A Kinder, Gentler Terrorism

Folks,

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

Oooooooh!

Little by Little, The Word is Getting Out

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


Dear Dan,

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

The information you gave on Muslim cleric Bakri (to say nothing of the fact that his views are typical) is much needed in the PC World. Inasmuch as you are interested in him, and inasmuch as you mentioned his desire to fly the flag of the Ummah all over the world, I thought you'd enjoy one of his more revealing publications, called "Khilifah: The First 24 Hours" available at:
http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/khaliplan/24hrs%20Khilifah%20book.pdf . It was written by our friend (the Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad), and published by Al-Muhajiroun publications (mnapublic@yahoo.com).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Best regards,

(Cubed)

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

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

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

Here's How to Select Judges for the Supreme Court

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

The Need for an Active Supreme Court Justice

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

By Tara Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Is It Time to Get Real?

Have you ever dreamed of a really super adventure movie?

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

Here's the scoop:

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

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

Guess which countries have the ability to carry out a rescue mission by
2013?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See what I mean about a great movie?

HOW TO GET MICHAEL GRAHAM BACK ON THE AIR

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

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

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

=====

Anti-CAIR

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

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

ABC DISNEY BACKS DOWN TO THREATS FROM CAIR, FIRES CONSERVATIVE TALK HOST OVER STATEMENTS REGARDING ISLAM AND TERRORISM

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

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

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

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

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

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


To contact ABC Radio in Washington and express your opinion about their decision to cave into pressure from CAIR, call the General Manager, Chris Berry, at 202-686-3100 or email feedback@630wmal.com.

ACAIR Note: (Listen to Michael Graham's full Tuesday show from link below)http://wmal.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=323805&PT=630%20WMAL%20On%20Demand

Andrew WhiteheadDirectorAnti-CAIR (ACAIR)ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org, http://www.anti-cair-net.org/.

================

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


JWR COLUMNIST BOOTED OFF AIR AFTER ABC/DISNEY IS INTIMIDATED BY CAIR

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

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

Details and easy to use technology at:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0705/graham_booted.php3

PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!

JWR COLUMNIST OFF THE AIR AFTER ABC/DISNEY IS INTIMIDATED BY CAIR
By Binyamin L. Jolkovsky

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

And then his fears came true.

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

http://jewishworldreview.com/0705/graham_booted.php3

STOP AMERICAN DHIMMITUDE: GET MICHAEL GRAHAM BACK ON THE AIR III

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

It reads, in part:

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

THE TRAGEDY OF ISLAM

By Michael Graham

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:

Islam is a terror organization.

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

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

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

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

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

That is part of the state of modern Islam.

Read the entire article at

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/graham072805.php3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Mason

web: http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com
blog: http://sixthcolumn.blogspot.com

"History is philosophy teaching by example."
Lord Bolingbroke

STOP AMERICAN DHIMMITUDE: GET MICHAEL GRAHAM BACK ON THE AIR Some Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

STOP AMERICAN DHIMMITUDE: GET MICHAEL GRAHAM BACK ON THE AIR I

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

From the WMAL website this morning:

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

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

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

Re: Firing Michael Graham

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

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

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

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

Rehire Michael Graham!

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

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

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

The Foreign Policy of Guilt

By Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let Us Not Forget the 9-11 Memorial Issue

Fifteen Major September 11 Family Organizations Announce Two New Initiatives

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

"Campaign America {http://takebackthememorial.org/?page_id=107}" is the way that concerned communities across the country can show their support to "Take Back the Memorial." Concerned citizens are encouraged to download the Campaign America Resolution located at www.takebackthememorial.org and present it to their local city or town councils for consideration. Municipalities which have passed the resolution, will be listed on the Campaign America Honor Roll located at www.takebackthememorial.org. The passing of the Campaign America Resolution by communities across America will send a powerful message that this is America's 9/11 Memorial, and American communities will not stand for the International Freedom Center and Drawing Center being located on the World Trade Center site.

The "Offline Petition Drive

{http://takebackthememorial.org/?page_id=99}" is an extension of the widely successful online petition by www.takebackthememorial.org. Currently the online petition has garnered over 36,000 signatures including nearly 1900 family relatives of September 11 victims. The offline petition will reach supporters without easy access to the internet. We encourage supporters to printout the Petition kit and instructions (available at (www.takebackthememorial.org) and gather the signatures of friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

The Coalition of Family Member Organizations

Advocates for 9/11 Fallen Heroes {http://911lenheroes.org }
Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund {http://www.cantorrelief.org }
Coalition of 9/11 Families {http://www.coalitionof911families.org }
Fix the Fund {http://www.fixthefund.org }
Give Your Voice {http://www.giveyourvoice.com }
9/11 Familes for a Safe & Strong America
{http://www.911familiesforamerica.org}
9/11 Familes for a Secure America {http://www.911fsa.org/}
September 11th Families Association {http://www.911wvfa.org }
September's Mission {http://www.septembersmission.org }
Skyscraper Safety Campaign {http://www.skyscrapersafety.org }
Voices of September 11th {http://www.voicesofsept11.org }
W. Doyle Support Group {mailto:WDoyle5614@aol.com }
WTC Families for Proper Burial
{http://www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com }
WTC Family Center {http://www.wtcfamilycenter.org }
World Trade Center United Family Group {http://www.wtcufg.org}

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

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

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

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html

The Pew survey results can be reviewed here: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=89

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


1. Agree or Disagree

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

2. Agree or Disagree

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

3. Agree or Disagree

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

4. Agree or Disagree

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

5. Agree or Disagree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folks,

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

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

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



Question:


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

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

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



Answer:


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

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

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

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

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

Your poor brother,

Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti

Discovery versus Anti-discovery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a contrast.

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

Potentially promising news comes from England.

Guardian

Unlimited Special reports Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK

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

Vikram Dodd
Tuesday July 26, 2005

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

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

It is obvious that too many still want to stay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only HALF?

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

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

· Further information at http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

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

Time to Defy CAIR Again

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

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

CAIR ACTION ALERT #462

DC RADIO HOST SAYS 'ISLAM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEE: http://www.cair.com/hatehurtsamerica/

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: (As always, please be POLITE.)

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

2. CONTACT the first of WMAL's advertisers: Mr. Dan Testa President TCI - Telcept Holdings, LCC5554 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22151,TEL (703) 321-3030, 1-800-824-1001Fax: (703) 321-5046, E-Mail: testad@tcicomm.com, routhierd@tcicomm.com, tcimail@tcicomm.com COPY TO: cair@cair-net.org (Other advertisers will be listed as required. To see a list of all WMAL's advertisers, go to: http://wmal.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=332139 Please copy this list as it may be taken down later.)

(All emphases mine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bigger sins than offending

By Rep. Tom Tancredo
R-Colo.
DenverPost.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sense from Berkley: Go on the offensive against terror

Go on the offensive against terror

By John Yoo, July 13, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did You Know This?

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

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

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

2) The Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new op-ed from the Ayn Rand Institute.

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tancredo Critics vs. Reality

Tom Tancredo (R) of Colorado, is being utterly slammed by both Right and Left for his comment about "nuking" Mecca, should the Muslim hoards not be persuaded by any other means to stop their irrational temper tantrums.

Mr. Tancredo made only one "mistake"; he said it out loud on a talk show before the PC Curtain that shields our population from the harsh reality of what Islam is all about has been pulled back.

You see, the harsh reality of which I speak is the fact that Islam has only one reason for existing, and that is to bring the rest of the (non-Islamic) world into submission. Remember, that's what "Islam" means in Arabic--"submission."

But Mme. Reality always wins in the end; Muslims will continue, relentlessly, with their goal of world conquest. Eventually, even Mr. Tancredo's harshest critics will learn that the Golden Rule is meaningless to Islam. Islam will teach Mr. Tancredo's critics why he felt he had to say what he said.

"Being nice" doesn't cut it with Islam; its canonical documents, the Koran, the Hadith, and Sira al-Rasul, all place upon them the moral obligation to conquer the world and grants them the moral authority to commit murder and mayhem to do it. Nothing is off the table when it comes to carrying out this holy command of Allah.

More attacks will come. They will be carried out wherever the infidel lives, including in the U.S. The worst case scenario concludes that there are already weapons--possibly radiologic--in place in various locations throughout our country, awaiting only the signal to be used.

Could it be as early as August 6, 2005? August 6 was the day we used an atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end WWII; some would say that since bin Laden has spoken of "an American Hiroshima," that this might be what he meant. Boston, Chicago, New York, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and Seattle have all been thought to be attractive targets of an al-Qaeda nuclear assault.

Whatever form the attacks on the infidel take, they will continue. They might be multiple nuclear weapons of some sort, they might be suicide bombers, they might be forest fires. Whatever they are, in time, when all else fails to stop them,even the PC will weary of them--but they will continue.

Ultimately, we will be pushed to the wall. That's when Mme. Reality will tell Mr. Tancredo's critics, "I told you so."

A Useful Song for Rep. Tom Tancredo

Country singer Toby Keith wrote a terrific song a few years back, one that beleagured Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado should consider using.

Congressman Tancredo has that perfectly awful habit of facing the truth and speaking it squarely, and that upsets the politically correct. Those politically correct people these days come both from the Right and the Left, depending on which issue Mr. Tancredo has spoken about. When he dared speak of even considering taking out Mecca and Medina should Islamists launch nuclear strikes on the American homeland, the "righteous" Right joined the lugubrious Left to strut their protests ostentatiously so that all of the world could see how "morally superior" they think they are. Even some ordinarily sensible persons on various anti-Islamic websites were in high dudgeon. Thusfar, the Stupidity Response Meter clearly favors the Right, who are showing just how politically correct and morally unreliable they really are.

All of the protests centered about several points. From the Right, how dare that idiot Tancredo suggest that we attack another's religion and its symbols; from the Left, how dare he suggest that we are at war with Muslims and Islam; from the anti-Islamic sites, how dare he alienate the moderate Muslims. Separating these protests into three groups is just an intellectual exercise because all three protestors mixed and matched these with great fluidity. Of course, there seemed not to be anyone who was protesting addressing (1) Islam is a toxic, nihilistic ideology passing itself off as a religion, (2) Muslims and Islam declared war on us, and (3) moderate Muslims come from moderate Islam, which does not exist. The fact that a rattlesnake might not be striking you at a given moment should not be construed as meaning that the rattlesnake loves you, and its corollary: the rattlesnake always sees you as the enemy.

Ordinarily, it is just the Left and those from the loon wing of the Right who protest Congressman Tancredo when he exposes the wetback invasion of America and the federal government's refusal to protect us from godknowswhat coming across open borders to south and the north. Poor man; if he would just shut up and go to the back of the bus, he might be acceptable--to the Tancredo-haters.

Well, guess what happened today, 21 July 2005? Before the evening rush hour in old liberal London, "they" did it again: Four explosions of sorts, thankfully inert due to apparent terrorist ineptness, with few injuries and no deaths. This is two weeks to the day since the last attacks (7 July 2005). It seems that London, if not all of England, still walks about with a "kick me" sign taped to its back. Does anyone remember that some Islamic lunatic boasted earlier this week that what is happening in England is just the beginning of 50 years of "bloody attacks" by Islamists against the West?

Who did this? Why, it had to be Scandanavian grandmothers launching from their nursing homes. No, wait, it was a gang of children under age 6. Both groups have been severely screened at airports and other check points, but they must have learned ways around the system. Television news reports indicated that London police were chasing a "bearded man," and they were looking for an "asian" man of dark skin wearing a blue "topper" (which I take to be a wind-breaker jacket or the like), with "wires sticking out of its top." No, no, no. Don't say it. Saying it breaks the code of silence of political correctness. That is what Congressman Tancredo did, and one must never say these things. That way they won't be true.

Well, Congressman Tancredo, that brings to mind the song. They hate you for speaking the truth, and they get all embarrassed in some sections of Colorado, particularly the liberal press, because you say that which they fear to face.

You keep at it. You are saying what needs to be said and facing what needs to be faced, and you are having one hell of a positive impact. Just look at the stuff CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and that Turkish diplomat have been saying, for starters. They have become used to getting their way and bullying cowardly Americans into retreats and apologies, as well as scaring them to death with their Saudi financed legal suit machine. They threaten and cowardly Americans run. Not you. You stood up, and they absolutely did not know how to handle it. They showed just how their bluster covers severe weakness. You showed the way, the way Americans should stand up and stop being bullied by Islamists, the Mexican government, and all of the other pressure groups.

You have the last laugh, coming today courtesy of London. As Toby Keith sang, "How do you like me now?" It fits, Congressman Tancredo. Use it.

Well, There They Go Again!

Well, there they go again. Fortunately, there were no casualties this time. We don't know why just yet, but we are very pleased that the latest attack on London was unsuccessful.

Yet, despite this and the other 2400 other attacks around the world that have been committed by Muslims since 9/11, the naive still condemn Tom Tancredo of Colorado for saying that, as a last resort, one should keep open the possibility of nuking Mecca.

Of course, Islam has been doing things like this for--well, ever since it was invented. The whole goal of Islam and Muslims, from the very beginning, has been to kill or convert infidels. The Koran is just a war manual, thinly disguised as a religious document. Ever since Mohammed experienced what sounds a LOT like an episode of sleep paralysis, complete with hallucinations, and then invented Islam, Muslims have been doing this kind of thing (attacking) and citing "religious duty" as the reason.

Mohammed was a hostile, angry guy, and besides that, he was greedy. When he invented Islam, he made sure that he granted himself the moral authority to do whatever was necessary, up to and including murder and mayhem, to get whatever he wanted. How convenient it was that every time he wanted something, he had a "revelation" in which Allah said "go for it!"

Well, within about 100 years of Mohammed's death, thanks to lots of murder and mayhem, Islam had spread over a very large territory indeed. It might have spread beyond its logistical capacity to sustain any further conquests, because it was stopped at the Gates of Vienna, eventually pushed out of Spain in 1492 after years of effort, and began to shrivel a bit around the edges.

Well, even though Islam couldn't pursue its goal any further didn't mean it changed its mind about it and suddently decided we should all just get along. The original goal remained the same: Spread Islam (which means "submission"), using whatever means is necessary, until the entire world is Muslim. If you want to read today's version of the plan for Islamification of the United States, just read Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed's "how-to" piece called "Khilifah: The First 24 Hours." The subtitle reads: "How can we transform the present ruling systems and government departments into an Islamic system and Islamic departments?" It was authored by the good Sheikh himself, and published by Al-Muhajiroun publications at mnapublic@yahoo.com, and you can download it and read it for yourself at: http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/khaliplan/24hrs%20Khilafah%20book/pdf .

The discovery of oil by the West (and later nationalized by the Muslim powers that be) provided the money they needed to pursue their goal anew; just as in the past, they will pull no punches. here are some recent statements (which are no different from thousands of others being made right now, and which have been made over the last 1400 years in every area under Muslim control):

From Hani Al-Siba'i, head of the Al-Maqre Center for Historical studies in London: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law."

From Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed (the author mentioned above), born in Syria: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents, but only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

In 2002, Muslim cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza said: "Murder, bank robbery, and looting are legitimate weapons against the enemies of Islam." That wasn't all he said on the subject: "Robbing (unbelievers) ...could be acceptable because they were not protected by Allah."

And then there was the statement made a few days after the first London bombing that promised that this was only the beginning of fifty years of bloody attacks in European cities, beginning (please note: "beginning") with those in countries with troops in Iraq (please note that there is no mention of "limited to" those countries with troopes in Iraq).

Now if this is the case--and rest assured, smooth-talking CAIR et al. notwithstanding, it IS the case (if you need to, go look up the meaning of "taqiyya" and "kitman")--and the entire infidel world comes under continuous, unremitting attack, and if the only way to stop it, after all else fails, is to nuke Mecca, I would not hesitate to do so.

When it comes to me or them, I'll pick me every time. Tom Tancredo seems to be the only politician in the country with the guts AND the smarts to acknowledge reality.

Re: London Bombings, Round Two

Television news sources report that London police have been chasing a "bearded man" wanted in connection with the transportation explosions of 21 July 2005.

Must be a Viking.

Hot Dog! Rep. Tancredo Will NOT Apologize and Do the Dhimmi-Crawl!!!!

The Daily Whine from CAIR (Council on Arab-Islamic Relations) of 19 July 2005 contained some delicious news amongst the usual q'rap. Here is the relevant section of the CAIR email:

TANCREDO: NO APOLOGY - TOP
M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News, 07/19/05
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3937059,00.html

WASHINGTON - The remarks were hypothetical but the outrage was real.

Facing mounting criticism, Rep. Tom Tancredo on Monday refused to apologize for suggesting the United States could target Muslim holy sites if radical Islamic terrorists set off multiple nuclear attacks in American cities.

"It's a tough issue to deal with," Tancredo told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "Tough things are said. And we should not shy away from saying things that need to be said."

Tancredo is known for his fiery rhetoric on immigration and other issues, but his words are coming under more scrutiny because he has started traveling to test the waters for a possible presidential candidacy in 2008.

A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible.

"They do nothing to advance our national security and protect Americans from terrorists," Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which calls itself the largest Islamic civil rights group in the United States, demanded an apology Monday, after the Rocky Mountain News published an account of his Friday interview with WFLA radio in Florida. . .

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible, inflammatory and "unworthy of an elected official."

"These kinds of . . . comments just serve to fuel negative perceptions of the United States in the Muslim world that create a downward spiral of hostility," Hooper said.

"He needs to go far beyond a clarification and apologize, not only to the people of Colorado, but to the American-Muslim community."

Tancredo rejected the idea of apologizing at his news conference, where the controversy overshadowed the topic he wanted to address, his introduction of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. His bill would create a limited guest worker plan for immigrants but only after beefing up border security.

Last week in Iowa, home of the nation's first presidential caucuses, he pressed his immigration reform agenda to members of the Christian Coalition. At each stop, he also spoke briefly about what he sees as a clash of civilizations and war against "radical Islam."

Hooper said it was a "quantum leap" for Tancredo to go a step further and suggest destroying Muslim holy sites that are at the center of a faith for one-fifth of the world's people.

"Unfortunately, there's a veritable cottage industry of anti-Muslim rhetoric now in our society, and it seems to be growing," Hooper said. "I don't know where it's taking us, because if people really do believe we're in conflict with the faith of Islam, what does that mean? What are the implications of that? Unending civilizational and religious war? It's too much to contemplate. . ."

Late Monday, CAIR officials said they were trying to arrange a meeting between Tancredo and Colorado Muslim leaders. Tancredo spokesman Will Adams said he had not received the invitation but that the congressman would be willing to meet with moderate Muslims. (MORE)

SEE ALSO:

ACTION REQUESTED: URGE REPUBLICANS TO REPUDIATE COMMENTS - TOP

Contact state and national Republican Party leaders to ask (politely) that they repudiate Tancredo's inflammatory and irresponsible remarks.

Mr. Bob Martinez
State Chair, Colorado Republican Party
E-mail: BobMartinez@coloGOP.org
Phone: 303-758-3333

Republican National Committee
E-mail: info@gop.com
Phone: 202.863.8500

President George W. Bush
E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
Phone: 202-456-1111

COPY TO: cair@cair-net.org, http://tancredo.house.gov/contacttom.asp

---

DNC CHAIRMAN STATEMENT ON REP. TANCREDO'S EXTREMIST REMARKS - TOP
CO Congressman Suggests Bombing of Holy Muslim Sites

Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement regarding U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) refusal to apologize for comments suggesting that the United States should bomb Muslim holy sites, including Mecca.

"Tancredo's statements go against the very message America is trying to send to the world, that the war against terrorism is not a war on Islam.

Remarks threatening the destruction of holy sites akin to the Vatican or Jerusalem do nothing to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the United States and abroad.

Congressman Tancredo certainly owes Muslims around the globe an immediate apology for his offensive remarks. At the same time, he also owes Americans an apology for projecting a message that goes against our values. With these remarks, Tancredo has been utterly careless with his responsibility for shaping our foreign policy. Tancredo's continued refusal to apologize poses a very real danger to our troops. President Bush should strongly condemn Tancredo's statement."

Contact: Karen Finney - 202-863-8148

---

TANCREDO WON'T BACK DOWN - TOP
Mike Soraghan and Anne C. Mulkern, Denver Post, 07/19/2005
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419

Washington - Rep. Tom Tancredo refused Monday to back down from his statement Friday suggesting that the United States might respond to a radical Islamic terrorist attack by bombing Muslim holy sites.

Muslim groups earlier Monday called on Tancredo to apologize and said they want to meet with the Colorado Republican.

"I'm not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect," Tancredo said. "I'm simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about."

Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, made the statement about bombing Muslim holy sites, including the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, on a Florida talk-radio show. (MORE)

---

TANCREDO'S "OFF-CUFF" TALK OFF THE WALL - TOP
Diane Carman, Denver Post, 07/19/2005
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2869468

Colorado U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo was just talking "off-cuff." It was "an extremely hypothetical situation." Everybody knows he's the kind of guy who "thinks out loud."
I was positively dizzy from the spin.

It was as if press secretary Will Adams was channeling Scott McClellan.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," the WFLA-AM talk-show host in Florida said to Tancredo on Friday. "Yeah," said the Littleton Republican, who's never been accused of sensitivity.

Adams tried to equivocate: There's a "widespread misconception about what he said. Congressman Tancredo is not advocating bombing Mecca or Medina or anybody's holy site."

Next up: a discussion of what the meaning of "yeah" is. (MORE)

---

TURKISH OFFICIAL CONDEMNS TANCREDO'S REMARKS - TOP
Associated Press, 7/19/05
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3937678,00.html

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul today condemned comments by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., that the United States could "take out" Islamic holy sites if there were a nuclear attack on America by Muslim fundamentalists.

Gul, whose nation is officially 99 percent Muslim, commented on the congressman's remarks at a news conference with Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern in the Turkish capital of Ankara.

Gul said that he didn't think the people or the government of the United States shared Tancredo's view. "The United States has a Muslim population," the Anatolia news agency quoted him as saying. . .

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a U.S. group, demanded an apology. Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible, inflammatory and "unworthy of an elected official."

"These kinds of comments just serve to fuel negative perceptions of the United States in the Muslim world that create a downward spiral of hostility," Hooper said. (MORE)

All emphases are mine, and they represent those representing reality, from Rep. Tancredo, and the rest come from assorted Leftist and Islamic sources, truly the opposite of representing reality. Absolutely all are revealing. For one thing, note that Hooper, representing CAIR, and that Turkish foreign minister made remarks reflecting just how fragile this enemy, Islam, really is, and so few seem to catch on. It creates the illusion of strength by trying to terrorize people out of thinking.

Were Muslims to adopt a live-and-let-lie policy toward all other peoples, regardless of whether these others have a religion, or not, this problem with Islam would disappear as soon as the policy was acted upon by Muslims. If Muslims want to carry out the practices of Islam WITHOUT THE INTOLERANCE AND VIOLENCE TOWARD NON-MUSLIMS, then so be it. Who in the hell would care? But, Muslims insist on getting into everyone's faces and having their 7th century CE thinking and acting taken seriously here in the 21st century CE. They are worse than pests. They are pest capable of killing as well as annoying.

We have a nation, nay, a world, filled with the epistemologically and ethically impaired. They have advanced cases of multiculturalism and "political correctness," instead of the reason and moral certainty which ought to fill their 21st century minds. The comments of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi represent quite well this group of those so handicapped.

Muslim loudmouths, like Hooper of CAIR, reflect the same impairment, but, because of their buying into Islam, they have the Muslim variant of the disease. Hooper speaks to the reality-retarded within and outside Islam when he asks, "... if people really do believe we're in conflict with the faith of Islam, what does that mean?" Buttressing this vacuous question is the infamous statement by the infamous Howard Dean that Rep. Tancredo's remarks go against "the very message America is trying to send to the world, that the war against terrorism is not a war on Islam." Both Hooper and Dean do not want Americans to catch on to the simple fact that we are in a "war with Islam." All of the human ostriches have their heads placed not in sand, but in their nether regions so they can avoid dealing with reality.

NOW HERE ARE MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Go to Representative Tom Tancredo's website (www.tancredo.org/) and blog ( http://tancredo.house.gov/) and start sending him daily emails IN SUPPORT of his incredible MORAL COURAGE. He is one of the few Americans in the House of Representatives. Very actively encourage and support this man.

2. Do the exact opposite of what CAIR asks its Muslim hand puppets to do. Using CAIR's actual recommendations but making appropriate changes (either bold and italicized or ...) :

ACTION REQUESTED: URGE REPUBLICANS TO SUPPORT
TANCREDO'S COMMENTS - TOP

Contact state and national Republican Party leaders to ask
(politely) that they fully publicly fully support
Tancredo's... remarks.

Mr. Bob Martinez State Chair, Colorado Republican PartyE-mail: BobMartinez@coloGOP.org Phone:
303-758-3333

Republican National CommitteeE-mail: info@gop.com Phone: 202.863.8500

President George W. BushE-mail: president@whitehouse.gov Phone:
202-456-1111

AND BY ALL MEANS FOLLOW THIS NEXT CAIR
RECOMMENDATION (entered without change)

COPY TO: cair@cair-net.org, http://tancredo.house.gov/contacttom.asp MAKE SURE BOTH GET YOUR EMAILS.

3. Subscribe to fifth column CAIR's "Daily Whines," my own affectionate term for these missives. It is important to follow what the trouble-makers say, think, and plan. CAIR tells you how:

To SUBSCRIBE to or UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, go to:
http://cair.biglist.com/cair-net/

I have been shocked at utter q'rap emerging from the Left, the Right, and from generally responsible anti-jihadic website contributors. The fact that there are so many people who think like CAIR on the Right, the Left, and amongst the anti-jihadists, bodes darkly for our immediate future in this war against Islam (yes, that is what it is, and all the b.s. in the world won't change one fact). Does it take another 9-11 or a series of them to get these ostriches to see daylight?

Don't be a DHIMMI. Support Tancredo!

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co) Breaks P. C. Omerta

The Daily Whine from CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) of 18 July 2005 is like the wolf trying to blow down the brick home of the three little pigs.

CO MUSLIMS SEEK MTG WITH TANCREDO OVER 'BOMB MECCA' REMARK - TOP

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 7/18/05) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said today that it is working with leaders of the Colorado Muslim community to set up a meeting with Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) over his recent remarks suggesting support for bombing Mecca, Islam's holiest site.

Tancredo made the remarks during an interview on the Pat Campbell Show in Florida last Thursday discussing what should be done in response to an attack on this country by "extremist fundamentalist Muslims." Tancredo said one possible response would be to "take out their holy sites." When Campbell asked if the congressman was "talking about bombing Mecca," Tancredo replied, "Yeah."

To listen to an excerpt of the interview, go to:
http://www.cairfl.org/audio/Tancredo_comments_071405.mp3

On Sunday, Tancredo released a statement saying he was just trying to figure out how the United States could deter future attacks. The statement said: "Among the many things we might do to prevent such an attack on America would be to lay out there as a possibility the destruction of these sites."

"I do not advocate this," said Tancredo in his statement. "Much more thought would need to be given to the potential ramifications of such a horrific response."

SEE: "Tancredo Clarifies 'Ultimate Response'"
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3934448,00.html

CAIR said local and national Republican leaders should repudiate the congressman's remarks and Tancredo himself should apologize immediately to the people of Colorado and to the American Muslim community.

The Washington-based council asked Muslims and other people of conscience to contact the Republican Party to ask for an apology and repudiation of the offensive statements. (E-Mail: info@gop.com, Copy to: cair@cair-net.org )

What Tom Tancredo did was not wrong in any objective or moral sense. It was wrong in the political correctness sense because it broke the "code of silence" (to borrow from the Mafia, the omerta). In short, one is not supposed to say this sort of thing. Whether it is true, or useful, or even just hypothetical, it must not be said. Why? It might "offend" Muslims and any one else so predisposed to being offended by every zephyr.

Even Michael Medved, conservative talk show host and orthodox Jew, roared in displeasure on 18 July about the "stupidity" of Mr. Tancredo's remarks and castigated anyone who might be sympatico with his remarks. Medved just knew such an act would verify every assertion about us made by Osama bin Laden.

Who the hell cares about whether bin Laden's assertions get verified or not? Who cares that the "Muslim community," a.k.a., the ummah, would be angry at us? How does that differ from today? Has our brown-nosing CAIR, ISNA, etc., and the entire ummah done us one bit of good? Obviously, it has not.

But there is more to the substance of Rep. Tancredo's musings than meet the ear and the eye.

We wrote on Sixth Column months ago about listening to an interview of Victor Mordecai. Alas, we cannot find the exact reference for the time being, but his words made an indelible impression on us. And, you, wherever you are in the world, must pay attention to his words.

Victor was interviewed by Michael Medved. His first interview, done weeks earlier, had set off a chilling but very strong reaction among Medved listeners. So, Victor had been invited back.

Who is Victor Mordecai?

He is an Israeli terrorism expert who predicted with astonishing precision and accuracy the events of 9-11 in America. Since he is politically incorrect, he has been ignored and hidden by the so-called "main street media"(MSM).

Victor lives in Israel, and he is married to an Egyptian Jewess who is utterly fluent in Arabic. Victor and his wife monitor the "nuances" among the Islamists in his part of the world, as well as monitoring what is going on with the Israeli government. The man is no kook. He speaks well and rationally. Trouble is, he does not say what the politically correct deem proper to hear. You should hear it, however, if you want to stay alive in this Islamist assault on civilization.

Mrs. Mordecai monitors the Middle East radio broadcast media. We hear very little about what transpires on these broadcasts. Were it not for MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), we would know NOTHING. MEMRI does all it can, but it cannot do it all. Mrs. Mordecai fills in.

The following is the popular Middle East talk radio chatter.

The goal the Islamists want is to detonate a nuclear bomb in Jerusalem. This would prove the superiority of Allah and Islam.

Conversely, they say on these broadcasts that should the West detonate nuclear devices which would wipe out Mecca and Medina, this would prove that the God of the People of the Book is superior to Allah. Then, Muslims would immediately convert to Christianity and
Judaism.

I am not making this up.

Mr. Mordecai went on to indicate without revealing sources or any details that plans have been laid to the last detail, should Islamia or any of its components strike Israel with nuclear devices. Mecca and Medina would be gone in a puff of extremely hot smoke, and staying "hot" for centuries.

I find neither any reason to doubt that such plans exist or that they will be carried out. Efforts will not stop at Mecca and Medina, either.

What's wrong with the concepts and principles behind such plans? I'm looking. I'm looking...

The Golden Pen of Diana West on Multiculturalism

Diana West has become one of our favorite columnists, if not THE favorite. She "gets it" about Islam and its interactions with our culture, and she gets it in terms of PRINCIPLES. We know of no other syndicated columnist that does this other than Charles Krauthammer, another whom we also admire.

In Burnt offerings on the altar of multiculturalism, dated 18 July 2005, Ms West addresses multiculturalism, the virus the "postmodernists" set free into our culture as a intellectual terror weapon.

She identifies the problem:

"Without it -- without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same -- the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers -- the multiculturalists -- is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies."

"I'm thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of "no surrender" even as they flinch at identifying the foe."

"How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam. Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists."

Have you ever asked yourself what is at stake were our national policy to turn rational, say, toward the problem of Islam? Have you wondered why our intellectuals, journalists, and people in positions of power and influence, avoid such? Here is what is at stake, beautifully written by Diana West:

"This is key, because any serious action -- stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, just for starters -- means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that's the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death -- as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law -- the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction."

The irrationality she writes about comes from the irrational philosophies following the Enlightenment which have lead to today's "postmodernism." Its advocates would literally rather die than give up these irrational ideas and logical practices stemming from these ideas. It is as though passengers, on a neo-Titanic in an era like today, where all can be saved, would choose to ride the ship to the bottom of the sea rather than be rescued.

We have written considerably about postmodernism, mostly on 6th Column Against Jihad, but in the interest of being clear about the subject, let us say that postmodernism is total rebellion against modernism, in much the same way that Islam is total rebellion against reality and reason per se. In this case, modernism refers to the Enlightenment principles and their logical consequences: reality, reason, individualism and rights, and the greatest of all possible evils in the view of postmodernism, capitalism. Just as Islam and America are incompatible, so are postmodernism and America.

In the climax to Atlas Shrugged (published in 1957 before postmodernism had become such a cultural influence), when America has all but fallen apart even as a nation, the captured protagonist is asked by a "Mr. Thompson," the head of state, to save the country, which really means asking him to save civilization. The protagonist tells Mr. Thompson that he and his gang must resign and turn the government over to men of reason, i.e., get out of the way totally. Mr. Thompson, who had promised the protagonist that he was willing to do anything whatsoever, if only the protagonist would only tell him what to do, responds in the manner of today's postmoderns. He tells the protagonist that he and they cannot do the rational, i.e., to step aside. The irony is overpowering.

Were those who advocate the suicidal behavior of America against its very obvious enemies to renounce their behavior, they would face what they fear the most: a metaphysical void, in which they count for nothing, and mean nothing. They would come as close as is possible to that bogus concept of Heidegger's: "nothingness." This is what Ms West refers to when she writes of the multiculturalists' fear of an "existential crisis." Thus, they would have us all die and be destroyed in sundry ways rather than change their thoughts.

Right to Referendum, R.I.P.

We at Sixth Column have begun highlighting some of the political machinations going on in Washington State because they apply so well to all across America, and not just to matters concerning citizens of one single state in the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared war on the Constitution of the United States, and we are fighting that tooth and nail, mostly through efforts to overturn the Kelo vs New London, Ct., decision of 23 June 2005, a decision that abrogated Americans' right to property. This decision also abrogates Americans' right to life, although Americans are slow making this connection right now.

Washington State has an anti-citizen legislature, executive (governership), and state supreme court. We have written recently about some of the autocratic efforts made by that state's governmental divisions against Washingtonians.

We have also begun to tell people who do not live in Washington State that rebellion is afoot, and that rebellion cuts across party lines. The rebellion going on is of the shot-heard-'round-the-world variety. Pay attention. You might need to use the same.

Right now, it is time to show another way the Democrat-dominated legislature of the state of Washington, aided and abetted by the supreme court of Washington State are stepping on Washingtonians. The author of the piece to follow is a private citizen of the state, Tim Eyman, a man who represents the best example we know of an American citizen taking proper proactive involvement in his government. Mr. Eyman has sponsored numerous initiatives, most of which have passed and have rolled by taxes and state government power grabs. However, the legislature has fought back, always trying to find ways to get its way, at the expense of the citizens. Right now, it is trying to prevent Washingtonians from taking part in the course of their own state government.

From: Tim Eyman, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com

RE: Right to Referendum, Rest In Peace

The State Legislature has always hated the people's constitutionally-guaranteed referendum process because it allowed voters to veto the politicians' legislation. In 1995, politicians audaciously declared that it was a threat to the public health and safety if we didn't build the Mariners a sports stadium. Despite the absurdity of this
legislative claim, the State Supreme Court essentially ruled "who are we, the judiciary, to decide if the Legislature overstepped its authority by declaring a sports stadium an emergency?" As a result of their abdication of duty and refusal to provide any adult supervision, for the past ten years, the Legislature has recklessly and repeatedly slapped emergency clauses onto hundreds upon hundreds of bills to insulate them from referendum. In this past session, 20% of the approved bills were made exempt from the citizens' constitutionally-guaranteed right to referendum.

But with a few new faces on the State Supreme Court, ten years of egregious examples of overreaching by the Legislature, and the absurd claim that lacking the votes for higher taxes was an emergency, several heroic groups and people stepped forward to give the High Court a chance to revisit this critical issue and reign in the Legislature.

In a 6-3 ruling, the State Supreme Court [the week of 11 July 2005] ruled the Legislature's ability to subvert the referendum process is absolute and inviolate. Using the same sports-stadiums-are-emergencies logic, they declared that if the Legislature says making-taxes-easier-to-raise is an emergency, that's AOK with the courts.

In his dissent, [state supreme court justice] Richard Sanders said it well: "I find little left of the people's right of referendum."

So despite what you read in the state constitution, the right of referendum is dead in Washington.

Fortunately, the people still have the constitutionally protected right to initiative. Even though an initiative requires twice as many signatures as a referendum, the ability of the people to hold final say on decisions of public policy remains.

There are two models for the people to follow with regard to this issue: the No New Gas Tax Initiative approach or the $30 Tabs, Round 3 approach.

Precluded from pursuing a referendum on the gas tax increase, the I-912 people filed an initiative targeting the November, 2005 ballot. They had to gather 225,000 valid signatures in 30 days. They did. And it's going to pass big time.

Precluded from pursuing a referendum on the overturning of the voters' twice approved $30 tabs, we are pushing an initiative targeting the November, 2006 ballot. We also have to gather 225,000 valid signatures but we have several months. We will. And it's going to pass big time for the third time.

This shows that the people can still veto laws passed by the Legislature. We just have to work a heck of a lot harder than the constitution requires. We will move Heaven and Earth to ensure the voice of the voters continues to be heard.

Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com

Washingtonians are fighting back, and winning. Take heart, America. Take your state and local governments back as well, while taking back your federal government.

Harry the Good

Overnight, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince went on sale. This morning, every television news channel showed scads and scads of young people, many costumed, excited and happy, clutching their own copies of the book to their chests.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America and the World, we should all be kissing the hem and the rings of authoress J. K. Rowling and carrying her via sedan chair to Stockholm for the biggest, fattest, and most prestigious Nobel Prize possible. If there isn't one worthy of her, then the Swedes ought to create one.

Whatever monies the authoress makes cannot possibly compensate for what she has done for civilization. That she is the richest woman in the U. K. is simply delicious to contemplate. Someone said on one of the television morning programs that she is a billionaire. I hope so. She EARNED EVERY DAMNED PENNY AND FARTHING OF IT.

Her contribution to America is much more familiar to me since I am American, and I can speak to what I know. Maybe the same applies internationally.

J. K. Rowling, single-handedly, taught an entire nation of young people to READ, and to LOVE IT.

Over many decades, I have been watching the degradation of America, caused by public (i.e., government) education, taking our youngsters and converting their minds into "skulls full of mush." My own kids, who are in their 30s now, came from a family where mother and father have been life-long avid readers and "book-a-holics." Yet, one kid, visually reliant, as she grew up read only what was required. Even now, she seldom reads for pleasure. The other kid somewhat pulled out of this nose-dive, in part because her husband, a product of the better sort of British influenced education, is an avid reader. Both daughters can read and read well. "Public" (a.ka., governmental) education had stamped out their interest, despite our best efforts to counter this influence.

I think this is a familiar story in many homes in America. We have jillions of offspring who "learn" from television and movie stories, by-passing the great world opened to them by books. They so frequently say how bored they are because their minds are adrift on "idle," but they are also terminally lazy, thus view reading books as "work."

Yes, indeed, times have changed since my youth, and a lot of that change has not been bad at all. The hooks of the past, when television was black-and-white and not-very-good, and when movies were good but not places where one could spend endless hours, came from books. The old hooks ceased catching generation after generation of youth. Thus, we grew a world of adults whose ignorance is surpassed only by their inability to spell and use proper grammar and syntax. As for content, far too many of today's adults are ignoramuses. Just watching them flail about trying to understand something as simple as Islam causes almost unendurable pain. Will they read almost anything to erase so much ignorance? Hell, no!

I had feared we were lost as a nation, at least for the duration of my lifetime and that of my own children.

Enter Harry Potter. Harry Potter reached out through that barrier of boredom, ennui, and utter indolence to grab kids by their frontal lobes and turn the juice up to high. Suddenly Harry Potter swept the youth of the nation. They could not wait for any movies about Harry Potter. They had to read the books as they rolled off the presses. They sequestered themselves in quiet places to devour many hundreds of pages. Then they shared the excitement of having their brains turned on with others. Reading Harry Potter became a contagion.

I really believe that for many children and young adults, this was the first time they had ever experienced the joy of their brains and minds being fully alive, doing that "human thing." Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and the like no longer grabbed our youth and had not for decades. Harry Potter grabbed them, and would not let go.

I hear the opposition to Harry Potter coming from pro-religion sources, and I think it is as absurd as our kids do. But, then, there are always those with sticks in hand trying to chase away all pleasure from life. If their ideas can't grab the youth, maybe their ideas suck, but they would rather burn stacks of Harry Potter books than examine whether their ideas are suited to a modern world.

There are many other values to abstract from the success of Harry Potter, far too many to deal with at present. I will say one thing, however: J. K. Rowling's success is a monument to capitalism. If you recognize what goes into making capitalism happen, the crucial ideas and principles, then you can take great hope about the future of the world. Those of us getting long in tooth may not live long enough to see it, but that better day is coming, and Harry Potter is helping to bring it.

"How Could They," Our British Friends Ask

A week after the terrorist attacks in London killed (to date) 53 people, Britons are incredulous that some of the terrorists were born and bred in their country. "How could this happen?" they ask, shocked. They have the impression that the killers, being British-born, automatically have the same loyalty to Britain that other Britons have.

However, the terrorists did what they did precisely BECAUSE they are British-born. They did it because they needed to prove to themselves, to their fellow Muslims, and to the non-Muslim Britons among whom they lived, just where their true loyalties lay.

How better to accomplish this than by killing themselves and others in the name of Islam!

Muslims truly aren't like the rest of us. The cannonical documents of their religion, the Koran and the Hadith, go to great lengths to tell them that it is the moral destiny of Islam to rule the world. To that end, Muslims are morally obligated to do whatever is required, up to and including murder and mayhem. Muslims who do not accept this goal are considered to be such "bad" Muslims that they are considered heretics, which, in Muslim society, can bring the death penalty.

Muslims are taught that it is not permissible to have loyalty to man-made law, or to man-made administrative units such as Britain; the only permissible loyalties are to the law of Allah as contained in the Koran (sharia), and to the "Ummah," which is the collective Muslim population of the world.

We often hear about the lack of "assimilation" of Muslims into Infidel communities; the reason for that is that the practices and loyalties adopted through assimilation are not morally permissible in Islam. On the other hand, we often hear about Muslims who "are such nice people, just like you and me."

But remember, because of their moral code, they cannot be like you and me. With our respect for man-made law and our allegiance to the countries of our birth, we cannot be alike. Heart-felt assmiliation is not possible, unless a Muslim is willing to give up the fundamental tenets of his religion which forbid it.

When Muslims are born and educated OUTSIDE THE UMMAH, they feel pressure to prove that being born and educated outside the Muslim world has not affected their loyalty to Islam. They feel a need to prove what "good" Muslims they are. This can be done by several means--by refusing to associate with the Infidel, by refusing to criticise terrorism, by actively supporting terrorism through approval or financial support, or, most convincing of all, through "martyrdom."

What greater proof of devotion and loyalty can there be?

Young Muslim men are the most common "martyrs." Like other young people, both male and female, they have more sex hormones now than at any other time in their lives, which leads to the classic teenage/young adult behaviors seen world-wide.

Neurodevelopmentally, the function of high levels of sex hormones is to establish the final organization of the brain in its transition from the child form to the adult form. This transitional period is frought with volatility; the neural connections between the primitive emotional centers of the brain (the kind that produce the need for immediate gratification and temper tantrums in small children) and the thinking/planning/reasoning part of the brain (the kind seen in most people over 35), are now becoming established, but the connections between the two come and go by the thousands each second. That produces the unpredictability of the teen/young adult--one day he seems calm and reasonable, and the next day he seems depressed and hostile. Now, more than at any time in his life, he seeks a "roadmap" to help guide him through life.

For most people, this "roadmap" takes the form of a religion. For Muslims, it is Islam.

Adolescents and young people are just beginning to establish themselves in independent life. Due to their lack of experience and judgment, they face more uncertainties, and even dangers, than more mature people do. For this reason, whatever they do involves more risk. To enable them to be able take the necessary risks, they must have some means of being psychologically protected against full awareness of their impact.

This protection is achieved by the presence of a sense of invulnerability. Intellectually, the young person knows about danger, including death, but deep in his heart, he doesn't feel that it applies as much to him as it does to other people. Somehow, he will dodge the bullet.

As the young person emerges from dependence on his family, he seeks to join the larger group of which he is a member. At the beginning of his life amid the larger group, the adolescent has a fantasy, almost delusional at times, of the status that he hopes to attain within the group. Somehow, he believes that he'll make his mark and be remembered; he'll be a hero of some sort. He spends a good deal of time imagining the admiration and respect he will receive from group members for his achievements.

The combination of convincing a child that it is immoral to have any loyalties outside the Ummah; the need the adolescent has to prove his loyalty to the Ummah; the volatility of the adolescent; his sense of invulnerability; the profound need he feels to make his mark within the Ummah; his conviction that he will somehow acquire status within the group, with all the respect and admiration to follow, is what leads the young person to kill himself and others.

All his pre-death fantasies are commonly reinforced by "send-off" ceremonies, pictures and videos taken during the ceremonies, the display after death of the pictures, the praise heaped upon him to the dead martyr's family, the examples he becomes for small children yet to become martyrs, and, of course, the assurance that there will be immediate admission to Paradise, where he can spend his time having sex with pearl-skinned boys and continuously recycled virgins (or white grapes, if recent linguistic research is accurate).

Terrorism of any sort, but especially martyrdom, is the solution to all the young male Muslim's fantasies, especially if he is born among the Infidel, where the need for proof of solidarity with the Ummah is greater than it is anywhere else.

Do Not Lose Site of the Leftist Attempt to Hijack the 9-11 Memorial at Ground Zero

At this moment in America's history, so much is going on, all of which must be kept in minds by pro-Americans, that items must take turns coming into the spotlight, on rotation. Cox and Forkum have published this outstanding political cartoon and accompanying outstanding editorial about how the New York Times supports the wrong side of the memorial struggle, again.

Here's the "meat" of the Times' editorial:

Keeping Ground Zero Free - New York Times, July 12, 2005


...[I]n the past few weeks, we've watched a handful of vocal family members, who may not represent a majority of 9/11 families, change the dynamic at the World Trade Center site for the worse. They have begun a movement to "take back the memorial," which means, in essence, eventually purging ground zero of its cultural partners, including the International Freedom Center.

There must be no mistake about this. If the Drawing Center is forced to withdraw from ground zero rather than accept the censorship of exhibitions that are yet to be imagined, no other respectable arts institution will take its place.

If the International Freedom Center must continually bend over backward to placate handful of angry family members, then all of its commitment to the conscience of that site, to what it can teach us about the character of freedom in the world, will have been compromised.

The emphases are ours, and we used them to point out the Orwellian-Speak in that heinous editorial. Don't believe any of it.

This is New-York-Times-Speak aimed at blowing fog to obscure while trying to use its journalistic and editorial talents to appear to "wear the cloak of reason." It is simply Times-Lying--the Times trying to fool the gullible and preach to the liberal choir.

The edifice the Left want to erect over Ground Zero will be a continuing effort to document all the ways we should be ashamed of being American. Don't take our word for it. Go to Take Back the Memorial. Read it for yourself.

We have seen the Leftist project manager, Richard Tobin, several times on television. Tobin tried to blow smoke and to spin, spin, spin, but even the host admitted that this man merely confirmed every criticism offered by Mrs. Burlingame, who is heading the opposition to the Left.

If the Left are successful, 9-11 will be swallowed out of sight, to be replaced with every wrong, ever done, by any American and any Westerner at any time. Not only is the intent anti-American, it is anti-Western, and perversely, anti-freedom. It is to be built with tax dollars to give liberals a perch from which to urinate on America.

Don't lose sight of this issue and the wonderful efforts of the Take Back the Memorial campaign.

What is shocking, is that anyone is truly shocked.

Watching the public rhetoric since the 7-6-2005 bombings in London has become truly painful. I cannot imagine either the British or Winston Churchill in their era being either shocked or so befuddled that they could not find their derriers with both hands. That, however, seems to be the response of Prime Minister Blair and his retinue.

Falling in line are the MSM (main stream media) of America. ABC reports on July 12 could hardly contain their utter mystification about who did the bombings, and, above all, WHY. Chiming in with Prime Minister Blair, they were simply astonished that Britons could have done this. What could possibly have been their motivation? Apparently, being in government and/or the press requires surrendering one's brain in advance on both sides of the Atlantic.

And, not doing one's homework is not just an American phenomenon. What is shocking is how bloody damned ignorant about Islam figures of power and influence insist on being.

Not only have the chickens come home to roost in England, but they are up to their Merry Old Eyeballs in guano. And, they are caught by surprise. I am glad Winston did not have to witness this display.

It is hard to believe that the sundry authorities in England were caught off guard, and it is even harder to believe that they are surprised by who-what-where-when-why-and-how. Have they been tucking their heads in their derriers all this time? They would have made more sense had they quoted Homer Simpson: "Doh!"

Now, Mr. Blair wants to rush to dialogue with British Muslims. He obviously has not a clue about Islam, Islam in Britain, Islam in the world, and the true nature of Muslims. Mr. Blair has been asleep at the socialist switch. He cannot believe the evidence of his senses. He has trouble integrating the obvious, because he does not want to see the obvious. He must have been taking President Bush lessons. Maybe they could become known as Prime Minister Tweedledum and President Tweedledee.

Just listen to the "understanding" of the problem exiting from Blair's layrnx. Islam is a great religion. Islam has been hijacked by a small group of fanatics. Almost all Muslims are peace-loving. Here are Blair-ism quotes from his 13 July address to Parliament:

"This is not an isolated criminal act we are dealing with," he said. "It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam. ... We will seek to debate the right way forward in combatting this evil within the Muslim community with Muslim leaders and it is our intention to begin this process immediately.

"In the end this can only be taken on and defeated by the community itself, but we all can help and facilitate," added Blair, who met Wednesday with British Muslim lawmakers.

"We are talking to other nations, Muslim and non-Muslim, about how to mobilize internationally the moderate and true voice of Islam. Round the world, such action is taking place, though we need to see how it can be better coordinated, publicized and driven through."

Does Grover Norquist advise Blair as well as Bush?

If this is the level of British leadership in the war against Islam, then we can say with total confidence to Mr. Blair the same we can say to Mr. Bush: Stand by for incoming. Each man thinks he is holding the olive branch of peace. In reality, each is holding a lightning rod outside in an electrical storm, instead of taking proper actions.

Oops! We Had a Birthday and Almost Forgot It

Somehow we thought that the birthday or anniversary of this blog came about mid-July. We just went back to that first article, and, lo' and behold, it was 6 July 2004. We almost missed our own birthday.

We have written more on this blog the past year than the sum of all our writings from the past. If the Google counter, which is working again, is accurate, we have blogged in about 600 entries, all authors combined.

Our vision and mission are the same now as then. Our focus has tightened around three critical areas. First, the war against Islam, and the simultaneous war on the anti-American fifth column which has joined forces with Islam to bring down America. Second, the war launched by the Supreme Court of the United States against America and the American people. Finally, symbolically important issues such as the attempted hijacking by the Left of the 9-11 Memorial at Ground Zero in New York.

This blog focuses more on the flow of current events than our companion website, 6th Column Against Jihad. The latter gets more into basic principles rather than events, but both focus on the whys much more than the whats. Lately, it has been hectic trying to service the three main foci of the blog due to the rapid evolution of events in all areas.

We would be utterly naked if we were just "against" whatever. We are resolutely American, standing for the values of the Enlightenment, taken to their fullest expression in the philosophy of Objectivism. We measure life and all events by that powerful standard. Ayn Rand, the originator of this philosophy, and numerous other thinkers have done a superb job laying out the principles and applications of this philosophy, and those works are easily available in any bookstore and online. Our job is not to recapitulate those works.

We see our job as that of doing the best job we can to understand and apply the proper philosophical principles to the world of today. We diagnose corrupting ideas and prescribe treatment principles. We do all we can to encourage persons all over Planet Earth to learn proper principles and to learn to think in terms of principles, instead of the usual random reactions to this and that stimuli.

We are having a great deal of fun doing all of this, and we appreciate that we are being read in the English-language speaking world as well as in a growing number of non-English-speaking countries. We remain open to comments, pro and con, and we actively invite contributions both to this blog and the website. Our email address and URL are available on this blog.

For tickles and grins, we reproduce the first Sixth Column article, from 6 July 2004:

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

WELCOME!

We are for America and against Islam. Political correctness barely permits us to be against Jihad, which is simply "actionable Islam." We are not at war with terrorism. We are perhaps at war with Jihad, since the acts of terrorism are the acts of Jihad. However, even Jihad is not basic enough; Jihadis are merely foot soldiers on the front line of the war. The root cause of terrorism is Islam. It is Islam which mandates Jihad, which then commits acts of terrorism.

The source of Islam is that part of the world some call the Middle East. We prefer to call it "Islamia." The core of Islamia covers the sand kingdoms of North Africa and the Near East. The next layer of Islamia covers subsaharan Africa, over to the southern Philippines, the right and left flanks of India with Bangladesh and Pakistan, and up to the Steppes lying at the belly of Russia. Islam crosses and suppresses all nations. It unites all of this geography as a single unit, and draws philosophically disturbed people from both its core and its outer layers to commit Jihad.

Were members of Islamia to leave us in the West alone, we would hardly even notice them. Islamia produces very little, and is of no interest to the capitalist world, since it seeks to hold onto its status as of 900 A.D. Islam inflicts tragedy on Muslims by its mind and life destroying philosophy, but it is completely unattractive the free peoples of self-esteem in the capitalist world. Yet, it is inflicting pain, suffering, and death on the capitalist world. The only reason for this comes from the fact that Jihad gets funding from petro-dollars. Islam succeeds only through the crudest initiation of force to convert, kill, enslave, or reduce people to a near slave status as religious dhimmis. Saudi Arabia and Iran are THE main perpetrators and funders of Jihad. Islamists know how hard it is to war directly on America, so they have begun massive efforts to subvert us, and these countries direct much money to these efforts.

Islamia believes that money (the effect) supercedes ideas (the cause). It is trying to kill us with the money that we made possible through our own engineering ideas and technology. Islamia has become grandiose. Muslims really believe they can take over the world. Their religion of Islam demands that they do so, and now the oil money has led them to enough success to make True Believers of them, for the first time since their westward expansion failed at Vienna on 9/11/1683.

Through a variety of mechanisms, Islamists have begun the covert war on the West through its Fifth Column work. Europe, which has been philosophically bankrupt for at least a century, has an extreme problem. Their problem is so big that they might become Muslim dominated in this century. Canada has followed the European lead. Its behavior has become sickening.

We--America--are IT! We must stop Jihad here, and we may well have to do it alone.

Among a host of simultaneous actions needed, we must detect and root out the Fifth Column of Islam in America. We have witting and unwitting Fifth Columnists at work within America. The witting ones are the Muslims themselves and their organizations.

Islam imposes moral commandments on Muslims never to take up arms or to oppose other Muslims. All Muslim efforts must be directed to the downfall of kaffirs, or "unbelievers." Islam promotes a host of techniques of deception for Muslims to use to fool us kaffirs into believing them, which is a real problem for the standard generosity-oriented, good-hearted American who wants to lend a helping hand. The foregoing leads to the chilling discovery that even the most congenial Muslims may be "sleepers" at worst and sympathizers with Jihadists at best. One rarely hears of the Muslim community standing up for America. I must take their silence as assent until some other evidence comes forth. These people constitute a massive Fifth Column which, like most of an iceberg, exists beneath the surface.

I have no choice but to consider all Muslims as witting Fifth Columnists.

Groups like the Council for Arab-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Students Association (MSA), and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are overt Fifth Columnists whose cover is blown even in our "politically correct" media. There are many other of these Muslim groups which exist to subvert America at every turn with recruitment, indoctrination, and intimidation.

With some caution, I mention some whose actions make them unwitting Fifth Columnists. I am not sure just how unwitting some of these are. We have a whole anti-American axis of Americans, from our universities, our journalistic media, and vast numbers of persons in executive and legislative power in America. I must include liberals, leftists, and liberal-socialists, although I am not always clear what, if anything, separates these anti-Americans from each other.

Sadly, many American conservatives also serve as unwitting Fifth Columnists. The best representative is President Bush. Conservatives base their view of the world and their ethics from the point of view of their God. They hold religion per se in such esteem that they can consider no criticism of any religion. All are good, in their estimate, because they are religions. That makes them utterly blind to the central moral duty of Islam and its Jihad. Many conservatives hide behind the idea that there are "evil-doers" who "hijack" a great and wonderful religion, and they will not even consider the truth. Thus they say that we are fighting a war on terror.

We are in a war. We cannot fight it and win as long as we refuse to understand the enemy and fight until the enemy is totally defeated. We are at war with Islam. Yes, we are also at war with Jihad and terrorism, but saying these is like saying we were at war with the arms and legs of the Nazis. We were at war with Nazism! Likewise, we are at war with Islam.

Take these words of the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to heart, and know that these thoughts, and many as bad if not worse, drive not only Iran, but all of Islamia:

"There are two kinds of war in Islam: One is called Jihad, which means the conquest of countries...The other is war to preserve the independence of the [Muslim] country and the repulsion of foreigners...Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war...Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword...Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah...Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors!"

Sixth Column dedicates itself to exposing Islam and Jihad for what they are and to exposing the Fifth Columns undercutting America.

Posted by George Mason © @ 7/6/2004 12:05:47 PM 0 comments

Common Sense Conspiracy Theories

With the terrorist rampage in London, the news has focused once again on just when and by what means the U.S. will be hit again.

Some of our politicians (who apparently don't read very much) have said that the reason we haven't been hit since 9/11 is because our security has improved so much. The people who say things like that have so little connection with reality that I won't even bother to comment on that.

When I saw the FOXNews.com interview a few days ago, on July 8, with counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv, he ventured that another attack on America was more or less imminent. He said he thought something of some sort would happen within ninety days of the inverview, putting it no later than around October. He suggested that it might involve six to eight cities simultaneously AND that it wouldn't be limited to big cities; rural America may be hit as well, to send the message that no place is safe.

Which brought to mind a July 12 interview by George Noory, host of nighttime radio talk show "Coast to Coast a.m." with Paul L. Williams, author of upcoming book "Al-Qaeda Connection." According to Williams, military, academic, press, and intelligence sources have all concurred that bin Laden has nuclear weapons and that a plan for an attack on America by al-Qaeda is "well underway," and could involve as many as 20 nuclear devices in as many locations. He says that bin Laden's rationale for an attack has been spelled out in his "letter to America."

Williams believes that the small percentage of freight that is checked on ships and planes is a problem, but the porous borders are the primary reason we are under such a threat. Mexican gangs, especially the MS-13 gang, has helped smuggle weapons into the U.S.

All of the above reminded me of an interview I heard on the radio one night when I was having trouble sleeping. It was toward the end of March in 2004, and I woke up to hear it after all the identifying information had been given, so I don't know the station or the program. But I did catch the name and website of the guest: David Hawkins, at http://www.davidhawkinsresearch.com . He identified himself as a forensic economist who specialized in following "paper trails" to ferret out corruption and other problems.

He had been working on the U.N. "oil for food" scandal some months before the interview when he saw enough information to connect the dots in the following manner: Saddam's oil money was used (in part) to pay off U.N. personnel so that after the trucks used by the U.N. to transport food and medicine had been emptied, they were filled with WMDs and transported to Syria. From there, many were loaded onto ships bound for Canada, and loaded onto trucks whose drivers were issued so-called "controlled goods certificates." These, Hawkins said, allowed the trucks to go pretty much anywhere they wanted. Eventually, the WMDs crossed into the United States over the porous border with Canada. They were distributed around the country, where they await further use.

Well, all this may sound a bit like a conspiracy theory of the first order, but it makes a whole lot more sense that the idiots who say that our great security is what has prevented us from attacks since 9/11.

The reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 is because it hasn't suited the sand savages yet.

The "Value" of Ignorance

Absolutely great materials which explain Islam truthfully exist within all but the poorest of budgets. Two or three books, all of which are well-written, arm the most ignorant of Americans and Westerners. The names of Spencer, Ibn Warraq, and Trifkovik trip lightly out of the old memory banks. (These and others, we have listed on our Recommended page). Why mention all of this?

The big reason for mentioning this is because of the level of inexcusable ignorance coming from news and talk purveyors who should no longer be tripping over such ignorance.

Yesterday, a very well-known conservative talk show host simply could not get "dar al harb" out of his mouth correctly, despite several attempts. He then went on to tell what this term means as though all of us were just waking up in the cabbage patch--look, Ma, what I just discovered.

This morning, one of the hosts on Fox and Friends reported how stunned Britains are to learn that the perpetrators of the 7-7-2005 assault on London were "British." How could Brits do this to their own country?

Another host on the same program simply could not grasp the motivation of the four bombers of London. Afterall, she said, they all came from well-to-do families.

Sun Tzu and every military theorist worth his or her salt since has made the point: know your enemy. Here we are, approaching the fourth year anniversary after the 9-11-2001 assault on America, and vast numbers of people in journalism, literate talk radio, and government act like they have not read one thing about Islam. Their knowledge has not progressed since 9-11. Worse than inexcusable, this is utterly frightening.

That same talk show host mentioned in the foregoing still prattles on about "Islam, the great religion of peace, the extremist hijackers of a great religion, and evil distortion of a great religion to fit the selfish ends of these radicals." Obviously, he talks, but he does not read. Somebody many years ago said something to the effect that God gave us two eyes and two ears and one mouth, meaning that we should spend most of our time taking in data and making information before opening our mouths.

By contrast, two other conservative talk radio hosts who used to sound just like this fellow now "get it." They see Islam for what it is, and they say so.

Nothing about Islam is complicated. That is one reason it is so widespread among dirt poor ignorati all about the world. But, knowledge of Islam will not leap into one's frontal lobes without some effort.

The slightest effort made to learn about Islam from truly outstanding and crystal-clear sources prevents people from making some really absurd remarks. For example, that these London bombers are "British" and their "mysterious" motivation since they come from well-to-do families is unbelievably easy to understand.

Islam exlicitly puts itself not only ahead of national identities, but forbids national identities. These bombers were "British" only by naturalization or by birth. Both naturalization and citizenship by birth were utterly meaningless to these dedicated Muslims. They considered themselves part of the ummah, the great global collective of Muslims, which follows Islam. They also considered themselves soldiers for Allah, using the amenities provided by their host country against the host in every way possible. Their goal was jihad, to go to Islamic paradise by striking at the rotten infidel, England.

This is why Muslims in any country, whether England, America, or wherever, make themselves untrustworthy because of this allegiance to Islam and pseudo-allegiance to whatever country in which they are legal citizens. They follow Islam which tells them to deceive and to turn the benefits of the host to its own destruction.

Oh, yes, and it is not radical Islam that they follow. A little reading makes the reality unavoidable: Islam is Islam--for everybody, all of the time. You may choose not to be orthodox, but if you do, you then become classified by Islam as a "hypocrite," subject to the death penalty.

The same answer applies to the motivation of these London bombers. "Well-to-do" has nothing whatsoever to do with what they did, but it does tell a great deal about someone's confusion. Marx taught that one's environment made the person, among other teachings. Thus, we have the liberal and too often conservative mouthing of how poverty creates evil doings. That type of thinking error has percolated deep into the culture; only thinking can extirpate it.

Well, most of these nefarious Muslims are "well-to-do." They have money, or they come from money, and they are educated either to a general level or even to a graduate level. So much for Marx.

The bottom line is that such ignorance can only cause Americans, or Brits, to hurt their country. The minds of the American ignorati have no vigilance because they are so lazy. For about $50 to buy and the time to read, say, three books, Americans and Brits can be transformed intellectually and stop offering as well as buy pabulum regarding Islam. They will start putting transformative bullets into their empty mental six-shooters, instead of holding what amounts to a poorly designed metal club, thinking they have a weapon.

Here's What I Think: A Reader Sounds Off About the Muslim Problem

America's government and its bureaucratic and elected officials are sitting on a time-bomb, and they seem to have no idea that is the situation. The same applies to other Western civilization governments. American's are enraged; Europeans may be getting there.

Normal, everyday Americans get disregarded, mistreated, and utterly ignored by governmental functionaries. The President ignores the borders, to America, and to Iraq. The politicians at all levels are the most spineless, visionless, and truly useless human beings on the planet. The bureaucrats are as bad, if not worse. That august body, the Supreme Court, has become the foremost enemy of the people.

You know what this sounds like? It sounds like the years immediately preceeding 1776.

The governmental approach to the problem of Muslims seems to be universally inept across the globe. Our president gets all dewy-eyed thinking about this great religion of peace and its peaceful adherents, many of which are cutting our people to shreds in Iraq and subverting all they can within America. The President, well, he just don't see it, no how--it isn't Muslims killing Americans and Iraqis, it's "terrorists" and "insurgents" who have "hijacked a great religion."

Mr. and Mrs. America, Ms. America, etc., see the truth. They see the Muslim problem, and they see the utter sycophantic and obsequious approach of those who should be serving Mr. and Mrs. America and their Constitution. They also know damned good and well that another 9-11 style event or set of events is coming, sooner than later. They see that the efforts exerted by the government are against Mr. and Mrs. America, to suppress them, to intimidate them, to deny their rights.

Self-righteous Muslims inside America do everything they can to wage covert and overt jihad against America. They thrash about, proclaiming their "rights," protesting everything they can beg, borrow, and steal from all the other I-am-a-victim groups and the Leftist anti-American lawyers. Mr. and Mrs. America see utterly flaming fool senators like Durbin and Reid and Representatives like Pelosi and Rangel engage in the most anti-American rhetoric ever heard in American history.

Well, stand by. When the "fit hits the shan" again, when Muslims attack America anew, many, many Americans will not wait for their indolent and cowardly government to protect them. They got the message, and it reads something like "Turn the other cheek." American citizens will take on and solve the Muslim problem--unless Muslims solve it first, and do so very quickly. I just saw a wonderful poster which said that America's original homeland security comes from the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Coincidental to this reader's submission, we just posted an article on 6th Column Against Jihad addressing this matter, America, Muslims, and the Future.

Here are the thoughts of one reader on the matter:

World-wide, Muslim groups are rushing into print and before every television camera available to "condemn" the London bombings of 7 July 2005. Well, nobody ever said Arabs and other Muslims are stupid. It's the contents and processes of their Islamic minds that merit total contempt, not their intelligence. Their intelligence is telling them that their own Islamic Doomsday Clock is nearing midnight.They are runnin' scared. And they should.

I think you can even push Europeans too far, and that includes "old Europe" Europeans. The Swedes might be the exception since socialism has made them too lazy to move themselves out of the way of any oncoming juggernaut; they want the government to move them, but the government have waved their white flags and now cheer for the opposition.

One of these days, sooner than later, jihadists will finally do it here and abroad. They will have added the straw which breaks the camel’s back. Where and what cannot be foretold. What can be predicted with absolute certainty is Muslim-quest: the ceaseless seeking to cease existing while destroying many innocent people somewhere. One of these coordinated events will make the Islamic Doomsday Clock reach midnight.

At midnight on the Islamic Doomsday Clock, the world will undergo surgery. It will be called "radical Islam-ectomy." The "radical" part will not refer to that cowardly term the dhimmi-minded use to refer to those “few bad actors of Islam,” you know, those few who make up "radical Islam." No, no. When that second hand hits 2400 hours, the scalpel will fall—and it will fall on Islam. Like a cancerous organ, Islam will be removed radically from civilization, with very wide margin excisions and excisions of many, many satellite sites, which just might be hosting the cancer. Can’t take any chances, you know.

Islam will become more unpopular than Prohibition and the military draft combined. Finding Islamic faithful will become a true sport.

Catholics will be able to dust off their "dispensation" kits and run off applications. Conversions will run rampant, from Islam, to ___: anything non-Islam. Anyone so complected as to suggest he might be an Arab, thus a Muslim (even though not all Arabs are Muslims any more than all Muslims are Arab), will be found in the line outside Michael Jackson's facial bleaching clinic. Bubbas won't be particular, however.

That group of experts who make a legitimate living imploding old buildings will have more mosque offers than they could fill in 300 years, going 24/7, but Bubbas won't wait—they will displace the Roman candle with the mosque candle. “Halal” signs will signal new Underground Railroad stops. Only this one won't be slaves fleeing to freedom. No sir, this will be a railroad to Oblivion. A whole lot of new “Joes,” “Jims,” “Jacks, and “Jills” will stream out of government buildings in tank tops, shorts, and flip-flops. Pork in wine sauce will soar in demand in restaurants, and convenience stores won’t be able to keep porkrinds in stock.

“Enough” will have gone from being a plastic, odorless, colorless, and useless United-Nations-like term to meaning, well, enough. Fancy that, words meaning what they say; why, the next you know, people using words meaningfully will insist on being taken seriously. And, those who will mistakenly think they are still listening to UN-speak when they hear the new intent, will, as Toby Keith might say, get a “boot in their ass,” or “boots in their asses,” as the circumstances dictate. Being taken seriously will suddenly mean “being” “taken” “seriously,” seriously.

CAIR staff, including its cheap-suit lawyer battalion, will be close on the heels of Grover Norquist hightailing it for the sands of old Saudi, followed by all Islamic pressure groups, now redesignated by popular international convention as “targets.” Ah, the safety of it all. There’s just nothing like getting into a cat box to make one feel safe, particularly one that stays about 130 degrees all the time.

Plumbers will become the richest people on earth, pulling all of those korans out of toilets and freeing sewage lines. GITMO will have become utopian after demonstrations of Uday’s plastic shredder, which will then be sent on tour to America’s prisons. Speaking of the United Nations, where did it go? France? You’re kidding! There’s just a big ol’ empty building in New York now. Well, at least, all those darned old parking tickets got paid.

Some out there in old Islam won't get the message, or the memo, no matter what. Some just never do. And some who do, say they didn’t. That gives them a chance to hang onto their own message. What message, you ask? Anger? They're angry, you say? No! But, haven’t they have been "angry, humiliated, shamed, and vengeful" for 14 centuries now? Well, they can’t help it if they are Johnny-One-Emotions—they had bad childhoods, and besides, they’re victims. We made 'em that way because we failed to understand them when they rammed passenger jets into New York and D.C. Yep, Islam, if it has taught them nothing else, has taught them to speak and act just like Teddy Kennedy--having endless temper tantrums and demanding that their 7th century CE ideas run the world.

Take heart. You will be able to view those who would not get the message or the memo preserved for an eternity in the new all Middle East glass museum. You will be able to see them even at night, due to the glow.

Yes, sir, when that second hand hits 2400 hours, good people around the world will have taken, lying down, their last beheadings, their last car bombings, their last bus and subway bombings, their last 9-11s, 3-11s, and 7-7s. No more Theo Van Goghs. No more Tel Avivs, Haifas, Jerusalems. No more in-your-face-obnoxious-savages
spouting an ideology that even shark packs would reject. No more nuclear Pakistans and Irans. No more pests like Syria—in fact, no more Syria. No more double-dealing bastards like present-day Saudi Arabia. No more sub-sub-sub-human behavior by African koran-thumpers. No more night club bombings by Indonesian crazies wearing coffee filters for hats. No more oil-funded, pot-stirring, lying by the I-hate-life crowd, like Al-Jazeera. For that matter, no more Mecca, Medina, Qom, Najaf or any other place Islamic savages call "holy."

"Palestinians" will have "emigrated" en masse overnight to Tehran and Riyadh, using hologrammed one-way tickets depicting their fate if they return to Israel. Israeli military jets will fly off US carriers to “practice” all over Iran, and the biggest worry in Israel will become what time the new movie starts, not when the next Muslim hatches. The free world will take back the oil, which had been nationalized” (robbed) from them following their development of it. The free world will pass out oil to light the clay night lamps of Greater Burkaville. Islamia will have no need for oil otherwise. If they want more, Islamia will always be able to draw on all of that latent genius, productivity, and civilization they keep crowing about having, thanks to Islam.

Islam will finally have pissed off the world, and the world will step on it like grinding its heel on a blood engorged tick.

Of course, the world will still have the soft-formed left after Islam departs for the nether world. That will be a good time to deal with the residual welt-jellyfish. Maybe the world can learn the lessons from the past of not finishing jobs: e.g., Russia after the fall of Nazi Germany; Iraq after Kuwait; Vietnam; Korea; and so on.

The world will need to undergo an international “mitosis,” to create two new cells to replace the old cell. One cell will hold those who have put Islam out of their misery and have returned to the reality and enjoyment of capitalist living. The other cell will scrap the EU name and become known as "Cowardia," and their currency will cease being "euros," and become C.Y.A.s (acronym for "cover your ass"; very popular in Washington and big businesses). "Puckering" will be the capital of Cowardia, and Cowardia itself will be the designated welt-dump for all the garbage of the world, whether human or other. When the world needs the next enema, everyone will know where to insert the wand.

Oh, yes, we will have to reset and rewind that doomsday clock and assign it to the next international pain-in-the-ass.

See If You Can Read This Without Getting Terminally Pissed Off, Then Read the Other Entry for 12 July 2005

Special Dispatch Series - No. 932
July 12, 2005 No.932

Director of London's Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies Hani Sibai: There are No "Civilians" in Islamic Law;The Bombing is a Great Victory for Al-Qa'ida, Which "Rubbed the Noses of the World's 8 Most Powerful Countries in the Mud"

The following are excerpts from interviews with the director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i. The first aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8, 2005; in it, Al-Siba'i discussed the London bombings. (To view this clip, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=748. ) It is followed by an interview he gave on AMB TV which aired on February 22, 2005. (To view this clip, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=576.)

(Editor's note: Ellipses in text represent a pause in speech.)


The London Bombings

Al-Siba'i: "I think that British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a grave error when he spoke before the investigation and claimed that the perpetrators of these acts were acting in the name of Islam. I think that he will pay the price for this grave error in the future. No possibility should be ruled out. We do not rule out the possibility that it was done by the intelligence agency of another Western country hostile to Britain. We do not rule out countries... or some Zionist Americans who wanted to overshadow the G-8 summit. But at the same time, we do not rule out the Al-Qa'ida organization. It's been claimed that Al-Qa'ida died in Afghanistan, and was buried in the caves there. And behold: it was resurrected after the American occupation of Iraq. Moreover, Al-Qa'ida controls the war agenda in Iraq. It is the Al-Qa'ida organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [Iraq], headed by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, that imposes its policies, to the extent that the Egyptian government was forced to... It was forced to recall [its ambassador], and other countries are afraid to send ambassadors there."

Host: "He was not an ambassador, but rather a representative that was murdered, and then Egypt lowered its level of representation."

Al-Siba'i: "He previously worked in the so-called 'Israel.' What I want to ask is: can this organization do this? Is it conceivable that it did it? Yes, it is. Why? In the year... We must not forget that on April 15, 2004, Sheik Osama bin Laden released a taped message, in which he said... He gave... He reached out for reconciliation..."

Host: "Just to recall, you are referring to the Madrid incidents, in which some 190 people were killed."

Al-Siba'i: "After the Madrid incidents, he addressed the Western and European nations. Obviously, he didn't address the leaders whom he does not recognize. He talked to the Western nations about reconciliation..."

Host: "Excuse me. He gave them three or four months. But, forgive me, targeting civilians... You, as a Muslim and as the director of a center for Islamic history... Is targeting wretched civilians considered brave or manly?"

Al-Siba'i: "I think... The man [bin Laden] addressed these peoples so that they would pressure their governments. He told them: We did not attack you. You have been attacking us for more than two centuries, and your campaign continues. He said to them simply: Withdraw your soldiers from the Arabian Peninsula, withdraw from Afghanistan and Palestine..."

Host: "Excuse me, Is Sheik Osama bin Laden a religious scholar, who issues fatwas, or is he the head of Al-Qa'ida?"

Al-Siba'i: "First of all, he is one of this [Islamic] nation. Allah... We have no clergy, or a pope, or anything like this. Anyone can carry out his religious duty, even if he is by himself."

Host: "Mr. Hani, issuing fatwas is done by religious scholars."

Al-Siba'i: "He has a Shura council, he has religious scholars... He wanted to debate with other scholars, but they refused. He asked to discuss matters with them, but they refused."

Host: "The question, in short, is whether the religious scholars... Sir, the religious law assembly in Mecca at the end of last month issued a fatwa forbidding the killing of civilians. Should we follow it or Osama bin Laden?"

Al-Siba'i: "These assemblies resemble the assemblies of the Church. These assemblies forbid young people from going to Iraq to fight the Jihad. These assemblies... The Higher Religious Authority [in Saudi Arabia] are the ones who allowed the presence of Crusader forces in the Land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia). These assemblies..."

Host: "Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama [sic.] Al-Makdisi, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi's mentor... Okay. Abu Hani, okay... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers..."

Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.

"These institutes, like the Islamic Association [of Britain], represent white-collar people, the effendis, people with 'prestige.' They only represent their own interests and do not mix in society. They don't know... Ask other Muslims... People see them only on their TV screens. They don't participate in the demonstrations for the poor. They are not interested in people's problems. We invite them, and they don't show up."

Host: "The Muslim Association of Britain represents 400 Islamic organizations..."

Al-Siba'i: "These are all interest groups. With all due respect, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sheik Moududi group do business with one another."

Host: "Are you claiming they are not Muslims?"

Al-Siba'i: "They are behind all these movements. They promote some people nobody has heard of. Then they promote some journalists."

Host: "Excuse me, who do you want to promote? Those who want the banner of 'There is no god but Allah' over the Queen of England and Buckingham Palace? Those who want to establish a caliphate and turn the Queen of England into a captive? Those who say [England] is Dar Al-Harb and property there can be plundered? Are those the kind of people you want?"

Al-Siba'i: "These associations do not represent the Muslim public. They collaborate with the British police for certain interests. They want an 'English Islam,' and not the Islam that was sent to the Prophet Muhammad. If Al-Qa'ida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy..."


Interview on ANB TV
Al-Siba'i: "As for the slaughtering and the recordings used [by Al-Zarqawi] - we must consider these people's mentality. What is their source of authority? The problem is that our sheiks, our clerics, and the religious institutions - especially official ones - are constantly running away from the truth."

Host: "The truth? What is the truth?"

Al-Siba'i: "That is the question I'd like to answer. Do these people base themselves on Islamic law or not? They claim that they do, and to support it, they say that slaughtering appeared in a hadith by the Prophet, which was pronounced authentic by Sheik Ahmad Shaker. The Prophet told the Quraysh tribe: 'I have brought slaughter upon you,' making this gesture. But these are religious issues that may be disputed."

Al-Siba'i: "The Mujahideen say: 'This is the time for Jihad jurisprudence. Iraq is an occupied country, so we must study Jihad jurisprudence, which is exceptional law. In this case, there is no need to ask permission – a wife does not need to ask for her husband's permission to fight.'"

Host: "There is no consensus here. This is just one opinion."

Al-Siba'i: "This is the opinion of the greatest clerics."

Host: "But there are other clerics who criticize and condemn what is happening…"

Al-Siba'i: "The problem, Dr. Muhammad…"

Host: "Does the problem lie with Al-Zarqawi or with the religious scholars?"

Al-Siba'i: "The problem lies with the religious scholars. When they are asked to confront these [ Mujahideen ], to talk with them and respond to the evidence they present. [The Mujahideen ] tell the Prophet drove nails into and gouged out the eyes of people from the 'Urayna Tribe. They were merely a group of thieves who stole from sheep herders, and the Prophet drove nails into them and threw them into the Al-Hrara area, and left them there to die. He blinded them and cut off their opposite legs and arms. This is what the Prophet did on a trifling matter – let alone in war. What else could they do when a 1000 lb. bomb lands on a house or a shack belonging to poor people, and the world doesn't shed a tear, but cries only about the slaughtering? All they have is a knife… "

Host: "Dr. Al-Siba'i, do you personally condemn anything they do? Can you say that even though you support these groups' case, they use such means? Is there a single method you are willing to condemn?"

Al-Siba'i: "I, myself… I condemn the occupation, which is the cause of all these tragedies. The occupation caused all these disasters. The country was safe and peaceful, until the Americans came, and we are expected to blame those who fight in defense of their honor?! When people hear me say… I received a picture over the internet, and when I opened it I saw a woman being raped by seven men. An Iraqi woman in prison – this is on American websites now – and when I saw her, I couldn't sleep a wink. A woman being raped, completely naked, in prison."

Host: "This is a despicable picture, worthy of condemnation."

Al-Siba'i: "You expect me to criticize them for using a knife to slaughter some American?!"

Ali Al-Saraf, Iraqi Journalist: "Dr. Hani said the Prophet gouged out a man's eye, killed another, and threw…"

Al-Siba'i: "This is a true tradition in the collection of Al-Bukhari."

Al-Saraf: "Excuse me, the Prophet did not do this to innocent people, like this riffraff in Iraq. They kill people who have nothing to do with…"

Al-Siba'i: "Do you mean the Americans?"

Al-Saraf: "I mean the riffraff – American or not – who kill innocent people."

Al-Siba'i: "The only riffraff I know are the Americans."

Al-Saraf: "If the Americans kill innocent people, they are riffraff, and if your guys, the Islamists, kill innocent people they are riffraff too."

Al-Siba'i: "Excuse me, don't say 'your guys.'"

Al-Saraf: "There are innocent people who are being murdered for no reason. Margaret Hassan shouldn't have been slaughtered, nor Kenneth Bigley, who was about to retire. He was put in a cage smaller then a chicken coop. I don't know what human sentiment has the audacity to call despicable actions 'resistance.'"

Al-Siba'i: People believe lies and falsehoods. Allow me to disagree with Mr. Ali. Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi himself issued a communiqué – and I believe Mr. Kamil and people who follow the press know this – he issued a communiqué that appeared on all TV channels, in which he called upon the group that kidnapped Margaret Hassan to release her, and said she was innocent. She was slaughtered by [Iyad] Allawi's gang… They don't even acknowledge the term 'civilians.'"

Host: "Who decides what the term means?"

Al-Siba'i: "The religious legal authority. One reads in history… I have an historical religious source of authority. Islamic history has no term for 'civilian' in the Western sense. This is a Western term. In our Islamic rules of war, one can be a 'combatant', a 'non-combatant', or 'protected by an agreement.' A person can be a combatant even if he does not carry a weapon. In other words, a person who came to wash and cook for the American soldiers in order to free them to fight – like the Nepalese – such a person is considered a combatant."

An Interesting Take on the "War on Terror"

Wretchard at the Belmont Club has another take on the purpose of the jihad against the West:

One route to victory, the ugly route, is to match the entropy within Islamic societies with a corresponding entropy within the West. The rising resentment against Islamic immigrants in Europe and the growing willingness in the West to see Islam and even Muslims as the enemy, are all early signs of the transformation of war into a corresponding blood feud.

Read the rest Two Points of View

Didn't 9/11 and Now 7/7 Teach Us Anything About the Need for Border Security?

It really burns me up to read about how our borders remain porous through which anyone and anything can be brought through to be distributed throughout with impunity. Of course this situation has gone on for hundreds of years with little peril to us. In today's climate of madmen armed with nuclear and biological weapons, open borders are insane. After 9/11 and now 7/7 they are an extended impulse for civilizational suicide.

Other Than Mexican? Welcome to America

Monday, July 11, 2005



LOS ANGELES — For many people around the world, the U.S.-Mexico border is a doorway to opportunity — one that's unlocked and wide open.

Brazilians, Chinese, Pakistanis and many others are joining the tide of Mexicans who sneak across every day.

"OTMs include people from all over the world — South America, the Middle East, the Caribbean," explained former Immigration and Naturalization Service Special Agent Michael W. Cutler, currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies (search). "Anyone other than Mexican is an OTM."

In 2001, 5,251 "OTMs" were caught crossing over from Mexico. Last year, the number was more than 35,000.

In the first eight months of this fiscal year, it's up to 70,000 already — 230 people a day — and they're only the ones getting caught. Hundreds more make it across undetected, experts believe.

"The vulnerability of a porous border is a security problem, and we always have to be concerned that the real bad guys will exploit those vulnerabilities," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum (search).

It seems that the whole world wants to come to the United States...and some are determined to let them.

The United States does need immigrants. We need immigrants that can make a positive contribution to our economy and our culture. We don't need some of those that are coming in at this time. Think of the visitors that you allow into your house, to interact with you and your children and into your family culture. Some will make a positive contribution and other won't. Those that enter into the United States should be held to the same standard.

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website--A Big Bunch!

We just put up lots of new stuff on 6th Column Against Jihad. Start with the home page and plan to spend some serious reading time. Plan to experience enjoyment.

If There Is Even a Shred of Truth to This...

We received the following emailing this morning.

Yes, it could be rank conspiracy-theorizing. But, it could also be the absolute truth--because it is so plausible-seeming.

The most destructive mechanism governments have comes from their coercive monopoly on a nation's monetary system. They can use--your money--against you, and there has never been a government in human history that resisted misusing this power.

Since Americans have allowed their government to grow to gargantuan proportions over a long period of time, and since Americans have defaulted on the proaction required of a citizenry to remain free, we have a government which has become more cancerous than beneficial.

Be on the alert. Pursue the following. And, remember: we can stop it!


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


From U. S. Survival News


Major Media Cover-up: G-8 Nations Endorse $3 Billion Global Tax; Analyst Cliff Kincaid Warns that U.N. Global Tax Scheme is on Track for September

As predicted by Cliff Kincaid and his public policy group, America’s Survival Inc., a foreign plot to impose global taxes on America came out of the meeting of the Group of Eight most industrialized nations that met in Gleneagles, Scotland, from July 6-8. But the major media have kept the American people in the dark about this ominous development.

In a little-noticed section of the G-8 communiqué issued by the U.S. and other nations at the event, it was agreed that members of the group would study adoption of an international tax on airline travel. “This is exactly what we were warning about,” said Kincaid, a veteran journalist who appears frequently on radio and TV. “But the eventual bill from the global taxes being pursued by France, Germany and the U.N. could amount to trillions of dollars.”

Kincaid’s group, America’s Survival. Inc., has produced a new report that cites documentary evidence that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and several key U.N. members, including France, are promoting a global tax plan to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars in new foreign aid to bankrupt socialist regimes and international agencies.

The report, “Smoking Gun: Shocking Truth Uncovered About U.N. Taxation Plan,” was released July 4, 2005, and posted at the America’s Survival. Inc. web site, www.usasurvival.org.

Although the U.S. was reported to be opposed to a global tax, the idea surfaces in Annex II of the Gleneagles communiqué, which is titled “Financing Commitments.” It states that “A group of countries above [an apparent reference to Germany, Italy, France and the UK] firmly believe that innovative financing mechanisms can help deliver and bring forward the financing needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals [ i.e. more foreign aid spending]. They will continue to consider the International financing Facility (IFF), a pilot IFF for Immunization and a solidarity contribution on plane tickets to finance development projects, in particular in the health sector, and to finance the IFF. A working group will consider the implementation of these mechanisms.”

A “solidarity contribution on plane tickets” is an international tax on airline travel. And the phrase “innovative financing mechanisms” is code language for more global taxes.

At a meeting of G8 finance ministers preceding the Gleneagles event, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow was reported by Reuters news agency to have said that “if other countries wanted to go ahead and look at proposals to fund aid via this mechanism the United States was not going to object.” See: http://www.whiteband.org/specialIssues/G8/gcapnews.2005-06-11.2939763071.
At the G-8 summit, France and Germany had led the effort to promote and adopt the “first international solidarity levy on plane tickets to finance the fight against AIDS and big pandemics," as French President Jacques Chirac put it. This idea, which has already been approved by the European Union (EU), is expected to raise $680 million in that region of the world through a special tax on domestic European flights. On a global basis, Chirac has said this “small levy” would bring in at at least $3 billion. See: http://gavi.elca-services.com/resources/WEF_26Jan05_JChiracSpeech.pdf.

Other nations support the international airline tax proposal. On February 6, the governments of Algeria, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany and Spain had issued a “Berlin Declaration” endorsing it. The “Berlin Declaration” had referred to the “Project of a solidarity contribution levied on air tickets for global sustainable development.”

The declaration added that, “The Group proposes to further work on and pursue the project of a solidarity contribution levied on plane tickets, already supported by Brazil, Chile, France and Germany. The objective of this project is to combat hunger and poverty and finance global sustainable development, inter alia health programs including the fight against HIV/AIDS and other pandemics.”

The declaration stated that, “The mechanism would be based on a small solidarity contribution levied on plane tickets issued to passengers departing from participating countries. In doing so, each participating country could determine, according to national priorities and taking into account economic, social and ecological criteria as appropriate, a differentiation between first/business and economy class tickets as well as domestic and international flights. The different capacities of developed and developing countries should be taken into account. The contribution should be set at levels that would minimize impacts on airlines, tourism industry and travelers.”

The declaration stated that the Group would jointly promote its objectives at the U.N. Summit Meeting of September 2005. That is where, Kincaid’s report warns, the U.N. will spring its trap on President Bush by attempting to get his administration to agree to more global taxes to finance more foreign aid.


Was this message forwarded to you by a friend? You can sign up for our Newsletter for FREE! Go here: http://www.usasurvival.org/mailing_list/

SAVE YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS

Add this group to your get-involved-with groups list, and get involved with them, along with the Institute for Justice and its Castle Coalition. Making a stand on the fifth amendment and the effort of the Supreme Court to abrogate our right to property is a good entry point. Clearly the first and second amendments are under full assault as well. However, if we can win big on the fifth amendment, we will have become so strong that we will be much more easily able to back down the rotters regarding the first and the second amendments.

We reprint most of the latest email we received from the Center for Individual Freedom. Do subscribe:

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

Center for Individual Freedom

Dear Friend:

"We will not allow churches, homes, farms, and other private property to be bulldozed in abusive land grabs that solely benefit private individuals."

Congressman James Sensenbrenner delivered those words on Tuesday as he introduced legislation to counter the Supreme Court's draconian Kelo decision -- which perverts the 5th Amendment and allows the government to seize the homes and property of private citizens to benefit big developers.

Last week, we told you that we were not about to take this assault on our fundamental freedom lying down!

And your Blast Faxes are working. Already 18 Members of the Senate have signed on to Senator John Cornyn's legislation -- The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 -- that he introduced in the Senate.

That's good news!

BUT we still have a long way to go because I want ALL 100 Members of the United States Senate to co-sponsor this vital legislation.

And I want to publicly EXPOSE those who refuse to co-sponsor this vital legislation.

Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized Blast Fax message to President George W. Bush and the remaining 82 Members of the United States Senate. Demand that they sign on as co-sponsors of the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005.

Tell them -- in no uncertain terms -- that you will view any refusal to co-sponsor this vital legislation as a rejection of basic freedom and a refusal to stand up for regular Americans over the interests of big developers and big government.

Tell them that there will be a reckoning. Republican or Democrat...THERE IS NO EXCUSE NOT TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/keloii.html

AOL Members Use This Link

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

THE HOUSE HAS CHIMED IN

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Congressman Sensenbrenner introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives -- H.R. 3135, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.

And immediately 64 Congressmen stepped forward to co-sponsor the legislation, including ultra-liberal Congressman John Conyers -- the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

However, during an earlier vote on a non-binding resolution expressing the displeasure of Congress over the Kelo decision, 51 Congressmen OUTRIGHT REFUSED to condemn the draconian Supreme Court ruling.

Those Representatives are: Allen (ME), Baird (WA), Case (HI), DeGette (CO), Dicks (WA), Dingell (MI), Fattah (PA), Green, Al (TX), Grijalva (AZ), Hastings (FL), Hostettler (IN), Inslee (WA), Jackson (IL), Jones (OH), Kilpatrick (MI), Larsen (WA), Lee (CA), Levin (MI), Lowey (NY), Matsui (CA), McDermott (WA), Miller (NC), Moran (VA), Nadler (NY), Oberstar (MN), Pastor (AZ), Payne (NJ), Rothman (NJ), Sherman (CA), Stark (CA), Watson (CA), Waxman (CA), Wynn (MD), Ackerman (NY), Blumenauer (OR), Capuano (MA), Granger (TX), Holt (NJ), Kaptur (OH), McCollum (MN), Neal (MA), Olver (MA), Paul (TX), Sabo (MN), Sanchez, Loretta (CA), Schakowsky (IL), Snyder (AR), Tierney (MA), Turner (OH), Watt (NC), Wu (OR).

There is no excuse for refusing to condemn a decision that takes away our property rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution.

And -- with your help -- we want to make sure that every man, woman and child in the United States knows that these 51 Congressmen have betrayed the average citizen in favor of big government and big developers.

Please stand with us. With your support we will hold their feet to the fire and make them feel the heat.

Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized Blast Fax message to President George W. Bush and the remaining 82 Members of the United States Senate. Demand that they sign on as co-sponsors of the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005.

Tell them -- in no uncertain terms -- that you will view any refusal to co-sponsor this vital legislation as a rejection of basic freedom and a refusal to stand up for regular Americans over the interests of big developers and big government.

Tell them that there will be a reckoning. Republican or Democrat...THERE IS NO EXCUSE NOT TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/keloii.html

AOL Members Use This Link

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

LET'S EXPOSE THE LIBERAL AGENDA

Why is it so important to expose the liberals who refuse to condemn the Kelo decision?

Simply put...the Kelo decision exposes the liberals for exactly who they are.

For years, liberals have -- in a quest to expand the scope and control of government -- perpetrated the horrid lie that they support the common man.

But in truth, liberals worship at the altar of big government and the nanny state. Liberals want more government power at the expense of our individual freedom.

And Kelo expands the power of government in a big way.

When we hold the liberals' feet to the fire on Kelo, we will also expose their true agenda to the American public and win the hearts and minds of the people.

Please join me. With your support, we can -- and will -- spread the word so that every man, woman and child will know that liberalism is the enemy of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in America.

Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized Blast Fax message to President George W. Bush and the remaining 82 Members of the United States Senate. Demand that they sign on as co-sponsors of the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005.

Tell them -- in no uncertain terms -- that you will view any refusal to co-sponsor this vital legislation as a rejection of basic freedom and a refusal to stand up for regular Americans over the interests of big developers and big government.

Tell them that there will be a reckoning. Republican or Democrat...THERE IS NO EXCUSE NOT TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/keloii.html

AOL Members Use This Link

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

THIS LAND IS (NOT) YOUR LAND, THIS LAND IS MY LAND!

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at the prospect that the Supreme Court would allow the government to collude with big developers to dispossess people of their land and property.

We fought a war over 200 years ago to put a stop to this very kind of thing!

The Kelo ruling is a MONUMENTAL POWER GRAB plain and simple -- a diabolical hybrid of big government and big developers, where competition is limited and profits and tax revenues are maximized.

The Kelo decision is not just un-American -- it represents a clear and present danger to each and every one of us. No home is safe and your home could be next!

If liberals are truly champions of the "common man" and conservatives are truly the champions of individual freedom, Senator Cornyn's legislation should be a no-brainer.

There can be NO EXCUSE for ANY SENATOR not to join Senator Cornyn and co-sponsor this legislation.

Please help me!


Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized Blast Fax message to President George W. Bush and the remaining 82 Members of the United States Senate. Demand that they sign on as co-sponsors of the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005.

Tell them -- in no uncertain terms -- that you will view any refusal to co-sponsor this vital legislation as a rejection of basic freedom and a refusal to stand up for regular Americans over the interests of big developers and big government.

Tell them that there will be a reckoning. Republican or Democrat...THERE IS NO EXCUSE NOT TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/keloii.html

AOL Members Use This Link

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.



Yours In Freedom,



Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org


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

The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If this e-mail was forwarded to you and you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.


If you experience any technical problems and/or do not receive confirmation that your request has been completed online, please postal mail, phone or fax your request using the contact information listed below. Your request will be processed within 10 days of the receipt of your request.



Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838

CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights
in the legal, legislative and educational arenas. Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

Powered By GrassTopsUSA

If this judicial decision stands, we lose the First Amendment along with the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution

That America has enemies, foreign and domestic, surprises no one. If anything about this is new, it is how crystal-clear domestic enemies have become lately. All along they have been gathering force but in ways not so obvious to most of us. At last, they have become almost obvious enough for teenagers and college students to grasp. Topping the list of domestic enemies are the federal and state courts of the United States of America. Our judges and courts no longer wage covert war on America through their anti-American activism. It is quite overt now.

The 23 June 2005 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (Kelo vs New London, Ct.) literally tore asunder the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, one of the vital ten on our Bill of Rights, by declaring open season on Americans' private property.

A recent decision in western Washington State sets the precedent to shut down and scrap the First Amendment to our national Constitution. No one can afford to remain ignorant about what is going on out there.

Perhaps those unfamiliar with western Washington State do not know what a cauldron of Leftist activism boils there all of the time. There are quite literally two populations in that state: the Haves and the Have-Nots. And, these terms do not mean what they have meant historically.

The Haves are Democrats who dominate state government and courts, backed by flaming liberal labor, business, and countless pressure groups. Democrats occupy the seats of the governor, the majority in both state legislative bodies, the courts at all levels, those elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate, all media, and so on. This Leftism comes from the counties lining only eastern Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands. Overwhelmingly, Seattle and its King County have exerted a mafia-like control on state politics for decades. Corruption goes far beyond having influence on dispensation of power and special favors; the corruption is as bad philosophically as blue state Democrat Party machinery anywhere, and Washingtonians and Washington have suffered mightily.

The Have Nots are Washingtonians in eastern Washington, one of the bread baskets of the nation, and those west of the Cascade Mountains who are overregulated, overlegislated, overtaxed, and almost completely not represented in state and national government. Boeing boogied out of the state in which it was born and thrived for decades to get away from state government piranhas.

Change, possibly revolutionary change, has come to Washingtonians. The best example comes from the Initiative 912 drive, the No New Gas Tax Initiative, which we reported on this site on 8 July 2005. Citizens are rebelling, all quite legally, against extreme autocracy in their state government. Democrats, with cowardly Republican acquiescence, recently passed a humungous gasoline tax for "transportation projects" over citizen protest, to support projects not even defined, except to say that the money will not be used to reduce traffic congestion, and they will eventually develop plans to use the rest of the money. (Sounds like the United Nations). Citizens were also denied the right of referendum by the Democrats and spineless Republicans about this tax increase. So, a grass roots rebellion arose to get enough petition signatures to place the matter before the public this November.

What a court did in response shows more philosophical corruption than most Americans can imagine, and we hope will tolerate any longer.

Infuriated Washingtonians privately launched a drive to gather enough signatures to put an intiative on the November 2005 ballot to throw out the 9.5% gasoline tax, the No New Gas Tax Initiative. A conservative Seattle talk radio station, KVI, 570 A.M., lead by two hosts, Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson, found out about the initiative drive and began getting the word out about its existence and its progress. Neither they nor their station, owned by Fisher Broadcasting, originated the petition drive nor had any financial stake it the drive. These talk radio hosts strongly supported the drive on air, but they used personal funds and personal time off air to help get the word out from a small ripple in a pond in western Washington, to a storm reaching the most rural sections of eastern Washington. Opponents of the initiative were invited to their talk shows over and over to give their views why the No New Gas Tax Intiative should not be signed or passed. They refused to appear, over and over.

At first, the opposition to the initiative drive did not take the petition drive seriously for reasons we documented in our 8 July blog. However, the ground swell of support became obvious even to the most extreme cynic, and fright set in among the Left. Big labor, big money, big business, big media,and big government arose in opposition. Suits were filed. Even petitions were stolen. These efforts only infuriated a populace made of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and absolutely everyone else fed up with being stepped on all of the time by special interests in Washington.

Enter activist judgeshiping.

The Seattle Times, one of two Leftist newspapers in Seattle, published an astonishing editorial on 8 July 2005. What that editorial had to say must not be lost on every American across America. The ripple set in motion by a judge in western Washington State has the capability to become a tsunami across America.

This judge, Christopher Wickham, of the county holding the Washington State capital and its functions, forced radio station KVI and Fisher Broadcasting to declare the on-air time spent discussion the No Gas Tax Initiative by Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson as political advertising. (Recall that neither broadcaster either started or had any sort of financial, organizational, or operational interest in the initiative. They offered facts about progress, gave opinions, and provided opportunites for those for and those against to call in to sound off.) The judge ordered that the No New Gas Tax Initiative campaign must convert the value of their time discussing the initiative into dollars and report this as support as a political contribution.

The Seattle Times editorial, Editorial In support of free speech, and KVI, Friday, July 8, 2005, said it all accurately and chillingly:

See what is being done here.

The judge is following a simple syllogism:

All political contributions may be regulated;

Speech is a political contribution;

Therefore, speech may be regulated.

The Times went on recall the heinous federal campaign-finance law of McCain and Feingold. Dissenting Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas had warned about the assault on the First Amendment from McCain-Feingold The newspaper acknowledge that at the time they had doubted the warning given by Scalia and Thomas because it seemed to apply only to ads and not to editorial content. Judge Wickham in Thurston County, Washington, carried the consequences to their logical conclusion. A contrite Seattle Times now said,

We thought Thomas was over the top when he said campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press."

It takes some good moral qualities to acknowledge an error, and to do on right on the editorial page. For that, the Seattle Times deserves commendation. They see the consequences of Judge Wickham's ruling and the need to have this decision reversed A.S.A.P.

By contrast, the haughty Seattle Post-Intelligencer maintains its "gotcha" position, so characteristic of the Washington State Left.

It is time to dust off the prophetic and widely applicable words of Pastor Neimoeller to the U.S. Congress in 1968 (which appears in the Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, page 31636):

"When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Pastor Niemoeller spent 8 and 1/2 years in a Nazi concentration camp. Don't lose sight of his message to the world: In short, if the ripple effect has not yet reached you, get concerned now.

And, in case that seems too abstract and tangential, let's apply Winston Churchill's metaphor about Soviet expansionism. Our court systems are doing this to us, and we must stop them now.

Churchill said that the Soviet communists' swallowing up of free countries was like eating a roast beef. They took a slice here, and no one objected over that small slice. Then they took another. Who could object over such small slices? Little by little, slice by slice, they took the whole roast. All that was left was the string used to bind the roast for cooking, and they took that.

It is up to you and to me, ordinary Americans, living out here in fly-over country. And, as we have showed time and time again, we are up to the job. Let's "Git-R-Done."

The World War Zone

We are in a world war. Labeled erroneously a "war on terror," any reasonable person understands that these hostilities are the result of resentment in the Muslim world that has lead to a seething hatred. The resentment has deep roots and the causes are many.

Muslims were progressed in comparison to the West many centuries ago. The West has prospered while they have remained stagnant. We in the West would probably chalk this up to the historical ebb and flow of cultures: some advance while others recede only to advance again. Muslims can't see progress in this manner for they view Islam and Muslims as "superior" and non-believers to be not only inferior but not worthy of having any authority or say in the affairs of man on earth. It galls them to know that for all their so-called superiority, for all the billions of dollars transferred to them through the sale of oil, they have not regained their "rightful place" as overlords to all mankind.

Many Westerners still don't understand that Muslims, all Muslims, feel this way about non-believers and their true position relative to the rest of us. They continue to make excuses and theories for why the jihadists attack us. Rebecca Bynum at JihadWatch has a solid grip on the recent London bombings and our present plight.

“The British anyway have far, far more experience of appeasement than the Spaniards. They know how to do it slowly, imperceptibly, so that nobody much notices.”
The history of Islamic conquest is filled to bursting with exactly this type of bit-by-bit appeasement; the slow but steady elevation of Islam coupled with the equally slow, almost imperceptible lowering of the values and ideals of the host civilization. The British seemed resigned and stoic in the face of terrorist attacks on Thursday. They may have come to believe that terrorism is inevitable and there is nothing they can do about it. As the Western world becomes increasingly engulfed in Muslim terrorism, many will prefer to ignore, like the passengers on the Titanic, that cold, wet feeling around the ankles. Pretend it isn’t happening because there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.
The history of the decline of Eastern Christian civilization occurred over many centuries, not all at once. Death came by slow degrees, achieved as much through civilizational suicide on the part of ever self-critical Christians and Jews as through actual physical violence on the part of the slowly engulfing Muslim population. Muslims are simply not as prone to self-doubt, you see, because Islam is the Perfect and Complete Total Explanation of the Universe. Therefore, Muslims are likely to have the stronger will in any contest of wills that extends over centuries. Samuel Huntington predicted the ultimate victory of Islam, and Bernard Lewis predicted that Europe would be completely Islamized by the end of this century. Not exactly cheerful tidings to those of us who have grown rather fond of Western civilization as it is.

The history of Islamic conquest is filled with people who were willing to sacrifice an uncertain and perilous future for a peaceful life in the present, or for monetary or political advantage, or because the relentless pressure of Islam with all its institutionalized persecution of non-Muslims disguised as “justice” finally came down to a life or death decision, or even a “this is the only way I can keep my job” decision. One could say that most, if not all, modern Muslims are the descendants of such people. Some time in the past a Christian or a Jewish ancestor decided the fight wasn’t worth it anymore, capitulated, and that was that. All his or her descendants from that time to this became Muslim. None could leave the new faith without risking death. Those are the rules of Islam. We would be wise to understand them.

The history of those formerly Christian or Jewish capitulators was then slowly distorted and destroyed by the conquered peoples themselves, who preferred not to remember. They preferred to think what they had chosen was better, and refused to acknowledge what they had lost. According to the incomparable historian Bat Ye’or, “the civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at once. It is a long process that involves many elements and a specific mental conditioning. It happens when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to uphold these destructive myths, more than their own values because they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only guarantee for their survival, when, in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching of history, those peoples prefer to destroy it rather than to face it. They replace history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia, inventing moral justification for their own self-destruction.” The popular idea that Islam is a peaceful and a harmlessly beautiful religion is one of these childish tales. A childish tale nonetheless preferred, because to admit the truth of our truly dire situation would be too overwhelming and would make us feel too helpless in the face of it.

The question, according to Derbyshire, should be this: “Is the United States willing to fight this war the way it needs fighting, with grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties? To lay waste great territories and their peoples, innocent and guilty alike, to level cities, to burn forests and divert rivers, to smite our enemies hip and thigh, to carry out summary execution of captured leaders? Of course not — how barbaric! And yet (whispers the ancestral, tribal voice in our heads, and in British heads too) if not, then what’s the point? War is a tribal affair, one tribe exterminating another, or reducing it to utter impotence and ignominious surrender. That’s what war is, and it isn’t anything else. We know this in our bones, from a million years of tribal living and fighting. If we are not willing to fight a war like that — which apparently we are not, being much too civilized — then we should not be too surprised if our allies turn and cut deals with our enemies. At least they’ll have a quiet life, for a while.”

Read It All.

We the People Can Do It! Here's a Brilliant Example

This could be a story about some local and state effort to collect signatures for some initiative for some state ballot for November 2005. Who would care? Well, read on. If this story does not give you a massive mood lift, you belong to the "other side." But, you can change. There's still time.

Here's some necessary background.

Washington State is literally "owned" politically by liberal Democrats. The governor and both houses of the legislature are liberal Democrats. King County, i.e., Seattle, is San Francisco North and boasts such luminaries as Representative James McDermott (D-WA),"Baghdad Jim," "representing" the heart and soul of liberaldom in Washington State, namely Seattle. Despite possibly the closest gubernatorial election in Washington State history in November 2004 and a protracted contest which upheld a 129 vote "win" margin by the Democrat governor, no politician or bureaucrat in Washington State government got any message whatsoever from this election. By the way, had the Libertarian candidate not gotten over 55,000 votes, Washington would have had its first Republican governor in decades.

Domineering Democrats, full of their sense of conquest, proceeded to push through a 9.5% increase in the state gasoline tax, a 33 and 1/3% increase, over vociferous protest from Washingtonians. Following the example set by Republicans in Washington, D.C., the state's spineless Republicans caved in and supported the tax. To prevent a referendum, Democrats attached to this law, along with every law passed in the entire session, an "emergency provision," which prevented citizen referenda. I.e., citizen redress was denied with the passage of the bill and the gleeful signing of it by the governor into law. Democrats literally taunted Washingtonians.

O.K., that's the background. Here's the new stuff. Realize first that Washington State allows ballot initiatives in which citizens can directly make law, issue by issue. It works, but it is intensely laborious.

A group formed the No New Gas Tax Initiative, from grass roots in Western Washington, the very heart and center of Washington liberalism. Democrat bureacrats and legislators, as well as the Democrat governor, and all of their spoils beneficiaries in labor and business, literally scoffed at the initiative effort. Why?

The odds of meeting initiative criteria for the November 2005 ballot were horrendous. Meeting the 8 July 2005 deadline gave this initiative effort only 32 days to gather an insupperably large number of names. Absolutely no "big money" joined the effort; in fact, "big money" wanted the gasoline tax--it gave them "big benefits."

Washington State, by law, required a minimum of 275,000 signatures, of which, 225,000 had to be bona fide registered voters of Washington State. Ordinarily, these initiatives require almost a full year of hard work just to meet minimum requirements. NO ONE HAS EVER MET THE CRITERIA WITH THIS LITTLE TIME.

Ladies and gentlemen, this No New Gas Tax initiative drive was the flame touching gun powder. From its beginnings in Pierce County where Tacoma is located, just south of King County and Seattle, Washingtonians rallied. Not Democrat Washingtonians. Not Republican Washingtonians. Not Libertarian Washingtonians. In fact, no one had a place on the initiative signature sheet to indicate any party preference, and experience made it clear that popular anger cut totally across party lines. Democrat citizens were as fed up with autocracy as were Republican citizens, and even party-undeclared citizens.

Full petitions began rolling in, as did monetary donations.

Several legal efforts were made by the opposers of the initiative to derail this grassroots wildfire. Every liberal judge that could be mobilized in the stop-the-initiative effort was mobilized, and they made all sorts of rulings similar to the thinking of the Supreme Court of the United States when it abolished private property on 23 June 2005. They not only did not stop the efforts, but they only accelerated signature gathering. Mr. and Mrs. Washington State now were furious at these gangster-like efforts to turn them into chattel for special interests.

This became a popular uprising. Americans in Washington State had had enough of decades of socialism creating the infamous Washington State reputation of being the most business unfriendly state in the union. They had had enough of the governor and the legislature feeling they could walk on Washingtonians with impunity.

Howls of protest came from the Seattle newspapers and media talking heads, none of which offered any value, other than possibly lining bird cages for the print media. The powerful became fearful as the days went on, because the signatures accumulated in the many thousands and as did the dollars donated to finance all the efforts.

By the way, the powerful insisted that the No New Gas Tax Initiative, now known as Initiative 912, used paid volunteers to drum up signatures by any means they could get away with, at 75 cents a signature. The fact is that not one person was paid one cent to gather any signatures from anyone at any time. The opposition resorted to ballot stealing, but the word got out through the internet and local radio stations. The stealing stopped quickly.

Then came today, 8 June 2005. The team arrived in the capital of Washington, Olympia, in the early afternoon, hand-carrying the petitions, with all sorts of volunteers providing security by their determined presence alone.

The number one talk radio station which helped to popularize the initiative, KVI-AM, in Seattle announced the results about 3:05 P.M. on the turn-in day, 8 July 2005:

Initiative 912 needed 275,000 signatures. Many more were also needed so that all challenges to signatures could be met from a pool of more-than-needed numbers.

Washingtonians collected 420,570 signatures--in 32 days. They made history.

This is the fourth highest total in the history of Washington State!

Initiative 912 will be on the fall ballot, and, if passed, it will roll back this TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. It is clear that it will pass with great ease.

To call this a "wakeup call" to the Boss Tweed government of Washington State is to fail to give the No New Gas Tax effort and its meaning its due.

If this can be done in Washington State, the northwest center of liberalism and corrupt government, it can be done all over America. It takes effort fused with motivation. Americans can take back their government and make it healthy once more, and this is an elegant example of how.

Mel Ayton (U.K.): THE NEW ANTI-AMERICANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR

Yesterday, London, England, resembled Tel Aviv after a visit by the "Palestinians." Noted author, Mel Ayton, sent us this article from the U.K. overnight. It tells us much about that phenomenon of anti-Americanism in England and Europe, and it could not be more timely today, the day after the 7-7 event in London.

THE NEW ANTI-AMERICANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR

BY MEL AYTON

www.melayton.co.uk

Mel Ayton is the author of The JFK Assassination : Dispelling The Myth (Woodfield Publishing 2002) and Questions Of Controversy : The Kennedy Brothers (University of Sunderland Press 2001). His latest book A Racial Crime – James Earl Ray And The Murder Of Dr Martin Luther King Jr was published in the United States by ArcheBooks in February 2005. In 2003 he acted as the historical adviser for the BBC’s television documentary The Kennedy Dynasty broadcast in November of that year and has written articles for David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com), History Ireland Magazine (www.crimemagazine.com) and History News Network (www.historynewsnetwork.org)



With the recent terrorist attacks on London we are reminded that not all Europeans have supported the war on terrorism. Indeed, a substantial minority of leftists have given succor to the Islamofascists by apologising for the behaviour of the British and American governments in their efforts to rid the world of this insidious evil. Instead of concentrating their criticism towards the barbarous groups that are attempting to destroy the West, the left in Europe seem to believe that we have brought these acts upon ourselves. Although Tony Blair has proven his mettle as a courageous and strong leader against the War on Terror, a substantial minority within his own party, mainly grassroots activists, distrust and dislike him for his pro-American positions. Many resent the way in which his political life is heavily influenced by his Christian faith.

This small, but effective group of opinion-makers from the worlds of politics, entertainment, academia, the arts and the media (aided by their counterparts within the United States, eager to show the world Americans are not the xenophobic patriots they are portrayed in Europe) have reduced America to a 19th century cartoon-like status - a monolith grasping at world dominance and empire. Few give a balanced opinion. Nearly all of the critics excuse the 9/11 attacks by implying the United States brought about the situation by its failure to give the Arab world its due respect.

During anti-war demonstrations in Britain left-wing marchers have unashamedly waved banners defending known terrorists, shouted abuse at American tourists and British pro-American supporters and described George Bush in terms usually reserved for serial killers. Banners decrying the attacks of 9/11 were nowhere to be seen. When Daniel Pearl was murdered there was no outcry from the left in Britain. Instead, leftist and liberal commentators concentrated their critical faculties on the treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo.

Anti-Americanism in Europe is not a new phenomenon, although the present strain is more venomous in character and is embraced by the far left and far right equally. And it is a myth that the new resurgence of anti-Americanism began when George Bush invaded Iraq. It originated shortly after America was attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists. Following a ‘honeymoon period’, when the world grieved with every American, opinion – makers in Britain and France decided that America should accept some blame for the tragedy.

Many Britons in the 1960s blamed the United States for risking a nuclear holocaust. During the Vietnam War many students used the anti-war marches to propagate Mao-style communism whose vocabulary was not far removed from that of present-day Iran in calling the United States the greatest evil in the world. Anti-Americanism has always been vicious and irrational but today it is masquerading as legitimate political discourse, quickly becoming the global ideology of the age.

The new strain of anti-Americanism in Britain is also fuelled by a gradual disconnecting from American popular culture. Post Second World War generations in Britain looked to the United States as their ‘closest relative’. The links were forged by television documentaries delineating a common history and American popular culture. Cinema and television westerns were especially popular in Britain and delivered a central theme of America’s basic values and decency. Now that position has been usurped as the youth of Britain turn to Australia as the land of opportunity and success. These sentiments have been reflected in the British media, which has established close links with that country, and in the way Australian soap imports have been a favourite with young people for over two decades. Others decry the United States because they want to forge closer links with Europe.

Anti-Americanism has its roots in British and French inherited complexes when the United States stepped in to save Europe from Nazism. As former leading world powers the idea that they had been usurped was difficult for many to accept. This resentment took root as the United States began to dominate the world scene economically, politically and culturally. It led many to blindly embrace Soviet communism as the answer to the world’s ills. It also provoked the European left to characterise America as ‘imperialist’ and to classify Soviet empire building as ‘philanthropic’. In France the graves of American soldiers who died on the Normandy beaches became nothing but an embarrassment to French socialists. America’s support for Israel provoked anger in France’s anti-semitic far-right political parties.

Paradoxically this has occurred following a long tradition of American beneficence in the 20th century. America saved Europe from totalitarianism in two world wars. It saved the economic collapse of Britain and many other European nations through the essentially altruistic Marshall Plan. Americans confronted and defeated a barbaric ideology – communism – which was the foundation for the entry of formerly oppressed nations under Soviet control to European partnership. When Ronald Reagan gave his ‘Empire of Evil’ speech the left in Europe sneered. Yet less than a decade later they had to come to terms with the expression of joy from Eastern European citizens when the Soviet Empire collapsed. America was responsible for the liberalisation of Chinese communism. It helped Britain eject Argentina from the Falklands and it joined with Britain in preventing genocide in the Balkans. Without the intelligence gathering capacity and military power of the United States today’s war on terror would collapse

America saved Mexico from economic collapse in 1995 and dissuaded China from attacking Taiwan. It has successfully intervened in disputes between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, the UK Government and the IRA and George Bush is the first American president to unequivocally state that Palestinians have a right to their own nation. American force will always be used to fight tyranny throughout the world especially when it threatens American interests. However, unlike European colonialism of the past, there is no desire to build an American Empire.

Anti-Americanism in Britain has been blinded by its own propaganda which posits that America is run for the benefit of the rich at the expense of the poor – a judgement which ignores the reality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and that voters drive the direction of American politics, long before the dollar’s impact .It also promotes the idea that American education and culture is pathetically myopic. A number of critics have confessed they have never visited the United States yet feel qualified to sit in judgement unaware that the educational provision of 30 or so American Universities put Oxford and Cambridge to shame. The left also seems to be unaware that the highest numbers of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Americans. In the modern arts – including film, urban architecture, popular music and comedy – America is pre-eminent. The country hosts over 1700 symphony orchestras. In the more traditional forms such as the novel the achievements of leading American writers dwarf their European competitors. Accusations by the European left that Americans are a philistine people seem ridiculous when set beside their museum attendance, more than seven million visitors per year, and the quality of their literary, historical and political magazines. American freedom of the press is unequalled throughout the world and citizen access to government documents under its freedom of information laws is envied throughout Europe. American advances in medical science have saved millions of lives.

Most anti-Americanism in Europe reflects the worries about ‘imperialism’ and ‘dominance’ without positing any rational alternative, except for the belief that rational discourse with dictators around the world will bring an end to famine, civil wars and territorial expansion. Anti-Americanism is about accepting the idea that the United States is not sincere about fighting terrorism or exporting democratic ideals. Instead, according to arguments propagated by many intelligent Europeans, the United States is devoid of any restraints imposed by a rival superpower therefore it has become bent on securing its power at any cost to the stability of sovereign nations.

According to Europeans who hold these views America never had any real motive in spreading freedom or democracy – this was simply a cloak to hide an oil grab or a manipulation of the world order to support ‘Zionism’. They accuse the United States of being no different from a despotic regime trampling over the rights of weaker nations.

This onslaught of Americaphobia is rarely challenged. The reasons are varied. Some media commentators, including BBC journalists, seem to be imbued with the idea that Britain and France are politically and culturally superior and that every issue is ‘morally relative’. Others create the impression that all Americans are either narrow-minded Christians or materialistic hedonists. A cultural superiority pervades the French print and visual media.

Anti-American sentiment does not engender any alternatives to what the American government poses in the way of foreign policy – its modus operandi is simply to spread the word that the United States is the moral equivalent to the Islamo-fascism it is trying to defeat. It recites its propaganda to summon up every American failure of the past 50 years without mentioning the nation’s successes. In its hatred of the United States the European left find excuses for the wickedness of Saddam Hussein and the evil philosophy and cruelty of Muslim fundamentalist terror groups. Some pro-Arab intellectuals/celebrities like Vanessa Redgrave have even proposed that Al Qaeda prisoners stand as parliamentary candidates in British elections. Labour MP George Galloway, who was an admirer of Saddam Hussein, has disseminated the idea that Iraqi terrorists have every right to ‘kill’ the ‘American invaders’.

Anti-Americanism is particularly expressed in public debates about the Middle East conflict. The left portray the United States as bent on crushing the rights of Palestinians, humiliating Arab nations and waging a war against Muslims. Facts are rarely introduced to support their arguments. Rarely have these arbiters of political correctness mentioned how American soldiers have died defending the interests and security of Muslims in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. They also fail to mention that America has given as much foreign aid to Jordan and Egypt as they have to Israel. Nor do they provide the real reason why the state of Israel arose, which was a reaction to European anti-semitism, not the manipulations of American governments. America also waited patiently for 11 years as Saddam Hussein ignored UN resolutions and rejected a unilateralist answer to the terrorist threat by persuading dozens of countries to join in an effort to rid the world of Al Qaeda and its associates.

In Britain politicians on the left, blinded by their anti-American sentiments, no longer remind their audiences of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its struggle to defend itself against a hostile Arab world. The anti-American left in Britain is also naive in its belief that the Al Qaeda attacks resulted from US support for Israel. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

We are never reminded by the leftists that Israel is the only democratic nation in a sea of dictatorships and oligarchies. During public debates leftist politicians (which includes some moderate liberals) always qualify their condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombers by making reference to Israel’s attacks on Palestinian communities - as if the rooting out of terrorists which sometimes creates civilian casualties has some kind of ‘moral equivalence’ to the deliberate targeting of innocent men, women and children. Nor do they mention the joyful Palestinian response to the 9/11 attacks or how Arab states have, for over 50 years, rejected the integration of Palestinian Arabs into their societies. We hear nothing of how Arab nations have never really wanted an Israeli/Palestinian settlement. It was simply never on their agenda as the Palestinian ‘problem’ always furthered their interests in ridding the Middle East of ‘Zionists’ and ‘Jew Beasts’. We also hear nothing of the real reason why the Arab/Israeli conflict has endured – the brainwashing of Palestinian schoolchildren through educational systems that propagate the idea that Jews are less than human and that it is the duty of all Palestinians to kill Jewish men, women and children.

America has made mistakes, sometimes criminally so, and no country deserves to be defended uncritically. America is not without sin as the history of the US Civil Rights movement and the War in Vietnam testify to. Yet it should be remembered that France’s colonial experience in Algeria and Britain’s colonial past does not lend itself to any sympathetic treatment. Left – wing articles, critical of America’s treatment of African-Americans and the slavery heritage, rarely remind readers that it was European ships that brought the slaves to America. And America has, arguably, a better record of assimilating immigrants than either France or Britain. Muslims in Britain, for example, live in isolated communities. Many have resisted efforts to bring them into full citizenship with a common allegiance to the nation and its culture.

There are some things in the United States that Europeans find distasteful in comparison with the subtle and low-key sensibilities of the English and French. However, in the main, most British holiday-makers return to these shores delighted at the hospitality, generosity and optimism of most Americans they have met. They are also in awe at the way Americans rightly defend their values of patriotism, equal justice and community spirit and the way their high energy is infused into everything from entertainment, sports, work and creativity.

The new strain of Anti-Americanism in Europe has damaged the Atlantic alliance and can only encourage America to pursue a unilateralist answer to common world problems. It is therefore incumbent upon moderates in Europe to vocally reject Anti-Americanism’s empty rhetoric. – a rhetoric that is essentially prejudicial in nature and devoid of any rationality.

Judging the Supreme Court Judge Nominees

For anyone who wants to know why politicians behave in the ways they do, get ready. This summer, they will be parading under our analytic microscopes. They will be telling us what is "on their minds." Well, maybe it will be more like what is "in their minds," also known as the mess in the attic. You just thought that all of that persiflage issuing from their oral orifices was acting + opportunism, with a dash of psychopathy. Not so.

The utterly jillions of words coming from representatives, senators, other politicians and bureaucrats about the next Supreme Court justice nominee(s) will leave you knowing just how much in trouble America really is--if we leave America up to them. We plan to use their words as great grist for our mills.

Here is a starter. Senator Charles Schumer of New York had an attack of explosive oral diarrhea over the long 4th of July weekend about the next court nominee. I really wish I had the exact quote, but, alas, what I heard came over the radio news while working in the back yard. Schumer insisted that the judicial "philosophy" (a.k.a., "ideology" in Senatese, but both terms are equal opportunity befuddlers to our senators) of the nominee was crucial. He insisted that the only way for a justice nominee to clear his committee's "No Man's Land" was for the nominee not to have a judicial philosophy. (I know this sounds bizarre, but it is vintage Schumer. Work with me.)

The first question to ask is whether Schumer had any idea what he had just said. The answer is "No," but it is also "Yes." At the level of consciousness that Schumer uses, he had uttered total obfuscatory nonsense, which, to him, seemed to make all kinds of sense. That ought to begin raising the hair on the back of your neck.

To Schumer, the nominee must not have Rightist judicial philosophy. Since Schumer regards whoever is on the Left will be speaking red-letter Gospel-ese, he feels superior in throwing out whatever words come from anywhere on the Right as the rantings of Satan. But even Schumer is smart enough to realize that some flaming Leftist will never make it out of the committee nominating starting gate. Given the microscopic analysis each nominee must endure, even which hand he or she uses will become relevant, you know, right or left.

Before we go on, just stop for a minute. Think about this. Can you imagine a bona fide nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States of America possessing NO judicial philosophy? That kind of candidate would have a track record of having decided cases by use of the dart board. (I know, I know, it often seems like that is standard practice). Even Schumer knows that any judicial candidate will have some legal philosophical framework, regardless of rhetoric to the contrary.

That leads us beneath Schumer's usual operating level of consciousness, to the "Yes" answer to the question three paragraphs ago of whether Schumer had any idea what he had just said. Schumer wants a certain "ideal" judicial candidate, one possessing the same ideal worshipped by all senatorial Democrats and most senatorial Republicans. And that ideal candidate would seem to be almost bereft of judicial philosophy, and damned proud of it, too.

Enter the pragmatist candidate for the Supreme Court.

Pragmatism is an American philosophy cobbled together from the worst Europe had to offer, mostly from Kant and Hegel. Pragmatism became popular in the latter 19th century in America, died out as a popular school of philosophy after World War I, but became totally devastating to America. The worst possible thing happened. One of pragmatism's founders, John Dewey, utterly infected all of American education at all levels with it. For decades, Dewey's pragmatism has dominated American Education; from that vantage, it has infected most American youth. It became the utterly predominant philosophy among Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

Back to the pragmatist candidate for the Supreme Court. He or she will look like a "normal" person, because he or she will sound just like most everyone in elected and appointed office. This nominee will have been trained in one or more of America's "finest" universites, followed by the "finest training" in one or more of America's "foremost" legal schools. Emerging from those years, steeped in that uniquely American philosophy of pragmatism, and garnished liberally with postmodernism, this person will be the ideal Stepford justice nominee.

Step for a minute into an imaginary judiciary committee hearing for that nominee:

Q: How will you decide on the _____ issue?
A: It all depends on the circumstances.

Q: What do you think of the SCOTUS definition of "pornography"?
A: It is a good start, but it is too early to tell whether it works. We need more time and data.

Q: How will you decide "Roe" cases?
A: On their individual merit. I do not get cluttered up with principles and precedents. I want to make a "living decision," so to speak.

Q: What about the death penalty?
A: You just cannot be dogmatic about anything in law. After all, circumstances alter all cases.

Does this very tiny set of likely questions and answers begin to raise your red flag?

We are just beginning to scratch the surface here. Wait until journalistic organs begin publishing likely questions. We will be all over those like white on rice.

Are you getting just an inkling? This kind of nominee will not be bound to bedrock principles, because he or she is a pragmatist. He or she will not be principled ON PRINCIPLE. What does that mean in this context? It means just what pragmatism said about truth: Truth is that which works, in the present situation, right now. It will be different in the next situation, even in the next minute. You can't know what is true before you act. If it works out the way you want, then it was true. If not, it was false.

Please let that sink in.

To a pragmatist, truth is as arbitrary as the Constitution is a "living document" to the Left. Anything can mean anything we want, as long as we want it, as long as enough of us want it, and as long as we can make it come to pass the way we want it. Not even a small child has a mind that primitive and certainly not that screwed up--it takes years of the "finest" American education to produce minds like that.

So, to this nominee, he or she will be neither Left, nor Right, except for some leanings, depending on how the political, practical, and opportunistic winds blow. He or she will stand on no principles because he or she will always be figuring out whatever, as he or she goes along, according the situation of the moment. The Constitution will be no more than a "guide," or a set of suggestions, all dated, of course--the truth of today is not truth of yesterday, says the pragmatist.

Pragmatists believe in all forms of intellectual expediency. They tend to go with what groups want. Most lean Left, and all are collectivists. Left to their devices, they will finish off America via judicial activism. You see, even pragmatism, as aconceptual as it sounds, is a judicial philosophy, a political philosophy, and the philosophy of far too many Americans in positions of power and influence. Schumer might not know the nuts and bolts of details about pragmatism, but he sure loves what it gives him.

No matter how obnoxious and evil Islam is, and it is, without question, Islam, Muslims, and Jihad are not the most important concern for Americans for the next little while. WHO GETS ONTO THE SUPREME COURT IS! Right along with the abrogation of Americans' rights, leading to the cancellation of America, by the Supreme Court, are the actual judicial philosophies of the nominees.

All of the potential nominees, from the likeliest to the least likely, are broken men and women, philosophically speaking. They are all damaged goods, just as all of the current justices are. Our job to guide this selection procress could not be harder, nor more important.

At the barest minimum, we need judicial scholars who are committed to hard-rock, strict constructionism, as Supreme Court nominees. They can answer all senatorial hearing questions with a single answer: A ruling comes solely from what the Constitution specifically and explicitly permits or forbids in any case before the Court and any prior rulings up for reconsideration.

To England, With Love

This morning, we awoke to the terrible news of terrorist-style attacks carried out during the morning rush hour in London. While the identity of the agents seems obvious, we will hold any further comment on them until more evidence becomes available.

Right now, we want to reach out to the Brits, specifically to the Londoners. We will help now and later. Your cause is our cause.

If we were to ask anything of you in return, it would be for those who say they "hate" us, to begin its end. We don't hate you, even those of you who say you hate us. We will do all we can think of to help you through this now, to capture and punish the perpetrators wherever and whenever they are found, and to stand with you now and forever.

Capitalism: The Cure for Africa

As America approached its birthday, bottom-feeders from around the world also rose. Particularly disgusting was all of the written, verbal, and television manure regarding Africa. Tony Blair, who is--don't forget--a socialist, wants everybody who has a pot to pee in to forgive African countries' debts. It is as though, freed from the debts, these countries will burst by sudden leap into the 21st century with health, hygeine, prosperity, productivity, and, above all, individual freedom. The same kind of thinking goes into amnesty for wetbacks. Both get the same results every time, and that means OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So why do it again?

The Detritus Tribe have been demonstrating in Scotland against the G-8 Summit and its nations. What to they hate? Why, it is freedom, rights, truth, reality, prosperity, health, hygeine, productivity, and so on. No, of course they would not be caught dead saying what they mean, so they do the old Leftie trick of wrap feces in fine chocolate candy wrappers, hoping no one will notice the difference. We notice. These rabble hate CAPITALISM, the same force that puts food into their well-fed bodies, puts clothes on their backs, pays their way from international cesspools to Scotland and provides the money for their upkeep, and so on. These people live the lie all the time. It is what Ayn Rand called the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept: They denigrate and deny the concept on which their very lives metaphysically depend.

Then there is the G-8 Summit. What is it about? It is said to be about lifing Africa from poverty. You may count on certain things. The cause for Africa's poverty will not be identified or defined in any fundamental way. Senile Europe (aka, "old Europe," per Secretary Rumsfeld) will make sure that all countries come aboard on the necessity that the "cure" means pouring more money down the rathole of Africa. Maybe, just maybe, someone will mention the necessity for "free markets," or an equivalent term, but no one will dare to say "capitalism." They, after all, are embarrassed by the term, as are the American delegates. What irony: embarrassed by the best means life has to offer for the pursuit of happiness!

Then there were the "concerts." Everywhere, cacaphony was raised to the level of supreme banality. More banal yet were the publicized statements of various performers. This was nothing more than carnal narcissistic hedonism wrapped as "doing good." It was only "feeling good." And that was for those whose souls are impaired enough to regard the banal cacaphony and intent of the various concerts as "good." The money will go the way of all corruption, just as it has done from previous efforts.

Meanwhile, Africa, without DDT, without Clorox, without soap, boiled water, and UTTERLY SIMPLE SANITATION FOR URINE, FECES, ANY OTHER BIOPRODUCTS--AND THAT GREATEST OF ALL ACTS, HANDWASHING, wipes flies from its gooey eyes, digs dirt with sticks, spreads AIDS and other diseases through COMPLETE AND TOTAL IGNORANCE AND UNWILLINGNESS TO CHANGE. Why is Africa impoverished? Why not?

They don't need dollars, euros, etc. They need books, literacy, simple behavioral changes so that even the most primitive levels of capitalism can start and spread. There are so many examples such as those of impoverished women borrowing a mere $15 to start a home business that lifts them from the Stone Age. That is capitalism.

Well, Dr. Andrew Bernstein, a member of the Ayn Rand Institute and a professor philosophy, provides material that every one of us should save, copy, print, and send to friends, relatives, Congresspersons, etc.

Capitalism: The Cure for Africa, By Andrew Bernstein, FrontPageMagazine.com June 17, 2005


The current plan of George Bush and Tony Blair to send billions more in aid to Africa is futile. History demonstrates that brutal dictatorships and savage tribes engaged in internecine warfare are not transformed by handouts. After all, billions of dollars have already been poured into Africa. What Africa needs is freedom, not welfare. The West should reject the idea that it is our responsibility to lift Africans out of their poverty--and then tell them of the system that enabled the West to gain its current wealth and power: capitalism.

Most people forget that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa and had a much lower life expectancy. Even a relatively well-off country like France is estimated to have suffered seven general famines in the 15th century, thirteen in the 16th, eleven in the 17th and sixteen in the 18th. And disease was rampant. Given an utter lack of sanitation, the bubonic plague, typhus and other diseases recurred incessantly into the 18th century, killing tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands at a time.

The effect on life expectancy was predictable. In parts of France, in the middle of the 7th century, only 58 percent reached their 15th birthday, and life expectancy was 0. In Ireland, life expectancy in 1800 was a mere 19 years. In early 18th century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age five.

Then a dramatic change occurred throughout Europe. The population of England doubled between 1750 and 1820, with childhood mortality dropping to 31.8 percent by 1830. Something happened that enabled people to stay alive.

What did that early period lack that the later period had? Capitalism. What does Africa lack today that the West has? Capitalism (or, more accurately, partial apitalism).

What is capitalism? It is an economic system in which all property is privately owned, a system without government regulation and government handouts. It is a free economy, a system in which individuals are free to produce, to trade, and to make--and keep--a profit.

More fundamentally, capitalism is the social system that upholds individual rights,the right of every individual to his life, his liberty, his property, and the pursuit of his own happiness. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, including John Locke and the Founding Fathers, brought these ideas to the forefront in Europe and America. The result was an economic revolution, which--in a relatively brief time--transformed the West from a poverty-stricken region to one of great productive wealth. This system of freedom liberated the most creative minds of Western society, resulting in a torrent of innovations--from James Watt's steam engine to Louis Pasteur's germ theory to Henry Ford's automobile to the Wright Brothers' airplane and much more. This new freedom, and the Industrial Revolution it spawned, resulted in vast increases in agricultural and industrial production.

Creative minds--from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs--flourish only under freedom. The result is new products, new jobs, new wealth, in short: the furtherance of life on earth, in length, quantity and quality. Under the kingdoms, theocracies, military dictatorships and socialist regimes that dominate Africa, such minds are stifled. The result is stagnation, poverty and death.

Africa has the identical natural resource fundamentally responsible for the West's rise: the human mind. But it has neither the freedom nor the Enlightenment philosophy of reason, individualism and political liberty necessary for creating wealth and health. Africa is mired in tribal cultures that stress subordination to the group rather than personal independence and achievement. All over the continent brutal dictators murder and rob innocent citizens in order to aggrandize themselves and members of their tribes.

What Africa desperately needs is to remove its political and economic shackles and replace them with political and economic freedom. It needs to depose the military dictators and socialist regimes and establish capitalism, with its political/economic freedom, its rule of law, its uncompromising respect for individual rights. And to accomplish that, it first needs to remove its philosophic shackles and replace tribal collectivism with a philosophy of reason and freedom.

The truly humanitarian system is not the one still espoused by most Western intellectuals, viz., Marxism (and its offshoots), but the system based on the individual’s right to pursue his own life and happiness: capitalism.

Back to Work: We Have a Republic to Save

The dratted misfortune of an unpredictable flair of pathophysiological "protest" of one of Mother Nature's mistakes in my gastro-intestinal system, really blunted my physical participation in the activities of 4 July this year, has kept me off the keyboard on 5 July, and insists on hanging around today and a few tomorrows. It's like a belly-full of Ted Kennedy, getting in the way, attaining notice by its obnoxiousness, and fully deserving of that therapeutic evacuation which cannot come soon enough now. Alas my head is also less than clear during these times as well. Nevertheless, the work at hand requires all that any of us can muster, in good as well as bad times. So, it is time to get back to work. America must preserved and protected, and we have no time to lose.

The House of Representatives has a companion bill to Senator John Cornyn's "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005." The House bill is H. R. 3087. Senator Cornyn's bill of the same name is Senate Bill S 1313.

Both bills open all members of Congress to hearing from us to get behind and pass these bills. Whether members are white, black, asian, male, female, Democrat, Republican, socialist, or liberal or conservative, they must start hearing from us with very high frequency.

That Kelo versus New London, Ct. decision by the Supreme Court provides grist for everyone's oppositional mill. For the bleeding hearts, liberals, and all other Leftists, the Supreme Court authorized total war on the "poor" and where they live. In this way, the Supreme Court--in the eyes of the Left--finally leveled the playing field. Now the "poor" are as vulnerable as the "rich" to legalized theft of their property, displacement, and being treated as rightless Americans.

The right has no problem getting aboard. They do not have the left's enemaless fecal outlook on life that washes their brains and replaces the aqueous and vitreous contents of their eyes.

To be sure, don't count on Muslims joining in. Even though they are utterly legal suit-happy and are just as vulnerable if they own property in American, they are working another agenda. And, the academics, journalists, and other media are working a parallel agenda, so they won't come on board.

WE, Americans in fly-over country, whether red or blue, will "get 'r done." Using what we wrote about the other day, that Supreme Court has decided to walk on the fighting side of me, of you, of all of us, except those joined at the hip to government largess and those looking to defang, declaw, and neuter us Americans so they can rule us. So sorry. Their time is up!

The Contrast Between American Democracy and Islam

Robert Spencer at JihadWatch has a pearl for us:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — Declaration of Independence

"Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash....Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, F. J. Goulding, translator, London, 1970.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." — Declaration of Independence

Non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life." — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

The Fourth of July, 2005, in America

I am unashamedly American. Some would criticize me for being "jingoistic." Ok, here is the Encarta dictionary definition of "jingoism": "belligerent nationalism: zealous patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility toward other countries." Well, yes, if other countries do not embrace the Rights of Man in the proper meaning of the term, I feel hostile to them--and there are so many.

Then, giving the origin of the term, Encarta says: "The context of the coining of jingoism was British foreign policy of the late 1870s: the Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, favored sending in gunboats to halt the advance of the Russian fleet out of their own waters into the Mediterranean; this gave rise to a music-hall song, written in 1878 by G.W. Hunt, the refrain of which went: “We don’t want to fight, yet by Jingo! if we do, We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and got the money too”; opponents of the policy picked up on the word jingo and used it as an icon of blind patriotism."

So, not wanting to fight, but if we must, we have the means, that is "blind patriotism"? This definition and illustration must have been written by some Leftist at Encarta. America is well worth fighting for. And, if the rest of world doesn't like us, well, they can just __________. On principle and in fact, there is no better country on earth, and there never has been.

July 4th is one of those times that brings very American thoughts out of me. However, for a while, I want to free my mind from concern about those cur hounds always nipping at our ankles, and think positive thoughts about America, past and present.

On this 4th, we intend to marinate ourselves in many, personally meaningful sensory joys of being American at my country's birthday party. That includes enjoying those typical American 4th of July foods, being jacked up by John Phillp Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever," brought to tears by Ray Charles' rendition of "America the Beautiful," and finally capping off the day with the concert on the Washington, D.C. Mall, as well as many fireworks displays we can find, courtesy of television.

On this blog, Sixth Column, and on our website, 6th Column Against Jihad, we spend most of our time exposing negatives. Days like the 4th of July give us an opportunity to ignore all of those negatives temporarily so that we can remind ourselves what we are FOR. Part of the celebration this year involves penning some American thoughts about America from one of her sons (me), about what I love about my country and why, and just postponing the job of cleaning up the cultural-philosophical cesspool to start again on July 5th.

Recently, Thomas Sowell, truly one of the finest of living Americans, wrote a piece about his becoming 75 years of age, this past 30 June 2005. He seems timelessly young. He is so very American, in the finest sense of the term. Dr. Sowell wrote a statement that just grabbed my attention and would not let go. He said that on this year 2005 birthday of his, he will have lived through one third of the entire history of the United States of America. One third! We are so young, yet we have done so much and have so much more to do.

Using Dr. Sowell's method, I find that, later this year, I will have lived almost 30% of the history of America as a nation. That boggles my mind.

We, America, we are the child of the Enlightenment. We were formed by design, based on the Rights of Man, and created de novo a government, formed SOLELY to protect those rights of all of its citizens. That means that we are the only nation on earth ever to be built on and for and by REASON. What an achievement from those giants of the Enlightenment, our Founders. I am so proud of that.

As great as they were, our Founders failed to eliminate some serious contradictions when they cranked up America, but they built the means to resolve these contradictions, and more--namely, they designed the Constitution of the United States of America, a document which the world has since either emulated or envied.

These men of reason could not live their contradictions in peace forever. They and their descendents began shucking them, one by one. That's what we Americans do. That is really why we had to have that awful Civil War, to rid ourselves of the most destructive of the contradictions, manifested in secession. My beloved South had to go down in ignomious defeat to rid itself of utter foulness, foremost of which was human slavery.

Dr. Sowell has a magnificent new book out called Black Rednecks and White Liberals. It is the most fun reading of any book I have touched for a very long time. What I read about my beloved South shocked me. I had accepted a lot of hand-me-down notions instead of facts. My South, in the ante-bellum days, was not worthy of being in the union. Too many were not far above the level of wild animals, and we were as unfit for modern survival as a people can be. By losing, we got educational and industrial revolutionary values from the North, and we began growing out of our atavistic state. Sadly, we did not choose to bring other Southerner Americans, the Negroes, along with us, not then, at least. Nevertheless, by losing the Civil War, we won big time, because we annealed as a single people, under a single flag and Constitution. What an achievement.

America industrialized and adopted capitalism, the only social-political-and-economic system fit enough for a people founded by the Declaration and Constitution. And, boy, did we industrialize! In the 20th century, we became the lead horse pulling the wagon of civilization. What an achievement.

Oppressed people around the world saw what human liberty and the Rights of Man meant, and they flocked to our shores. Who benefitted the most from that influx? We did, of course.

Restlessly, we have always sought to turn our better natures against any evils eroding us, alas sometimes rather later than sooner. We ensured that women enjoyed the same protection of their basic rights under the Constitution. Later in the 20th century, we ensured that Negroes and other Americans who had been shut out of the protections of our Constitution would be shut out no more.

One of my observations has been that the awful events of 11 September 2001 ended any lingering, latent racism, except for those boring, pestilential racial demogogues always running out from under their porches to bark at and chase car tires, and showed how so many from such diverse ethnic backgrounds and geographies rose as one. Whatever gender, racial background, country of origin, we became more Americans than ever before. Only the Muslims cannot or will not make this great leap forward; they seem enchanted with the unhygienic days of their Dark Ages.

I served over two and half decades in the United States Navy, and I am terribly proud of that. Now retired, I look out to the men and women who elect to go in harm's way to keep you and me hale and hearty, and I feel soaring admiration and gratitude for them. Their deaths truly hurt me, even though I personally know not a single one who has died. They fight for, and in some cases, die for all the same things brave men did in the last half of the 18th century. They fight for--and when they die, they die for--the idea of America. That is one hell of an achievement.

I am not naive. I see constant attacks on the Enlightenment principles of America's soul--the erosions and corrosions threatening to weaken her so much from the inside that Dark Age primitives can take us over. I see advanced corruption, in all branches of government, state and national. I see the major and minor enemies of America, and I see how much work we have to do to right our ship of state. Yet, through it all, I know certain things to be true because I can see the meanings of the ideas of America. Man may not live by bread alone, but he cannot survive without ideas.

I can see that Islam will neither conquer nor destroy America. I can see that socialism, in all its forms, will continue as a flirtation for a while, but it will never replace capitalism, and it will go away forever. Why? Because reason, rights, and capitalism have become the bedrock of America. These forces have enormous staying power, despite enormous odds and enormous efforts to destroy them. In this highly industrial age, those ideas and their power can never be fully suppressed or destroyed. To borrow a phrase, they cannot be put back into the bottle ever again, because their secrets are out--Victor Hugo once wrote that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. The ideas of America cannot be killed, not permanently, although undoing excessive governmentalism will take a very long time.

Rough times, some very rough times, seem to lie ahead for America, but America and Americans will prevail and give birth anew to a culture of reason, but long after I am gone. I feel certain that we will have to have a second Civil War. It will be all of the various forces of unreason, so prevalent today, against the advocates of reason--that powerful force reincarnated into the invincible force of tomorrow. It may be a much worse war than our first Civil War, but it will have a far better outcome. We will get our thinking caps on finally and realize who and what we are, and we will finally have the full moral courage to stand up for who and what we are.

By the way, recently there was a hubub about choosing the most important American. I didn't pay much attention after I heard the choices. Most lists sounded like inane choices of children naming their favorite candies. I nevertheless have a nominee and a choice, and on this occasion of our national birthday, I should like to celebrate this person.

From soon after our founding, we began floundering because some of the most important philosophical work of the Enligtenment was never finished. America's Constitution and Declaration were necessary, but not sufficient, to withstand the steady attack on reason and the values of the Enlightenment, spearheaded by German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant's intellectual heirs have worshipped Kantianism and have taken these ideas to their logical conclusions. It is to Kant that corrupt modern philosophy owes its existence and whose ideas and logical conclusions and those of his intellectual lineage are rotting America from within.

No philosopher or other thinks since Kant has been bright enough to counter Kant and his successors, who brought us the Nazis, Communists, Fascists, and Socialists in the 20th century and want to turn America into a home for more of the same.

No one knew, and too few still know it, but help was on the way.

In 1905, a girl was born in Russia. In the mid-1920s, she emigrated to America and became an American by naturalization. She developed the most brilliant philosophical mind the world has seen since Kant. She had the unique ability to put complex philosophical thought into the form of fiction as plays and novels, as well as crystal-clear works of non-fiction. These novels reached out and touched Americans as little else has. After her final novel, Atlas Shrugged, she devoted herself to writing a huge series of brilliant articles and essays clarifying and elaborating her philosophical thoughts. She called her philosophy "Objectivism." As with most persons who totally change the course of civilization, she met with extreme resistance and hostility during her life; she died in 1982 without seeing her philosophical ideas realized in America.

Yet, from the beginning, her works have sold well over 100,000 copies a year, both the fiction and the non-fiction, year in and year out. A number of years ago, a national survey found that her novel, Atlas Shrugged, placed second only to the Bible as the book Americans called the most influential in their lives.

What did she give us? She gave us back reality, reason, rational individualism, and capitalism, but in a fully developed state, philosophically speaking. She gave us back America, freeing it of its contradictions. She gave us the prospects for a future far brighter and more enduring than our past.

No one alive today will live to see her ideas complete America's repair, thereby setting in motion the most exciting future Americans have known. Those who can project a likely future because they are at home with concepts, logic, and rationality, know this is coming. It cannot be resisted. It is why America will ultimately prevail over all odds.

Yes, our Founders were great people. This Russian immigrant, however, will join them in the hall celebrating the greatest of all Americans. Her name? Ayn Rand.

D. C. Watson's Birthday Card to America

America's Day

July 4th, 1776

The United States of America declares its independence, and a new nation is born.

A new nation whose independence was won through war and sacrifice.

Independence certainly earned.

As we celebrate our 229th birthday, it gives all of us the perfect opportunity to reflect back to what has made the United States the most successful nation in history.

This is an opportunity to remember the sacrifices and backbreaking work that has made America the jewel in the world's crown.

An opportunity to remember and appreciate the fact that every shred of this hard work and sacrifice was not so selflessly given by those who we've inherited this wonderful country from, so it could be handed away to intolerant Islamic intruders who have already compromised the history and future of Europe, who, instead of migrating here to live the American dream, which would have been welcomed, have instead migrated here with deceptive smiles on their faces, soft spoken voices, and claims of peacefulness, who, in all actuality, are offended by our lifestyle, continuously attempt to maneuver themselves into our political landscape, indoctrinate our school children, file discrimination and libel lawsuits, continue to be arrested and convicted of terror and fraud related crimes, whining along the way, with their ultimate goal not being one of plurality and tolerance, but a goal of taking over our house with their own bigoted, intolerant, discriminatory beliefs.

Or to illegal aliens, who so blatantly disrespect our laws to gain entry into this nation, so that they can commit violent crimes against unsuspecting American citizens and drain the economy that continues to be driven by the hard work of the American people.

This nation was not won, and has not thrived, for the purpose of allowing intolerant people from other lands the chance to arrive on our shores and turn America into their third world style animal kingdom. Perhaps our elected officials should be the first this weekend to reflect on the historical facts leading to America's founding, for many of them seem to have forgotten what being an American, and representing the American people actually entails.

America is what it is. Americans are who they are. If this is unacceptable to those of you in the immigrant crowd, then go back to the wonderland you came from. You won't be missed, and no tears will be shed over your departure.

May God bless this nation and her people, always.

The Voice of America Demands to Be Heard

A reader, another solid American, submitted comments to our most recent blog about the move to take Justice Souter's home, thereby hoisting him by his own petard--namely, that property rights abrogation decision he helped engineer.

These comments stand alone and deserve blogging separately. We are incredibly delighted at the quality of our readers' comments--America's bedrock strength is much more than the chattering class even recognized.

Ms William von Rights wrote:

For the first time since September 11, 2001 I heard something that I thought and hoped I'd never hear again since it seems that only catastrophe of unmentionable proportions can elicit this sound. The sound to which I refer is the deafening sound of silence, which spread across the country like a cascade of falling dominos on Thursday, June 23, 2005 upon the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Keto vs CT that property rights were abolished.

It is at times like this that I truly become frightened and thoughts such as imminent civil war race through my mind. I am frequently reminded of the movie Terminator when Sarah Connor, the heroine, realizes in order to save mankind she MUST teach her son John how to be a soldier and a leader because his destiny is to lead Man’s resistance against the machines and win. I sometimes feel this way about my son and it scares me. I think, perhaps, even in my generation we will see a war break out within our own borders.

It is hard enough to feel the knife of apathy cut into us Americans by the Bush administration with regard to our sieve-like borders but the ruling of “The big 5 justices” ruling in the Keto vs CT case poured salt in the wound, stitched it up, then spat on the Bill of Rights as they walked away. How will these “justices” rule on flag burning when the atrocity they just committed leaves our flag colorless and dimensionless? There will be nothing to protest now. No need to burn this symbol since there is nothing for it to represent or symbolize. Perhaps this was an attempt by these 5 Supreme Court “justices” to kill two birds with one stone! Did they
win?

Fortunately some of us have started a fight back with movements such as mailing “pieces of property” to certain politicians and justices as Stephen Gorden has suggested (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001138.html) to building hotels on the “justices’” home lots (Logan Darrow Clements of Free Star Media) and pass legislation at the federal level to combat these anti-American decisions (Senator Cornyn's bill S 1313 ). But what can the rest of us do to send a message? I say we keep a VERY CLOSE EYE on those corporations and businesses that feel no compunction in partaking in the new ruling to freely seize property and boycott the living hell out of their products!!!!! We were pissed at France and we stuck it to them in their sweet spot when we boycotted their products and we can do it to these anti-American companies that use these anti-American business tactics.

We, as consumers and Americans hold ALL the power. USE IT!

American Anthem for 2005

I try to stay positive and think really long-range. I actually am positive about the really long-range history for America. Trouble is, it's the short range stuff that just burns the hell out of me:

• Why GWB fights this "war on terrorism" with his brain tied behind his back (and the blood supply cut off).



• Why GWB is oblivious to illegal immigration and seems to be on the side of the bad guys regarding our borders. He will not enforce American law.



• Why GWB is handing the next presidential election to the Dhimmicrats.



• Why the Dhimmicrats are not brought up on charges of treason.



• Why otherwise sane Americans reelect Dhimmicrats like Kennedy, Durbin, Byrd, Rockefeller, and almost the entire Democrat Senate and many of the Republican Senate.



• Why our country serves as "Schmoo" for the world (that was a fictitious critter created by Al Capp as the total embodiment of altruism).



• Why Americans tolerate universities and their administrations dominated by the likes of Ward Churchills.



• Why nothing comes from Congress or the White House, with some notable exceptions, about the war on America and Americans being waged by the Supreme Court of the United States.



• Otherwise sane-seeming Americans kiss the asses of Muslims of the CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and Muslim Brotherhood type, among others.

And, on it goes ...

We are rapidly approaching the birthday of America, on 4 July. Happily revolution is finally brewing in America by Americans for America, in the name of Rights of Man. The Supreme Court set it off, and we can be thankful for that. It is far too early to tell whether this will start the reversal of: of the government, by the government, and for the government. Both liberals and conservatives share the guilt for this "revoltin' situation," to quote Chester Reilly.

Nothing replaces Ray Charles' unbelievably magnificent "America the Beautiful," sung by a man who could hardly carry a tune, but who blew the breath of America into that song. However, we need a good fighting song, to help us "throw the bums out."

I think Merle Haggard's 1970 song, "The Fightin' Side of Me" does it for me.

I hear people talking bad about the way we have to live here in this country
Harping on the wars we fight and gripping about the way things aught to be
Tonight won’t mind them switching sides and standing up for things they believe in
When you’re running down my country, man you’re walking on the fighting side of me


Yeah walking on the fighting side of me
Running down a way of life
I fight and fought and died to try to keep
If you don’t love it, leave it; let this song I’m singing be a warning
When you’re running down my country, man you’re walking on the fighting side of me


I read about some squirrelly guy who claims he just don’t believe in
fighting
And I wonder just how long the rest of us can count on being free
They love our milk and honey but they preach about some other way of living
When you’re running down my country, Hoss you’re walking on the fighting side of me


Yeah walking on the fighting side of me
Running down a way of life I fight and fought and died to try to keep
If you don’t love it, leave it; let this song I’m singing be a warning
When you’re running down my country, man you’re walking on the fighting side of me


Yeah walking on the fighting side of me
Running down a way of life I fight and fought and died to try to keep
If you don’t love it, leave it; let this song I’m singing be a warning
When you’re running down my country, man you’re walking on the fighting side of me

Merle does this song beautifully. In 1970, it spoke to the revoltin' scum--the utter valueless, utterly worthless, and utterly anti-American "youth"--who shoved their unwashed faces into ours, Those scum of 1970 now fill our university teaching positions, our bureaus and political offices, journalism, and Hollywood. America's problems of today belong mostly to them, who caused it--but also to us, who allowed it.

This birthday of America demands that we Americans rise up and take back our country. We can do it legally, without initiated violence. Let's welcome July and our taking back our freedom to this tune by Merle Haggard.