partisan political battle. That is the nature of our corporatist system. The Supreme Court's Kelo decision stirs the conflict down to the grass roots.
What are the Derys and Ms. Kelo to think of their city council members? What are they to think of their neighbors who failed to stand up for their property rights and denounce these politicians, shun them like the plague and vote them out of office? The only moral feelings they can have are resentment, and a sense of violation and deep injustice.

The Kelo decision is a wakeup call for restoring property rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property rights. Congress could limit eminent domain to narrow public purposes and bar takings for ultimately private uses.

Good fences make good neighbors. The right to private property is the cornerstone of any peaceful and prosperous society that respects individual rights. In this battle, there can be no fence-sitters. There's no better case than the Kelos' to demonstrate that property rights are civil rights.

Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Objectivist Center.

As good as this commentary is, and it is good, it does not go underneath the property issue to what this means to your right to life.

Cleaning Up America Includes Ending Tenure

On 10 June 2005, we published an article on this blog, If you are not "getting" postmodernism and its fifth column role with the jihadists, try this:. In that article, we highlighted a thoroughgoing illustration of postmodernism at a major American university.

We also emphasized how various funding sources--parents, alumni, and other donors--actually keep in business all of these people who are virulently anti-American, anti-academic, and utterly Nazi-like/Soviet-like/Islamic-like in their hatred of and suppression of dissent. We pointed out that these are postmodernism-influenced professors, wall-to-wall in the liberal arts (i.e., "humanities"--a term that is truly a cruel joke). These professors pour poison copiously into our culture through incessant pollution of America's (impressionable) youth herded into their clutches.

We also addressed that the continued existence of nonsense courses and nonsense professors at our colleges and universities keeps costs artificially high. In short: Get rid of the nonsense and its purveyors, and watch costs begin to fall (obviously this is not the sole source of exorbitant college and university costs). And, yes, "nonsense" can be OBJECTIVELY determined--said to forestall the objection of 'who is to say what is free speech?'

It is now time to take up another important element, namely tenure.

Ending tenure puts the freeloader professors and their courses on the same level as the productive teachers and objectively worthwhile courses. Ending tenure cuts costs while improving college and university educational quality. The benefits to our culture cannot be overstated.

In a recent article in Jewish World Review, revered historian and contemporary cultural analyst, Victor Davis Hanson, takes on tenure, a policy which enables professors, who, having met pitifully minimal standards, get lifetime appointments to their institutions, rather like judges to federal benches. No matter how corrupt and worthless these professors become after receiving tenure, they become just like civil servants--impossible to get rid of.

Dr. Hanson says: "Professors, ... after an initial probationary period of six years, win the equivalent of lifelong employment from their peers. Why does this strange practice linger on? The standard rationale is that the stuff of higher education is unfettered inquiry. Only by enjoying shelter from the storm of politics can professors be bold enough to take up the tough task of challenging young minds to question orthodoxy."

What tenure has entrenched is the complete opposite of "unfettered inquiry." "Tenure became part of protecting this strange culture in which the ends justified the means: Bias in the classroom was passed off as "balance" to an inherently prejudiced society. Academia came to resemble the medieval church that likewise believed its archaic protocols were free from review, given its vaunted mission of saving souls."

Aside from causing the shutdown of all viewpoints differing from professors' and administrators' own postmodernistic, pro-socialist, anti-capitalist, and above all, anti-American ideas, tenure COSTS big money. To put it another way, it wastes big bucks. "Perennial part-time lecturers, many with the requisite Ph.D.s, often teach the same classes as their tenured counterparts. Yet they receive about 25 percent of the compensation per course and without benefits." And, these teachers, particularly those who teach objectively, must move on. They become academically homeless itinerants, who have been denied tenure by a crowd entrenched by law, not by morality. The good teachers are denied any voice whatsoever, because they lack tenure. They have been shut out fully. Guild socialism in the middle ages and labor unions can only look on with envy.

What are some of the practical results of tenure? "The cost of university tuition continues to creep higher than the rate of inflation. The percentage of cheaper classes taught by adjunct instructors is increasing as well. Yet the competence of recently graduated students is ever more in question. What is not scrutinized in this disturbing calculus is a mandarin class that says it is radically egalitarian, but in fact insists on an unusual privilege that most other Americans do not enjoy. In recompense, the university has not delivered a better-educated student, or a more intellectually diverse and independent-thinking faculty. Instead it has accomplished precisely the opposite."

The arguments in favor of tenure are too pitiful to deal with. There is no "up" side. Dr. Hanson sums up a rational, tenure-free future this way: "Reasonable people can debate what would be lost with the abolition of tenure. But the warning that, in our litigious society, professors would lack fair job protection is implausible. Renewable five-year agreements — outlining in detail teaching and scholarly expectations — would still protect free speech, without creating lifelong sinecures for those who fail their contractual obligations."

Something else we stated in our previous article is that we cannot win the war against Islam unless we win the war against postmodernism on our campuses as well. The reason is because both groups have formed a mutually beneficial "unholy alliance." This unholy alliance dedicates itself to destroying America and all of its values.

Just as co-dependents of alcoholics must stop providing support to their loved one's drinking, so we must stop our co-dependency with our universities. The infamous but far too well-known Ward Churchill is just one of many thousands just like him; only the others are much, much worse. Their continuation depends on our support directly and through our legislatures. (All emphases mine)

We must take back our universities and colleges!

Large Number of New Publications on Website

This afternoon, we not only did a lot of housekeeping on 6th Column Against Jihad, but we also put up many new articles. We have had the pleasure of publishing a number of authors new to the site as well. Visit. It will be well worth your time.

You Now Belong to the State. Thank the Supreme Court

We intend to keep working the issue of the 6-23-2005 decision of the Supreme Court to abrogate our right to property and its wider meaning of wiping out all of our fundamental rights. We are working toward defining rights and deriving them from the facts of reality. For now, let us examine what is meant by "ownership" and "property."

"Ownership" (from the Encarta dictionary):

3. law: right to own something: the right to own, possess, or use something

6. something at somebody’s disposal: something at the disposal of a person, a group, or the public community property


"Property" (from the Encarta dictionary):

1. right of possession: the legal right of possessing something

The Encarta dictionary gives most of the proper defining elements of both terms, but we must clarify a few aspects.

"Public" and "community" property are fuzzy terms. Just ask yourself who it is that constitutes the owner known as "public" and "community"? If it is "everybody," then is it "anybody"? Legal scholars may argue this as meaningful, but you just try to sell "public" or "community" property and see what entanglements you start running into.

That brings us to what is really meant by "ownership" of "property." "Property" refers to tangible things, from intellectual creations such as songs, to so many palettes of "widgets," or even a candy bar you just bought. If you "own" it, you possess all rights to it. No one may use it in any way whatsoever, unless you authorize it, and you might collect a fee for anyone using your property (e.g., renting a room in your home).

Your ownership of something means that you possess total control over its physical possession, and what happens to that entity called "your property." Not only may you use it any way you want, but you may dispose of it at any time and in any manner you choose. You, as owner, have the sole right to sell, rent, give away, or utterly destroy whatever it is that you own.

Ownership without control is not ownership. What social-political system thrives on the notion of your "owning" something but with the state controlling how you use it, including its disposition? FASCISM. Fascism is a variant of socialism which practices the deception of having all property in private hands but under total state control. To repeat, ownership without control is not ownership.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on 23 June 2005 deemed that you may possess your "property," which you "own," with title free and clear, UNLESS civil authorities deem that your "property" may be taken from you by the initiation of force to fulfill objectives stated by the civil authority. This means: You own it, but you do not own it (at the same time and in the same respect). It may be taken from you forcibly at any time. Ergo, BOTTOM LINE = you do not own it.

On what basis may the civil authority take your property from you? It may do so when it deems that there is a "greater economic good" to be obtained from transferring title from you for your property to someone else. The standard for "who benefits" is the community, and the decision involves others but NOT you! That benefit may include all sorts of "benevolent" goals such as greater tax revenue, site beautification (according to the standards of the civil authority). and nuisance riddance. What constitutes a "nuisance"? Anything or anybody that stands in the way of the wishes of the group, such as the civil authority.

Well, don't you receive "just compensation"? Who determines what is "just compensation"?

Suppose, for just one, made up example, that you have lived on landed property handed down for generations, as deeded from the King of England centuries ago. Your property supported generations of your blood line as they forged colonies, then an independent country, and now a great republic, the child of the Enlightenment. Let us say that you house is no longer so grand, and you get by selling a few crafts and seasonal fruit from very old trees. You now, however, stand in the way of a great, new, upscale development of homes and businesses. The developers and customers will pay many-fold greater taxes to the civil authorities than you do on your now, somewhat meager "estate." You dearly love this venerable old place and its few acres, and you are proud of it. You refuse to sell. The civil authorities take you to court, and the court finds for the civil authority because you are standing in the way of the "community good." Law officers force you off your property at gunpoint. The civil authority cuts you a check, one that meets what it considers "just compensation." Like the owner of the New London, Ct., home, you find that the check is pitifully small in monetary amount, but you realize that even if the check was for trillions, nothing could compensate for the loss of that which you have loved, that which will now be asphalted over.

That is the first "practical" result of this SCOTUS decision of 6-23-2005. Many persons will feel the pain from this fascist takeover of their property. Ownership, without control, is not ownership.

As you sit in your new tract home, in some development, somewhere, pining the loss of your beloved heritage, you begin to realize the morality involved in this action. You begin to realize that the "community" became the value overriding your value as former owner. Your "good" counted for nothing. The benefit to the community counted for everything.

This is the morality of altruism, an allegedly positive attribute of people. You begin to see it for what it really means. You were "sacrificed" for the community. Their alleged "good" counted; yours did not. You were too small to be anything but a cog in the service of the community.

You spent all of your savings, and borrowed against all that the "civil authorities" were offering you as "just compensation" for your property. However, the judge said that the needs of the many overrode the needs of any individual. He glibly quoted the 23 June 2005 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as his precedent. He cited "community rights."

Rights? What rights? The community has rights--the city, the county, the state, and even the federal government--all of these groups have "rights," because the Supreme Court declared such? Since when, you ask? By what Constitutional right, you ask?

You cannot awaken from this Orwellian nightmare, because it is not a nightmare. It is your new life. You scream in protest. You yell that you are you, a sovereign individual, that you have rights, and these rights supercede the state. The judge looks at you, snickers, and wisecracks that such ideas as yours are arcane. Only the state has rights, the judge says, so shut up and take your medicine. This will teach you to get in the way of the greater good. In fact, if you continue to protest the sovereignty of the state in all matters, you will be held in contempt of court and sentenced to prison.

Everybody chatters about "rights," including you, but everyone talks about something without ever defining it, when they chatter about "rights."

You now realize: Whatever country you just woke up to, this is not the same country you were born into. An old quotation from Rousseau comes to mind, but now in the real context, "Everywhere man is in chains." You realize that you now belong to the government. These are your new chains. This cannot be "right," you realize.

RIGHTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS--what are they? Where do they come from? How come it is right for someone to take my property but not right for me to keep what I owned with title free and clear because government says the community has "rights"?

You begin to realize, if they can do this to my means of supporting my life, what can they do next? Did we not fight a Revolution about such issues?

Schooled for Jihad

Although Indonesia is the country with the world's largest Muslim population, they are having their own problems with extremism. Where else will young men learn extremism but in boarding schools or even jails that immerse students students in Jihad philosophy.

It is visiting hour at Jakarta's Cipinang Prison and its most famous inmate, the Muslim preacher Abubakar Baasyir, sits on a wooden bench surrounded by a dozen acolytes, assistants and lawyers. Several prisoners attend to him, including a confessed terrorist who has become the cleric's servant and coordinates a team of six to wash his clothes and cook his meals without pay. Prison officials allow Baasyir to teach a class on Islam to fellow inmates four times a week; about 100 prisoners attend each session.

Hasyim Abdullah, Baasyir's right-hand man, is posted outside the prison to run errands for the cleric, buy his food and help the friends, family members and supporters who visit nearly every day. They give messages to the cleric and take directions from him to his followers on the outside.

Baasyir is holding court in prison instead of his home or office because Indonesian prosecutors have accused him of being the emir of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. In a 65-page indictment, they alleged that he was involved in "planning and/or encouraging other people to commit terrorism" including the 2003 bombing of the J. W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, where 12 people were killed, and the 2002 bombing of a resort in Bali, where 202 people were killed. A court cleared Baasyir in the Marriott attack and found him guilty of approving of (but not of ordering) the Bali bombings.

For the international community, the case is a litmus test of the Indonesian government's resolve in the war on terrorism. Despite the severity of the charges against him, Baasyir received only a 30-month sentence. His lawyers say the sentence ran out on June 4 and they are suing the government for his release.

But for me, Baasyir's case poses a different question. That's because he was a co-founder of the Islamic boarding school, Al Mukmin Ngruki, where I spent six years studying in sweltering classrooms. While I chose a career in journalism, many of my fellow students made a different choice. Dozens of Ngruki's alumni have been accused of taking part in a wave of terrorist attacks against Westerners in Indonesia. Security analysts and police investigators believe that the link is no coincidence. Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group has called my alma mater an "Ivy League" for Jemaah Islamiyah recruits.

All of which makes me wonder: Why did so many of my fellow students end up choosing terrorism while I ended up writing about them?

Why indeed?

"As Muslims, our allegiance is only to Allah (SWT) and His messenger and the Muslim Ummah (Community)"

The question: "Can true, observant Muslims be loyal?" has been asked.

How can they be when loyalty is pledged only to "Allah (SWT) and His messenger and the Muslim Ummah (community)"?

In their own words.

Countering the Jihad

The eminent Hugh Fitzgerald, a vice-president at JihadWatch reflects upon an interview with Oriana Fallachi and gives us eight ways to limit the damage of the present Jihad.

"When I ask her what "solution" there might be to prevent the European collapse of which she speaks, Ms. Fallaci flares up like a lit match. "How do you dare to ask me for a solution?" --- from a recent interview
The word "solution" is the wrong word. Had the reporter asked, or had Fallaci replied, that "what could be done to limit the damage, to contain or reverse the power of Muslims and the Jihad worldwide" then a coherent answer might have been offered, by Fallaci or by someone else.

The "containment of Communism" worked. Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, and before that in Eastern and Central Europe, and is now coming undone in China. Why? It collapsed because a sufficient number of people realized it was a farce and a failure, a failure in the very area -- the delivery of material wellbeing to the masses -- where it had most insistently promised it would be a success.

Who created the conditions for that failure to be perceived? The United States, and with the United States, other Western powers that countered Soviet propaganda and produced propaganda of their own, that did everything they could to check Soviet power once they came to their senses in the late 1940s (a little late for those countries already suffering Stalin's presence, or that of his local agents).

The Marshall Plan. NATO. Radio Free Liberty. Radio Free Europe. The Berlin Airlift. The suppression of Communist rebels in Greece. The Korean War. The money that went to non-Communist political parties all over Europe. The money that went to support newspapers and publishing houses all over Europe. The assistance or encouragement of various revolts inside the Soviet Union -- the "Forest Brotherhood" for example (the "Leshiye"). The bases everywhere. The anti-Communist propaganda. Decades of it, and trillions spent. And you know what? It worked. A group of people within the Soviet system came to some conclusions of their own about the moral and economic failures of Communism.

This can be done, more slowly, more deliberately, with Islam, and the Jihad that is central to Islam. The Infidel lands and peoples must first learn about Islam -- not from Muslims, or for that matter from non-Muslim propagandists, some of them hirelings, others ideologically wedded to Islam perhaps because it is now the most obvious vehicle of expressing one's hatred of, and alienation from, the Western world and, especially, the United States. They must thoroughly understand the texts. And then they must learn about Muslim conquest of non-Muslim peoples, and how those peoples were, in time and space, treated. And they must learn the kinds of things that Muslim apologists -- including those who are the most effective of all, the smooth-tongued "moderates" who, while seeming to denounce this or that terrorist act, will immediately be defensive about Islam itself, try to convince unwary Infidels that "Islam" has "nothing to do" with this, whether it is bombs going off, or the murder of apostates and others, or the mistreatment of women. Recently, on The Connection, all three of the "guests" -- one Hussein Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador, and the still-clueless-about-Islam Nicholas Kristof, and someone formerly in the State Department -- were quite insistent that the Pakistani lady, Ms. Bibi, who was gang-raped, suffered from people whose acts of course "had nothing to do with Islam." That's right, nothing: not the texts, not the attitudes those texts engender -- Muslims pervaded with Islam but whose actions "had nothing to do with Islam".

Basic Principles:

1. Recognition that the presence of large numbers of Muslims is a security threat and one which Infidels (read non-Muslims), need not inflict on themselves.

2. Recognition that the oil wealth that has provided Arab and Muslim OPEC members with nearly $10 billion in undeserved revenues since 1973 is what finances the world-wide Jihad.

3. Diminishing the oil wealth is not enough. All Infidel aid to Muslim countries, all transfers of wealth that have been based on a misunderstanding, and the belief that "Poverty" is the problem or at least, if Muslims are made richer (ideally, just like Muslims in Saudi Arabia) they will calm down, and turn to other things – all this must stop.

4. Make it impossible for the Arabs and Muslims to acquire major weaponry.

5. Let the rich Arabs and Muslims know that their property in the West is not permanently safe, and that it may be seized -- as the property of German nationals was seized by the American government in World War II.

6. Counter-Jihad: as the Americans during the Cold War paid for Encounter magazine, or for special publishing houses that produced emigre Russian literature (Editions de la Seine, for example), and subsidized Die Monat and other publications, they can do the same today.

(It is ironic that the Al-Jazeera, the anti-American mouthpiece of the Arab world, is now operating in the West as the Arab version of the Voice of America!)

7. Identify those populations whom the Muslim supporters of Da'wa have themselves identified as particularly vulnerable to being "turned" into agents of Islam, into those who will sign up for the Army of Islam, which -- at this point, after all that has happened -- is the only way one can properly view someone who now converts to Islam. Ten or twenty years ago, such conversion might possibly have seemed bizarre, but not necessarily a declaration of war on Infidels and their society. But that was then. And this is now.

8. Wherever there are natural fissures within Islam, or wherever such fissures can be created -- as by removing Western aid, and forcing Egypt, Jordan et al to go hat in hand to the rich Arabs of the Gulf, which can only increase intra-Arab tensions (think back to Nasser's hatred of the Saudis, and of how that played out in the early 1960s, with that proxy war in Yemen between left-wing Nasserites and monarchists backed by Saudi Arabia) -- let them widen. Do nothing to narrow them.

A worthwhile read.

9/11 Memorial Update

Good news. New York Governor Pataki vows "no U.S. bashing at WTC."

Gov. Pataki drew a line in the sand yesterday, declaring he will tolerate no America-bashing on the sacred soil of Ground Zero.
Hours after the Daily News disclosed that a museum set to rise on the site had displayed kooky and anti-American art, the governor said there can be no place where nearly 3,000 innocents died for an institution that attacks the United States and the heroes of 9/11.

His voice rising and his resolve steely as he compared the World Trade Center tract to the bloody beaches of Normandy and the black waters of Pearl Harbor, Pataki vowed:

"We will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America, denigrates New York or freedom or denigrates the sacrifice and courage that the heroes showed on Sept. 11."

What about the International Freedom Center?

The larger museum, the International Freedom Center, has sparked fears it will focus on acts of U.S. wrongdoing, like slavery and treatment of American Indians, while the Drawing Center, now based in SoHo, was exposed in The News as displaying graphic and vulgar art attacking America's war on terror.

"Sure, there can be debate," Pataki said when asked if his tough stance jeopardized free-speech rights. "But I don't want that debate to be occurring at Ground Zero."

Acting after a protest from family members - and word the Drawing Center had displayed art linking President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and portraying terror suspects as victims of American torture - the governor laid down the law to the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.: "Contact the cultural institutions on the memorial site. . . and get from them an absolute guarantee that as they proceed, it will be with total respect for the sanctity of that site." This was followed by a simple, stark threat: "I'm hopeful they are able to do that, and if not, then they shouldn't be there."

Pataki twice repeated his threat, saying the Freedom and Drawing Centers must respect sacred ground - or else.

"Period. Otherwise they won't be there," he said.

And we're hope that the governor and the rest will follow through with letter and the spirit of his statements.

Thank you, Governor Pataki.

Yes, yes, yes! And more.

A reader, Always On Watch, took the time to write comments in our 23 June blog about the attack on America by the Supreme Court. These words need more highlighting. For that matter, this whole 6-23-2005 Supreme Court decision needs the fullest possible publicity.

Since we have had this blog, almost a year now, we have dealt with many issues important to America. We have always stressed that the dangers to our great country go beyond just Islam. Islam, in many ways, is an external force, alien to America, although we have had plenty of subversive groups living amongst us throughout our history. Jihad, we have stressed, has both overt and covert components, and we do not want to lose focus on either.

We have also stressed the fact that America suffers internal rotting as well as that provided by Islam. There are very destructive forces coming from this chronic assault on the Enlightenment ideas and ideals which created America as the brightest spot in all of mankind's history. Currently, the handiest term to label these forces comes from the forces themselves, namely "postmodernism." "Postmodernism" literally wages war on "modernism," and "modernism" consists of recognition of the supremacy of reality over thoughts, wishes, and desires; the supremacy of reason over any alternatives; the supremacy of the individual and the Rights of Man over the group, the state, or the collective. Finally, "modernism" recognizes that the finest social, political, and economic system ever devised by man is capitalism, which creates and sustains freedom and improves well-being wherever it is tried. "Postmodernism" seeks to enchain peoples with socialism and all necessary to create socialist states and populaces.

We have also stressed that the Left, the sole repository of "postmodernism," has allied itself with jihadists in an unholy alliance, with the jointly held, single goal of destruction of the United States of America and the concepts of freedom, reason, and Rights. We have frequently called these internal forces of destruction America's fifth column, as many others have as well.

Until 6-23-2005, we dealt with the foregoing enemies of America because of their pervasiveness and persistence without becoming just another political blog. We have tried to present consistently the "whys" and explanations behind event. We have wanted to break through the ignorance and comfortable indolence of Americans who too often have been too willing to be comfortable with their ignorance and sound-bite "knowledge."

We have to add this decision by the Supreme Court and possible the court itself to our list of fifth column adversaries. This decision MUST BE REVERESED A.S.A.P.

The Supreme Court decision to erase property rights (on 6-23-2005) is more dangerous than anything we have written about over the past year. Superficial effects will show up soon as local and state governments create coercive monopolies resembling fascist corporativism of Mussolini. These, as terrible as they will be, will be the least damaging effects.

We pointed out in our 6-24-2005 blog that this Supreme Court property rights abrogation decision puts a dagger right through the heart of America, and right now NO ONE IS RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE at the right level. If one understands the nature, origin, and meaning of the Rights of Man, then he or she will see the real--and very practical--result of this "SCOTUS" decision, one that will come about long range in incremental steps, one which will wipe out this child of the Enlightenment, America.

We have repeated and will continue to do so that our Founders very properly recognized the four fundamental Rights of Man: Life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. They did not stress the right to property well enough, however.

The most fundamental right is that of life, which means that a living human has total sovereignty and responsibility for himself or herself. He and she need the right of liberty to sustain that life. That life itself is tangible and has very tangible needs, and every human needs tangibles--i.e., PROPERTY--to sustain and further his and her lives and to pursue happiness. That is why the right to property is almost sacred in its importance.

When you declare that right to property can be abrogated by any "legal" group (and the reasons do not matter), then you have blocked the means by which humans sustain their lives independently. In other words, you have blocked the means by which humans preserve, sustain, and experience their lives. Put another way, you have BLOCKED THE RIGHT TO LIFE of every American, in total defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What the 6-23-2005 decision does is replace the sovereign rights of the individual with so-called socialist "group rights." There are ONLY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Only in Orwellianism are there "group rights." What "group rights" means is legalized plunder by gangs, including the government. This inversion by the Supreme Court puts the individual at the mercy of the state. People live no longer BY RIGHT, but by permission, at the whim of the state (defined in part as the legal concentration of delegated power). The American government was established to preserve and protect the rights of its citizens, not become the instrument of their destruction. SCOTUS destroyed this on 23 June 2005--IF IT IS ALLOWED TO STAND.

If we do not reverse this decision, we will be looking at the last days of the Republic. Bring on Caesar.

Here are the fine words of Always On Watch:

Are you familiar with the analogy of the frog in the water? As long as the water is gradually heated up, the frog won't jump out; over time, he gets cooked and doesn't even know what's happened.

Yesterday's court decision will first be applied to New London, Connecticut and possibly to Anacostia, D.C. (the ballpark project). The average American will not be worried. "The revival of these areas benefit the community" will be the prevailing comment.

But, as you allude to in your commentary, once rights are eroded, bigger steps are taken over time. How long will it take for yesterday's decision to impact property owners in the suburbs?

I live on a lot which developers want to acquire, and a nicer home here would certainly bring in more revenue for the county. Can that increased revenue be justification for exercising eminent domain? Maybe not immediately, maybe not in my lifetime, but I predict that the likelihood is great that yesterday's decision will be extended to deprive individuals of the right to own private property in prime areas.

Now, maybe what I'm about to say is reaching a bit, but bear with me. Here where I live, many of the larger developers are Muslim-owned companies. Already, we county residents know that such developers have an "in" with the zoning board and can get approval of building projects when other smaller companies cannot. I know whereof I speak, because the only developers interested in my prime suburban lot are those which are Muslim-owned. And the house in which I live, my grandmother's house which dates back to pre-WWII days, doesn't fit in very well with the new McMansions which surround me now. Right now, I have the choice as to whether or not to sell to any developer. But will the day come when the county exercises eminent domain and forces me to sell? And at what price? Just who determines what is the fair price?

The decision of June 23 is a dangerous blow to our right to private property. Yet the news blabs on about other insignificant matters which won't matter a few years from now.

Lodi's Terrorism Link: Are Immigrants Loyal?

"The opinions of neighbors, family members or community and religious leaders regarding a suspect's character is not germane." What is important is not what they say about the suspect, it is what is revealed about the suspects character through investigation of behaviors.

One of Mohammed Atta’s Florida neighbors, immediately following 9/11, remembered him as "a nice guy, very intelligent and polite." Atta, we now know, was one of the masterminds behind the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

Neighbors of Waleed Alshehri, another of the 9/11 terrorists, recalled him as "a nice guy" who liked video games and rooted for the Florida Marlins. Alshehri helped Atta crash American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center

Abdulaziz Alomari, on board AA #11 with Atta and Alshehri, lived "quietly" in Vero Beach with his wife and four children.

Nawaf Alhamzi’s landlord said his tenant was always "prompt" with the rent. Alhamzi hijacked American Airlines flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon.

A family who rented a room to Hani Hanjur, another AA #77 terrorist, said he "was a kind and gentle man" who liked children.

I thought about these wildly incorrect character assessments—-compiled by CBS News—every time I read the dozens of stories about the five Lodi suspects arrested more than two weeks ago on terrorism related charges and immigration violations.

Are these favorable comments a reflection of how the men behaved or an attempt at a cover up? You just can't trust character statements.

What is the measure of loyalty? For true, observant Muslims, from the start, loyalty has never been to a monarch, empire, country, or political ideology, such as Communism or Democracy. Loyalty has always been to the Ummah, the world body of Muslims. For true, observant Muslims, nation states such as Indonesia, France, or even the United States, are only an address, a place to make a living and to raise a family, a place in which to scheme and agitate to further the aims of Islam, to make that place or maintain that place as an Islamic state in which Sharia is the law of the land.

Read the rest. The links lead to other interesting links.

Texans Near Border See Signs That Violence Is Closing In

With violent deaths and crime becoming commonplace, the border resembles the Wild West again.

Violence on the southern border is usually associated with human and narcotics trafficking. People living in the shadow of the Mexican border live with the fear that at any moment violence from Mexico will spill over. Entrants fleeing from poverty, discrimination, and this same violence often perpetrate property crimes, i.e. "living off the land," on residents, and sometimes kidnappings, rapes, and murders occur.

"When the people who wear uniforms are as bad as the drug dealers, who do you trust? No one's safe."

ZAPATA, Texas - (KRT) - Just three miles from the Zapata County Courthouse, Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez steers his truck off the pavement onto a twisting dirt road lined with mesquite and thorny brush as tall as a man. He points to Mexico, shimmering in the heat across a narrow spit of Lake Falcon.

"You can cross all day by boat and no one's going to see you. When the lake's down, you can almost drive across," Gonzalez said. "Drug loads come through here all the time. If they can boat marijuana bales, they can bring terrorists across the lake.

"It's no longer a question of when the violence is going to bleed over to Zapata. The narco-terrorist culture is already here. We're just worried it's going to get worse."

The explosion of drug killings and kidnappings that has wracked Nuevo Laredo, 50 miles upriver, resonates all too clearly in this sun-baked county of 16,000.

Zapata County residents who have lived all their lives in the shadow of Mexico now refuse to drive over to shop or see doctors because of the violence.

But for some, the threat of violence comes calling.

One Zapata businessman was threatened with kidnapping recently. And an influx of hundreds of Mexican citizens into Zapata over the past few years prompts Gonzalez to fear his town is becoming a safe haven for drug dealers and their hired guns, including members of the notorious Gulf cartel's enforcers, Los Zetas.

"We've seen a 35 percent increase in population over the past four or five years and they're all coming from Mexico," Gonzalez said. "They don't have jobs here, but they're building homes and buying new cars. They stay out of trouble, but you drive around and wonder who the hell they are and why they came to Zapata."

In much-larger Laredo, Texas, the brutality of the drug gangs already is tangible. Mayor Betty Flores blamed two recent deaths - people gunned down in Laredo businesses in broad daylight - on spillover violence.

Gonzalez's biggest fear is the possibility of terrorists taking refuge in the remote region, and the vulnerability of a network of natural gas lines that feeds the 294 billion cubic feet of natural gas produced in Zapata County each year for facilities in Houston.

"This county is the third largest producer of natural gas in the state, and it's no secret," he said. "An attack on the lines would be disastrous."

At the White House Restaurant, a group of old friends sit at their front table, drinking coffee and passing the morning. This day, their conversation centers on the troubles in Nuevo Laredo after drug gangs assassinated the police chief recently, barely six hours after he was sworn in.

There has always been an air of risk along the border, but the recent violence has upped the ante dramatically. Mexican authorities account for 60 people murdered in drug-gang killings in Nuevo Laredo since January. The FBI reports that drug gangs have kidnapped 32 Americans.

Even after the Mexican army arrived in Nuevo Laredo to restore order and weed out bad police officers, the drug killings continued with the shooting deaths of two people.

"It's a dangerous time. Over there, the police will stop you for any little thing, especially if you have a Texas license plate," said Hector Lopez, 78, a retired justice of the peace. "If you pay their bribe, your problems go away."

Read the rest.

A spotlight is on the border. Al-Jazeera, the Muslim broadcasting company with an anti-American bias, is coming to do an exposé on border violence and the ease with which ANYONE can cross over.

Al-Jazeera to Look at Open U.S. Border -- On the 4th of July!

Oh, no. The Arabs are coming, the Arabs are coming! Well, actually, the Arabs or Arabic speaking entrants have been coming across the southern border for some time. Observers can tell something about those that slip across the border by the character of the tons of refuse they leave behind. The countryside is littered with used diapers, food wrappers, clothing, the usual, but in the last few years, they have noticed prayer rugs and clothing that would be typically worn by Muslims.

Al-Jazeera, owned and operated by our "friends" in Qatar, and through "donations," has heard of the ease of slipping across the border and now wants everyone in the Muslims world to know. Known for being on the spot at the moment of dramatic occurrences, perhaps forewarned or even complicit, Al-Jazeera is definitely unfriendly toward the United States. Many don't know that Al-Jazeera now broadcasts to the United States in both Arabia and English, and, as expected, gives news a definite anti-American slant.

Now they have set their sights on our southern border:

The Arab TV news network criticized by the new Iraqi government and others for its anti-American bias and willingness to carry the messages of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, is headed for the U.S.-Mexico border to document how easy it is to enter America illegally.

Al-Jazeera has contacted Minuteman Civil Defense Corps leader Chris Simcox to try to arrange interviews. Simcox, who rejected the request for cooperation with the TV network, says al-Jazeera, seen by millions throughout the Arab world and elsewhere, is producing an hour-long documentary news special on lack of security at the U.S. southern border.

Al-Jazeera reporter Naisser Hssaini mentioned the increase in apprehensions of illegal aliens known as OTMs – other than Mexicans. These foreigners increasingly include Arabs, Muslims and others from the Middle East. The reporter also mentioned his familiarity with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement police of catching and releasing OTMS – particularly those not specifically known to be on any terrorist watch list.

Apprehension of illegal aliens to be caught and then to be released? This is a moment of cognitive dissonance, a surreal moment. To catch and then release those that will do us harm is beyond the pale.

"The group has been denied requests for interviews by Minuteman Civil Defense Corps organizers but they still insist on filming the groups’ activities along with the rest of the media during a July 4th weekend mission near Arivaca, Arizona," said Simcox.

Simcox has contacted the offices of Arizona's two Republican U.S. senators – John McCain and Jon Kyl – to invite them to do interviews with al Jazeera, "so perhaps they can explain to the viewers of this news outlet just how secure America's borders really are."

"The offices of the Arizona members of the United States House of Representatives will also be contacted to alert them to the presence and the intent by the al-Jazeera news crew to film the lack of security along the U.S. border with Mexico," said Simcox. "The office of the Department of Homeland Security will also be notified. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps also wonders just what DHS would tell al-Jazeera about the condition of our border security."

Simcox also mentioned the U.S. Border Patrol has already been notified.

"Would we allow Japanese or German television to film the unsecured border during World War II?" asked Minuteman spokeswoman Connie Hair. "These people broadcast to the enemies of America. It's not a news story, it's recon."

Why would Al-Jazeera's attention to our borders be a threat? We should consider Europe's cautionary tale. Borders were created and designed to protect the inhabitants from unfriendly people, contraband, and activities. Europe's borders are practically non-existent or seem irrelevant. They no longer serve as the requisite check. Eastern Europeans, North Africans, and refuges from South Asia poured in. Muslims are also increasing their presence in areas of Sub-Sharan Africa with predictable results -- demands for accommodation and the implementation of Sharia law. Terrorists are able to operate with impunity and dhimmi governments have caved in to their demands.

Now most of the world has had or is having an explosion of Muslim activity and rapid Islamization. Europe is rapidly becoming Eurabia, first through guest worker programs, the Arab-European Dialogue (EAD), and because of the influx on illegal immigrants, many of them Muslins. Are we to be the next target, vulnerable to a demographic invasion over our porous borders?

That our borders are insecure in no secret. Now the point will be driven home to everyone within earshot in the Arab world. This is an opportunity to beef up our borders. Perhaps now those within the beltway will take action before an unfortunate event occurs. It's incredible that citizens have to practically beg their governments to protect them from invading hordes of entrants. Many can't ... or won't. I pray that the U.S. Government finally will.

What's all this noise about some Supreme Court property decision?

This must be just a short note. I am gathering material to pull a terrible happening and responses to it together, and that will take a while. The event occurred 23 June 2005 when the Supreme Court of the United States attacked the roots of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. It was a day that shall live in infamy. What happens from here could determine whether the United States of America makes it to the 22nd century as a republic run on democratic methodology.

In a five to four, rancorously split decision, the Supreme Court turned private property over to the philosophy of pragmatism by nullifying each citizen's right to his property. It has been the Constitutionally mandated role of the American government to protect that right for all citizens, and previously actions have been confined to "eminent domain" for public use. Eminent domain has been a bad flaw in the Constitution, and it became the springboard for Leftist Supreme Court judges to dive through on 23 June 2005.

Many writers and talk radio personnel are properly furious, and they are properly furious generally about the right meanings. None, however, so far gets down to the root issues.

Pragmatists believe something is right if it works (in hindsight), so they think the Supreme Court did the right and benevolent thing because the Court put the "benefit to the" community, the group, the collective first. A la Utilitarianism, another rotten philosophy, the Court declared that the decision provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

This is just another reason why it is essential for all Americans to be able to think about their own philosophies for living and living together in terms of principles.

Here is just a glimpse into what the 23 June 2005 Supreme Court decision really means to each and every INDIVIDUAL American. It establishes collectivism as the social-political-and-economic basis for America instead of capitalism. It erases the sovereignty of the individual, who now exists at the whim of the local, state, national government.

Vile changes will not happen overnight. Right now, New London, Ct., is affected, and that is a long way away from most people. So people will be lulled into thinking that all the talk about a cataclysm is just so much "sky falling." Unless reversed, this decision, however, will serve as precedent which will slowly gather the force of law. Those unable to think in principles will not grasp the significance of this decision, the incremental changes to America, or resist on principle. They will not grasp that this decision puts us in the same category as socialist states, whether democratic socialist, fascist, Nazi, communist, or Islamic. Shut your eyes, ears, and mind, and you shall have it.

How can these be the meanings? You have to know what rights mean. [We have been working on elucidating these more and more on our website 6th Column Against Jihad--check it out.] The right to property is one of the fundamental Rights of Man. The right to property is how you preserve, protect, sustain, and further your life and your personal persuit to happiness. To put it bluntly, when you abrogate a man's right to property, you abrogate his right to life. That is total loss of individual sovereignty.

No other nation on earth upheld the sovereign rights of humans to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness other than America. Yesterday, the Supreme Court put Americans on equal footing with every other human on earth whose rights are blocked by groups including governments.

If you needed a good example of judicial activism, well, here is a super-sized one. In principle, you are no longer safe in America. In principle, you belong to the state. You must let this sink in. The realization belongs to the march of time.

You and I along with millions of others must reverse this. Freedom requires no less of us. Not only does the old saw say that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but it is hard work as well. The payoff is spectacular, a major moral and political triumph, in the march of mankind to free himself from mankind.

What happened on 23 June 2005 stands with significance along with 11 September 2001 and 7 December 1941. Only this time, the attack came from within.

A Disaster Waiting to Happen - Illegal Aliens Worked Inside Nuclear Weapons Facility

From Human Events Online:

On June 14, the inspector general of the Energy Department completed a report revealing that illegal aliens had been working at one of the Energy Department’s “most sensitive sites.”

The location in question was the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn. In his report, Energy Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman said: “The mission of Y-12 includes the manufacture of nuclear weapons components; weapons dismantlement, storage, and evaluation; and, the warehousing of enriched uranium material.”

The IG discovered that the Energy Department had hired a contractor who used illegal alien workers for a construction project at the facility.

“We found that foreign construction workers, using false documents, gained access to the Y-12 site on multiple occasions,” said the report. “Specifically, we determined 16 foreign construction workers were illegal aliens. Some of these workers acquired facility access badges and were permitted access to the main Y-12 site, and others were permitted access to an adjacent Y-12 leased facility. Certain information associated with the construction of the Y-12 leased facility, which was planned to store documents up to the Secret-Restricted Data level was considered Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) and Official Use Only (OUO). Consequently these individuals may have had opportunities to inappropriately access this type of information.”

Now count the presumed layers of homeland defense these illegal aliens defeated: First, they defeated the defenses we put at our borders to stop people from entering the country illegally or from entering with the intent to stay beyond the terms of their visa. Second, they defeated the defenses we put within the country itself to discover those who are living and working here illegally. Third, they defeated the defenses put in place by the Energy Department to stop unknown foreign nationals from working inside a nuclear weapons facility.

“Also, we learned that the Office of Counterintelligence was not aware of the presence of foreign construction workers at the Y-12 leased facility until notified by the Office of Inspector General during this inspection,” reported Friedman. “Counterintelligence checks had not been performed for these individuals to that point.”

Well, at least we caught them after they got inside Y-12.

Right...Now I can sleep better at night. (Sarcasm off)

This is security? Protecting the citizens of the United States should be priority number one for our elected government and armed forces.

To Add Insult to Injury:
Illegal Immigrants got licenses to transport hazardous materials. What idiots are allowing this???

Prophet of Decline - Oriana Fallaci

An interview with Oriana Fallaci - From The Wall Street Journal

In her mid-70s and in failing health, Oriana Fallaci faces jail, not for murder, theft or any traditional crime, but for "vilification" of "any religion admitted by the state," in this case: Islam.

In her case, the religion deemed vilified is Islam, and the vilification was perpetrated, apparently, in a book she wrote last year--and which has sold many more than a million copies all over Europe--called "The Force of Reason." Its astringent thesis is that the Old Continent is on the verge of becoming a dominion of Islam, and that the people of the West have surrendered themselves fecklessly to the "sons of Allah." So in a nutshell, Oriana Fallaci faces up to two years' imprisonment for her beliefs--which is one reason why she has chosen to stay put in New York. Let us give thanks for the First Amendment.

It is a shame, in so many ways, that "vilipend," the latinate word that is the pinpoint equivalent in English of the Italian offense in question, is scarcely ever used in the Anglo-American lexicon; for it captures beautifully the pomposity, as well as the anachronistic outlandishness, of the law in question. A "vilification," by contrast, sounds so sordid, so tabloid--hardly fitting for a grande dame.

"When I was given the news," Ms. Fallaci says of her recent indictment, "I laughed. Bitterly, of course, but I laughed. No amusement, no surprise, because the trial is nothing else but a demonstration that everything I've written is true." An activist judge in Bergamo, in northern Italy, took it upon himself to admit a complaint against Ms. Fallaci that even the local prosecutors would not touch. The complainant, one Adel Smith--who, despite his name, is Muslim, and an incendiary public provocateur to boot--has a history of anti-Fallaci crankiness, and is widely believed to be behind the publication of a pamphlet, "Islam Punishes Oriana Fallaci," which exhorts Muslims to "eliminate" her. (Ironically, Mr. Smith, too, faces the peculiar charge of vilipendio against religion--Roman Catholicism in his case--after he described the Catholic Church as "a criminal organization" on television. Two years ago, he made news in Italy by filing suit for the removal of crucifixes from the walls of all public-school classrooms, and also, allegedly, for flinging a crucifix out of the window of a hospital room where his mother was being treated. "My mother will not die in a room where there is a crucifix," he said, according to hospital officials.)
Ms. Fallaci speaks in a passionate growl: "Europe is no longer Europe, it is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty." Such words--"invaders," "invasion," "colony," "Eurabia"--are deeply, immensely, Politically Incorrect; and one is tempted to believe that it is her tone, her vocabulary, and not necessarily her substance or basic message, that has attracted the ire of the judge in Bergamo (and has made her so radioactive in the eyes of Europe's cultural elites).

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," the historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, and these words could certainly be Ms. Fallaci's. She is in a black gloom about Europe and its future: "The increased presence of Muslims in Italy, and in Europe, is directly proportional to our loss of freedom." There is about her a touch of Oswald Spengler, the German philosopher and prophet of decline, as well as a flavor of Samuel Huntington and his clash of civilizations. But above all there is pessimism, pure and unashamed. When I ask her what "solution" there might be to prevent the European collapse of which she speaks, Ms. Fallaci flares up like a lit match. "How do you dare to ask me for a solution? It's like asking Seneca for a solution. You remember what he did?" She then says "Phwah, phwah," and gestures at slashing her wrists. "He committed suicide!" Seneca was accused of being involved in a plot to murder the emperor Nero. Without a trial, he was ordered by Nero to kill himself. One senses that Ms. Fallaci sees in Islam the shadow of Nero. "What could Seneca do?" she asks, with a discernible shudder. "He knew it would end that way--with the fall of the Roman Empire. But he could do nothing."

The impending Fall of the West, as she sees it, now torments Ms. Fallaci. And as much as that Fall, what torments her is the blithe way in which the West is marching toward its precipice of choice. "Look at the school system of the West today. Students do not know history! ....

Read the Rest

50 Coolest Wesites -2005

Sorry - Sixth Column didn't make the cut. The other sites are cool and some are even useful. From TimeOnline

Revolution Without Bullets or Ballots

Islam is determined to defeat and crush the West. They have come in waves, ebbing and flowing over the centuries. They are presently charging, but not all are coming with bullets and bombs blasting. The goal is the triumphal Islam and the re-emergence of the Caliphate.

Everyone has heard of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. There are hundreds of jihadist groups that come and go. The Liberation Party - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is the largest single liberation movement in the Islamic world, yet almost nothing is known of them in the West.

KARACHI - From the shores of the Caspian Sea to the Bay of Bengal, there are violent reactionaries in the Muslim world who will kill and get killed, but beyond these fanatics there exists a real hardcore silently swaying the hearts and minds of many in the Muslim world.

Their religion is not obvious from their demeanor or the cut of their clothes, yet it is embedded in the very core of their hearts, and is the driving force behind all their actions.

They are an overwhelming emerging force, and even though they have been widely banned, they don't believe in retaliation. They have made a hub in Pakistan, where they outnumber many large religious parties, yet they remain difficult to pinpoint as they are political, but have been forced underground. They are the largest single movement in the Islamic world, the Liberation Party - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).

In the mid-1990s, a large conference was held in London, where the topic was the revival of a caliphate in the Muslim world for the "implementation of pure Islamic doctrine", as is the goal of the HT. The conference was attended by delegates from around the world, and a key question was to determine an ideal place for the Islamic revolution. Many agreed on Pakistan, a land of valiant Muslim tribes that have traditionally responded enthusiastically to Islamic issues. And strategically, the country is well situated to embrace the Asian sub-continent and Central Asia - where initially the caliphate will be created.

Subsequent to a large conference in London, many members of HT, many of them British, went to Pakistan, establishing themselves in the urban centers of the country. Deemed dangerous, soon they were banned, rounded up, hauled off to the courts where prosecutors were unsuccessful in convicting them off crimes as they don't believe in violence, preferring instead to incite the masses through "influence".

To be effective the HT must operate in the open, but they are extremely secretive. Their leadership remains cloaked, but there motives and goals are very clear: "Our goal is to mobilize the masses and bring about a peaceful revolution and revive the institution of caliphate." A sobering interview in Asia Times Online reveals how they will do this and gives glimpses of their various operations throughout the Muslim world and their plans for the West.

What Is Kitman?

Long before Freud and Jung, Muslims understood and engaged in "psy ops," military psychological operations that were developed and are being used to confuse, confound, and overcome the enemy. Kitman are psychological strategies that have been in play for centuries. You will recognize some of these as they are applied to contemporary events: the Palestinian conflict, the war on "terrorism," the women's rights movement, multiculturalism and tolerance and so on.

I would remind all of the kitman, strategies of misdirection that Muslims have perfected over the centuries.

Kitman Strategies:

1. Outwitting by 'diversion of the subject and obfuscation aided at times with a mystical reference to God or Allah.'

2. Role playing as victims: claiming to 'the victim of religious discrimination and intolerance during debate or discussion.'

3. Manipulating ambiguity - condemning in ambiguous terms and praising Muslims that engage in suicide and 'martyr' operations. However rarely will condemnation of a specific act occur and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

4. Diversion - casual irrelevant counter references to how some Muslim group or Islamic principe is being trampled -- example the poor Palestinians are "at the mercy of US foreign policy and the U.S. is to blame for supporting Israel, thus causing terrorism."

5. Demanding 'evidence' - a type of 'cognitive denial' by repetitive and extreme requests for 'evidence' and 'proof'. In cases of national security, such 'evidence' can not be revealed. When revealed, the 'evidence' is deemed bogus or not relevant.

6. Tactical denial - rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a state of affairs can be partly true, a denial will be made in absolute terms. 'It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorists,' which is false and 'Islam forbids suicide', which is true, but irrelevant to the discussion as suicide or martyrdom attacks are not forbidden in the Koran.

7. Exploiting cognitive dissonance - attempts to baffle interviewers and the audience as they resort to double talk, 'cliches and platitudes' concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance exists when holding two contradictory beliefs while attempting to resolve them. An example - confusion occurs when attempting to process both the claim that Islam is a 'peaceful religion' and the dissonant facts of the horrific Islamic terrorists acts and operations.

8. The Islamic 'Defense' Script - Muslim spokespersons the world over repeat the same scripted platitudes such as 'Islam is tolerant and peace loving', 'the veil offers Muslim women more freedom than those in the West', precluding further examination of jihad or the real status of women in Islam.

'Islam has been hijacked', a 'small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great religion,' a 'tiny minority' are engaged in terrorism' are examples of platitudes or misconceptions repeated by the uncritical media and Western politicians.

Don't be taken in. Read the rest to learn about Kitman and its companion taqiyya.

And So It Begins ...

The whine-of-the-day from CAIR arrived 23 June 2005. Here is the #1 "woe-is-me" from it.

FECES-COVERED QURAN LEFT AT TENN. HOUSING COMPLEX

CAIR asks American leaders to address growing anti-Muslim sentiment WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/23/05) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on local and national leaders to address growing anti-Muslim sentiment in our society following an apparently intentional desecration of the Quran in Nashville, Tenn.

CAIR said Islamic leaders in Nashville reported Wednesday that an Arabic-language copy of Islam's revealed text was torn, burned, covered with excrement and left outside an East Nashville housing complex that is home to many Muslim families. As word of the desecration spread through the Islamic community, dozens of Muslims reportedly gathered at the site of the desecration to express their outrage.

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Lt. Steve Hewitt told CAIR Wednesday night: "Clearly we have to be open-minded to the possibility it is a hate crime." He said it was still too early in the investigation to make a final determination as to motive and that he has informed the local office of the FBI about the case."It would be difficult to come up with a scenario in which this incident was not bias-motivated," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Our nation's leaders need to address what seems to be a growing level of intolerance and anti-Muslim sentiment in American society." Awad asked people of conscience in Tennessee and throughout the nation to repudiate anti-Muslim bigotry by obtaining and reading a Quran.

CAIR made that same request earlier this month when burned copies of the Quran were found outside a Virginia mosque. Local police and the FBI are treating that incident as a possible hate crime.

(Emphases mine)

Do tell! Is it possible that the feces-smeared koran might represent anti-Muslim sentiment? And is that sentiment growing? Is it really that hard for the Nashville police to determine motive? And, isn't it just so very big of CAIR to call on people of conscience to repudiate anti-Muslim bigotry?

CAIR has been looked at by very many examiners who always come to the same conclusion: CAIR is the fifth column in America for Hamas and Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism, and it is replete with all sorts of proved connections to sources of terror and bigotry. But, can't you see what its real goal is here? It wants this declared a "hate crime," a pseudo-legal term reflecting the worst of Leftist perversity, and leading to "legal" abolition of the First Amendment to the Constitution. No one could oppose CAIR when that happens. Right now, CAIR is the pied piper piping the local, state, and national "rats" to follow its tune.

Americans are getting fed up with CAIR and the other Islamists calling the tune for America to dance to and seeing CAIR along with the other Islamic subversive organizations wagging the American dog. Strike back has begun.

Right now, striking back is coming in drips and dribbles, like the gathering drops of dew in the Andes Mountains. Andean drops coalesce and join other drops. At the end of their many gatherings, these drops make up the five mile wide Amazon River pouring into the Atlantic Ocean.

The continued dhimmi behavior of local, state, and national officials within America guarantees that the drops of "striking back" will come more and more frequently. More and more, Islam is being seen for just what it is by more and more Americans, and not all of those Americans have good emotional and impulse control.

The dhimmi behavior of local, state, and national politicians and bureaucrats is properly interpreted by these Islamists as severe moral weakness. To put it another way, the jihadists see groveling Americans rolling out the red carpet for them. This is an offer they cannot and will not refuse. They will accept the invitation and bring jihad in spades to America.

The next equivalents of 9-11, I predict, will unleash a fury from American citizens like nothing seen in our history. Gone will be tolerance for dhimmi behavior. Gone will be tolerance for CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and whatever name the Muslim Brotherhood uses these days. Gone will be tolerance for Muslim anyone or anything. Pity those mistakenly taken to be Muslim. And, it won't be the equivalent of the S.A. (Sturmabteilungen) "brown shirts" of today doing the acting.

What we see with fecalized korans, burned korans, etc., is merely prodrome: As the old expression goes, "And, so it begins..." I truly am not sure that it can be otherwise, given the state of the politicians and bureaucrats who control our governments, at all levels, and the fact that Muslims in America do not (will not?) stand up as American patriots.

Suicide Bomber Caught With Explosives In Her Underwear

A WOMAN on a suicide bombing mission was caught at an Israeli checkpoint with 20lbs of high explosives hidden in her underwear.
The Israelis found the bomb when Wafa al-Biss (21) was ordered to strip. They released CCTV pictures of the arrest Tuesday to show that a terrorist threat remains despite a lull in the intifada since the Palestinian-Israeli ceasefire agreement at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February.

They also took the unusual step of allowing the woman to speak to the media. She wept after saying she had wanted to be a suicide bomber since childhood. Then she broke down, pleading for leniency, before officers of Shin Bet, the domestic security service, halted the interview.

"I didn't kill anyone," she wailed. "Do you think they will forgive me?"

There have been a few other women that have transported explosives in their underwear. One or two were successful. Muslim womenentering the United States complain that they are "humiliated" because of questioning and searches. This most recent example in Gaza demonstrates why EVERYONE should be searched, especially Muslims. There seems to be no other group that is perpetrating this type of crime upon the rest of humanity.

Those that complain about the inconvenience of long lines and searches should remember that weapons are easily smuggled onboard. Shoes (Richard Reid) can be adapted to explode. Wheelchairs, and their cushions, can be filled with explosives, making granny a time bomb, and stone-cold homicide killers are not averse to using little children (today's Palestinians) or even infants(Viet Cong) for their purposes. She would target the terrorists rather than their weapons? Who can tell today what a terrorist looks like or even what a weapon may look like. Only close scrutiny can give us a fighting chance.

We are becoming complacent about security. This is not a temporary situation. The end of the Battle for Iraq will not end the need for security. Nor will defeating Al-Qaeda. Muslims themselves can end this situation by repudiating jihad, condemning and gathering in and eliminating those that use violence and other forms of jihad against their non-Muslim neighbors.

As long as martyrdom is a virtue and Da'wa by any means necessary is business as usual, we will continue to have security issues. The West must take a proactive stance. Unfortunately or free and easy come-and-go as you like policies are at end and are a beautiful memory. Thanks for nothing, Islam.

Americans to Immigrants: Get With the Melting Pot

Americans are fed up with immigrants, illegal or not, that refuse to assimilate into U.S. culture. According to WorldNetDaily:

Two-thirds of Americans believe immigrants should integrate into the U.S. culture, according to a new poll.

The Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 17 percent believe immigrants should maintain the culture of their home country while 67 percent believe newcomers should "adopt America's culture, language, and heritage."


Seventy-nine percent say immigrants should be required to learn English before they are allowed to become citizens. Just 14 percent disagree.

Rasmussen said similar attitudes were found in a February survey showing overwhelming opposition to letting illegal aliens obtain drivers licenses or receive government benefits such as Medicaid.

The now poll also found that 64 percent of Americans believe U.S. schools should teach all students in English. Twenty-nine percent believe some schools should offer courses in different languages.

Broken down by political affiliation, the poll found more Republicans favored cultural integration than Democrats.

Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats say that learning English should be required before citizenship is offered.

Seventy-eight percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats believe that immigrants should adopt U.S. culture.

Today's immigrants want to maintain their culture and language while reaping the benefits of life in America, a place to transplant and replicate their old way of life. During the last wave of immigration into the United States in the early part of the 20th century, immigrants had a different view of coming to America than they do today.

Immigrants coming to America understood America differently than do today's immigrants. They actually wanted to be Americans. Parents discouraged the use of foreign languages even at home and insisted that their children learn and use English and attend school in order to acquire American culture in order to be "real Americans" measured against the standard of the then present culture. America was more than address; it was a way of life and a state of mind.

What happens when immigrants refuse to assimilate? What happens is what our enemies want: "No Assimilation, No Nation."

U.S. Muslim Desecraters of Flag Says It Opposes Violence, and America

The Islamic Thinkers Society stood on a corner in Jackson Heights, NY threatening and declaring Islamic dominance one week and the next declaring that they "oppose violence, and America."

The young Muslim men, with beards and bullhorns, work the streets of Jackson Heights on the weekends. They surface at parades and protests around the city, loudly declaring America the enemy and advocating for an Islamic state. Several weeks ago, they publicly tore up an American flag as payback for the reported desecration of the Koran at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Their own videos of violence against Muslims, one with the title "Muslim Massacres," have recently appeared on Queens Public Television.

In the annals of New York City's political outspokenness and fringe-group culture, the Islamic Thinkers Society may seem unremarkable at first glance. But after 9/11, in the city most damaged and unsettled by the terrorist attacks, the emergence of this young, however limited, Muslim-American voice is strikingly bold. In its fliers and on its Web site, the group describes itself as an "intellectual and political nonviolent organization," but it bears a strong resemblance to Islamist movements in England that try to unite Muslims by inciting anger.

They strike a contrast between the two worlds of Islam: the "camp of Emaan," Dar-al-Islam, or believers, and that of the "camp of Kufr," Dar-al-Harb, the camp of war, or non-believers. "

"Wake up and realize that the line has been drawn between the camp of Emaan and the camp of Kufr and there is no middle ground as of right now," reads a glossy publication by the group that is titled "Islamic Revival." In Arabic, Emaan can be translated to mean "faith" and Kufr, "disbelief."

Is their speech sedition? If not, it comes close.

"What they're worried about is, are we recruiting for jihad," Mr. Islam said. "Through our past couple of years we have never recruited anyone to go to a foreign land. We have always made that clear through our activities. We have always stressed nonviolent means. However, that does not mean that we don't address American foreign policy, and we strongly disagree with their policies."

They may speak against "unjust rulers of (the) Muslim world (to) replace them," and "To the Muslim scholars for dollar$: Speak good or remain silent!," but they are attempting to unify Muslims by inciting anger. Their efforts are creating anger among the general public and fear within the Muslim population.

After years of quietly ignoring the group, the city's Muslim leaders began to speak out against it this week after reports of the flag desecration. Imams, activists and other leaders worry that the group is misrepresenting Islam, sending a negative message to Muslim youths and damaging a hard-earned, fragile trust between the Muslim community and those in law enforcement.

"We're all just regular kids in New York City," he added. "We grew up here." What parents in their right minds would allow their children to commit such an act in today's world?
Read the rest

Note to Senator Durbin

Dear Dick,

It wasn't your choice of words that might have offended. It was your choice of thoughts that did offend.

BTW: Neat move to get Voinovich to coach you.

Jedermann

Immigration Debate Raged Even During Jefferson's Time

The Problem:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that:

1. Foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners.

2. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?…

The Solution:

In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other.

[From Hamilton, “The Examination,” nos. 7-9 (1802), Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-), 25:491-501.]

Our forefathers understood the problem very well. Knowing that all were immigrants or descendants of immigrants, they weren't adverse to immigration: only to admitting those that would harm the United States and to allowing immigrants to operate willy nilly throughout the landscape.

Nothing has changed except that we have forgotten the solution to the immigration problems that are presently engulfing us: immigrants won't give up their long-practiced behaviors and ways of thinking unless they are obligated to do so.

9-11 Memorial: Keep Up the Pressure. It is working!

It began with an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Debra Burlingame. She blew the whistle on the hijacking of the 9-11 Memorial at the World Trade Center by Leftists who seek to turn the Memorial into a blame-America-first site, under the disguise of "celebrating freedom," (the sins against freedom perpetrated mostly by America) but with great disregard for 9-11. This was 10 June.

The same day, Ms Burlingame appeared on Neil Cavuto's program on Fox News. In a few sentences, she outlined what is going on by the hijacking Left at tax-payer expense, and aided and abetted by a silent press.

On 14 June, Richard Tobin, directing the Leftist project, appeared on Neil Cavuto's program, to provide the opportunity for the issue to be "fair and balanced." Mr. Tobin utterly slimed his way through his presentation. He used spin, spin, and more spin to obfuscate. He tried to "polish meatballs," as the old expression goes, apparently thinking those of us out here in "fly over country" are too dense to realize that you can't polish meatballs. While spinning, incidentally, he corroborated the truth of every one of Debra Burlingame's indictments, despite oleagenous efforts directed to blowing smoke up the orifices of the gullible. Cavuto and another commentator talked about Tobin's obvious spin and Tobin's corroboration of Burlingame's assertions during the program, right after Tobin's appearance.

This issue, thank heavens, has become a snowball rolling downhill. The MSM (main stream media)--or as Tony Snow calls them, "the has-been media," write and say nothing, but the issue is showing up more and more, if not daily, on regular Fox News. On 21 June, Fox News covered the 20 June rally by the Take Back the Memorial organization in Manhattan as well as covering the issue on Fox and Friends. Outrage gathers steam.

On 21 June, Cox and Forkum published a fantastic political cartoon of this issue. DO NOT MISS THIS ONE.

Two things are evident at this point: (1.) The liberal perfidy cannot hold out IF WE CITIZENS KEEP THE PRESSURE ON, AND INCREASE IT. (2) Liberals lie--so, examine everything these allegedly "freedom celebrating" liberals are planning, but buy nothing on their assurances of their sincerityand "good intentions."

STOP THE PRESSES! New and useful information comes out from the 21 June O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Network.

O'Reilly interviewed Brian Killmeade, one of the hosts of Fox and Friends. On the morning of 21 June, when Debra Burlingame and Richard Tobin were interviewed together, some rather dispicable things went on off camera. These events throw more light onto the International Freedom Center controversy.

As reported, Debra Burlingame and Richard Tobin sat together in the "green room" pre-interview on Fox and Friends. Strong tensions developed to the point that Debra asked not to go on at the same time Richard did. Fox turned down this request. The interview went as planned, and it was obvious that no love was being lost between Debra and Richard. What happened afterward is shocking.

Off camera, Richard Tobin, according to Mr. Killmeade, went to Debra, "patted" her rather harshly and excessively and said "Nice try, Debra," in a very sarcastic manner. Debra began crying. Brian Killmeade went to Richard Tobin to tell him to behave himself, but Tobin became uncooperative. He even refused to leave the building until Debra had left. Apparently, all the on-air charm failed to manifest itself off-camera. He was escorted from the building.

This man, Tobin, is worse than what meets the eye. He not only confabulates and spins, but he is a hostile bully who resorts to crudity to try to intimidate those he cannot persuade. Clearly, Tobin feels severely threatened by the Take Back the Memorial movement. He sees his tax-payer funded monstrosity of Leftistism going down the drain, and his power and influence with it.

Let's stay hot on this and simply flush Tobin, Soros, Foner, the ACLU, and all of the hate-America-first crowd, to the tune of "Good-bye and Good Riddance."

Contact Information for the International Freedom Center

View the website of the Freedom Center.

http://www.ifcwtc.org/

Contact the Freedom Center directly:

International Freedom Center
120 Broadway, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10271

Fax
(212) 336-6727

E-mail
contact@ifcwtc.org

Take Back the Memorial Petition

Take Back the Memorial is sponsoring a petition. Please sign.

Is There a Loyal Opposition Any More?

Every time one flap-du-jour dies down, Democrats create another. They seem unable to resist releasing foxes into the henhouse and throwing rocks at hornet nests.

Senator Durbin's clamor for his 15 minutes of fame follows this format. Of course, he is just a windup doll for the Left, mouthing a script. Too many others have sliced, diced, spindled, folded, and otherwise analyzed Durbin, so we have nothing to add to the flood of response. What strikes us is the collosal immaturity of these flaps-des-jours. Each happens at a cost, and America pays it, to no good purpose.

Our point is not to eliminate discourse. We must have that. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have any monopoly on truth or right. In fact, we have to wonder often if they see the truth and know what is right. Republicans act like the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz, cowering with moral uncertainty and self-defeating behavior. Democrats act like hyenas, packing together to acquire the next meal, with no regard to anything having any longer range to it or not, including their behavior of the moment. Everybody scurries in search of some immediate goal, utterly blind to big issues and our future. They make words, but few thoughts, and almost never make principles.

The wag definition of a politician is someone who can easily rise above his or her principles. This wag definition presupposes that any politician to whom this definition might apply has principles, other than narcissistic impulse gratification. What is the alternative to the politician? Well, all of our lives in the South, we have heard pontificating about how America needs "statesmen." The definition of "statesman" seemed clear enough by context--until recently.

Looking at the new flap, setting a time table to pull out of Iraq and GITMO as a willful blindness to the fact that we are at war with the scum penned up in GITMO, suddenly "statesmen" seemed less clear an idea, so we went to the dictionary. Encarta defines a statesman as "a senior politician who is widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good." One of the jillions of Webster's dictionaries defined "statesman" as a governmental person who dealt with issues above the level of partisan politics. Both definitions nail down "statesmen" well enough for us. Both imply that a statesman has real principles, hopefully ones we can endorse.

From these definitions, we can heartily agree that America desperately needs statesmen. At the moment, we have perhaps two Democrat senators (Miller of Georgia and Lieberman of Connecticut) who could qualify, and their party has bound, gagged, and isolated them. The Republicans have a few, but recalling them as this is being written draws a blank. A few Republicans seem to be developing toward statesmanship, but they aren't there yet.

Statesmen rise above the level of irascible hyena packs and scared rabbits running for the nearest compromise. They deal with the principles determining the course of the country, particularly long range. Self-aggrandizement and power acquisition are not their major motivators.

That brings up the next attribute of the statesman.

Once, American government had its usual cadre of worthless politicians, but it also had people who passionately stood on issue principles, from opposite ends of the issues. They could fight with fury, but it was for something. And, at the base of their fighting, they united in defense of America's Constitution, even though they battled like mortal enemies. Those in the minority of power at the time but who stood on Constitutional principle were known as the "loyal opposition."

In time of war, the loyal opposition nevers tries to undercut America's guiding leadership, and its fighting men and women, as one example.

What guides opponents in our government these days? Despite different party names, Democrats and Republicans come from the same vat. No wonder America struggles so unnecessarily as a government at home and a power abroad. The issues have gotten bigger, and the men and women fumbling them have grown very, very small, indeed.

Amnesty By Any Other Name

The McCain-Kennedy introduced by Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is advertised as an "reform of immigration laws" that will "equitably resolve the problem of massive and continual illegal influx of aliens across U.S. borders."

Is this true? Will giving legal status to those already here solve our immigration and security problems? It is likely to spur more illegal activities and more immigrants, rewarding the lawbreakers and the businesses that hire them for paltry salaries.

As history showed in the 1980s, granting amnesty to illegal aliens led to three results:
 
* About three million persons who previously illegally entered the country were not prosecuted or deported, but instead rewarded with legal resident status.
 
* A flood of forged documents were generated to “prove” illegals had been in the country the necessary three years.
 
* Millions more aliens were encouraged to illegally enter the country on the expectation that prosecution and deportation were unlikely, and some day another amnesty might be offered.
The promise of another amnesty in the McCain-Kennedy bill is that very anticipated reward for the millions who have flooded into the U.S. since 1986.

Let history be our guide.

Read the rest.

While "reforming" immigration policies, they should consider this

Contest: Make a pig out of Quran

And the problem with this is ......... ????????

Saturday, June 18, 2005, IN THE MILITARY Contest: Make a pig out of Quran--Recruit under fire for online event some think is in poor taste, © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

An Army Reserve recruit from upstate New York is taking some flak for his online contest to create a papier maché pig out of a Quran.

The contest is the creation of Jon Alvarez of Baldwinsville, N.Y., who posted the event on his website, pabaah.com, which is an acronym for Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood.

"The requirement for all entries is that the material used for all entries must be comprised of pages from the Islamic Book of Peace (or is it Piece, as in body pieces?)" he says on the site. "Originality in design will carry great weight with the judges."

He even includes links to get free Qurans and instructions on papier maché.

The winning entry will be auctioned off, with the proceeds to be split between the winning artist and a charity benefiting children of U.S. soldiers killed in action fighting the war on terror.

Alvarez, a staunch Republican, believes the event is meant to display the hypocrisy of Muslim extremists.

"They haven't apologized for burning our flag, yet they expect people to apologize for supposedly desecrating the Quran," he told the Syracuse Post-Standard.

Some comments on his website include:

# "This does nothing to further the conservative cause. You shame patriotic Republican Americans everywhere, and you shame President Bush with these kind of publicity stunts."

# "If Muslims are outraged over this, then surely they will have no problem expressing their outrage over the bombing of mosques and innocents by the radicals amongst them ... or will they?"

It's unclear if the contest will have any impact on his fledgling career in the military, as he's scheduled to report for basic training in two months.

Maj. Jeff Wildeboer, operating officer with the Army Reserve 403rd Civil Affairs Battalion in Mattydale, N.Y., told the Post-Standard the contest only serves to be hurtful and stereotype Muslims, and is 180 degrees from the battalion's mission.

"We don't do stupid things to mock or punish a theology," Wildeboer said. "It shows poor taste."

Want to know why we are not winning?

#1 "This does nothing to further the conservative cause. You shame patriotic Republican Americans everywhere, and you shame President Bush with these kind of publicity stunts."

Conservatives are one of the big reasons we are not winning. They resolutely WILL NOT IDENTIFY THE ENEMY because it is a religion, and their lock-step minds march to the politically correct tune set to "CAIR Uber Alles."

#2 "If Muslims are outraged over this, then surely they will have no problem expressing their outrage over the bombing of mosques and innocents by the radicals amongst them ... or will they?"

Excuse me? What other emotion to Muslims have other than some variety of "OUTRAGE"? I guess they will be forced to give up their "religion of peace" and, with heavy hearts, start killing us.

#3 "We don't do stupid things to mock or punish a theology," Wildeboer said. "It shows poor taste."

No, no matter how evil a "theology" is, no matter how many of us they kill and maim, by golly, we'll stand by their right to express themselves. Why, who are we to question a "great religion"? Even President Bush kisses its prayer rug after bowing in acquiescence to Muslim lobbying and protest groups. National Review goes dhimmi over the first CAIR protest. Corporations rush to kiss the derriers of CAIR, ISNA, and the rest of the fellow traveling crowd. An American Army general (de Vine) orders his subordinates to read only from a sanitized, politically correct reading list, guaranteed to prevent the officers from learning the truth about Islam.

These people will crush the Army Reserve recruit, Jon Alvarez, and banish him from military service, while they go out of their ways to march to "Oh Dhimmitude, Oh Dhimmitude." All the while, they will pride themselves on how they are fighting to win, at all levels.

And the Left are supposed to be the only "bad guys"?

D. C. WATSON: Islam: Religious obligations? Or illegitimate excuses to sue?

Now that the running list of Muslim criminals in the United States has been established:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006463.php,

and the “Muslim fanatic self-test checklist” has been instituted:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006349.php,

the fact that ‘passionate’ Muslims using our legal system for their own benefit should also be exposed. Muslims, certainly not all, but many, are attempting to manipulate the American Justice system by hiding behind the curtain of ’religious freedom’. Yet, their claims of ‘religious obligations’ are not entirely legitimate, and deserve a closer look.

Since the existence of Islamic moderates in the United States, with a few exceptions, appears to be more myth than reality, Muslim fanatics have taken their so-called ’religious obligations’ and demanded special treatment in America that they’d never receive in the Muslim world. The names of these sensational beings are included, for they too deserve to be in the spotlight.

Florida: Sultaana Freeman, a convert to Islam, “sued the Florida State highway department in 2002 for not permitting her to remain veiled for her driver license photograph, saying it violated a state statute protecting her free exercise of religion.”

You can see Ms. Freeman here in a mugshot taken when she was arrested in 1998:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/freeman/verdict_unveil_ctv.html

From the article: “According to assistant attorney general Jason Vail, Freeman was arrested for child abuse after one of the twin foster children she was caring for broke an arm. She pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of aggravated battery, and the children were removed from her care“. A winner for sure.

“Freeman, her husband, and a local Islamic scholar all testified that removing the veil would violate the strict code of Islamic law, Sharia“.

Just a few things:

1. Possessing a valid license to drive in the United States is a privilege, not a right.

2. This is a prime example of a Muslim refusing to accept the fact that Shari’ah law does not apply in the United States of America, and even if it did, it does not override the U.S. Constitution.

3. Covering a woman’s face in a Driver License photograph is not a requirement of Shari’ah law. In Saudi Arabia (“Bigotville”) women are not permitted to drive. In Iran, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan, women do not cover their face in Driver License pictures.

Is Ms. Freeman’s claim not a complete farce, or should we all rent Batman and Cat Woman costumes the next time we renew our driver’s licenses?

Philadelphia, PA: Curtis De Veaux, according to the Associated Press article, a “practicing Muslim for about five years” was recently involved in litigation with the city of Philadelphia over wearing a beard (prohibited by the Fire Department) while working as a Firefighter, “refusing to shave his beard on religious grounds”.

From a Muslim column: “If growing beards was mandatory in the Noble Quran, then we would have nothing to argue about. But since it was mentioned in the Sayings of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him, then it is important to know whether this law should apply to all times and all places or not. Some of our Prophet's Sayings and laws were made only to solve situations that occurred 1400 years ago“.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/growing_beard_is_it_mandatory_in_islam.htm

So, was it Muhammad who invented the practice of profiling? “Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him ordered Muslims to grow beards, because he didn't want them to look like the Pagans.”

“It was important back then for Muslims to look different than the Pagans for both security and cultural reasons. By making it easier for Muslims to distinguish each other easily, it would certainly enforce safety and security among them.

Muhammad practiced this protective measure, so why do Muslims cry about it in the West?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/growing_beards.htm

Cleveland, OH: Somali Muslim cab drivers: Instead of acting like they have some sense and praying in a different location, away from the restricted area at the Cleveland airport, where they’re required to remain in their vehicles like everyone else, they decided to disrespect the law, and leave their vehicles to pray.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=35475

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006378.php#comments

These clowns should be ticketed, not because they’re Muslims, but because they’ve demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the laws of this nation.

Other Muslims in America have participated in disrespecting uniforms, side-stepping security guidelines, and refusing general job duties in the name of Islam:

Wisconsin: Cynthia Rhouni: Hijab
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006379.php

Hijab for police officer.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/1385

Tennesee: Ibrahim Barzinji: Muslim refuses to haul beer, sues former employer.
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001231.html

Somalis walk off the job over prayer dispute
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7160832/

From this column, Ibrahim Hooper from CAIR: “Muslims are required by their faith to pray five times a day. Most of the prayer times are flexible, but the sunset prayers must be said at dusk“. “The prayers themselves take only a few minutes."

Actually, as I’ve stated several times, I know a few Muslims, and they’ll be the first to admit that their prayers take more than “only a few minutes”.

Bottom line: Certain Muslims in the United States believe that the laws of Islam, and what they claim are laws of Islam take precedence over American law, and company rules and regulations, and they demonstrate no concern over who it inconveniences. This is a lack of common consideration for a host nation, its way of life, and its daily operations.

In America: Muslim criminals and Muslim lawsuit mongers have reared their ugly heads. For such a small community, they certainly generate an abundance of problems, further demonstrating that unless change occurs, on their behalf, not ours, these problems are going to continue.

Muslim population: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76

Perhaps it would be a reasonable strategy American employers to better review their potential new hires. Perhaps it would also be a reasonable strategy for Judges and Attorneys in this country to obtain a better grasp on matters that they are either defending, or making decisions on, as it is apparent that lawsuits being filed by some of these Muslims should be more carefully examined, because they are wasting American taxpayers money with this ridiculous, defiant behavior.

Cox & Forkum on International Freedom Center

Cox & Forkum

Spread the word: On Monday, June 29th, at the Corner of Church and Liberty in NYC, Take Back the Memorial is holding a press conference and rally at Ground Zero to protest the improper placement of an exhibition of anti-Americanism by the International Freedom Center.

Take other action if you can't attend.

Contact information for groups and individuals that are involved or could have interest or influence:

Senator Hillary Clinton
http://clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html

Governor George E. Pataki
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Acting Governor Richard J. Codey
Governor's North Jersey Office
153 Halsey Street, 7th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102

Senator Charles E. Schumer
New York City
757 Third Avenue
Suite 17-02
New York, NY 10017

Doug Forrester 
Forrester for Governor 
29 Emmons Drive C-10 
Princeton, NJ 08540 
info@doug2005.com

Mayor Bloomberg---
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/index.jsp?epi_menuItemID=bd08ee7c7c1ffec87c4b36d501c789a0&epi_menuID=beb0d8fdaa9e1607a62fa24601c789a0&epi_baseMenuID=27579af732d48f86a62fa24601c789a0&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fmail%2Fhtml%2Fmayor.html

Giuliani Partners LLC
5 Times Square
New York, NY 10036 
Tel: 212.931.7300 
Fax: 212.931.7310

Take Back the Memorial
http://takebackthememorial.com/

Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org/

Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
1 Liberty Plaza, 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10006-1404
Phone: 212-962-2300
Fax: 212-962-2431

International Freedom Center
www.ifcwtc.org.

Sames Lies, Different War

Here we go again. The perfidious left ate away at our national self-confidence during the conflict in Southeast Asia to the point that our politicians meddled with the military, prosecuting a war from thousands of miles away based not on sound military procedure but on a political ideology that hates America.

America was not victorious in the Vietnam War in Southeast Asia because of a loss of political in Washington and a loss of confidence among the American people that was fed by a leftist anti-war movement that was focused on "besmirching America and our allies' character."

Bruce Kessler at FrontPage sees lies that are undermining our efforts and our national psyche.

Lie # 1: The Iraqis/South Vietnamese are not ready for democracy.

Lie # 2: The Iraqis/South Vietnamese Won't Fight.

Lie # 3: The U.S. is too stupid or culturally-blind to care about planning for peaceful conditions in Iraq/South Vietnam.

Lie #4: The U.S. military are brutal oppressors.

We live in dangerous times. It is unacceptable that we are again falling into the same trap.

Read the Rest.

Somebody, Please Wake the President!

The popular television psychologist Dr. Phil keeps saying, because it is true, that we teach others how to treat us. Similarly, a motivational speaker some years ago said over and over, because it is true, that if you don't like what you are getting, stop doing what you are doing. Having restated these for the umpteenth time, let's ask, regarding the White House: We see that the lights are on, but is anyone home?

This question comes about because of an "incidental" bit of news this morning on Fox and Friends. Col. Ed Badolino, USMC (Retired), one of Fox News' military consultants, was asked about this so-called rekindled "insurgency" in Iraq. Col. Ed, chosen as a consultant just as Fox's other military consultants for his expertise and current contacts, stated that new estimates place the numbers of "insurgents" now in Iraq at 20,000.

The last estimate I had heard from our government was 1000 - 2000 "insurgents." The new figure makes more sense.

Furthermore, Col. Badolino reaffirmed that these jihadists are coming from all over Islamia, particularly North Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. They gather in Damascus where they are outfitted and trained before being sent into Iraq.

For the benefit of informing our government, Damascus is in SYRIA.

Islamic lunatics piped in from Syria blow up themselves, Iraqis, and our precious American soldiers DAILY. Why is the American government being so passive? Do the Democrats have them cowering? Are our leaders afraid to assert American power any more?

Well, Dr. Phil is right. We have taught Syria, and the rest of Islamia how to treat us. At the same time, we keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. It has become impossible to buy the notion that important things are going on subrosa, and we will see great things soon. Manure to the 10th power! We are GETTING WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR! And, I am one American who can stand it no longer!!!!!!!!!! This is NOT what I am asking for!

Yesterday, former Moroccan ambassador Mark Ginsberg offered a beginning piece to the solution. He said we should built a massive sand berm along the Syria-Iraq border. It seems that Morocco did that a few years ago on their border with Algeria, and it really slowed the influx of bad guys. Israel gets the same results from its wall. For that matter, so did Emperor Hadrian in Roman Britain.

Our failure to identify the main enemy, Islam, makes us look weak. Our failures to take out terrorist supply sources in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran make us look cowardly. As a result, we are inviting the worst, and we will get it. If you thought what Clinton wrought was bad, wait until we see what Bush invites.

The evidence is in, and we need no more evidence in order to act: Let us begin by taking out Syria. Let us bomb Syria into fragments no larger than one centimeter in size. Do not worry about "innocent" Syrians because there aren't any. Besides, America's survival trumps any concern for anyone in Syria. Let us launch from Iraq and from the Mediterranean. Let us include the Bekaa Valley. Our work should include fire bombing that makes Dresden and Tokyo look like bonfires. It should also take out all communications, roads, rails, water, electricity, food sources, and ports. Assad should be vaporized in a MOAB cloud along with his cronies. We should be mercilessly intense and complete, because we should be JUST! Let us make any prisoners we take, if we slip up and have any, and make them build the sand berm.

Democrats and other Lefties will scream. Let them. In fact, let's build a Democrat and Leftie Wailing Wall in Washington for them.

Am I being an extremist? In the sense that Barry Goldwater put it, in defense of liberty (and the values that make America great), I accept the title.

So, here's what comes from business as usual instead of my plan or something like it. We continue to bog down in Iraq as it is converted into a new "Vietnam." Democrats and other Lefties continue to jeopardize our safety with their phony concerns about our enemies. Republicans continue to avoid identifying the enemy by name and by nature. We lose many more Americans in Iraq. We have to reinstitute that great assault on the Rights of Man, the military draft. As we deteriorate, scum flows over the unprotected borders. Jihad comes to America big time--because our weakness has been a red carpet invitation to Islamist jihadists.

The credit card scandal, which makes me seriously wonder about the hand of al-Qaeda in it, is joined by forest fires everywhere, power plant failures, biologicals released along with nerve gases, and almost anything you can imagine as guerilla urban warfare. Our government won't profile, and it won't deport. Furthermore, it arrests and imprisons ordinary citizens into concentration camps because they take matters into their own hands. The government makes the normal American the enemy. Martial law comes to America.

Meanwhile, as jihad increases, citizens rise up. No Muslim or anyone who might be thought to be Muslim is safe. Mosques burn, and businesses blow up. Muslims run to Canada and Mexico in volumes like herds of buffalo on the Great Plains a century or so ago. It won't matter if any Muslims are loyal Americans because so few have ever defined themselves publicly as such. Black Muslims face the same attacks and set off counterattacks.

What we could have is not only jihad in America, but frankly, civil war and collapse of the American government. We might see the end of America, the country built by the Enlightenment.

Somebody, please wake the president!

'Reflecting Absence,' The Indecency of the 9/11 Memorial

The September 11 Memorial is supposed to honor those that were killed as a result of the terrorist attack by 19 Muslim terrorists that flew airplanes into the twin World Trade Center Towers on Lower Manhattan. Instead of honoring those victims as a memorial, the project has snowballed into a real estate venture, and the 'Freedom Center,' a blatant exhibition of anti-Americanism depicting America's past and present blemishes. The exhibit, The International Freedom Center (IFC) will have SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE AS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL.

Is This a Fitting Place for Apologetics?

No one claims that America is perfect. However, one wonders why should a memorial partially funded by HUD and advertised as a memorial for the dead should have a political agenda. Is this memorial a fitting place self-flaggelating apologies for the wrongs of slavery, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, the Battle for Iraq, and the prison at Guantanamo, Cuba.

Anything and everything for which America can be blamed or even alleged to be held responsible could be put up in these exhibits.

Because odds are that, at the end of the day, this center won't focus on freedom's triumphs, so much as on its "failures — particularly those in which America can be painted as the culprit."

There were a series of public hearings with a variety of public hearings and submissions to HUD (http://www.renewnyc.com/FundingInitiatives/hud.asp) for approval. (See sidebar) How can anyone involved with the September 11 Memorial claim surprise?

The plan createdLower Manhattan Development Corporation Company is grandiose and spectacular as would be expected. The experience and the timing will benefit no one except America's enemies.

Rather than creating a memorial to honor the dead, the September 11 Memorial Committee, HUD, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation have allowed undue influence by special interest groups. American taxpayers want a memorial not a finger-pointing, although magnificent, exhibition of anti-American hate at the site of a cathartic tragedy that is September 11.

Certainly those that have issues with America have the right to voice their opinions and create venues to their point of view. Do it somewhere else. Leave the memorial for whom it belongs: the dead.

Take Me Out to the Ball Game

Play ball. All over America the smell of hot dogs and hamburgers are mixed with the sound of the crack of the bat as Americans are entertained with a favorite summer pass time: baseball. More and more players are being imported from abroad. Can't we find decent players from America's youth and young adults? Don't tell me that they can't find fine players on sandlots, youth league teams, and at America's Universities. The reason that baseball's employers are looking out of the country isn't because there is a lack of talent; it's because they are CHEAPER!

It's an outrage.

Follow up on "Playing Baseball: A Job Americans Won't Do?"

STAY ON TOP OF THE 9-11 MEMORIAL ISSUE!

Many of us can't go to the rally, but we can go to the Take Back the Memorial website and lend our support as best we can. We cannot allow the hate-America crowd to turn this memorial into a disgusting Leftist guilt trip. Visit the website often.

“TAKE BACK THE MEMORIAL” RALLY"

June 16th, 2005

Dear Families, Friends and Supporters:

For three long years we have played by the rules as set forth by Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. It got us nowhere.

We want a proper, fitting and respectful September 11th Memorial for the 3,000 innocent souls who perished that day. Not “a history lesson about tolerance.”

The planners of the World Trade Center Memorial have been put on notice that we are going over their heads to make our case to the American people. Please join us for a press conference to kick off our national campaign to enlist the American people in a Fight for Ground Zero. Our loved ones deserve no less.

WHAT: PRESS CONFERENCE & RALLY

WHEN: 12:00 Noon, Monday, June 20, 2005 (Please arrive at 11:45 am)

WHERE: Ground Zero at the Corner of Church & Liberty (rain or shine)

REMEMBRANCE: Please wear black or yellow to symbolize unity, or wear clothing that symbolizes your loved one’s affiliation and bring a picture of your lost loved one to hold over your heart.

ORGANIZERS:

Advocates for 9/11 Fallen Heroes
www.911fallenheroes.org

Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund
www.cantorrelief.org

Coalition of 9/11 Families
www.coalitionof911families.org

Fix the Fund
www.fixthefund.org

September 11th Families Association
http://www.911wvfa.org

September’s Mission
www.septembersmission.org

Skyscraper Safety Campaign
www.skyscrapersafety.org

Take Back the Memorial
www.takebackthememorial.org

Voices of September 11th
www.voicesofsept11.org

W. Doyle Support Group
WDoyle5615@aol.com

WTC Families for Proper Burial
www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com

WTC Family Center
www.wtcfamilycenter.org

World Trade Center United Family Group
www.wtcufg.org

PLEASE ATTEND! MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!! HELP US TAKE BACK THE MEMORIAL!

It Should Be A Crime. Look What YOUR Tax Dollars Pay For!

"Increase law enforcement efforts -- and the influx of immigrants WILL INCREASE. Say what?"

How many of you don't have health insurance or have trouble paying your premiums? The information in the article and in the many links should be more than enough to make a taxpaying Americans cry foul.

EMTALA—Health Care Giveaway To Immigrants

Good News from ANTI-CAIR

The good folks at Anti-CAIR sent out a terrific email Friday afternoon, 17 June 2005.

In Defense of the Constitution
News & Analysis
021/05 June 17, 2005

CAIR: Hurt Feelings in Lodi, California

The federal government indicted a father and son from Lodi, California on 16 June on terrorism related charges:

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2005/06/16/terrorism/1_indicted_050616.txt

This is an example of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) getting around to doing its job properly; defending the United States from terrorist attacks. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has taken the usual tack of not addressing the crime and instead attacking the accuser.

These are the words of Basim Elkarra, executive director of the Sacramento chapter of CAIR:

"We have documented numerous reports of intimidating tactics used recently by some FBI agents. We've become disappointed and alarmed at reports of abuse by local FBI."

And:

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2005/06/15/terrorism/1_allegations_050615.txt

"There have been threats of deportation, telling someone they can't have an attorney, when the attorney was on the phone they wouldn't speak to the attorney."

In addition, Elkarra made allegations that law enforcement threatened to detain people for jaywalking; conducted surveillance of a mosque, and grabbed a youth by the arm.

During one arrest, according to Elkarra, agents "knew there were three females in the house and five children, but they still came in with guns".

CAIR alleges egregious violations of civil rights, but then, in our opinion, fails to provide any proof. In the alleged case of the agents effecting an arrest with women and children in the house, would CAIR rather law enforcement knock politely and invite the terrorism suspect to come out for a quick chat on the stoop? Or does CAIR believe that terrorism suspects in America should use women and children as human shields, as they do in Iraq and Gaza?

What do local Muslims think of CAIRs interference?

http://www.recordnet.com/articlelink/061105/news/articles/061105-gn-3.php#

Apparently, not much.

According to the article, Lodi Muslims are not appreciative of CAIRs standing by the father and son as well as two local imams arrested on immigration violations. Local Muslims plan to protest at the Sacramento office of CAIR.

Lodi Muslim Mosque board member Nick Qayyum stated that the two imams:

".divided our families -- brothers against brothers, sisters against sisters. If (CAIR) is going to go out to support these people, we're going to protest.that's not a joke, either. As far as I'm concerned, (Khan and Ahmed) hijacked our religion and tried to hijack us "

A sizeable proportation of Lodi Muslims have chosen to stand up to CAIRs hateful tactics, rightly pointing out that it is their community and that CAIR clearly is on the wrong side in this latest battle against Islamofascism.

It looks to ACAIR that Lodi Muslims have rejected the hate, bigotry, and cheap tactics of CAIR; we're happy to note this development and hope that this is a continuing trend in the American Muslim community.

Andrew Whitehead
Director, Anti-Council on American-Islamic Relations (ACAIR)
Stockton CA USA
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org

Anti-CAIR stated in the foregoing "What do local Muslims think of CAIRs interference?" and then gave this reference:
http://www.recordnet.com/articlelink/061105/news/articles/061105-gn-3.php#. Here is that article.

Muslim community: division and reflection

By Neil Gonzales and Howard Lachtman
Record Staff writers
Published Saturday, June 11, 2005

LODI -- The local Muslim community has tried hard this week to mask its divisions.

Those internal struggles may soon reappear in a public way. On Friday, Lodi Muslim Mosque board member Nick Qayyum said he and many others plan to protest at the Sacramento office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations for its part in standing by two local spiritual leaders arrested on immigration violations -- Mohammad Adil Khan and Shabbir Ahmed.

The two imams, as well as Khan's teenage son, were as Khan's teenage son, were detained as federal officials investigated two other men suspected of having ties to terrorists. Hamid Hayat and his father, Umer Hayat, were arrested Sunday on charges of lying to investigators.

Qayyum said the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, shouldn't be defending the two imams, who he thinks have tried to take control of the local Islamic community. The imams have been controversial in part because they came to Lodi from Pakistan.

Khan also spearheads efforts to build the Farooqia Islamic Center, where some Muslims hope to create a religious school. Lodi Muslim Mosque board members have sued over those plans, accusing Farooqia supporters with deception and fraud.

More than 3,000 Muslims from Pakistan live in the Lodi area. The community has been divided in part over the Farooqia center, but also over whether the community should be led by outsiders or those who grew up in area.

Qayyum said that Khan and Ahmed "divided our families -- brothers against brothers, sisters against sisters. If (CAIR) is going to go out to support these people, we're going to protest. We're going to try to get 400 to 500 people to go to the office in Sacramento. That's not a joke, either.

"As far as I'm concerned, (Khan and Ahmed) hijacked our religion and tried to hijack us."

Farooqia supporters dispute that they've been deceptive in planning for their center in southwest Lodi. Those supporters have spoken out this week on behalf of Khan and Ahmed and say the complaints are coming from a minority.

CAIR's executive director, Basim Elkarra, declined to comment Friday about the disputes.

Qayyum said some local Muslims have called Elkarra to protest CAIR's support of the imams.

Lodi Mayor John Beckman said he first learned about the possible protest just after a news conference held late Thursday afternoon. There, mosque board members and Farooqia supporters appeared together to speak to the media about the need to join together as a city to prevent hate crimes against Muslims.

Beckman said he was also present when Elkarra told an FBI agent that Farooqia opponents have been calling him and would protest outside his office. Elkarra told the agent that the Farooqia opponents told him to not fight any efforts to deport Khan and Ahmed, Beckman said.

Meanwhile, a message of spiritual reflection was preached at the Lodi Muslim Mosque during afternoon prayers Friday.

In the absence of the imams, lay people conducted the regular Friday sermon, or khutbah, and congregational prayer, or jummah, in Urdu, the language of Pakistan.

Worshipers said the service began with a traditional call to prayer: "God is most great, and I testify that there is no god except God, and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God, come to prayer!"

A Quran reading reminded members that all are equal in God's sight, and spreading hatred between people is "an inexcusable crime," worshipers said.

Mosque President Mohammed Shoaib told reporters that the Islamic community is united.

"We will work together and solve the problem. We will resolve our differences," he said.

Contact Neil Gonzales at (209) 367-7428 or ngonzale@recordnet.com

Contact Howard Lachtman at (209) 546-8269 or lachtman@recordnet.com

The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

This is an interesting list.

Fundamental Political Principles 101

Learning to think in terms of principles cuts through just about all Gordian knots, whether social, political, ethical, or even more basic issues. Here is a terrific example, one in which the issue always escapes those who fail to see the simple principle involved.

First, the context:

WorldNetDaily: Taxpayer-supported 'art': Arab sodomizing Bush,Posted: June 11, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern, by Dr. Kelly Hollowell

I just flipped when I was told unsuspecting taxpayers in Florida were funding a Broward County [Florida] Art Exhibition honoring a painting of an Arab sodomizing President Bush.

...[W]hen the government uses taxpayer dollars to fund an Art Guild exhibit featuring a painting of an Arab sodomizing President Bush, it not only draws very little ire from concerned citizens … it actually wins an award! Specifically, Alfred Phillips, a South Florida gay activist, submitted the painting entitled "Yahoo!" depicting a naked President Bush bending over a barrel of oil while being sodomized by an Arab man. With a background of stars and stripes, the sad excuse for "art" not only demeans the president, it further depicts him crushing Iraqi civilians and U.S.
soldiers beneath the barrel of oil.

So where is the public outrage? Sadly, local citizens have failed to express any considerable opposition to this assault on public decency and national pride. Moreover, it has received very little national media attention. According to the Broward County Cultural Affairs Division, their office has received very few complaints. I would like to change that. Nearly 25 percent of the Broward County Art Guild annual budget is provided by taxpayers. I suggest their public funding be revoked.

Whether or not someone homosexual is involved is not germaine to this issue. Whether Christian symbols were used in the painting or not is not relevant either.

The most relevant issue is government funding from any source of art and anything else except the proper protection of the rights of citizens. Whether art is valuable or not, good art versus bad art, preserving the culture are not relevant to the fundamental issue. The only relevant issue is whether or not taxpayer dollars should fund government projects such as art.

The answer is no. Dr. Hollowell is fully correct that the funding should be revoked and never reinstitute for this or any other "art" project.

Tax money is money taken by force from earners. No amount of smoke-blowing that it is voluntary can be accepted. If it is voluntary, why are people who evade paying tax in prisons?

Taypayers have no say on how their property, their money, gets spent by government. Their right to property, one of the big four fundamental rights, gets trampled. On the receiving end, no one, but no one, has the right to receive property taken by the initiation of force by anyone, including government. In this case, it is tax money at the county level.

When understood in terms of fundamental rights, the issue becomes crystal clear.

How should art and "art" be supported? By any private means people choose to engage in. Most "art" these days is not worth a nickel, but that does not impact the taxpaying citizen when it is privately funded by people who have more money than sense.

Whether city, county, state, or federal, money from taxpayers should fund only vital functions of government--i.e., those which defend the citizens against internal and external enemies, and courts. There should be no National Endowment of the Arts, for example, unless privately funded.

Your right to your money is your right to property. Your right to property, which includes your ownership of yourself, is the means you exercise your right to life. A violation of any fundamental right threatens the grand-daddy of all rights, your right to life.

Another War, Another Betrayal by Politicians and Journalists

The American military did not lose the Vietnam War; American politicians and their handmaidens, the American press, did. Soldiers fight to win battles, politicians and diplomats parse sentences and words, hoping to gain advantage, political turf and power. It seems that we are going through the same process again.

The American people have a short attention span. They were hoping that the Battle for Iraq would follow the same pattern as the first Gulf War that was won in a few days. They aren't interested in prosecuting a protracted war, one that will essentially take decades or perhaps generations to win as will the so-called war on "Terrorism."

Our enemies study us as much or more than we study them. They know that we pulled out from recent conflicts in Beirut and Somalia and they are hoping that we will lose our stomach for war in this conflict.

When you go to war, fight to win. Are some polticians and journalists giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

For months commentators and politicians have been making demoralizing predictions of doom that often have the habit of becoming true. It's as if they want the United States to lose.

Serbs, Lies, and Videotapes

Were we duped into the War Against the Serbs by the Clinton administration? Perhaps the Battle for Iraq has been a distraction from the trail that was touted as "Nuremberg II." Perhaps there are other reasons that the powers that are (or were) don't want us to know much about what led up to the war, what went on, and how we were drawn in.

Recently, “Hannity & Colmes”, of the usually less-easily-fooled-than-other-networks Fox News Channel, treated us masses to a “genocide” video that’s just been handed over to the Hague’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Pouring even more gasoline onto the carefully cultivated and long accepted caricature of the evil Serb, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes were of one mind when Hannity called the actions of the Bosnian Serb soldiers in the video “pure evil” and “evil incarnate.”

Without being wrong about evil on display in the video, the network had been had. The circulation of, and the outrage surrounding, this tape--especially high right now in guilt-ridden Serbia itself--is a sign that things have gone from bad to worse in the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic.

Tsk, tsk, Fox. Somebody hasn’t been following the Milosevic trial. But since that somebody will look silly only to the six or so Americans who have been following it, there’s no risk in spouting the Hague Tribunal’s PR. PR because this trial is supposed to justify the new International Criminal Court’s (ICC) existence and convince the Bush administration of its utility, not its futility.

There’s a reason for the conspicuous three-year near silence by all major media on this oh so momentous Second Nuremberg, as it was billed—a silence broken only one or two days a year, when they’re finally able to offer up a damning piece of evidence that will perpetuate the version of events we’ve been sold from the beginning.

This article has links to some ve-rr-ry interesting information and a link to a disturbing photo essay and video that is not for the squeamish. After the reading you may have an entirely different outlook on the war...I did.

Thinking in Principles--and Not

Two recent articles illustrate the meaning of thinking in principles versus whatever is the alternative. The difference is life versus death.

The first article is by Diana West, who has become one of the best anti-Islamic thinkers in contemporary journalism. The other is by a duo, Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey, disguised as meaningful because it was published as an op-ed in the New York Times.

Writing about the Army's self-abasing policy about handling the Koran at GITMO, she writes in Diana West: What's being desecrated here?, June 13, 2005 :

According to United States Army policy, the standard operating procedure is: "Handle the Quran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art."

If the guard is to move the Koran, after all other groveling procedures by others have been exhausted, the

...guard is directed to don "clean gloves ... in full view of the detainees prior to handling." He must use "two hands ... at all times when handling the Quran in manner signaling respect and reverence." While signaling two-handed respect and reverence, however, the guard must be mindful that "care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Quran due to the cultural association with the left hand."

Why is this, she asks?

According to the Islamic law, we are unclean. The term is "najis." On the "najis" list with urine, feces, etc., are the pig, the dog and the "kafir." That means the Christian, the Jew, the unbeliever in Islam -- and, chances are, the Gitmo guard.

Then she moves in for the kill by identifying the principles involved:

In effect, then, with its official policy of clean cloves and detainee towels, the United States military is promoting, enabling and accepting the Islamic concept of najis -- the unclean infidel -- a barbarous notion that has helped fuel the bloodlust of jihad and the non-Muslim subjugation of dhimmitude. The Gitmo rules are more blatantly about surrender, a voluntary self-extinguishment, a spreading condition of denial of what is right and worth standing for.

Try to get that kind of identification from the Army or our governmental appeasers. Mr. and Mrs. America, your sons and daughters must grovel in original sin of the Islamic type before 7th century mentalities. Can you stand the fact that the army's policy corroborates the Islamic notion that your sons and daughters are najis? Do you get what the army's policy really means? Would we have done the same for Japan or Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia?

However blinded by political correctness, pragmatism, and moral uncertainty our military and non-military government are, there are others unable to think in principles in circumscribed areas. These are the conservatives who just cannot open their minds to look beyond their conclusion that Islam is a religion, thus it is to be accorded total respect and complete lack of criticial examination.

Yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" (in Opinion Journal) published this remark about Diana West's editorial conclusion:

This seems like an overreaction. To our mind, the military's deference to Muslim law is an act of magnanimity, not surrender. Lots of religions believe things that seem silly to nonbelievers, and if a Muslim fundamentalist believes we're "unclean," there's no reason that should bother us any more than if a Christian fundamentalist believes we're going to hell. Muslim terrorists are our enemies because they're trying to kill us, not because they think we're unclean.

The inability of conservatives to think fully in principles produces statements like the foregoing. That statement says that Muslim terrorists are enemies, but the ideology that drives each and every Muslim either to engage in jihad or support it by whatever means does not matter. This is the primary lesion in conservative thinking, and it is inviting jihad to America. BELIEFS DO MATTER. Humankind runs on its ideas because humans must use their conceptual consciousness as their sole means of survival. Shades of National Review's dhimmitude!

Ideas matter severely. It becomes a matter of life and death. If you can't identify what motivates your enemy, he will use it to kill you. Works every time.

Worse yet, the New York Times published an op-ed, The Madrassa Myth - New York Times , June 14, 2005. Much of this op-ed has been properly worked over in Jihad Watch directly and through the comments section, and there is no reason to repeat any of that. Some of this atrocious op-ed must be dealt with, however. Here are the key errors telescoped.

Indeed, there is little or no evidence that madrassas produce terrorists capable of attacking the West. And as a matter of national security, the United States doesn't need to worry about Muslim fundamentalists with whom we may disagree, but about terrorists who want to attack us. Like the view that poverty drives terrorism - a notion that countless studies have debunked - the idea that madrassas are incubating the next generation of terrorists offers the soothing illusion that desperate, ignorant automatons are attacking us rather than college graduates, as is often the case. While madrassas are an important issue in education and development in the Muslim world, they are not and should not be considered a threat to the United States.

This condensed paragraph contains such fundamental errors that I wonder if its motivation is solely one of propaganda for Muslims.

Through these statements runs the notion that ideas are of no importance and play no role in this war with Islam. No one to my knowledge has drawn a straight line from madrassa to jihadic attacks. That never has been in question.

As they point out, a madrassa takes in impoverished boys for intensive thought conditioning. The boys may memorize a koran in Arabic and understand absolutely none of it. It was not meant to be understood.

The purpose of the madrassa is to create Islamic androids--human bodies with mechanical minds. Madrassas teach blind obedience and the overwhelming importance of Islam and follow its dictates. That means following the dictates of whoever speaks for Islam. The madrassas turn out compliant human ballast, and that is all they ever intended.

Along with the mind-numbing, then mind-destroying memorization of the world's most boring and useless book, the koran, the "I" of every boy in the madrassa comes to be suppressed to the point of losing human independence of mind. The real didactic lessons come from the hatred-spewing teachers of the madrassas, the imams. They take away the boys' independent thinking and replace it with their goal--spread Islam, violently, and OBEY YOUR LEADERS. "Follow the Prophet" really means Do As You Are Told by Your Islamic Superiors. And they do.

The college kids do the jihadic thinking, to the extent that can be called thinking. They do not need or want the ballast to think or question or hestitate. They want obedient droids, the ballast of every army.

Do all of these droids join the jihad? No, of course not. They keep the faith. That means they support in body, with tithes, and in spirit all of Islam and its jihad. If called upon, they obey. They spread the word and enforce the same mindset in their wives, sons, and daughters. Impoverishment and profound ignorance make their obedience much easier. They will come when called, and that is the object of the madrassa training.

Madrassas serve to build a Hadrian's Wall of sorts around Islam, to protect it from its NUMBER ONE ENEMY: REASON. The madrassa grads strive to squeeze out any vestige of independent thinking in anyone, even by killing them as the koran dictates. Their minds have been prepared, and on Fridays they get refreshed in the mosque so that their stagnant minds remain stagnant. Five times a day, they do the Islamic prayer dance, which reinforces obedience and closed-mindedness. Nazism could never achieve this, nor could Communism.

So, these authors assert that madrassas should not be considered a threat to the USA, and they add that we have nothing to worry about from fundamentalist Muslims. If any two minds needed enemas until clear, these two are in most urgent need.

Diana West accurately and clearly identified the awful principles our own army conditions our troops with at GITMO about "koranic etiquette." The evil got nailed by Ms West totally. Berger and Pandey tried to deny evil by putting a spin on it, one that could be believed only by the totally gullible and the profoundly ignorant.

What a study in contrasts.

A Damned Good Question!

Thomas Friedman, a man I occasionally agree with, has a dynamite editorial in the New York Times this morning. To follow is just a snippet, but the entire editorial is worth getting and reading.

He asks two key questions + gives some real answers. Question one is, "What is our strategy" in Iraq? The other is, "Why not try to do it right?" He then provides some recommendations. He puts language to what most Americans are thinking these days, and, above all, what they are wondering about the second Bush administration.

When I was in the military, we used an expression "retired on active duty." I grow more and more suspicious that this is the Bush position regarding Iraq and the entire "war on terror." More and more, we seem to be embracing defeat through indifference.

Let's Talk About Iraq - New York Times>, June 5, 2005, by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Well, we need to talk about Iraq. This is no time to give up - this is still winnable - but it is time to ask: What is our strategy? This question is urgent because Iraq is inching toward a dangerous tipping point - the point where the key communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their own militias for a scramble for power - when everything falls apart, rather than investing their energies in making the hard compromises within and between their communities to build a unified, democratizing Iraq.

Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don't. As Stanford's Larry Diamond, author of an important new book on the Iraq war, "Squandered Victory," puts it, we need "a bold mobilizing strategy" right now. That means the new Iraqi government, the U.S. and the U.N. teaming up to widen the political arena in Iraq, energizing the constitution-writing process and developing a communications-diplomatic strategy that puts our bloodthirsty enemies on the defensive rather than us. The Bush team has been weak in all these areas. For weeks now, we haven't even had ambassadors in Iraq, Afghanistan or Jordan.

Friedman is so correct. Have the big boys of the Bush administration exhausted their brain power, or their will power?

Iran goes untouched, just "threatened" by such "big sticks" as a stern warning from the UN Security Council. Whooooooooooooooooooo! Syria floods killers into Iraq to slaughter Americans and Iraqis, without consequence to Syria. Saudi Arabia funds and sends killers to Iraq and runs the world's biggest fifth column inside America, to the apparent indifference of the Bush administration. All sorts of riff-raff scurry across ours borders, with equal indifference. If we go belly-up in Iraq, it will be because we "Vietnamed" within the government, and all Americans will pay heavy prices for decades to come for this torpid "group-think."

The nicest thing to say about them is that the Bush administration seems more and more "retired on active duty." Is there anyone with the right character and mentality within the Republican Party to take over in 2008? Or, will we revert to some Democrat who will just give America away, and ask only to be loved in return, pretty please?

Mexico Drug War Result of NAFTA?

The law of unintended consequences is in play on the border between the United States and Mexico. NAFTA was intended to create an economic block that would benefit both countries. Ross Perot predicted that American jobs would be "sucked south of the border." He was right. However, he didn't anticipate what Mexico is sending us in return: drugs and poor farmers that can no longer make a living.

Read this sobering account.

Microsoft's Moral Compromise Stains Reputation

Watching a giant turn into a moral midget is an unpleasant sight. In fact, it is downright disgusting.

Chinese Target Web's 'Prohibited Language', By ELAINE KURTENBACH, The Associated Press, Tuesday, June 14, 2005; 12:11 PM

SHANGHAI, China -- Chinese bloggers, even on foreign-sponsored sites, had better choose their words carefully _ the censors are watching. Users of the MSN Spaces section of Microsoft Corp.'s new China-based Web portal get a scolding message each time they input words deemed taboo by the communist authorities _ such as democracy, freedom and human rights. "Prohibited language in text, please delete," the message says. The Chinese government encourages Internet use for business and education but tries to ban access to material deemed subversive.

Internet-related companies are obliged to accept such limitations as a condition of doing business in China. And government-installed filtering tools, registration requirements and other surveillance are in place to ensure the rules are enforced. "We're in business in lots of countries. I think every time you go into a market you are faced with a different regulatory environment and you have to go make a choice as a business," [the Microsoft spokesman] said. "Even with the filters, we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships. For us, that is the key point here."

The Microsoft spokesman said it well, that every time you go into a market, you have to make choices as a business. And. apparently Microsoft considers getting and keeping market share in a tyranny to be total justification for amoral dealings on Red China's fatwa terms. And that is what this is, an oriental fatwa. Microsoft made the choice to grovel, then to rationalize it with statements like "Even with the filters, we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships. For us, that is the key point here." That statement means that Microsoft supports suppression of free speech, ideas, and intellectual property but hopes everybody can have a feel-good experience about it. That last item, intellectual property, Microsoft will sue anyone in the USA over when sensing infringement, but it obviously will throw it away before tyrants.

This reminds of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie by that jolly, old fellow, Khomeini. President Bush 41 remarked about it that he failed to see what the fuss was all about. He was never one to be bothered with principles or ideas. Remember the "vision thing"? Fundamental rights never crossed his mind, nor the long range consequences, or the immediate meaning of his dullness.

Every time a country like America or a corporation like Microsoft bends over to kiss asses of tyrants, they weaken themselves and strengthen the tyrants. It is disgusting to see Microsoft ignore morality and cover the perfidy with contemptable rationalizations.

Microsoft has been showing signs of senescence for a long time now. A few years back, it hired a black woman as a vice president to direct "diversity." It did this in spite of having one of the very best records of any capitalist organization for hiring and promoting without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation. It lead on diversity without pretentiously focusing on it. However, as corporate ossification set in, it started down the political correctness path.

Recently, Steve Balmer, now the CEO of Microsoft, announced that Microsoft will actively support pro-homosexual LEGISLATION. Apparently, the corporate dinosaurs can take no pressure now, and the pressure from homosexual Microsoft employee activists bent it into a pretzel.

My Microsoft stock valuation has been as stagnant as the corporate culture. I believe they are related. Now that Microsoft feels free to bed with tyrants to make a buck, it has declared its spine null and void, if not gone. I think I will start selling.

Dance of the Left: The GITMO Stomp

The Left in America troll constantly for relevance but seldom net any, any longer. All of their clap-trap about the horrors of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay has been dipped from the same cesspool that refreshed the Left with Abu Ghraib. Lefties are incorrigibly gloomy anti-Americans, as this particular New York Times writer illustrates so well.

America, a Symbol of . . . - New York Times, By BOB HERBERT, May 30, 2005, and subtitled "This Memorial Day is not a good one for the country that was once the world's most brilliant beacon of freedom and justice." (Bob Herbert's article is not worth reprinting or quoting, so we just offer the link to anyone who wants a snapshot of the "mind" of a liberal.)

Notice the article's subtitle. Also, note that the author sits atop a successful career as a columnist for the New York Times, making big money, and living very well. He is awallow in the fruits of freedom and capitalism, coming from the real rights he eschews. He is soooo liberal. This writer is also the same one who bemoaned the supposed failure of the USA to implement the great socialist "rights" proposed by FDR in his final term inaugural speech. Even there, he failed to grasp that we have, to our everlasting detriment. Liberals are never satisfied and certainly never grateful.

The Left, of which Bob Herbert is an obvious member in good standing, do anything any of them can to demean, to degrade, to insult, to disrespect, and even to destroy America and its core values. We can expect no less. Nothing America does or anything American is good to any degree at all. Yet, this guy and his ilk remain in America. They do not take off to Europe or to all of those wonderful places they put on pedestals, such as Africa and the Middle East. To these liberals, biting the hand that feeds you not only is de rigeur, but it is chic and sophisticated as well.

The Left turned Abu Ghraib from a minor problem which the Army well took care of into an international melodrama. Now it is GITMO. Leave it to the Left to come out full force for the real bad guys and relabel us as the bad guys in the process. As Hank Hill on the cartoon television program King of the Hill says, "They ain't right."

The assault on the detention camp in US Cuba will drone on until the Left can find a suitable substitute. We must not lose our resistance to them and their ceaseless boredom. And, above all, we must never replace our own positive sense of life for their malevolent sense of life. As for GITMO, I think Mancow on Fox and Friends this morning said it about right. He reminded us that we are at war, and we should do to these detainees whatever it takes to squeeze every bit of intel out of them. To that I add, we should detain them however long it is in the interest of the USA so to do, and we should deprive them of Korans, prayer rugs, arrows pointing to Mecca, halal food. Why? These are American-killers, killers of Americans, who go right back to killing us when released. Nothing too bad can happen to them.

I wish I could recall who said words to this effect, too bad we will have to save them along with the rest of the people. Liberals or GITMO detainees? Take your pick.

The Resistance to the Leftist Hijacking of the 11 September 2001 Memorial: Origins

Yesterday, we blogged here after discovering the utterly nefarious efforts going on to wrest control of the 11 September 2001 Memorial in New York City, at Ground Zero. We cited, commented, and reprinted a powerful article which lays out the problem: FrontPage magazine.com :: How the Left Hijacked the September 11th Memorial by Jacob Laksin, June 9, 2005. There is much, much more to tell and much more than must be told.

Sunday morning, 12 June 2005, Ms Liz Trotta, writer and columnist for the Washington Times, spoke to the Memorial hijacking issue on the Fox News Channel. To our great joy, Ms Trotta indicated that resistance to the Leftist takeover of the Memorial has begun in earnest. All it needed, apparently, was publicity.

Bloggers have joined the fray, as well as the good kind of journalists (objective ones), according to Ms Trotta. The website, Take Back the Memorial, links to sundry articles, including one about House of Representatives' Congressman Peter King, become irate and getting involved.

We too must join the resistance as well and succeed on this one with pit bull persistence and tenacity.

We have been making the point on our website and this blog that America's fight is not just with Islamic jihadists, but it is equally with the anti-American fifth column eating us out like termites from INSIDE America. The termites are the American Left. Both the jihadists and the Left make up what David Horowitz aptly names the "Unholy Alliance." We must defeat both, for exactly the same reasons. The monument issue stands as a perfect illustration of why.

The Left, including George Soros, Eric Foner, and a honcho from the American Civil Liberties Union, all severe anti-American Leftists, along with others equally bad will--if allowed to succeed--to put anything related to 11 September 2001 out of view. Instead they will present the "sickness of America" in the form of Abu Ghraib, and every other real and imagined similar issue in the history of this country. I am sure they will make up and distort what they want that does not fit the facts. All of this is to tear down America, a country these people profess to love but whose actions belie their hatred for it.

Were it not for one very heroic woman, this issue would be unknown to us. The bad press would not tell of it, nor would the Lefties in Congress, academia, and foundations.

As best as we can determine right now, and corroborated by Liz Trotta, the resistance began because of Deborah Berlingame and her editorial run in the Wall Street Journal on 8 June 2005. Her editorial put a torch to gasoline, so to speak. This brave woman runs the website Take Back the Monument, which is filled with terrific information. Every person should bookmark this site and visit it often, because it updates very often.

Here is that editorial in full:

OpinionJournal - Extra: The Great Ground Zero Heist: Will the 9/11 "memorial" have more about Abu Ghraib than New York's heroic firemen? , BY DEBRA BURLINGAME, Wednesday, June 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Memorial Day weekend, three Marines from the 24th Expeditionary Unit who had been wounded in Iraq were joined by 300 other service members for a wreath-laying ceremony at the empty pit of Ground Zero. The broken pieces of the Twin Towers have long ago been cleared away. There are no faded flags or hand-painted signs of national unity, no simple tokens of remembrance. So why do they come? What do they hope to see?

The World Trade Center Memorial will break ground this year. When those Marines return in 2010, the year it is scheduled to open, no doubt they will expect to see the artifacts that bring those memories to life. They'll want a vantage point that allows them to take in the sheer scope of the destruction, to see the footage and the photographs and hear the personal stories of unbearable heartbreak and unimaginable courage. They will want the memorial to take them back to who they were on that brutal September morning.

Instead, they will get a memorial that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the yearning to return to that day. Rather than a respectful tribute to our individual and collective loss, they will get a slanted history lesson, a didactic lecture on the meaning of liberty in a post-9/11 world. They will be served up a heaping foreign policy discussion over the greater meaning of Abu Ghraib and what it portends for the country and the rest of the world.

The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom"--but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

The public will be confused at first, and then feel hoodwinked and betrayed. Where, they will ask, do we go to see the September 11 Memorial? The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation will have erected a building whose only connection to September 11 is a strained, intellectual one. While the IFC is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground. Most of the cherished objects which were salvaged from Ground Zero in those first traumatic months will never return to the site. There is simply no room. But the International Freedom Center will have ample space to present us with exhibits about Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. These are important subjects, but for somewhere--anywhere--else, not the site of the worst attack on American soil in the history of the republic.

More disturbing, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is handing over millions of federal dollars and the keys to that building to some of the very same people who consider the post-9/11 provisions of the Patriot Act more dangerous than the terrorists that they were enacted to apprehend--people whose inflammatory claims of a deliberate torture policy at Guantanamo Bay are undermining this country's efforts to foster freedom elsewhere in the world.

The driving force behind the IFC is Tom Bernstein, the dynamic co-founder of the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex who made a fortune financing Hollywood movies. But his capital ventures appear to have funded his true calling, the pro bono work he has done his entire adult life--as an activist lawyer in the human rights movement. He has been a proud member of Human Rights First since it was founded--as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights--27 years ago, and has served as its president for the last 12.

The public has a right to know that it was Mr. Bernstein's organization, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, that filed a lawsuit three months ago against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Human Rights First that filed an amicus brief on behalf of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, an American citizen who the Justice Department believes is an al Qaeda recruit. It was Human Rights First that has called for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the alleged torture of detainees, complete with budget authority, subpoena power and the ability to demand that witnesses testify under oath.

In fact, the IFC's list of those who are shaping or influencing the content and programming for their Ground Zero exhibit includes a Who's Who of the human rights, Guantanamo-obsessed world:

• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the worldwide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."

While Gov. George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and LMDC are focusing their attention on the economic revival of lower Manhattan, there has been no meaningful oversight with respect to the "cash cow of Ground Zero." Meanwhile, the Freedom Center's organizers are quickly lining up individuals, institutions and university provosts with this arrogant appeal: "The memorial to the victims will be the heart of the site, the IFC will be the brain." Indeed, they have declared the World Trade Center Memorial the perfect "magnet" for the world's "great leaders, thinkers and activists" to participate in lectures and symposiums that examine the "foundations of free and open societies." Put less grandly, these activists and academics are salivating at the prospect of holding forth on the "perfect platform" where the domestic and foreign policy they despise was born.

Less welcome to the Freedom Center are the actual beneficiaries of that policy. According to the New York Times, early renderings of the center's exhibit area created by its Norwegian architectural firm depicted a large mural of an Iraqi voter. That image was replaced by a photograph of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson when the designs were made public. What does it mean that the "story of humankind's quest for freedom" doesn't include the kind that is fought for with the blood and tears of patriots? It means, I fear, that this is a freedom center which will not use the word "patriot" the way our Founding Fathers did.

The so-called lessons of September 11 should not be force-fed by ideologues hoping to use the memorial site as nothing more than a powerful visual aid to promote their agenda. Instead of exhibits and symposiums about Internationalism and Global Policy we should hear the story of the courageous young firefighter whose body, cut in half, was found with his legs entwined around the body of a woman. Recovery personnel concluded that because of their positions, the young firefighter was carrying her.

The people who visit Ground Zero in five years will come because they want to pay their respects at the place where heroes died. They will come because they want to remember what they saw that day, because they want a personal connection, to touch the place that touched them, the place that rallied the nation and changed their lives forever. I would wager that, if given a choice, they would rather walk through that dusty hangar at JFK Airport where 1,000 World Trade Center artifacts are stored than be herded through the International Freedom Center's multi-million-dollar insult.

Ground Zero has been stolen, right from under our noses. How do we get it back?

Ms. Burlingame is a member of the board of directors of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines fight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Did You Know THIS Is Happening to the September 11 Memorial? We have to stop it, NOW!

We Americans are being taken for a ride by the Left, with the altogether too compliant press. The press is mum, i.e., lying by omission, so few of us know what the issue is.

The issue is that the Left has managed somehow to take control over the pending 11 September 2001 Memorial to be built on Ground Zero. They are perverting it away from dealing with 9-11-2001, to dealing with what they call historical assaults on peace. What they mean is that they have a huge, powerful platform to preach their lying, socialist, postmodern agenda AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE.

We intend to run material often enough to catch the attention of discerning readers who will, in turn, lean on their Representatives and Senators. We need to make a lot of noise and to start NOW. Otherwise, these Leftists will have the equivalent of the Ford Foundation to spread their bile.

It is worth reprinting this article by Jacob Laskin from Front Page Magazine because it defines the problem very well:

FrontPage magazine.com :: How the Left Hijacked the September 11th Memorial by Jacob Laksin , FrontPageMagazine.com June 9, 2005

Imagine the following scenario. A gaggle of leftist ideologues, most of them vocally hostile to the U.S.-led War on Terror and some of them inclined to believe that the U.S. itself poses the greatest threat to world peace, is tasked with creating a memorial to the victims of 9-11 terrorism and a tribute to freedom. This, in essence, is what has happened with International Freedom Center in New York.

Created specifically for the World Trade Center Site, the new center is being billed as an “educational complement” to the World Trade Center Memorial, slated for completion in 2009. But a curious thing about the center is how little attention it devotes to the tragedy that birthed it. Rather than focusing on America’s response to the terrorist attacks—whether in the form of the firefighter in Lower Manhattan or the Marine in Northern Iraq—the center has taken upon itself the mission of showcasing “humanity’s response to
September 11.”

To this end, the four-story center, which will be housed in the World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex erected on the site of the former Twin Towers, will feature museum-like galleries furnished with multimedia exhibits cataloguing the abuses of freedom throughout history. Photographs of everyone from the fabled leftwinger and union organizer Mother Jones to a voter in Ukraine are being considered for the ceiling. As well, the center, which is expected to host up to 2 million visitors annually, will reportedly include presentations on everything from the depredations visited upon Native Americans to the struggles of dissidents in Soviet gulags, all giving a faddishly universal gloss to a uniquely American tragedy. There will even be an “engagement” program, which will encourage visitors to take up activism “on behalf of freedom” but not necessarily freedom as America has defined and developed it and been attacked for advancing it.

All of this comes into sharper focus when one considers that the “creative team” charged with designing the memorial center is led by Peter W. Kunhardt, who founded the center with Tom Bernstein, president of New York’s Chelsea Piers sports complex. He is also the president of Kunhardt Productions, a film company that specializes in historical documentaries. Among its recent productions is a 2003
series of half-hour programs for PBS called “Freedom: A History of US.” Although it featured a host of Hollywood celebrity narrators, the series, breaking with standard PBS procedure of using a panel of experts, relied on a single historian to supply the relevant historical background. That historian was anti-war activist and veteran leftwinger Eric Foner, professor of history at Columbia University.

When it comes to the International Freedom Center’s memorial project, however, Kunhardt has been quick to waive aside suggestions that he might have a political agenda. As he recently told the New York Times, he wants only to “explore freedom in accurate and meaningful and exciting ways.” Moreover, he insisted, "We tried to be above politics as we did our research.”

They didn’t try very hard. For ideas about the direction and content of the planned memorial, the International Freedom Center has, in its own words, “reached out to an extraordinary roster of scholars,” with the intention of fostering “conversations on freedom.” But a survey of the scholars solicited by the center beginning with Foner suggests that the more likely result will be a leftist propaganda assault on the United States and its foreign policy.

Making Foner’s association with a September 11 memorial project all the more strange is the fact the professor evinced little sympathy for his country in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Writing just days after the attacks in the London Review of Books, Foner opined: “I’m not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the [Bush] White House.” Foner further urged “[American] allies to impose some restraint on the White House.” That the root cause of the terrorist attacks was American foreign policy toward the Middle East Foner had no doubt: In a September 2004 article for the History News Network, Foner explained, “It is based primarily on American policies -- toward Israel, the Palestinians, oil supplies, the region’s corrupt and authoritarian regimes, and, most recently, Iraq.”

In remarks posted on the International Freedom Center’s website, Foner explains that the memorial will require a “critical eye,” and stresses that, “There have been many points in our history where freedom has been restricted, and has gone backwards.” What relevance this has to a September 11 memorial is unclear, but it does suggest that leftists like Foner intend to use the memorial to project their view of American history as an unabated stretch of oppression and intolerance.

That concern is only strengthened by the presence of Michael Posner among the center’s advisors. Posner is another odd choice for a memorial honoring freedom. In his capacity as the executive director of the leftist group Human Rights First, Posner has been among the more vocal members in the chorus of activists noisily insisting that the United States, in its War on Terror, poses the greatest threat to freedom. Contending that the United States has engaged in widespread torture, Posner charges the U.S. government with crimes “against mankind, against humanity.” This March, his Human Rights First, working in tandem with the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing alleged reports of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posner is just as aggressive on the domestic front. His group has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of suspected “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla. It has also waged a fierce propaganda war. Among other outrageous claims, Posner likens the U.S. treatment of Middle Easterners since 9-11 to the internment of Americans of Japanese origin during World War II, contending that “a number of actions taken over the past three and a half years, and directed against people from South Asia and the Middle East, fall into this pattern.” Of counterterrorism legislation like the PATRIOT Act, Posner has claimed that it is “draconian.” In a reference to the Bush administration, meanwhile, Posner has said that “it is incumbent on all of us to respond in whatever ways we can to fend off the darkness.” (It is worth noting that Tom Bernstein, the co-founder of the International Freedom Center, is a lifetime member of Human Rights First and the longtime president of its board of directors, although, in addition to contributions to liberal Democratic Senators like Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama, Bernstein has also made several high-profile donations to President Bush’s re-election campaign.)

Still another representative of the “legal left” who serves as an advisor to the memorial is ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. Romero, who has mounted media and legal campaigns against the PATRIOT Act, has garnered headlines for throwing the ACLU’s clout behind Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor charged with organizing on behalf of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Ever ready to assail the U.S. government, Romero is far more circumspect on the subject of terrorism. For instance, he recently told the New York Observer that, “No one fully knows why the attacks came on the U.S.” With respect to the center’s memorial, Romero has expressed his hope that, to the extent that it celebrates the values of freedom, it will incorporate the ACLU’s activist rallying cry that they have been neglected by the American government. As Romero told the Observer, “What is clear is that the center stands for our core principles and values, and that, in the aftermath of 9/11—unfortunately—our government has forgotten those very same values. And so, in a very interesting way, the center may provide a place where you remind the American people, and maybe even the government, of the importance of freedom, liberty and equality.”

To be sure, not all of the center’s advisors can be lumped into the category of left-wing activists. Historians like David Hackett Fischer, Pauline Maier, and Walter Isaacson have all made valuable contributions to the study of American history, and the center should be commended for inviting their contributions to the memorial. But incomparably better represented are left-wing academics like Anthony Appiah, the professor of philosophy at Princeton University who has assailed the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq as a war whose aim is “extremely obscure,” whose “human costs to both Americans and Iraqis have been appalling,” and in which “victory correspondingly elusive.” (Such comments notwithstanding, the center’s website carries the following inspirational quote by Appiah: “I think a Museum like this could actually make people see why it matters to be involved and care about freedom everywhere.” Everywhere, apparently, except Iraq.)

More recent additions to the center’s list of advisors do nothing to dispel its image as a brain trust of the activist left. Although it passed largely under the radar of the media, the center’s Board of Advisors, announced this April, comprised some telling choices. In addition to Democratic stalwarts like Harris Wofford, the former Democratic U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, the board includes Joe Trippi. Trippi, who spearheaded the grassroots anti-war presidential campaign of Howard Dean, will now help devise the center’s activist “engagement” programs.

The tone for the center's work was actually set last June, when, in a dedication ceremony for the center, the Archbishop Desmond Tutu referred to the terrorism attacks as “acts of desperation.” In the same speech, Tutu suggested that terrorists where driven by “abject poverty,” and, in a backhanded dig at the War on Terrorism, added that in “our common passion for freedom that we can't go it alone.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this message, coupled with the center’s less than diverse assemblage of advisors, has enticed the moneyed left to bankroll the center’s memorial. Sponsors include the Open Society Institute, the grant-making arm of leftist financier George Soros. Another sponsor is the left-wing Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The fund’s interest in the memorial is easily deciphered: its administrators have long maintained that the greatest threat to the post-911 world comes from the United States. As the fund’s Peace and Security Program has understatedly put it, “At the start of the 21st century and in the wake of September 11, 2001, there exists a pressing need to examine the content, style, and tone of U.S. global engagement and to ensure that they reflect an understanding of the reality and implications of increasing global interdependence.”

The final design of the center’s memorial will not be finalized until the end of 2005, but unless an aroused American public speaks up, all signs suggest that the finished product will be little more than a propaganda vehicle for the blame America left. Discussing the still-developing plans, Tom Bernstein recently told the New York Times, “We're not trying to be comprehensive.” To judge by the ideological groupthink obtaining among the center’s advisors, this is a resounding understatement of what amounts to a monumental betrayal of those who died in the 9/11 attack.

(All emphases mine)

************

Tomorrow, a look at the heroic Take Back the Monument group trying to salvage the monument and get the word to us.

Home, Sweet, Home: Is Lodi A Terrorist Hotbed?

Joe Guzzardi with a "View From Lodi" is not surprised in the least:

Why wasn’t I surprised?

Lodi, with its well-established community of 2,500 Pakistanis is, in fact a perfect breeding ground for terrorists.

Pakistanis have been coming to Lodi for decades. Despite cultural differences that include arranged marriages, second class status for Pakistani women, and the resistance of many adults to learn English or to enroll their children in K-12 schools, the Lodi city fathers have unquestioningly embraced them.

Although city fathers have embraced them, unfortunately they continue to resist assimilation, typical behavior of the present-day immigrant. Even worse these 21st century immigrants don't bother about hiding their true intentions:

What the politically correct Lodi environment means is that for those so inclined—as the Hayats may have been—would-be terrorists can go about their business with little concern that their actions may draw attention.

Why bother planning jihad in well policed locations like New York, San Francisco or Washington D.C. when small towns like Lodi afford you so much more freedom?

Through my job as an instructor at the Lodi Adult School, I interact daily with Pakistanis. My concerns have remained the same for nearly twenty years.

Although some Pakistanis assimilate while still remaining faithful to their Muslim beliefs, the vast majority shows little interest in becoming Americans—or in adopting American ways.

In fact, American traditions are ignored or rejected.

I recall one ESL student I had who invariably signed the daily roll with a single word:

"ISLAM"

Read the Rest.

If you are not "getting" postmodernism and its fifth column role with the jihadists, try this:

Jon Saunders, the author of the departure-point article for this blog, entitles it "Queer Orthodoxy at the University of Colorado." It is that, of course, but much more. Another useful title would be "To the taxpayers of Colorado: Your wallets are bleeding dry to pay for your being 'taken.'" Perhaps another title might be "Citizens of Colorado Mug Themselves." Only, what is going on is not confined to Colorado, so we could change this last title suggestion to read "Citizens of _____ (fill in your state) Mug Themselves."

Many Americans, not polluted by "blue state, high urban, super-sophistication," know that our culture is ailing. They may not realize that the source of its illness originates from our colleges and universities, which as funders and alumni of those institutions WE can and must fix. What prevail at the colleges and the universities are dominant contemporary philosophical ideas collectively known as "postmodernism." It is essential that Americans come to understand these ideas, i.e., to "get it," enough to be able to defeat postmodernism and to recognize that postmodernists gleefully join with jihadists in hating and trying to bring down America.

David Horowitz wrote a terrific book, published in 2004, called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, which we reviewed in depth and highly recommended. We urge the reader to start with our review, and then read Mr. Horowitz's book.

In addition, Dr. Stephen Hicks wrote a crystal clear exposition called Explaining Postmodernism, which we also reviewed in depth, and we also very highly recommended. (In our review, we explain terms such as "postmodernism." We also encourage the reader to start with our review, which gives a quick and lucid precis of postmodernism, then read Dr. Hicks' book.) Both books are MUST READS and provide the essential information platform for understanding what a major dual source of evil goes on in America, and why. Add to that the excellent websites and blogs, particularly Front Page Magazine and Discover the Networks, and you become very expert about these virulent postmodernist, anti-American forces, as well as their sympatico. You must get as expert about postmodernists as about Islam and its lunatics.

Mr. Saunders gives a snapshot of one liberal arts department on one modern campus and shows one set of examples illustrating how the disease of postmodernism runs rife, at epidemic level. However, it is in all fifty states and just about all of our colleges and universities. You, the taxpayer, at state and federal levels, through donations and taxes, share some of the guilt, because your funds are enabling this stuff to go on and on, in the name of "academic freedom." By the way, these university postmodernism-influenced faculties give NO reciprocal "academic freedom" to any dissenting voices, and their administrations back them up, in opposition to and suppression of dissenting voices, even inquiring voices.

Do not expect to win the war against jihad without winning this war at the same time. You must fight this "Unholy Alliance" because it is THE fifth column trying to destroy you, yours, your country, and all of your values. Unholy Alliance = Islam + Postmodernism, and that, of course, includes all the strap-hangers under each umbrella.

Mr. Sanders' article is far too long and much too good to try to do more than sample, just to give readers an idea of some of the worthlessness going on in colleges and universities--stuff, you and I are presently paying for, directly and indirectly. Here is an excerpted introduction to this very fine article, and it illustrates just one of the many varieties of postmodernism, but it is pure postmodernism:

Academic Marxism shows up clothed in the attire of many scholarly courses of study. In its most recent incarnation, academic Marxism makes an entrance as the sexy bedfellow of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

There, in diligent pursuit of scholarly material, co-director of LGBT studies and English professor Mark Winokur explored the Internet...After several paragraphs wrangling with these and other concerns, Winokur finds reason for optimism in a quotation from Walter Benjamin, with which he closes his essay: “Only when in technology body and image so interpenetrate that all revolutionary tension becomes bodily collective innervation, and all the bodily innervations of the collective become revolutionary discharge, has reality transcended itself to the extent demanded by the Communist Manifesto.” Goodness knows how many teenagers are in front of their monitors committing revolutionary acts of tension discharge right now.

Indeed, students signing up for classes in LGBT, which advertises itself as “an interdisciplinary program encompassing more than 20 courses in a dozen departments [and] involv[ing] the academic investigation of sexuality in
established fields such as literature, history, theatre, law, medicine, economics, sociology, anthropology and political science,” will find themselves engaging in a complete indoctrination in Marxism as they prepare themselves for the intellectual challenges of ENGL 4038: Queer Modernism and ETHN 3010: Queer Ethnic Studies.

But before undertaking such heady scholarly study, they will first need to take several required classes. One is “Introduction to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies” (LGBT 2000), where students will find themselves “Investigat[ing] the social and historical meanings of racial, gender, and sexual identities and their relationship to contemporary lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender communities.” That description is boilerplate academic Marxism, useful for all kinds of identity-politics programs (q.v., “Investigates the social and historical meanings of racial, gender, and sexual identities and their relationship to contemporary [insert group identity here] communities”). Students can expect to be introduced to the Marxist assumption of social construction of identity, as evident with the phrase “social and historical meanings of racial, gender, and sexual identities.” This assumption also appears to be active in the description for the program’s other required class, “Introduction to Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay Literature” (ENGL 2707), which introduces students “to some of the forms, concerns, and genres of contemporary lesbian, bisexual, and gay writing in English.” This same deterministic notion–which has animated academic Marxists since, well, Marx and Engels–can be found throughout the electives, too.

(Emphases mine)

One of the hallmarks of postmodernism is its violent hatred of capitalism and adoration of all socialisms:

“ENGL 3217-1: Film/Theory/Gender” [is] taught by Prof. Ann M. Kibbey, whose professional interests are “Gender studies; feminist theory; film studies.” Kibbey is the author of Theory of the Image: Capitalism, Contemporary Film, and Women, in which she “contends that the image itself is an ideological construct,” “argues that capitalism enforces social identity and fetishism through religious iconoclastic beliefs about the commodity as image,” “creates a new feminist approach to women in film” and “challenges conservative and racist agendas informing the assumption that a photograph records an image.” (Emphases mine)

Just what does this mean: "...capitalism enforces social identity and fetishism through religious iconoclastic beliefs about the commodity as image"? Gobblydegook gets used to create an impression of depth and profundity, I suspect.

To provide some more flavor, here are two more examples from the article (the article is just loaded with all manner of examples):

Prof. Kira Hall, whose interests are language, gender, and sexuality, teaches “LING 2400. Language and Gender.” Hall is co-editor with Mary Bucholtz of Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, which “forges new connections between language-related fields and feminist theory” and whose essays “Refut[e] apolitical, essentialist perspectives on language and gender” and “explicitly connect feminist theory to language research.” With Anna Livia, Hall co-edited Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality, a “compilation of research on the peculiar use of language in gay and lesbian communities [that] breaks new ground,” “documents lexical usage and variation in deaf, Jewish, Japanese, and other communities,” looks at “computer-mediated text (E-mail), homophobic slang, media reports, and literary language to conclude whether characteristics specific to gay and lesbian speech must be found exclusively in speech to label them as ‘gay,’“ and “examines the fluid nature of gender and sexuality and how that may be seen in the conscious use of language as it applies to hermaphrodites, the castrated hijras of India, Nigerian transvestites, Yoruba priests, Parisian gays, and Japanese same-sex couples.” The hijras, “a transgendered group often discussed in the anthropological literature as a ‘third sex,’” is the subject of a forthcoming book.

“Language and Gender” pledges to “examine organizations of language, gender, and sexuality from a crosscultural perspective” involving “the investigation of how cultural paradigms of gender relations are perpetuated through language; the study of innovative uses of language to challenge or subvert these dominant paradigms; and the examination of how women and men use language to construct social identities and communities.” The course addresses the following themes: “differences between ‘men’s talk’ and ‘women’s talk’; linguistic constructions of masculinity and femininity; ritual insult, slang, and gossip; sexism in language; how children learn gender through language; language and sexual harassment; the interaction of gender with race, ethnicity, and class; gender in cyberspace; gay, lesbian, and transgender uses of language; and gender and bilingualism.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not academic freedom. It is banal crap. At a bare minimum it is a squandering of YOUR college and university funding. Worst yet, it is diseasing your childrens' minds.

Also, do you really wonder why college and university expenses are so high? Worthless courses taught by intellectual equivalents of hamburger flippers are eating out your wallets and bank accounts. Costs can begin to come down substantially when these "courses" and their "professors" hit the road--and take their enabling administrators with them.

What does the student of these courses come away with? If your child takes a degree in this stuff, of what use is it--for anything, except for generating more postmodernism?

What you are seeing in these courses is nihilism--the utter antagonism to and the attempted destruction of values and valuers. I am not anti-homosexual. Homosexuals may be good Americans in every sense, and they deserve the same rights and their protection granted all Americans. There it stops. Raising homosexuality to this transcendent level is the overt attempt to take down heterosexuality and the social structures and values associated with heterosexuality. Then these postmodernist destroyers look to take down capitalism and its freedoms as well as its free social product, America.

Never forget, please, that one of the cardinal principles of postmodernism is that WORDS ARE WEAPONS. To them, that is the role of language, even using it to destroy itself (more nihilism).
It takes no leap at all to see why these haters aggressively link with America hating Muslims. Their common denominator is hatred for everything American. They hate the good for being good.

Aside from clueless funding sources, including naive alumni and corrupt funding sources such as the government, what keeps these postmodernists in business is TENURE. We will look at that next.

Looking Back - Will Our Descendents Be Able to Forgive Us?

Imagine George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and all the founding fathers peering at us through the centuries and contemplating what they created. Surely they would be astounded at what we've become. George Washington warned us of foreign entanglements. They all understood the power of internal and external pressure groups. Spies and agents were regularly executed without qualm as were enemy combatants. During the Civil War (War Between the States, War of Northern Aggression ---oops. I'm being p.c.), both side had no problem with dispatching enemy in and out of uniform!

World War II say a similar situation:

During World War II, German soldiers who were captured not wearing the uniform of their own army were simply lined up against a wall and shot dead by American troops.

This was not a scandal. Far from being covered up by the military, movies were taken of the executions and have since been shown on the History Channel. We understood then that the Geneva Convention protected people who obeyed the Geneva Convention, not those who didn't -- as terrorists today certainly do not.

How is it, then, that today we are unable to protect our troops and homeland out of fear of the bad opinion of others. Should we care what others think? We will never be able to please our detractors. How can our descendants have respect for us if we don't have for ourselves? Look at whom we seem to revere today:

What will those who look back on these times think when they see that the American Civil Liberties Union, and others who have made excuses for all sorts of criminals, were pushing for the prosecution of our own troops for life-and-death decisions they had a split second to make in the heat of combat?

The frivolous demands made on our military -- that they protect museums while fighting for their lives, that they tiptoe around mosques from which people are shooting at them -- betray an irresponsibility made worse by ingratitude toward men who have put their lives on the line to protect us.

It is impossible to fight a war without heroism. Yet can you name a single American military hero acclaimed by the media for an act of courage in combat? Such courage is systematically ignored by most of the media.

If American troops kill a hundred terrorists in battle and lose ten of their own men doing it, the only headline will be: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

Those in the media who have carped at the military for years, and have repeatedly opposed military spending, are now claiming to be "honoring" our military by making a big production out of publishing the names of all those killed in Iraq. Will future generations see through this hypocrisy -- and wonder why we did not?

What will the generations of the future say if we allow Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, which are then turned over to terrorists who can begin to annihilate American cities?

Our descendants will wonder how we could have let this happen, when we had the power to destroy any nation posing such a threat. Knowing that we had the power, they would have to wonder why we did not have the will -- and why it was so obvious that we did not.

Nothing will more painfully reveal the irresponsible frivolity of our times than the many demands in the media and in politics that we act only with the approval of the United Nations and after winning over "world opinion."

How long this will take and what our enemies will be doing in the meantime while we are going through these futile exercises is something that gets very little attention.

Do you remember Osama bin Laden warning us, on the eve of last year's elections, that he would retaliate against those parts of the United States that voted for Bush? The United States is not Spain, so we disregarded his threats.

But what of future generations, after international terrorists get nuclear weapons? And what will our descendants think of us -- will they ever forgive us -- for leaving them in such a desperate situation because we were paralyzed by a desire to placate "world opinion"?

We are throwing away our national security in order to secure the good opinion and good will of others. This is madness.

The Mexican Wave

Immigrants and immigration have had a huge and mostly beneficial effect on the United States and Europe...until recently. Peter Brimlow at VDare paints a different picture and comes to the following conclusion:

"The economic evidence is clear: neither the US nor Europe needs immigration. It continues because it benefits powerful special interests, and because it feeds into pathological elite anti-racism on both sides of the Atlantic."

Read his eye-opening report.

The Trans-Texas Corridor - A Justification for Keeping the Borders Open?

Have you ever heard of the Trans-Texas Corridor? It is described this way by critics:

Imagine this: your state government puts a transportation corridor in your neighborhood. It’s nearly a quarter-mile wide. It will serve vehicles and trains and incorporate oil, gas, electric and water lines. Try to fight it and you’ll not only face the combined might of your local, state, and federal governments, but foreign interests as well. The internationalization of U.S. roads has begun.

We’re not just talking about isolated instances of privately-built toll roads with foreign management, as we’ve seen in Southern California. We’re talking about networks of toll roads that may be built by foreign builders, managed by foreign operators, function primarily to accommodate foreign goods, and connect U.S. roads to similar networks in Canada, Mexico and, later, Central and South America.

The purpose of the corridor is trade: the movement of goods across a network in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Interstate 69 is "a 1600 mile planned national highway" involving eight states, connecting Port Huron, Michigan to the Texas/Mexico border."
The Texas section:

In Texas, I-69 will be part of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) project – a 4000 mile network of existing and new toll roads – which will create the largest private highway system in America. Interstate 35, also called the Oklahoma to Mexico/Gulf Coast element, will be developed as part of the TTC.

Plans call for the TTC to be 1200 feet wide with 10 vehicle lanes (three passenger vehicle lanes in each direction), truck lanes (two in each direction), six rail lines (three in each direction), two tracks for high-speed passenger rail, two for commuter rail and two for freight. The corridor will include a 200 feet right-of-way for oil, gas, electric and water lines.

Politicians are "walking in lockstep with international trade groups such as North America's Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO), The North American International Trade Corridor Partnership, (NAITCP) and the Central North American Trade Corridor Association (CNATCA),

NASCO (www.nasco.com) describes itself as a “public/private, non-profit corporation seeking to create an international trade corridor system throughout North America, secure funding for certain projects, i.e., tax dollars, and promote the development of International Trade Processing Centers. A lobbying group, linked to other lobbying groups, it is “partnered” with the North America’s Supercorridor Caucus in Congress and working with Senate committees on a Multi-State International Corridor Development Program. Tim Brown, a Bell County, Texas Commissioner is President.

NASCO opines that, because of “several important trade agreements, the heartland of America enters a new era as a geographic crossroad for international trade.” They refer to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nations of Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. and “those who will follow,” doubtless meaning the CAFTA and FTAA (pending trade agreements) countries of Central and South America. NASCO’s Web site links to the NAFTA Secretariat site where you may view "the complete text of the NAFTA."

The NAITCP (www.naitcp.org) purports to be a “partnership of cities of Mexico, the United States and Canada linked by a trade corridor that works to promote economic and social development in our region.” NAITCP just held its 11th annual summit in Mexico, May 11-13. It was called “Hemispheria, the North American Convergence Summit,” and featured working groups on “Trade and Transportation Corridors in North America, Smart Borders, and Cultural Integration.”
The CNATCA (www.cnatca.org) aims to encourage “continued economic integration between the three North American countries and to foster greater collective involvement in the emerging global economy.” Dedicated to “proactive global citizenship,” the Association’s Web site presents the flags of Canada, the United States and Mexico both horizontally and vertically, but as one entity, the U.S. flag between the other two.

CNATCA’s project, the Central North American Trade Corridor, extends from Alaska through the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, the Oklahoma panhandle, and Texas, and then south of the U.S. border to Mexico City. ....

Why foreign involvement? Besides cost considerations, modern trade agreements prohibit discrimination against trading “partners”, i.e., foreign suppliers of goods and services, even in the area of government procurement. NAFTA, for example, mandates treatment “no less favorable than the most favorable treatment” the U.S. accords to its own goods and suppliers.
Another NAFTA mandate – and likely the primary impetus for developing the Texas corridor – authorizes Mexican trucks to transport international cargo throughout the U.S.; it also allows the establishment of Mexican trucking enterprises in the U.S. and permits Mexican bus services throughout the U.S.

Opposition is is building, and the Bush administration is pushing for additional free trade pacts. Free trade is one thing, but foreign ownership and operation of toll roads within the United States is another.

What guarantee can the American people be given that this network will not harm them? A stunning revelation: under these conditions, no guarantee is possible nor is it likely that the any proposal to guard the border will be seriously entertained.

Terrorism threat justifies troops on borders

There are forces that don't want the borders closed or even monitored. Apparently those within the Beltway are siding with special interest groups that are more interested in the bottom line and in providing new voters for their political machine than with the safety of the United States.

We are arriving to a tipping point. The recent events in Lodi, California have shocked the nation. Are we rushing to secure the borders as do other countries?

When other countries feel threatened by terrorism, their leaders do the most prudent thing they can think of: They deploy military forces along their borders, to help prevent infiltration.

They figure, and rightly so, there is no force better equipped and trained to defend their sovereign territory. More so than police, federal agents, and volunteer civilians, however well-intended they may be.

That's why it wasn't surprising to me to read this past weekend that Russian defense officials – increasingly concerned about terrorists infiltrating from neighboring Georgia, where tensions have been growing – ordered a beefed up military presence along the common border.

There are calls to secure the border but nothing from Washington. Ignoring almost completely conditions here at home, at the highest levels their collective gaze is on the Middle East rather than here at home.

And yet, while our leaders task that military with orders to protect Afghan and Iraqi borders from terrorist infiltration, our own boundaries remain woefully under-defended by a grossly out-manned and increasingly demoralized Border Patrol. It's obscene.

"Concern is growing at the top levels of government about the U.S.-Mexican border becoming a back door for terrorists entering the United States," the Christian Science Monitor reported in March. "While al-Qaida infiltration across the nation's southern border has been a constant concern since 9-11, U.S. officials cite recent intelligence giving the most definitive evidence yet that terrorists are planning to use it as an entry point – if they haven't already."

United States law prohibits the use the military within the borders of the U.S. except under certain circumstances. A bill is coming up to

amend Title 10, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Cops, under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border protection functions.

The politically correct view is that the the use of the military would violate civil rights. However, without the military's protection there will be nothing left to protect as we are being to the chaos of conflicting and unfriendly agendas of various groups that have entered unimpeded and are using U.S. laws to further their own objectives at the expense of the American people.

This will be a drastic change and opposition will be great:

Opposition politicians will decry this measure as authoritarianism on the part of the Bush administration. The military brass will hate it because it will put even more strain on their available forces. But the White House and Congress should resist these complaints and ask themselves if protecting Europe from no one or South Korea from a starving North Korea is more important than preventing another 9-11.

We need our military here, we need them now. Contact your representatives to get the ball rolling.

What 24 Started Out to Show Us

Almost everyone has heard the story, but in the interest of keeping the context:

My Way News: "Calif. Town Shaken by Terrorism Arrests," by DON THOMPSON

LODI, Calif. (AP) - Keith Slotter, head of the FBI's central California office, alleges several people committed to al-Qaida have been operating in and around the tranquil wine-growing region just south of Sacramento. "We don't want the new slogan to be, 'Come to Lodi and taste our wines and meet our terrorists,'" said Mayor John Beckman, describing Pakistani-Americans as "a very vibrant, healthy part of the community."

Authorities say Hamid Hayat, 22, returned last year after training in an al-Qaida terrorist camp and planned to attack hospitals and supermarkets in the United States. His father, Umer Hayat, is alleged to have paid for his son's training at a clandestine Pakistanicamp. Both are charged with lying to investigators. Three local Muslims, including two imams, also have been detained on immigration violations.

(Emphasis mine)

Citizens of Lodi, California, got a wakeup call, but they have yet to awaken fully:

"They are good people," said Karina Murillo, whose family rented part of the elder Hayat's house, which had been divided into two residences. "We never had any problems with them."

(Emphasis mine)

The tragedy, if there is one different from the obvious one, is that possibly innocent people might be tarred by the Islamic brush:

Umer Hayat's nephew, 19-year-old Usama Ismail, blames feuds brought over from Pakistani villages for stirring investigators' interest, but denies his cousin was involved in any terror training. "It's been a really nice neighborhood, even after Sept. 11," Ismail said. "Now they're going to be saying, 'Terrorists are in Lodi.'" "We are a peace-loving people," said Taj Kahn, of the Islamic Cultural Center. "We have never done anything to violate the laws of the United States, and we don't intend to."

If there are peace-loving and loyal Muslims, they have a funny way of showing it in America--funny because they don't show it. That provokes a lot of wakeup call questions.

We do know that the accused family members (father and son) are American citizens, one by naturalization and the other by birth. Since father and son have confessed their roles, by contrast to the other detainees whose innocence or guilt is unknown to me right now, some pictures can be drawn for undiscerning Americans.

o Who have been detained for terrorist-related activities? Muslims. Not Presbyterians or Jews or Hindus, etc.

o What makes one a Muslim? Adopting Islam.

o Under Islam, to what may one pledge allegiance? To Islam and its ummah, and only them.

o Can one be Muslim and loyal American at the same time? Not according to Islamic doctrines. It is Islam and only Islam.

o Does a Muslim swearing allegiance to the United States of America at the time of naturalization actually show allegiance to America? Not according to Islam. Attesting allegiance to America is part of Islamic dissimulation, i.e., lying and deceiving those around one in the service of Islam.

o Do the other, standard, religions practice the same type of dissimulation toward America? Not by the hair of your chinny-chin-chin. You can be American first, and one of following second: Roman Catholic, protestant (any flavor), Judaic, etc.

So, what do we have here in Lodi, California? We have exactly what the Fox program 24 set out to demonstrate this past season. Had the network retained its fortitude and moral certainty, 24 could have been set in Lodi.

Who Is Coming Across the Southern Border?

Of the 800,000 illegal aliens caught trying to sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border since October, more than 10 percent are from countries other than Mexico, posing serious national security issues.
"We're now concerned about the potential for terrorists coming across the border because of the huge increases in 'other than Mexicans,' people coming from abroad through Mexico, across our southern border," says Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz. "Our country has intelligence that tells us that al-Qaida specifically desires to bring people across our border."

According to new Border Patrol numbers, a record 98,000 of these "other than Mexicans," or OTMs, have been apprehended in the last eight months. That's up 175 percent from this same time last year.

Is there a chance that some of those OTMs are terrorists, drug runners, violent gang members, those that are up to no good and willing to do harm to the U.S.? What happens to the 98,000 that are detected? They aren't hauled to jail, processed and sent back across the border. Seventy percent are released on their own recognizance because there aren't enough spaces in jails to hold them. Expected to return for their immigration hearings, most don't, and "Even those from countries on terror watch lists are released into the general population after a 180-day detention."

Migrants are well aware of glitches in U.S. law and the so-far unwillingness of the U.S. Government to take real action on the border. They keep coming and the U.S. Hispanic population is booming.

An unassimilated booming population of any immigrant group is worrisome. In the past American policy limited the numbers of immigrants giving populations time to learn English and to adopt American values. Today's immigrants are less willing to do so by refusing to learn English, demanding bi-lingual education for their children and other services, and by demanding that the United States maintain their culture.

Europe has experienced a rapid cultural change due to vast numbers of Muslim immigrants that poured in over a short period of time. In normal immigration experience, immigrants trickle in, assimilate and are often absorbed into the population. The same process occurred in early 20th century America. Today's immigrants are pouring in unchecked, bringing with them many cultural characteristics that are not compatible with American values. No indigenous culture can survive under this onslaught.

The Federal Government has an obligation to protect the American people. They are failing to do so.

New CAIR Q'rap--This time Patriot Act Panic

The Patriot Act must be doing some good (I am not endorsing this act). However, enjoy CAIR squirming as it tries to whitewash itself with "concern" about "civil liberties."

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful


CAIR ACTION ALERT #458


CALL CONGRESS TODAY TO URGE CHANGES IN PATRIOT ACT
Ask your elected representatives to support the SAFE Act


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/8/05) - CAIR today called on all people of conscience to urge their elected officials to support commonsense changes to the USA Patriot Act that would protect both national security and civil liberties. Sixteen provisions of the act are slated to expire at the end of this year and Congress is already considering modifications.

Some elected officials want to increase police powers while at same time reducing accountability. Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee meeting in closed session approved a Patriot Act revision that would permit the FBI to subpoena personal records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.

SEE: "Senate Panel Votes to Widen Antiterror Law"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08patriot.html

"These administrative subpoenas are an end-run around long-standing due process procedures and threaten every American's right to privacy," said CAIR Governmental Affairs Director Corey Saylor.

CAIR and other civil liberties groups are calling on Congress to enact the following measures:

* Conduct all Patriot Act reauthorization hearings in public.

* Pass the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005 (H.R. 1526 and S. 737) and the Protection of Civil Liberties Act (H.R. 1310) SEE: http://thomas.loc.gov/

* Set any renewed provision to sunset again in 2007. Section 213, which does not sunset, should be modified to sunset in 2007. This ensures that measures undertaken in times of great need do not endure longer than necessary.

Two of the Patriot Act's provisions in particular raise major civil liberties concerns.

* Section 215 allows law enforcement to acquire a search warrant for "any tangible thing." This can include: library records, medical records, and travel records. Additionally, it places a gag order on the person who must turn over records. Under this provision, a librarian could not tell his or her lawyer that they had to turn over someone's library records.

* Section 213 replaces traditional "knock and announce" search warrants with "sneak and peek." searches, delaying of notice of the execution of a search warrant for a "reasonable time." This can mean never informing the subject of the warrant that their possessions were searched. In substantive cases involving international or domestic terrorism, investigations conducted in secret are reasonable. However, Section 213, as written, is not limited to terror cases. It can be applied to any federal investigation, such as an examination of delinquent student loans.

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUESTED:


1) Contact your elected representatives in Congress and ask them to support both national security and civil liberties when considering revisions to the Patriot Act. GO TO: http://capwiz.com/cair/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7694791

2) Urge your friends and family to visit the above link and put their faith into action. (You will automatically be asked to do this after you send your message from the above site.)

3) You may also call your representatives through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. (Have your ZIP Code ready.)

"Oh Muslims! Don't You Know Your Enemy? Isn't It Obvious?"

I hope you are sitting down for this one.

A person immigrating to any country by virtue of that act owes that country the obligation to integrate, respect laws and the indigenous population. Apparently Al-Muhajiroun, the Islamic Thinkers Society aka Intellectual Thinkers Society doesn't agree.

The Islamic Thinkers Society is an American offshoot of the now-disbanded British jihadist group:

The radical Islamist Al Muhajiroun, appears to have surfaced in Queens under the oxymoronic name of the Islamic Thinkers Society aka Intellectual Thinkers Society. The groups North American spokesman, Kamran Bokhari, is now working as a strategic analyst for Statfor - Strategic Forecasting Inc. run by George Friedman. Stratfor who also employs ex government counter terrorism analysts has dubbed Bokhari their "in house Jihadi"

Thanks to JihadWatch for these links.

Watson: Forget us now, we'll remember you at the election

Our outstanding blog columnist, Eleanor, posted the link to the following letter (originally on Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch) to Sixth Column on 7 June 2005. This morning, the letter's author, D. C. Watson, also alerted us to it. Between the two, and given the nature of the article, we feel an overwhelming desire to publish it in full. It is outstanding.

Both Eleanor and DC tell us that the time is now to start funneling important stuff to elected officials. November elections are really just around the corner. And, if we want change, we must make it happen. All elected officials do only one thing officially: stick wet fingers into the air to determine which way the wind is blowing, so they can go in that direction. Never forget the wag definition of a politician: Someone always able to rise above his or her principles. It is up to us to set their course properly or send them to other work.

As Eleanor pointed out, DC Watson's letter to his Congress "person" serves as a dynamite template. DC not only speaks directly, but he provides irrefutable intellectual ammunition for us and for the politicians. If we send our versions of this and make similar demands, politicians will run out of spit to wet their fingers, and we make change for the better.

********************************************
(From Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch)
June 07, 2005
Watson: Forget us now, we'll remember you at the election
DC Watson's letter to his Congressman:

April 29th, 2005
To: Ms. Angela Klemack
Office of the Honorable Patrick J. Tiberi
United States Congressman, 12th Congressional District (Ohio)

Dear Ms. Klemack,

Per our 4/25/05 telephone conversation, attached is the information you requested regarding the issues we discussed.

Islam & Militant Islam. I'm completely aware that there are many decent Muslims in this country. Many of them, the peaceful, refined, intelligent ones, have been shuffled out of the mosques by militant Muslims because they don't buy into the worn out, 7th century version of Islamic fundamentalism. Like it or not, much of the evidence involving the militant Islamic mindset points directly to our "Saudi friends", as will be demonstrated further into this letter.

I'm not much of an advocate for the phony "political correctness" facade, so please forgive my bluntness. If our government believes that Americans think of Islam as being completely benign, especially with so many Islamic militants running loose, the comments attached to some of these articles should shed some light on the opinions of millions of hard working Americans, as should this Cornell University poll.

44% of Americans would curtail Muslim civil liberties.'>44% of Americans would curtail Muslim civil liberties.

Perhaps Islamic Imams in America like this one are a good reason for this: Muzammil Siddiqi.

While I respect our government, it appears to be completely out of touch with the American people with regard to the negative impact that militant Islam and illegal immigration have on the United States. Here are some of the examples I provided during our telephone conversation.

Islamic indoctrination taking place in American schools:
http://www.blogger.com/%20not-a-real-namespace%20article.asp?ARTICLE_ID= http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/580789/posts
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_040_0
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005919.php

With the exception of the less fortunate among us, shouldn't this nation once again run on the idea of equal treatment for everyone, and special treatment for no one?

From President Bush's inaugural speech: "In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever".

Was the President referring to...these words?

Qur'an 9:5: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

Qur'an 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection".

Qur'an 48:29: "Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Qur'an 8:12: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Qur'an 5:51: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people".

Qur'an 4:34: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them".

It is what it is.

Religious freedom in America is a wonderful part of our culture. However, should it not then be made clear to everyone that this is contingent on the practices of the religion being acceptable and adhering to the laws of the U.S. Constitution?

Freedom of speech, our first Amendment: College Republicans attacked at San Francisco State University, perpetrated by Arab Students.

Loyalty to the American Constitution: Here are some quotes from the leaders of the Council on American Islamic Relations, headquartered not far from your office.

1994: CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, at a Barry University forum: "

1998: CAIR Board Chairman Omar Ahmad, at a Flamingo Palace Banquet Hall event in California: "

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

Reference column: "American Muslim Leader Urges Faithful to Spread Word" by Lisa Gardiner San Ramon Valley Herald July 4, 1998

1993: CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, Minneapolis Star Tribune: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Omar M. Ahmad: Suicide bombers "kill themselves for Islam" and so are not terrorists."
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c172.html

Nihad Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the World Trade Center trial, which resulted in the 1994 conviction of four Islamic terrorists, was "a travesty of justice." Despite the confessions of the terrorists from the 1993 attack. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010929-14.html

And our government has this organization training our law enforcement officers on Muslim sensitivity? Our State department entertains this organization every time they complain of what they call increased “Islamophobia” in America? Forgive us if we fail to see the logic in this. Law is law, and shouldn’t be diverted by the consistently skewed accusations of profiling by this group.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17874

The article above refers to a few of the CAIR members that haven't been convicted of terror or fraud crimes, and aren't in prison or deported.

Here are a few who have been:

Randall "Ismail" Royer: former CAIR Communications Specialist. Timelines listed in Royer's indictment, specifically September of 2001, and a news article that demonstrates Royer speaking as a representative of CAIR (9/18/2001) are on record as occurring during the same timeframe, and can be matched at the links below.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-09-19-harassment.htm#more (09/18/2001 - Updated 07:08 PM ET)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usroyer603ind.pdf (p. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)

Ghassan Elashi: Founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR, and Chairman of the Holy Land Foundation. His cousin is Nadia Elashi, (aka) Nadia Marzook, the wife of Mousa Abu Marzook, (aka) Abu Omar, the Deputy Chief of the Hamas terrorist organization's Political Bureau. http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/infocom/uselashi121702sind.pdf
http://www.4law.co.il/hlf2.htm (p. 6, 7, 8, 9) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175

Bassem K. Khafagi: 2003, visa and bank fraud. At the time of his arrest, Khafagi was Community Affairs Director with CAIR. Sentence: 10 months (Time served), and deportation back to Egypt.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/acair.htm

CAIR has also been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit regarding the 9/11 attacks. How do you think this looks to American taxpayers when the American government interacts with organizations such as these?
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/520
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/394
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004526.php

Not employed with CAIR, but rotten nonetheless:

Abdurahman Alamoudi:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/31/saudi.plot/

The "Lackawanna six":
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/extra/lackawanna/0520story3_news.shtml

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/069642.php

Sadeq Naji Ahmed:
http://discoverthenetwork.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=1901

Bashir Noorzai:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005900.php#comments

Ali al-Timimi, an Imam no less:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11071

Ibrahim Al-Niqrish:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/NEWS03/504260344

Fawaz Damra, another Imam:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-17-imam-convicted_x.htm

Clayton Morgan, aka Isamu Dyson, aka Cayson Bin Don:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17863

Ahmed Ressam:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/cron.html

Ali bin Mussalim:
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/04/new_indictments.html

Sami Al-Arian:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=6307

Nuradin Abdi:
http://www.ice.gov/text/news/newsreleases/insideice/InsideICE_062104_Web1.htm

A double dose of stupidity: A Nazi-Islamist Hate fest
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17849

Saudi Arabia: Saudi funded Islamic schools operating inside the United States are teaching their students that Christianity and Judaism are false religions, and demanding allegiance to the Qur'an, not the U.S. Constitution, while Saudi provided literature has been located in American mosques that preaches hate for the West, and for America.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46610,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8715
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/Saudi%20Report/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=180218
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17519

Saudi Chief Justice urges fighting U.S.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005910.php#comments
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43995

One could easily assume that all of this is happening somewhere in the Middle East. But it is all happening inside American borders.

You had asked me for recommendations to remedy some of these problems. With careful consideration, this is the top of the list.

If the American government truthfully wants to promote moderate Islam, then organizations such as CAIR and groups like them should be shut down, or their personnel should be replaced with proven Islamic moderates.

American government officials should put a halt to kissing the cheeks and holding the hands of Saudi Princes who, along with everything else they do, arrogantly arrive late for a meeting with the President of the United States. Although some of our elected officials may do personal business with them, we don't. To us, they are nothing more than oil and terror vendors. If Americans want Saudi influence in their lives, they'll take a trip to Saudi Arabia.

Acknowledge that Shari'ah law, which is, and always will be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and other democracy driven bylaws, governs Islam.

Acknowledge that the Saudis, who fund Wahhabism in American mosques and madrasses with petrodollars, need to be forced to cease this activity.

Acknowledge that Saudi-funded madrasses in America are teaching allegiance to the Qur'an and not the American Constitution.

Suspend all foreign financial aid to terror sponsoring states until they've cleaned their houses, and can prove it.

Suspend all funding to the United Nations until they've cleaned their house, and can prove it.

Stop attempting to cram Islam down the gullet of the American public. This is not a Muslim nation, and never has been. If Muslims wish to practice Islam here peacefully, they should have that right. However, the Islamist groups who pose as Muslim civil rights and charitable organizations should be blacklisted from interacting with American government agencies, and then targeted for closure. They are the barking dogs of militant Islam. They make all of the noise, file all the frivolous lawsuits, and advocate the undermining of this country. American law is for everyone living in America, and this includes Muslims. If they want to live under the Shari'ah, then they should move to a nation where it is practiced.

Government officials should stop making the claim to the American people that there isn't a problem within Islam, while at the same time they're spending millions of American taxpayer dollars overseas to change the very face of Islam. If there were no problems, then why would anything need to be changed?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17828

Touch base with the U.S. State Department and advise them to discontinue their attempts to re-write American history to where it includes Muslims.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/08/state_plays_orw.php

If mosques in America have nothing to hide, then they -- both the Saudi and the Iranian funded ones -- should have no trouble with being monitored.

Government officials should remind themselves that American tax dollars pay not only their salaries, but also pay for the daily operations of this country both domestic and foreign. American government officials should also remind themselves who put them into office, and that they represent the American people, not those from the Middle East and Mexico.

Our careless immigration policies have allowed radical Islam to inject itself deeply into our nation's heart. The earlier referenced list of arrests, indictments and convictions of Muslim terrorists inside America, the majority of them occurring post 9/11, should provide validity to the claim that the problem is here.

So don't the American people deserve to have their tax dollars used to eject Islamic militancy from inside our borders first, before their money is spent doing it in the Middle East? Rebuilding mosques in Asia isn’t affecting the Islamic threat that’s already here. The protection of the American people comes first. Especially when Americans foot the bill for it.

In closing, if I know about all of this, I have no doubt that our government already knows it too. The question is, will our elected officials do right by the American people and eliminate this element from our society, or will it continue to play the game of political correctness and keep the American people at risk, for the sake of future votes?

I do not expect this information to be swept under any rugs. I love the United States unconditionally, as do tens of millions of others. This information will be saved. I would like a response as to what is going to be done to solve this obvious problem. This column is subject to and approved for publication if deemed fit.

My many thanks and respect to you.
D.C. Watson USA

P.S. These links will attest to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are fed up with the U.S./Mexican border situation.

84% of Americans worry about illegal immigration. Of those, thirty-seven percent worry a "great deal" about it.
Gallup Poll, March 8-11, 2004
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
ABC News/Washington Post Poll, January 2005
RoperASW Poll
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/publicop.html

******************************

Let's stir up those sleeping dogs coming up for election!

MEChA Is At It Again. This Time Their Target Is a Teen Reporter

Trent Demarest of Corvallis High School in Corvallis, Ore., told WND "he decided to make his last column of the school year about what he considers one of the most important public-policy issues facing the U.S.: illegal immigration." He didn't count on the immigrants striking back.

The 17-year old high school student wrote an op-ed piece for his high school newspaper, the illegal immigrants called on the radical immigrant group MEChA to host a rally and some students vowed physical revenge.

MEChA is a radical pro-Mexico student group that says it is committed to "the physical liberation of Occupied America" and a separate Hispanic nation in the Southwest U.S. It's motto is "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada: for the race, everything; outside the race, nothing."

MEChA is not the only radical immigrant group operating today. Maldef, also advocates along the same lines as MECha and provides legal help. Perhaps they helped Jose Barrios Castilla resist deportation after he was allowed to keep his green card and remain in the U.S. after being convicted of molesting a child.

Certainly not all immigrants are heinous criminals, and this one had legal status. There are MANY millions of undocumented aliens and those that simply walked away from their obligation to keep in touch with the government. This is an unacceptable situation.

The citizens of the United States have a right to know who is in the United States, where they are and what they are doing. They also have a right to include aliens that will be of benefit to the country and exclude that won't. This is not bigotry nor racism, it's common sense.

Maldef and MEChA don't seem to care about the security of the United States. They have their own agenda and are determined to fill the United States with aliens of their choice. MEChA's determination even means the use of terror against a 17-year-old high-school student.

A Reader Responds to Article About Bush Poll

A reader from deep within the heartland of America writes me from time to time, and he has responded to my remarks today about the Washington Post article about the ABC poll of President Bush's popularity. This reader has the ability to tell things just as he sees them. We always enjoy his thoughts, even if some can't be printed, and we greatly respect his interest in this blog as well as the affairs of America. He is an engaged American, the way everybody ought to be. Such engaged Americans are the strength of America, real national treasures.

I read your column on Bush, while I agree with most of what you say, I disagree on the religious side. I believe Bush is suffering the same fate as his father, namely he is detached from real world of everyday Americans. I blame this mainly on the Presidents’ advisors. While trying to balance the scale with political correctness while fighting a war is absolutely beyond belief! We as Americans, (most) are detached from the war on Islam. No, I won't use the term terror, because they are one and the same. Sure there are patriotic symbols around, but if you haven’t noticed these are becoming sparse. My question would be why? My belief is the nation's liberal media, and prominent liberals lambasting every move our brave soldiers make have essentially muted the president. To make war, one must completely destroy the enemy, holy sites and all. We did after all destroy churches in Europe when they were used as military holdouts and weapon caches. But the President [now is too] concerned with our not so good ally Saudi Arabia to send a message that we really do mean business. All holy sites in Iraq should have been destroyed upon evidence that any were used by Islamists to kill American troops. This would have sent a clear signal that Uncle Sam was not fu__ing around! Would it have caused an uproar in middle eastern countries? You bet it would! But it would also have had the effect that any middle eastern country supporting or harboring Islamists in any way could be next! This I believe would have cut this war short. Bush made an error when he declared war on Iraq in the first place! Now we are losing support from the most important factor involved, namely the American public. Bush has failed miserably, in my humble opinion; he has turned a blind eye to our southern borders, while millions of illegals cross yearly, not to mention Islamists. The President has stated again and again, that his first priority is the protection of the American public! Can anyone see that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth? I don’t know if he ignores the immigration issue because of Hispanics in his family or that he is from Texas, or he wants to help big business with cheap illegal labor or because he just doesn’t have a clue! An overwhelming majority of Americans want something done about our borders yesterday! What does this President do? Espouse the failed attempt that Ronald Reagan tried in the 80’s, and what did this do? Only encourage millions more to come in and hope to be a part of the same amnesty. As we can see it sure as hell
didn’t work! Folks, we are losing the battle on all fronts, and if we don’t get off our asses and demand accountability from our leaders then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Now, I believe the President has good intentions, but good intentions doesn’t feed the bulldog! Would Kerry have done a better job? Not in my lifetime! This man is so left-leaning it has made his hair look like it has magnetic qualities, constantly being pulled by the earth’s gravitational forces! The President needs to refocus his energies on not kissing Arabic ass, instead beating Arabic ass! Bush has too many pots in the fire and if he keeps it up he will get burned.

Compare the directness and the truth in this paragraph to all of the futzfumbling convolutions coming from Congress, the State Department, and the Executive. If these oafs don't get us sizzled with nuclear devices originating from the Middle East first, we can pull America out of the fire using the ability of Americans to see the truth and act on it. The spirit, if not all his words, of this American illustrate that American spirit and ability not to be bullshitted. One of these folks is worth more than everyone at the State Department, except possibly John Bolton.

Post-ABC Poll: Bush Ignoring Public Concerns

Aside from Bush the man, who seems nice enough, Bush the President gets worse and worse. He started off bad, loving big government, and blinded by allegiance to faith. He has made worse and worse decisions, and the Republicans are either religiously dumbed or cowardly, often both. This poll, the type I usually ignore, may well be right on target.

Bush pursues some half effort in Iraq, permitting Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to be the tail that wags us, the big dog. He is as blind to borders in Iraq as he is on America's south and north. He is killing us with his religiosity which blinds him to Islam and causes him to take altruistic actions definitely not in the interest of the USA.

Don't get me wrong. No one at all on the Democrat side is or could be any better. Postmodernism is no antidote to faith anymore than strychnine is an antidote to cyanide.

There really is something deeply troubling, if not wrong per se, about Mr. Bush. What troubles me the most are his fifth column like actions.

Fellow Americans, we are in a heap of trouble. If the nation keeps shifting away from the Bush and Republican practices the way this poll is trending, we may face a Democrat Worse-Than-Bush, with Pelosi on the new president's bad side and Reid on his or her right.


Post-ABC Poll: Bush Ignoring Public Concerns, Majority Says President Distracted by Issues They Care Little About, By Richard Morin, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 7:17 AM

A clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 58 percent of those interviewed said Bush is concentrating mainly in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these respondents said were unimportant to them. Four in 10 -- 41 percent -- said the president was focused on important problems -- a double-digit drop from three years ago.

Underlying that finding is a continuing deep and bitter partisan divide that has fueled increasingly bitter fights in Congress, most recently over some of Bush's nominees to the federal courts. Relatively few Americans viewed that issue as particularly important.

According to the poll, nearly eight in 10 Democrats say Bush is not concentrating on issues they personally view as vital while three out of four Republicans disagree.

Ominously for Bush and the Republicans, a strong majority of self-described political independents -- 68 percent -- say they disagreed with the president's priorities. That suggests Bush's mixed record in the second term on issues the public views as critical -- particularly on Iraq and the economy -- may be as much a liability for GOP candidates in next year's mid-term election as his performance in his first term was an asset to Republican congressional hopefuls last year and in 2002.

Overall, the president's job approval rating stood at 48 percent, virtually identical to where it was last month. Currently 52 percent of the public disapproves of the job Bush is doing as president, the first time in his presidency that more than half of the public has expressed negative views of the president's performance.

Continuing violence in Iraq continues to fuel negative views of the White House. Four in 10 Americans currently approve of the job that Bush is doing in Iraq while 58 percent disapproved. It marked the 13th consecutive month that less than half of the country approved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq.

A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed June 2-5 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Complete results of this Washington Post-ABC News poll will be available at washingtonpost.com at 5 p.m. today.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

A Look at the Just-Ended Television Season

It is chic, in some circles, to disparage television watching. Some hosts on talk radio decry television's moral depravity and proclaim it an intellectual wasteland; they will not allow television sets in their homes. Others claims include bias to the right, bias to the left, and so on. Others make sure they watch only the "proper" television, such as Public Broadcast System (P.B.S.) and so on. Not us.

Television is a powerful source of entertainment for us, and we don't care who knows it. Our grown children do not understand why we do not want to go to movies, with their crowds, $5 popcorn, always sitting behind the tallest man in the universe, in order to experience painful sound, air too cold, as well as obnoxious people--and to do it for a mere $25 - $50. Of course, there is the matinee, with all the restless, swirling "ids"--a pleasure akin to ceasing to hammer one's hand because stopping feels so good.

Television brings a wide variety of interesting programs, particularly via satellite. With the digital video recorder, we capture vastly more than movies allow, including movies themselves. And, seeing Harry Potter a year later never strikes us as a deprivation or any other hardship. We really do not miss the smell of grape gum, floors slimy from spilled 300 ounce drinks, sniffing-coughing-chattering, and myriad body odors; then there are the Antarctic hurricane winds and sound with the control turned up to "brain stem hemorrhage." Let the answering machine deal with the telemarketers, and off we go to TV Land. Pour a gin and tonic, grab a few handfuls of roasted peanuts, settle under a comforter to become peppered with cats, and ensure the remote is always visible and handy. That's better than any snobs can admit.

Where did television take us this last season? Was any of it really any good?

We made a list of mostly dramatic programs we enjoyed and then clustered them into three groups, from ones we highly enjoyed to those we liked, and, of course, a group in between. The programs within the groups are just listed, not rank ordered. (We also watch other programming such as scientfic, home and garden, and a few sports shows like college and professional football, movies, and others which look interesting. However, these fall outside the scope of this article.)

Group A (Ones we enjoyed the most)

• Cold Case


• Numbers


• House


• Without a Trace


• CSI-Las Vegas


• CSI-Miami


• CSI-New York


• Stargate SG-1

Group B (Enjoyable and Commendable)

• Desperate Housewives


• Monk


• Blue Collar TV


• Lost


• Kojak


• JAG


• Eyes


• Blind Justice


• 24 (Cowardly concessions to political correctness gutted this show's artistic and enjoyment value)

Group C (Somewhat enjoyable)

• NCIS


• Alias


• StarTrek


• Stargate Atlantis

Examining our list told us that we watched some 18 drama programs and two comedies, one of which nostalgically took us back home to the South. Twenty program series meant a lot of television; yet we got a lot from all of it, particularly from the programs in the first two groups.

We could not help but analyze the programs and our relationship to them. We surprised ourselves with what we found out. We will exclude the comedies and look at the 18 dramas.

Those programs we liked the most had plot and characterization, and good to very good writing. Above all, our list of dramas had the quality of people using their minds to succeed, and succeeding. The least successful had far too much action compared to the thinking, for example, Alias. The one which snatched defeat from the jaws of victory was 24--by utterly groveling to political correctness.

Efficacious people solved problems and pursued values, program after program, week after week. No, these were not deep dramas, like the best of romantic art, but they were not just a plethora of nitwit sitcoms, "tribal" so-called "reality" shows, and terminally banal American Idol type shows. For 44 minutes out of each hour of each show (and 22 minutes of the 30 minute shows), we were treated to people taking life, values, and themselves seriously. Whether the plots involved the likely or science fiction, we could experience the metaphysical values being presented.

We always came away invigorated and re-appreciating the role of art in our very human lives.

We don't recall another season with so much of this kind of programming, given the status of our present culture. So that brought another realization to us, in the form of a question. Are we watching the faint stirrings of reason in art again, after almost being annihilated by two centuries of rotten philosophies? What we saw was no Weimar-style art. Nor were they like French movies with Italian soundtracks. Nor were they like P.B.S. "dramas."

If, as so many try to say, art feeds popular needs and desires, think of what this is saying about all of those of us out there in TV Land. We should be damned proud of our needs and desires. Bring 'em on!

Politicians: Forget Us Now...We'll Remember YOU At Elections

State, local and national elections will be here before you know it. At Jihad Watch, D.C. Watson posted this useful and excellent letter to his Congressman. It is a worthy template to consider or even use when contacting our elected officials.

Remember the adage: Those that don't make the effort to tell candidates and their elected officials what they want have no right to complain -- you deserve what you get. Start early and they'll get the idea.

The Threat From Mexico

Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, credited with engineering the demise of the Soviet Union, once predicted – because of illegal immigration and social unrest south of the border – the U.S. would be at war with Mexico by 2003.
As the U.S. becomes increasingly concerned about just those issues – and one more, the growing power and violence of the drug cartels operating in and around the border – some U.S. intelligence and military analysts are dusting off Weinberger's "Operation Aztec" battle plan for review.
Weinberger's scenario outlined a rapid three-pronged military invasion designed to control domestic Mexican unrest and stem the influx of millions of immigrants.

Likewise, in a 1994 Pentagon briefing paper dealing with "deployment of U.S. troops in Mexico as a result of widespread economic and social chaos," Donald E. Schultz, a professor of national security at the U.S. Army's War College around the same time wrote: "A hostile government could put U.S. investments in Mexico in danger, jeopardize access to oil, produce a flood of political refugees and economic migrants to the north."
Meanwhile, Mexican President Vicente Fox is indeed concerned about his country's internal security. A few days ago, he summoned to Sinaloa a meeting with top-level officials to discuss various issues of Mexican national security.

Read the Rest

To add to your discomfort about the above article read about "Los Zetas," an American-trained rogue Mexican elitist group that, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, regularly comes across the border and "assists" drug cartels and human smuggling.

How 'cum the U.S. Government doesn't put a stop to all of this?

A Troubling Unrest in Mexico and In the American West

Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard.

Some of the indigenous people of Mexico and the American Southwest are rejecting Christianity in a search for their roots. Instead of returning to the culture of the Aztecs, Maya, and other groups that were present at the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th century. Spaniards took great pains to make converts to Catholicism and more recently Protestant denominations have made numbers to converts.

Religion is only one part of the process; the other parts are culture and politics. In many parts of the world, Christianity is seen a tool of oppression; ironically Islam is not.
Even today Catholics of pure Spanish descent lord over both mixed-race Hispanics and "Indians," the original inhabitants of the Americas, using the term "Indian" as an insult. Their hope is to get better treatment from Muslims.

"In Islam, race plays no role," the young man says joyously. His enthusiasm is understandable. After all, in his home state of Chiapas, Mexico's poorest, the indigenous people are viewed as second class humans, and whites and Mestizos treat the Indian majority as if they weren't there. In the southern Mexican provincial metropolis San Cristóbal de las Casas, the descendants of the Maya even have to move onto the street if a white person approaches them on the sidewalk.

Lamenting the loss of their economic and cultural power, Indians also hope that the promises made in Islam will restore them to their cultural and economic roots.
The Mexican government is worried about the Influence of Islam. The PRI, a "mafia-esque state part" that recently was voted out of national power is still in control in Chiapas, although their power is waning.

It is said that five Catholic families rule Mexico. Their hold over the population is now at risk. For decades they sent their excess population north to work in the United States. The safety valve of the North seems no longer to be working for them.

Read the rest

The United States is also at risk in this process. Mestizos, mixed-race peoples of Spanish and Indian blood, and Indians of pure blood from Mexico, Central, and South America have been streaming across the southern border for decades. The United States benefited from the labor of entrants that temporarily came to work, remitted home the salaries, and at the end returned to the small towns and villages that emptied every season as the migrants went north. The remitted wages of migrants make up the greater part of the economies of Mexico and other Central American countries. A fair exchange of labor for wages.

However, some entrants decided that wages are not enough and have decided to stay on without an invitation. They are putting a strain on the social services of the United States as the U.S. court system has decided that many are entitled to financial and medical services at taxpayer expense, services that were intended for taxpaying American citizens paying the bills. (Note: Some, but not all, entrants pay income taxes on their wages.)

They continue to come across the border in great numbers. Emboldened by their increasing numbers, some are demanding political power and even thinking about making a claim against the western territories for the purpose of rejoining these to Mexico. Mexican officials have made rash statements such as "The territory of Mexico now extends beyond its borders." Radicals in California have stated that "they are not immigrants, they are the indigenous peoples of the Americas and borders have no meaning to them." Hispanic candidates running for office in California have stated that now is "the last gasp of white America in California. It's all about power and from now on, power is ours."

Irredentist groups such as Mecha openly call for the return to Atzlan, a new country inhabiting the American Southwest and joined with Old Mexico. Los Angeles' new mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been a member of Mecha. He recently renounced his involvement of many decades.

Now Islam is gaining a foothold in in the Americas. Islam has long been a presence in prisons of the Northern Hemisphere, releasing the resentful, possible jihadists back into neighborhoods. The news that Mexicans in Chiapas are converting at a record rate does not bode well for either Mexico or the United States. It is only natural that fleeing Christians will move north toward the border where special groups, insisting that they are only providing a public service and safeguarding migrants, assist them by providing information as to how to safely cross, once again using the U.S. as a safety valve.
Mexican and Southwestern Muslims have not openly threatened the United States. However the jihad is a threat wherever it is found and peace-keeping Muslims often are inspired to jihad at any moment as have so often done so all over the world.

Balls in Burkas

The wonderful columnist, Diana West, wrote a column, which we have excerpted, a little while ago. We saved it because it says so much about a source of our nausea and profound disappointment: the decline and fall of the television program 24.

24 is, by design, top heavy with action. This past season had the makings of being the very best season it has ever had, because of its willingness finally to take on fearlessly and fundamentally the biggest of current events: Muslim jihadists, as if there is any other kind.

Then CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) stepped in to intimidate Fox and the creators of 24. Without a bang, in fact, without a whimper, 24 changed to politically correct pabulum. Fox put all of its balls in burkas.

At no time was Islam mentioned, nor jihad, nor any other reason why the terrorists were doing what they were doing, with a small exception. The head terrorist, Marwan, complained that the USA was oppressing his countrymen, who had sort of been identified as the Turks, instead of Saudi Arabians or Iranians, possibly Syrians. At the end, the genius terrorist mastermind admitted that his people and ours hate each other. That was it. Nothing got closer to the truth. No whys were ever mentioned.

The series ended like physical love unrequited, just stopping due to loss of interest. No one--but no one--on our side made any identifications and connections beyond these local-only terrorists. No one--but no one--mouthed anything suggesting the true nature, motivation, and goals of the terrorists. At the end, the head terrorist dies essentially by his own hand and Jack Bauer, the head counter-terrorism protagonist, escapes down railroad tracks, like a hobo, complete with bandana sack on a stick over his shoulder, because the USA government wants to turn him over to the communist Red Chinese.

It just petered out.

Diana West summed it and analyzed it nicely:

May 30, 2005


Phew -- that was close. The creators of "24," Fox Television's thriller-diller starring Kiefer Sutherland as counter-terror super-agent Jack Bauer, almost put together a compelling television series rooted in the onerous reality of the war on jihad terrorism. But thanks, apparently, to a few helpful suggestions from the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), they managed to steer clear of all political and historical relevance.

This couldn't have been easy. After all, CAIR didn't even come to their rescue until after the show's season had begun with a couple of episodes that featured a typical Islamic sleeper cell embedded in a typical American sleepy suburb. After these and other obvious blunders -- a terse exchange of "Allahu Akbar" between terrorists, for instance -- the creative types behind the hit series managed to get their act together and save the world for political correctness.

How? Two things: They laid down a suitably distracting Chinese subplot, and cast a bunch of Midwesterners, instead of Middle Easterners, to wear the key black hats. There was the ex-Air Force pilot -- obviously blond, obviously disgruntled -- who shot down Air Force One; a nefarious ex-marine; and a Patty-Hearst-like commando who just shot whatever.

By this week's season finale, Marwan, the head jihadist, had been comically stripped of all religious identity and motivation, and cloaked in a heavy disguise of moral equivalence. As in: You think we're evil and we think you're evil. This is pretty much what hero-Jack actually said to Marwan, the terror kingpin, who had just that day blown up a train, kidnapped the Secretary of Defense, sent multiple nuclear plants into meltdown and lobbed a nuclear warhead at Los Angeles. Oh well. Marwan was ultimately overshadowed by someone worse -- the president of the United States.

Still, maybe the creators of "24" deserve a medal, considering the total silence of their fellow movie- and television-makers when it comes to the war on jihadist terror. War, what war? Culture clash? What culture clash? Freedom -- what kind of freedom? Hollywood and the media may be "brave" and "bold" in fearlessly depicting sexuality, violence and the perversions therein, but they're cultural cowards when it comes to depicting, even mentioning, matters of war, Islam and jihad. Call it dhimmitude, Hollywood-style.

This is what moral uncertainty does to people. Doubtless the folks at Fox made a jillion "group-think" rationalizations to justify to themselves why they should dhimmi up to the bar and fall face first into a great, steaming pile of dhimmitude. Anyone can replicate the probable corporate excuses and rationales as well as I can, so I won't spell them out.

Keep in mind that 24 is very much dominated creatively by right-wingers. They even invited Rush Limbaugh to a casting and production session, including filming.

I disagree with Ms West that the producers of 24 deserve a medal because they have been less dhimmitudinous than the rest of Hollywood. Would you honor murders because they murdered fewer victims?

Had 24 told CAIR to go pound sand and changed nothing, then they would have deserved the highest acolades, IF they had also put on screen what needed to be said, identified, and condemned in the Islamic terrorists.

U.S. Uncovers Vast Hide-Out of Iraqi Rebels

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 4 - American marines have discovered an elaborate series of underground bunkers used recently by insurgents in central Iraq, with heavy weapons, a kitchen and fresh food, furnished living quarters, showers and even a working air-conditioner, the military said Saturday.

The bunkers were built into an old rock quarry north of the town of Karma, an insurgent stronghold in Anbar Province that lies near the city of Falluja. The bunker system is 558 feet by 902 feet, nearly equal to a quarter of the Empire State Building's office space, making it the largest underground insurgent hide-out to be discovered in at least the past year, if not during the entire war, said Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool, a spokesman for the Second Marine Division.

The military said the bunkers were discovered Thursday around 5 p.m. as part of continuing anti-insurgency operations being conducted in Anbar, a center of the Sunni Arab resistance and an arid province that stretches to Iraq's western border. In the past three days, troops with the Second Marine Division found more than 50 caches of weapons and ammunition in the province. Twelve were discovered in the immediate area of the rock quarry, Captain Pool said in an e-mail interview.
"Marines were out patrolling and looking for weapons caches, when out in the middle of the desert they see a lone building," he said. "They went to go and check it out. In one room there was a large, chest-style electric freezer. The marines moved it and found the hidden entrance to the underground quarry system."

"I can tell you that it is the largest underground system discovered in at least the last year," he added.
Near the building, marines also found evidence of a rifle-training range, including many casings from assault-rifle rounds.
No one was in the bunkers at the time of the raid, Captain Pool said. But the fresh food in the kitchen indicated that insurgents had been there recently. The underground lair had been in use for some time, he said, and was built from one subsection of the quarry.

In one part of the hide-out, troops discovered machine guns, mortars, rockets, artillery rounds, black uniforms, ski masks, compasses, log books, a video camera, night-vision goggles and fully charged satellite phones, Captain Pool said.
The marines were still uncovering "new finds" on Saturday night, the captain said, making it too early to tell exactly what the bunkers were used for or who inhabited them.

The insurgents had apparently installed the creature comforts of home within the hide-out. The complex included four fully furnished living spaces, two showers and an air-conditioner, the military said. Temperatures in the deserts of Anbar can approach a scorching 130 degrees in the summertime.

No one should be surprised. Cave, bunker, and tunnel dwelling are hallmarks of the efforts of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as well as others throughout history. Some more recent come to mind. Think of Hitler's bunkers from WWII, the tunnel networks of the Viet Cong, perfect for offense and defense.
In the 1960s Osama bin Laden visited the U.S., showing particular interest in the area around Tuscon, Arizona. America's vast desert Southwest is similar parts of the Middle East. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that caves, tunnels could be full of contraband and munitions awaiting use in a uprising of insurgents here in the homeland. Decades went by before Americans started to notice in earnest the entry of vast numbers of illegal entrants. Did they come empty handed? We don't know for sure.

Millions have come across the borders. Not all of them Mexicans or even Central Americans looking for work. There have been Chinese and others. Most recently a smuggling ring that specialized in Iranians was discovered. There is evidence that other Middle Easterners have also come across the border as they left behind telltale items and the Border Patrol and others have reported stopping people that spoke Arabic rather than Spanish.

The world press regularly reports on how easily one can enter the U.S. over the southern border. Day and night they are photographed and videotaped as they stream across the border. The undermanned and underfunded Border Patrol can do little to stop it while politicians seem to be sitting on their hands.

While you read about the Iraqi stronghold, think about what's out there in the Southwest.

You Can' Talk to an F.B.I. Agent That Way, or Can You?

Dressed in a navy suit and red tie, his hair parted neatly on the side, Special Agent Charles E. Frahm sat with practiced calm as Muslims rose, one after another, to hurl raw complaints at him. Mr. Frahm, who heads the counterterrorism division of the F.B.I. in New York, was at a banquet hall in the Midwood section of Brooklyn on Thursday night to listen, he had told the hundreds of residents gathered there.
And they responded. They were tired of being held for hours at airports when their names resembled those of suspected terrorists, they said. They were tired of seeing Muslims arrested on immigration charges. They were tired of having their mosques watched, their businesses scrutinized.

"America is our land!" Faruq Wadud, a Bangledeshi man, hollered hoarsely into the microphone as the room broke into a thunderous applause. "We are not foreigners! Our children, this is their motherland!"

I came upon this article when reviewing Robert Spencer's JihadWatch and was motivated by this timely quote.

Two different issues here. America may well be his land, and his childrens', but unfortunately that has not sufficed as an assurance that Muslims would not engage in jihadist activity...Robert Spencer, JihadWatch

Immigration to America, especially immigration of Muslims, has become troublesome and worrisome and weighs heavily. As do most Americans that have an immigrant background, I have mixed emotions immigration. I am proud of our diverse and multicultural society, but we have lost control of the borders and of the immigrants and entrants that now inhabit the United States. These groups are not operating in the best interest of the United States. They are using United States soil to further the interests of the country or groups that should have been left behind and, in some cases, are openly undermining the U.S. government and not working in the interest of the people of the United States.

Unfortunately there are many groups fostering such activities. Islamist jihadists are only one that are using their influence against us, and no matter how they protest to the contrary, their actions are perhaps treasonous.

' "America is our land!" Faruq Wadud, a Bangledeshi man, hollered hoarsely." I find his statement at least to be disingenuous and reflective of the true motives of Muslims world wide, motives that are the antithesis of being an American. Americans have always expected immigrants to sluff off baggage from previously loyalties, and If nothing else Mr. Faraq and all other immigrants that are aspiring to become or have already gone through the process should realize that the process requires the "giving up of allegiance to all powers and principalities," and failing to do so is a violation of the oath of citizenship. To continue to jihad is to continue a supposed past allegiance to another country above that of the United States and, in mind, is an act of treason. If this was the immigrant's intention at the swearing in, his oath is also perjury.

Historical evidence from many centuries and from many lands has demonstrated that for ideological reasons, Muslims immigrants can not give allegiance to their adopted lands. Muslim converts are put in an untenable position: they must now put their country's interests second to that of the international brotherhood of Muslims, the Ummah. These are now immigrants and citizens that are manipulation and using the laws of the United States against the U.S. citizens and government for their own ends and for the benefit of other powers and principalities.

By their presence they are creating a condition of fear for now the general population is becoming aware of what they're about. They are making life uncomfortable for ordinary Americans by forcing upon them simple and sometimes uncomfortable changes in their lives that would not have been necessary were it not for their presence.

Now Americans must worry about the handling of the Koran and book that few will every possess and probably now will never want to see. Americans have heard about the Muslim revulsion for pork products and that in certain stores in this country and in other Western countries, pork products are not to viewed or even sold. They must deal with changes in advertising and television viewing habits as now billboards, magazines, and television programs are to screened so as to not to violate Muslim sensibilities.

Everyday one reads about or experiences new changes that are brought about simply by the presence of Muslims, a tiny, tiny minority in the United States, that are forcing compliance with Muslim law.

Certainly religious differences must be respect...BUT...and there's always a but, in America we have a separation of church and state for a reason. We experienced religious tyranny at the beginning of our history at the hands of puritanical Christians that forced their religious views on all that resided among them. That lesson still burns in our collective memory and we have no desire or intention to allow religious tyrants from foreign lands to force their views and habits upon us.

Immigrants have the responsibility to conform to their new country and should not expect accommodation and special privileges. Either assimilate or return to the country of origin or find a suitable country that reflects a similar mindset and life practices.

Read how the FBI and Muslims are being "misunderstood"

CAIR Q'rap: The Daily Whine

If you have not seen one of the daily missives emitting from CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations), here is a typical one. They are always victim-oriented; of course, they are the victims, or their Muslim puppets are. They are always inciting protest and reflect underlying hostility. And, they are always soliciting money, even though Saudi Arabia bankrolls CAIR; presumably, receiving contributions gets the puppets to "buy in" (cf: Pat Robertson).

There is no way to tell whether these missives contain any truth, some of the truth, or all of the truth, unless you already know the stories or take the time to research them, efforts which are seldom worth it. These missives are designed to whip up and keep whipped up the Muslims in America. CAIR needs a base of ignorant paranoids, and Islam delivers.

Sometimes the emails are funny, though never intentionally. They always whine ceaselessly.

Being aware of these is important: It is necessary to know the enemy.

---------------------------------------------------

Subject: CAIR-NET: Gitmo Jailer Splashed Urine on Quran/Muslim Prayer Hall Burned to Ground in Calif.

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

BREAKING NEWS - 6/3/05

* Gitmo Jailer Splashed Urine on Quran
* Muslim Prayer Hall Burned to Ground in Calif.

-----

GITM0 JAILER SPLASHED URINE ON QURAN - TOP
CAIR says president must address 'climate of abuse'

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/3/05) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group said tonight that the Bush administration must address the "climate of abuse" at U.S. detention centers worldwide following a new revelation that an American jailer at the Guantanamo Bay prison splashed urine on a Quran.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Pentagon statement released late today detailed that incident and others in which guards kicked, stepped on or defaced a Quran, Islam's revealed text.

SEE: "Jailers Splashed Koran with Urine - Pentagon"http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=817991

"President Bush must address the climate of abuse that seems to prevail at U.S. detention centers worldwide," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. He said it is not enough to merely issue reports outlining abuse or to punish low-level personnel. "Those at the top must be held responsible for the actions of the men and women they command," said Awad.

CAIR recently launched two initiatives in response to reports of prisoner abuse and desecration of Qurans by U.S. military personnel.

On the first anniversary of the revelations of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, CAIR and other groups called for the formation of an independent bi-partisan commission to examine the use and instigation of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID) by American military, security and intelligence personnel worldwide.

SEE: "Coalition Calls for Torture Commission"http://www.cair-net.org/antitorture/

Following allegations that Guantanamo guards desecrated Islam's holy text, CAIR launched a campaign to provide free Qurans to Americans of all faiths. Thousands of people across the nation have already taken advantage of that offer.

SEE: "Thousands of Americans Request Free Qurans"http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1602&theType=NR

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 31 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

To read CAIR's Mission, Vision Statement and Core Principles, go to: http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=About

- END -

CONTACT: CAIR National - Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org; Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed@cair-net.org

-----

MUSLIM PRAYER HALL BURNED TO GROUND IN CALIF. - TOP
CAIR-LA calls for FBI probe as possible hate crime

(ANAHEIM, CA, 6/3/05) - The Southern California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) today called on the FBI to investigate a fire at a Muslim prayer hall in that state as a possible hate crime.

CAIR-LA was contacted by the director of the United Islamic Youth Organization who said the prayer hall, located at an Islamic cemetery in Adelanto, Calif., was burned to the ground early this morning. Mousavi told CAIR-LA that the 2,000 square foot prayer hall was used for funeral services and other religious activities. The same cemetery had been targeted by vandals in 2003. Local law enforcement authorities and the FBI were notified of the incident.

"We urge the FBI and other law enforcement agencies working on the case to investigate this incident as a possible hate crime," said CAIR-LA Communications Director Sabiha Khan. "We pray that the perpetrators, whatever their motive, are caught and brought to justice."

Khan said a series of similar incidents has been reported in recent months by Muslim individuals and institutions nationwide. Last weekend, CAIR's Florida office reported that vandals threw a large rock through a glass door of the Islamic School of Miami's prayer area. Just last month, a brick was thrown through a window of the Fort Collins (Colo.) Islamic Center.

As a response to these and other anti-Muslim incidents, CAIR published a "Muslim Community Safety Kit." The safety kit may be obtained free of charge by e-mailing pubs@cair-net.org. (Include name, address and phone number when requesting the safety kit.) It may also be ordered at: https://www.cair-net.org/comersus/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=1021

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 31 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

To read CAIR's Mission, Vision Statement and Core Principles, go to:http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=About

- END -

CONTACT: CAIR-LA, Sabiha Khan, 714-776-1847 or 714-390-0334, E-Mail: socal@cair.com; CAIR-National, Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org; Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed@cair-net.org

-----

To SUBSCRIBE to or UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, go to:http://cair.biglist.com/cair-net/To reach the list moderator, send a message to: cair@cair-net.org

-----

CAIRCouncil on American-Islamic Relations453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.Washington, D.C. 20003Tel: 202-488-8787, 202-744-7726Fax: 202-488-0833E-mail: cair@cair-net.orgURL: http://www.cair-net.org

-----

Speak for Yourself: Secularism and the meaningless life

My chronic beef with religious writers from Judaic and Christian perspectives is with their thinking. They use bad ideas badly. Worse yet, they have closed, bolted, riveted, and welded-shut their minds to any other considerations. Sadly that seems to happen to most people of most perspectives in their latter 20s, when they become the old adage: You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Dennis Prager, whom I do not know, for months has been writing an open-ended series of articles dealing with Judeo-Christian ideas. He says he is Jewish; in my view, his ideas span both religions quite evenly--not that I agree with many of them. I am grateful to him for articulating positions as clearly as the jumble of contradictory ideas permits and for his publishing these for people to read and think about.

Most of the time, I read and ignore his articles even though Mr. Prager always takes the position that there are only two sides to the story: the good and the bad. I just have to pick my battles, as the expression goes. He hails the Judeo-Christian side as universally good while anyone else, such as me, goes into the "bad" wastebasket with Muslims, Communists, "secular humanists," and the like--i.e., , anybody that does not fit the Judeo-Christian "good" side. So, with this article, I feel stimulated to address some of its contents.

Here is a sample from one of his recent articles:

Dennis Prager: Secularism and the meaningless life: Judeo-Christian values: Part
XIII,May 24, 2005

...{M}y columns on Judeo-Christian values have concentrated on differences between Judeo-Christian and secular values.

Perhaps the most significant difference between them, though one rarely acknowledged by secularists, is the presence or absence of ultimate meaning in life. Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless...[W]hile secular individuals can believe that their own lives have meaning, secularism by definition denies that life has meaning. The consequences have been devastating to mental health and to social order.

Among these have been increased unhappiness and depression, increased reliance on drugs and numbing entertainment to get people through life, moral confusion, belief in nonsense (such as Marxism, fascism, communism, male-female sameness, pacifism, moral equivalence of good and bad societies, and much more), and perhaps most ubiquitous, political meaning as a substitute for religious meaning.

Given that the need for meaning transcends all other human needs, its absence must create havoc individually and societally. In government, secularism is a blessing; but most everywhere else it is not.

The second quoted paragraph, which I italicized, demonstrates how he views those with not-like-his views as members of the Dark Side of the Force. Nevertheless, when you tease out the issues, you can indeed find elements of truth among all of the babies and their bath waters he throws out. Most notable is "moral confusion," but I do not want to try to address these issues here because there is something more fundamental that must be addressed.

That fundamental finds expression in sentences like this one: "...[W]hile secular individuals can believe that their own lives have meaning, secularism by definition denies that life has meaning."

When Mr. Prager uses "meaning," he clearly refers to valuing. A value is really something someone acts to gain or keep, and the action to gain or keep it is virtue. But, values are not floating abstractions, but expressions like "life has meaning" are indeed floating abstractions. And the very question which exposes the problem is, "Value to whom, for what"? Without an object, value has no meaning whatsoever.

Thus, "the meaning of life," however phrased, has no meaning.

The clause "...[S]ecular individuals can believe that their own lives have meaning" really does mean something. However, just what it means cannot be known without asking secular individuals to tell you. Since secular individuals make up vast numbers of people on earth, finding out what their lives mean to them becomes a prodigious, if not impossible, task.

Thus, his phrase which says "...[S]ecularism by definition denies that life has meaning" is meaningless. Mr. Prager implies that "meaning" means God and all the trappings, i.e., religious faith. Since all the elements of faith belong not to this world but to some unknowable world, we have to ask how anyone knows an unknowable world. And, how would such have any meaning?

We are really treading on nonsense here.

I want to take a brief aside here to address "secular." My Encarta dictionary gives the denotative meaning of "secular": adjective, 1. not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters; 2. not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature (as in secular music)." If you look at the two meanings, neither conveys either a positive or a negative meaning or inference. Yet, when "secular" comes from someone on the Right who is religious, as in "secular humanist," it conveys undiluted negativity--its connotative meaning. Given the verbal emphasis, the term conveys the whole range of evil.

I do not use "secular" because it is too imprecise and because it lumps together all manner of entities which do not belong together. And, I do not use it because it is only an epithet from the religious Right.

But, I digress--back to "meaning" and "life."

Both the Left and the Right have the hardest time dealing with the fundamental social unit: the individual. To the Left, only the group or groups have meaning, and individuals are simply cells in the large group collective organ. To the Right, the fundamental social unit is the family, which is a group, just like those the Left admire. The Left and the Right have much more in common than either is comfortable admitting.

To reality, groups are individuals coming together for some reason. Society is not some big, anonymous, all powerful collective. It is all of the individuals who live together geographically, and perhaps politically.

Hold on to your seat, Mr. Prager for this next section.

The individual is all there should be, and once that individual dies, he or she ceases to exist--forever, anywhere. No spirit hangs around to re-enter babies or haunt locales. Nothing goes to an afterlife because there isn't one. This life IS IT for every individual born. And ONLY it.

Because this life is it, each individual must properly take the responsibility to make his or her life meaningful to him or her. As has been said, we are beings of self-made soul. Mother Nature hands us a genetic load, with potentials. Turning those potentials into actuals is our responsbility and ours alone. It makes sense then that we must make the most of our lives while we have them, and it is just as obvious that very many people never accept that responsibility. Whether they accept responsbility for making their lives meaningful or not, that is their choice. Reality serves the consequences of their pro-action or lack of action.

I suppose that Mr. Prager says that life has meaning only with religion, and those who are "secular" endure a living hell. Speak for yourself, Mr. Prager.

It is a glorious responsibility, this building a meaningful life. It builds that life on this earth, in this world, because there is no other, and time and life are too short to squander.

Did Anyone Expect Otherwise? "CAIR distributes Quran banned as anti-Semitic"

This is an important article for several reasons. If anyone is unfamiliar with various versions of the Koran, this article provides excellent insights into the translation CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is giving away. Secondly, the article gives really important information about CAIR itself. Note also, the version of the Koran which CAIR is giving away is very popular with Muslims, one they prefer--that is very important context.

As anyone can see from this article, CAIR is a principal subversive arm of the Saudi government's covert jihad against America. That is why it can sue everybody for everything all the time, and this is why it can afford to give a $20 ish book to every citizen in America and still have loads left in its treasury.

It must be that CAIR is counting on few people taking advantage of its offer, and, of those that do, CAIR must be counting on them not to read the Koran.

Thus, we recommend that all Americans avail themselves of the CAIR Koran giveaway offer, with this one reservation. That reservation is a strong recommendation for every person who gets one of the CAIR Korans to READ IT, from cover to cover, including the footnotes. As boring, badly written. and organized as the Koran is, reading it from cover to cover will require a sustained act of will. However, the payoff will be great. Never again will you be sucked into Muslim propaganda such as: Islam is a religion of peace, Islam loves all mankind, and Islam just wants to live along with you instead of subjugating you.

This article has not been amended in any way in order to present all its information.


WorldNetDaily: CAIR distributes Quran banned as anti-Semitic: Version offered for free as goodwill response to Newsweek fiasco ,By Art Moore, Thursday, June 2, 2005

In an attempt to quell the rancor resulting from Newsweek's retracted Quran-desecration story, a controversial U.S. Muslim lobby group is giving away free copies of Islam's revered book.The particular edition, however, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," previously was banned by the Los Angeles school district because commentary notes accompanying the text were regarded as anti-Semitic.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has included the edition in the Islamic book-package it offers libraries nationwide and now is giving it away to help "improve America's image" through a program called "Explore the Quran."

"We want to turn a negative image into a positive one," said CAIR's Florida director, Altaf Ali, at a news conference in Cooper City, Fla, announcing the project. "America's image is taking a beating, and it's affecting us all, of different faiths."

WorldNetDaily contacted Ali at his Florida office, but he refused to be interviewed for the story.

CAIR's library project, begun in September 2002, was funded in part by a $500,000 donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. In 2001, bin Talal's $10 million donation to New York City was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Guiliani after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Saudi-funded CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

A Florida-based group, Americans Against Hate, drew attention to CAIR's distribution project, noting the book's commentary and index makes it clear the Quran's references to "apes" and "pigs" are descriptions of Jews.

Khaleel Mohammed, an assistant professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, says the Saudi-approved edition was first published by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in 1934 at "a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism."

Ali, according to the professor, constructed it as a "polemic against Jews."

Until recently, he said, it's been the most popular version among Muslims. Yet, despite revisions over the years, Mohammed added, the footnoted commentary about Jews "remained so egregious" that in April 2002 the Los Angeles school district banned its use at local schools.

Goodwill gesture

According to the Los Angeles Times, about 300 copies of "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" were donated in December 2001 to the Los Angeles Unified School District by a local Muslim foundation as a goodwill gesture in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Jim Konantz, director of information technology for the district, said the usual review process was skipped for an unknown reason, and he received a complaint from a history teacher.

"It's not an issue of whether the Quran should be available in the library," Konantz told the Times in a February 2002 story. "It's like any other research volume. But these interpretations are certainly in question."

Ali's rendering of Surah (Chapter) 2:65 of the Quran, which reads like most English versions, says: "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed. In the matter of the Sabbath; we said to them: 'Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

In his corresponding note, Ali says: "There must have been a Jewish tradition about a whole fishing community in a seaside town, which persisted in breaking the Sabbath and were turned into apes."

Under the heading "Jews" in the book's index, is a reference to Surah 5:60, which says: " ... Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some he transformed into apes and swine ... ."

In the index under "Jews" also are these phrases: "cursed," "enmity of," "greedy of life," "slew prophets," "took usury," "unbelief and blasphemy of" and "work iniquity."

Extreme or mainstream?

Scholars point out that Muslims believe the Quran was dictated word-for-word by Allah in the Arabic language, so any rendering in other languages is imperfect and can be seen only as an interpretation.

But author and researcher Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, says that while Ali's notes are particularly anti-Semitic, his rendering of the Quranic text largely is no different than any other version.

"It's an indication that what we think of as extreme in Islam is not really extreme but mainstream," he told WND. "You won't find a translation that doesn't have Jews being turned into apes and pigs."

Some Muslim scholars say the text refers only to particular groups of Jews, such as those breaking the Sabbath, and is not meant to apply to Jews today.

But Spencer says the global, mainstream understanding regards this as a current, universal reference to Jews.

The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, includes in its archives many translated writings and texts of sermons by prominent Muslims leaders who make such references.

For example, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs" in a weekly sermon in April 2002.

In a TV program broadcast on Iqraa, the Saudi-Egyptian satellite channel, a 3-year-old "real Muslim girl" was interviewed about Jews. Asked whether she liked Jews, she answered, "no." Asked why, she replied Jews were "apes and pigs."

"Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Quran."

At the end of the interview, the obviously pleased moderator said: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she. ... May Allah bless her, her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are children, so that they will be true Muslims."

Spencer said many in the United States are unaware that this kind of rhetoric is common in the Muslim world.

"I think that maybe this is a chance for Americans to become aware of just how the text of the Quran itself plays a role in the creation of jihad terror," he said.

It's also a chance, he continued, "for Muslims who claim to be moderate to face that honestly and develop a genuine, non-literal understanding of the text that is convincing to their fellow Muslims and propagate it aggressively."

Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.

The First Versus the Second Bill of Rights

The writer of this New York Times op-ed piece thought he was saying something good and noble. He wanted to extol the values of the Left while running down the values of the Right, at least in terms of the current president and vice president. That is not what he accomplished.

What he did accomplish was to provide excellent grist for the intellectual mill, stuff of far greater importance than the Left and the Right.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Radical in the White House, April 18, 2005, OP-ED COLUMNIST, BOB HERBERT

That more wasn't made of this anniversary [of the death of FDR on 12 April] is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 1, 1944. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, h