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

New Email Address:

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Rallies Against Islamofascism

Here is a sure sign that America awakens to start smelling the coffee. We just received this and post it for all.


Tomorrow, Wednesday February 1st, there are 21 locations across the nation where rallies against Islamofascism and terrorism will be held.

Let's make this one for the history books, when the citizens truly began to stand up to our Islamofascist enemies and those who support them. I implore all freedom loving Americans to attend a rally if one is in their area.

You can check to see if there
is one nearby to you. For those in Southern California, I encourage all to attend the primary UAC rally which will be held in West Los Angeles, most all major media will be attending. That location is 11000 Wilshire Blvd. from 4:30 to 6:00 PM.

We are calling on all Americans to join with us at the 21 rallies across America. Bring signs and flags and remember to keep a positive message, the signs should make statements such as; "United Against Islamic Extremism", "Rally Against Islamofascism", or "Democrats, Republicans UNITE Against Islamic Extremism", or
simply "Support the Troops". Keep it non-partisan and positive.

Remember we are not attacking Muslims, we are encouraging them to work with America in the war on terror, and to help reform and root out any extremist ways within their society. We can not be the ones to bring change within their society, they must be the ones to bring the change from within.

If portions of the Islamic society fail to reform and embrace democratic ideals, then that portion's future in America will be in question.

We extend our hand, and more than welcome them to come and hold the American flag if they wish to. If we want to keep our freedom, and the American way of life, then we will stand up today and rally against our extremist enemies. I look forward to seeing you all out on the streets tomorrow, and be sure to take lots of photographs to document this important moment in American history.


Jesse Petrilla
United American Committee
Founder & Chair

Super Bowl Sunday Terror Chatter High

Were this not so plausible...

WorldNetDaily: Super Bowl Sunday terror chatter high, Release of al-Qaida tapes seen as tip on timing of future attacks, posted: January 30, 2006, by World Net Daily.

WASHINGTON – There is a high likelihood of a major terrorist attack next Sunday, say international terror analysts and intelligence sources.

The warning is made on the basis of several factors, according to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin:

There is increased "chatter" in the terrorist world about a major new attack in the West – a sign often leading to an impending strike;

The date Feb. 5 has been specifically referenced in some of this chatter;

The date is significant to Osama bin Laden;

o Much of the western world will be watching television that day;

o The release of al-Qaida videotapes seems to provide clues about the dates of future attacks and, in this scenario, Feb. 5 becomes the most likely near-term terror strike date.

o Terror attacks seem to follow the release of al-Qaida videos by about 30 days. Some intelligence analysts are noting the significance of the release of videos recently by both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

o Zawahiri released his last video Jan. 6, making Feb. 5 the most likely target date, according to past attacks. [Actually he has released a newer tape--31 Januray 2006.] Some analysts suggest the release of communiqués by both al-Zawahiri and bin Laden might be the precursor to a mega-attack – something even rivaling Sept. 11 in scope and devastation.

But there does seem to be an unmistakable pattern involved in the release of videos and al-Qaida attacks.

Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man, who narrowly escaped death in the Pakistani missile attack weeks ago, seems to release videos in pairs. After the release of the second video, within 30 days a major event occurs.

For instance:

o release dates of Sept. 9 and Nov. 9, 2004, were the first set of videos, followed by the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, bombings Dec. 6.

o release dates of Feb. 20 and June 26, 2005, were followed by the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

o release dates of Aug. 4 and Sept. 1, 2005, were followed by the Bali bombings Oct. 1, 2005.

o The next set started Oct. 23, 2005, and on Jan. 6, the second video followed.

That, suggests some analysts, makes Feb. 5 a likely target date. Interestingly, it is also a significant date to bin Laden. Feb. 5, 1989, was the day the last Soviet troops withdrew from Kabul, Afghanistan, signaling their defeat at the hand of the mujahedeen. Kabul was the capital of Osama's adopted country and was a major win for him and Islam. Significantly, perhaps, in bin Laden's audio release he referenced the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also happens to be Super Bowl Sunday, when the eyes of the entire world will be watching America.

Authorities in Detroit, where the Super Bowl will be played, are certainly taking the threat of terrorism seriously. According to the FBI and Detroit police, the game will be the focal point of one of the largest security operations in U.S. history, guarding against any threats to Super Bowl XL and aided by more than 50 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Including private security guards, there will be about 10,000 security personnel on duty, more than for any other one-day event in U.S. history. Radiation detectors will be stationed near the stadium. SWAT teams, bomb removal and other specialized law enforcement officials will be on hand.

Despite the recent taped messages, authorities say there are "no credible threats against the Super Bowl."

(Emphases mine)

Monday, January 30, 2006

Judge Cashman, Vermont, and "Restorative Justice"

Probably most people know that Judge Cashman changed the original sentence of 60 days in jail for the man who raped the same little girl for four years straight to "three years to ten years." He did this Friday, 27 January 2006, when he heard the petition of the prosecution for greater sentencing. The spin doctors, including Cashman, tried to make it seem that changed conditions for "treatment" (of an untreatable entity) while the convict is incarcerated is what made all the difference in the world.

Do not believe a word of it.

What made the difference was the rising outrage among good citizens of Vermont, joined by good citizens of America, and good citizens of a number of countries. The "bench" is not impervious to this kind of pressure, and we must never forget it. We can do a great deal to improve our society, but WE must do it--it cannot be delegated to triflers like those in government.

The corrupt political and judicial structure of Vermont has run for cover, but they have made NO changes to improve this situation. They are circling the wagons around Judge Cashman, from the governor, Speaker of the House, to Cashman's judicial superior.

Something new, and very sinister, emerged about the time of the Cashman re-hearing, and we must become very alert to this.

Judge Cashman has become a "true believer" of another Leftist scam called "restorative justice." Despite all the spin and smoke blowing on the various websites about "restorative justice," its real meaning is something we must battle to its death. It is an exceedingly immoral and destructive movement, and is clearly a product of postmodernist philosophy tormenting our culture these days.

The influence of "restorative justice" comes significantly from the funding of billionaire Leftist George Soros and his Open Society Institute. What is "restorative justice"? Judge Cashman, who teaches this stuff, summed it up when he proclaimed that he no longer believes in punishment.

In short, it is the "he had a bad childhood syndrome" taken to its logical conclusion. Thus, someone should not be punished for crime. He should be "understood," and coddled, for he could help it not: You know the drill, There but for the grace of God... The perpetrator is the real victim and must be "treated."

Now, here is where injustice gets raised in order to obliterate justice. The victim, the object of the crime, is given equal footing and prioritization with the perpetrator--Each, in short, is of EQUAL VALUE.

Let that soak in.

"Restorative justice" is an anti-concept meant to be used to wipe out the concept of justice. We must get very familiar with it and stomp it out.

One last point for now. Vermont and Minnesota are THE bastions of "restorative justice" in the USA. That it is wide-spread in Canada, UK, etc., should not surprise you.

If "restorative justice" seems opaque to you, think of it this way: Someone breaks into your home, kills your spouse and children, robs you of all, and brutalizes you into permanent disability. The perpetrator goes before a "restorative justice" judge who ignores you and the crime totally but gives the perpetrator a sentence of 6 months in a treatment facility and gives you the bill!

Bookmark These

Our colleague at Pedestrian Infidel sent this information which you should bookmark right away: He has published Andre' Servier's 1924 book, The Psychology of the Musulman on a special site. He has the full English text in its entirety. This is a remarkable book, which we reviewed here, and deserves downloading and reading. It is out-of-print and somewhat hard to get. PI has done everyone a terrific service. Do yourself one by reading the book.

Check out these sites as well: Infidel Blogger's Alliance and Mohammed Pics. The latter site has copies of those cartoons which have the Islamists' panties in a wad.

The Hamas Charter

Many thanks to our colleague-in-arms, Always on Watch, who sent this link to the Hamas Charter. The charter has been validated over and over and never revised by Hamas. Last night on BBC World News, a number of Hamas members and supporters in "Palestine" and other parts of Islamia rabidly stood behind the charter and the violent jihad of Hamas. They spewed raw emotion voluminously, untempered by any reason. The charter is just as nutsy.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Remembering Islam, 101

We must do a little intellectual recycling. What and why?

Well, to begin with, we are going into the fifth year since the attacks of 9-11 and the third year in this war in Iraq. A lot of people have gotten complacent about the threat of jihad. But, you know, if it hasn’t gone away for the non-Muslim world in over 1400 years, is it sensible for Americans and others to think that 5 years of “peace” inside America makes a “safe” period? When you look around at the news and opinion pieces being published, you might think that the jihadists had packed and gone home. If anyone thinks that, they are making a very bad mistake. Yet the pressure to learn about Islam grows smaller day by day.

With Iran heating up and Hamas in “Palestine” winning the recent “election,” it is time to do some recalling, to reexamine some salient principles about Islam. Here are ten facts and principles offered as a down payment on refreshing and advancing knowledge. No attempt has been made to offer an exhaustive list at this time, but the following deal with the character of Islam as we are facing it today and tomorrow.

1. Our enemy is not “terrorism”: It is Islam.

Terrorism is a symptom, a manifestation, coming from an all-uniting doctrine that explains almost all of the terror occurring on the globe, from the Philippines and Indonesia, through the Middle East, into Europe and over to North and South America. Our colleague at The Religion of Peace has documented over 4000 incidents of Islam-inspired terror globally since the events of 11 September 2001.

Terrorism is to Islam as a cough is to tuberculosis or lung cancer. The “flavor” of Islam matters not. Whether Sunni, Shia, or Sufi, it is a single, unified doctrine behind almost all of the terrorism on earth.

2. There is no moderate Islam, even if there are said to be “moderate Muslims.”

Islam is unlike any doctrine Westerners have ever experienced. As a result, they have inordinate difficulty freeing their minds to examine and accept Islam for what it is. They are stuck on Islam being a “religion.” Hanging over from childhood is the near-axiom, all religions are good; therefore, Islam, a religion, must be good.

In principle, Islam is the same as when developed in the early 7th century C.E. It has undergone no moderating changes in over 1400 years. Islam has always been very similar to Nazism since its beginning, which explains why it is so Nazi-like today.

If there are moderate Muslims, i.e., ones who do not subscribe to “holy war,” conquest, forced conversions, subjugation, plundering, and murder of the unconverted in order to set up a global fascist theocracy, they are the exception, according to Islam itself. Nothing in Islamic doctrines permits “moderation.” Moderate Muslims are considered by the consistent, "good," Muslims to be inconsistent, thus “hypocrites,” thus “bad Muslims,” deserving the fate of resistant non-Muslims.

Islam makes no provision for the tempering of its doctrines away from extreme, aggressive militancy. “Moderate Muslims” have little or no influence over any aspect of Islam, past or present.

3. Islam is just what its documents say it is, and it requires little or no “interpretation.”

Islam is quite easy to understand and master as a body of doctrine. Any number of Islamic apologists and those afflicted with political correctness try to “nuance” or “interpret” Islam to mean other than what we read about and see, and, above all, what Islam says it is. One can master the fundamentals of Islam by reading a Koran, a few excellent books, and regularly reading from a few outstanding websites. Conversely, one can become befuddled easily by listening to and being taken in by Islamic apologists, Middle Eastern and Western.

4. “Jihad” has two meanings, only one of which is important to us—namely, holy war.

Obfuscators about Islam try to hide behind the other, relatively benign meaning of “jihad,” namely that it is the personal, spiritual question for self-improvement through aspiring to know Allah. Muslims on a personal, spiritual quest pose no problems to anyone. Muslims engaged in holy war against all persons and things that are not Muslim have always posed a threat within and without Islamia. The history of Islam is that of blood-soaked tyranny wherever Muslims have gone.

5. Overt jihad is essentially open war; covert jihad uses infiltration, subterfuge, espionage, indoctrination, and recruitment against the enemies of Islam.

Both forms share the same end: Global conquest, subjugation, plunder, and the institution of a Nazi-like fascist theocracy. Inside the West, militant Islamists engage in the covert jihad and recruit the assistance of anti-West intellectuals to assist them in their fifth column work to destroy Western institutions, freedom, and capitalism.

6. All of Islam, whether Sunni, Shia, or Sufi, is anti-mankind, that is, anti-human: anti-life, anti-reality, anti-reason, anti-individual, anti-freedom, and anti-capitalism.

This is why Islam qualifies as thoroughly evil, an evil doctrine masquerading as a religion. There is no good version of Islam. All forms of Islam at root are a philosophy of death. If some Muslims do not want to practice Islam consistently as a philosophy of death, more power to them.

7. Islam requires Muslims to lie and deceive when dealing with non-Muslims in order to further Islam, thus precluding the ability to trust Muslims.

An excellent example is the recent fatwa or legal-religious edict (in the context of Islamic shari’a law) offered by Muslim propagandists, including CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations). The fatwa supposedly condemned terrorism, or that was what these propagandists wanted people to think. The give-away came in the text when the fatwa deplored the murder and mayhem inflicted on “innocent” persons. In the Islamic context, non-Muslims cannot be “innocent”; only Muslims can. This was typical and classic deception, but many Americans bought it hook, line, and sinker—just as planned.

8. Islam also lies internally to all Muslims by tantalizing them with promises that cannot be delivered.

Islam recruits young men to engage in “martyrdom.” By dying in the cause of Allah as martyrs, they are promised a quick transit to Paradise, bypassing the End of Days, to live in splendor and endless sexual gratifications with houris who reconstitute their virginity after each intercourse with the martyr. Imagine the surprise, if it could occur, when martyrs die, only to find in an imaginary instant that there is no Paradise and certainly no houris.

Islam is a structure of lies and deceptions. It succeeds only because of early childhood brainwashing that inculcates metaphysical-like fear preventing Muslims questioning anything about Islam. Once examined, however, Islam falls apart.

9. Islam succeeds against its enemies only by harnessing the enemies’ products, services, and personnel.

Islam is intellectually dead and is anti-creative, but it steals technology and the susceptible persons from nations that it sets out to conquer to use that technology and those people to subvert and destroy the non-Muslim nation.

This particular process has been called the “sanction of the victim” (a term introduced by philosopher Ayn Rand). For example, those in al-Qaeda cannot invent computers and the internet or make anything creatively, but they can exploit these fruits of the rational and free minds of the West to their own use. The same applies to munitions and extends even to their using the very freedoms and laws of free people to further their destructive aims. Most victims, in this post-Industrial Revolution world know this, but do not resist the parasitism of their knowledge, technology, and the turning of the laws of those to be conquered and destroyed against them. This failure to resist furthers the aims of al-Qaeda, as it does with all forms of evil, and is what constitutes the “sanction” by its victims.

10. Success of the spread of Islam is measured by the degree of dhimmitude in the victims.

Dhimmitude refers to the state of being a subjugated subpopulation within an area conquered by Muslims. Dhimmis live at a lower level than indentured servants, and they live by permission of their Muslim conquerors. All aspects of their lives are prescribed by the Muslims and enforced solely by whims of the rulers.

Most importantly, dhimmitude--these days--comes before conquest. Populaces that develop the mind-set of dhimmitude in advance of conquest become the most susceptible to easy conquest. In our contemporary culture, Europe is ripe for Islamicization because Europeans have become dhimmis psychologically. They no longer offer resistance to covert jihad and not much to overt jihad. Too many Europeans have the mentality of those already conquered--before the first shot has been fired. In North America, those caught in the cognitive traps of political correctness and multiculturalism, as opposed to America’s founding principles, have developed the psychological state of dhimmitude and pose a severe danger to the rest of Americans who intend on living free.

Islam has not gone away as a severe threat to us. Islam has not softened its approach to us. Islam has not become the “religion of peace.” To grasp the significance of jihad, whenever you hear “Islam,” substitute “Nazism”; and, whenever you hear “Muslim,” substitute “Nazi.”

Above all, read about Islam, while you can.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Reality Pays a Visit to "Palestine"

Just as surely as night follows day...

[Extracted in this blog]

WorldNetDaily: Hamas government to be new Taliban?, by Aaron Klein.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Terrorists plant group's flag on parliament, declare beginning of hard-line Islamic rule

Posted: January 26, 2006
2:11 p.m. Eastern

© 2006

JERUSALEM – Moments after official election results this afternoon certified a large Hamas victory in Palestinian ballots, members of the terror group planted their green flags on the main parliament building in Ramallah, with some Hamas gunmen declaring hard-line Islamic law will soon be imposed in the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinian security sources in the area told WorldNetDaily.

"The Hamas members were dancing with their flags, and they announced Sharia law will soon rule in the Palestinian territories," said a source. Today's clashes were the latest in a series of reports indicating Hamas is seeking to impose Taliban-like Islamic rule on the Palestinians.

A Hamas-run council in the West Bank recently barred an open-air music and dance festival, declaring it was against Islam. "This is not acceptable," festival head Eman Hamouri told reporters at the time, accusing Hamas of trying to force its values on others. "We condemn this and we have sought the help of the Palestinian parliament to discuss this serious issue."

In response to the incident, al-Zahar told WND: "I hardly understand the point of view of the West concerning these issues. The West brought all this freedom to its people but it is that freedom that has brought about the death of morality in the West. It's what led to phenomena like homosexuality, homeless and AIDS."

Israeli officials say Hamas in the Gaza Strip has established hard-line Islamic courts and created the Hamas Anti-Corruption Group, which is described as a kind of "morality police" operating within Hamas' organization.

Hamas has denied the existence of the anti-corruption group, but the group recently carried out a high-profile "honor killing" widely covered by the Palestinian media.

Erlich compared Hamas' governing intentions to the rules imposed by the Taliban until it was ousted from leadership in Afghanistan following the United States-led invasion in 2001. The Taliban reportedly used "morality police" to enforce Islamic extremist laws, including the public stoning of suspected adulterers, cutting off the arms of thieves, banning education and work for females, and the imposing of harsh sentences for those in possession of "disgraceful material," such as Western music or books.

Asked if he will impose similar Islamic law on the Palestinians once his group assumes power, Hamas chief al-Zahar told WND: "The Palestinian people are Muslim people and we do not need to impose anything on our people because they are already committed to their faith and religion. People are free to choose their way of life, their way of dress and behavior."

Al-Zahar said his terror group, which demands strict dress codes for females, respects women's rights. "It is wrong to think that in our Islamic society there is a lack of rights for women. Women enjoy their rights. What we have, unlike the West, is that young women cannot be with men and have relations outside marriage. Sometimes with tens of men. This causes the destruction of the family institution and the fact that many kids come to the world without knowing who are their fathers or who are their mothers. This is not a modern and progressed society," al-Zahar explained.

The terror chieftain told WND the West can learn from his group's Islamic values. "Here I refer to what was said in the early '90s by Britain's Prince Charles at Oxford University. He spoke about Islam and its important role in morality and culture. He said that the West must learn from Islam how to bring up children properly and to teach them the right values."

Yudit Barsky, director of the division on Middle East and International Terrorism at the American Jewish Committee, ... said, "The Palestinians are falling for the same trick the Taliban pulled in Afghanistan. Hamas has set itself up as the non-corrupt alternative to the PA. It provides important social services the Palestinian population enjoys. Once Hamas gains control, it will pull the rug out and impose the same harsh lifestyle as the Taliban. The Palestinians clearly have not learned the lessons of the Taliban's rise to power."

Now, who said you can trust Islamists? Well, you can trust Islamists--to be Islamists. And, don't forget, you can always trust an Islamist ONCE!

A is still A, and reality always wins in the end!

Denying the Holocaust: Prelude to a Holocaust

Why did we let Iran get this far? Jimmy Carter and the succession of presidential administrations to the present defaulted in the extreme by letting Iran become the threat it has. Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and has been responsible for huge numbers of American deaths, while we have done nothing about it. We are recapitulating the 1930s and the rise of Hitler and Nazism.

Last year, Iran held a Hugo Chavez style "election" and "elected" as president Mohamed Ahmadinejad. This man has been the perfect foil for the mullahs, who are drunk on Nazi-like power. Ahmadinejad has made a number of outrageous statements, and all have received tepid responses from the West. Thus, in his eyes and in the eyes of the mullahs, each outrageous statement has met with success [Islamic Persians and Islamic Arabs think very much alike, because of Islam]. Each success contributes to his sense of invulnerability.

One statement he has made is so bad that Ahmadinejad has, in principle, invited war on Iran from the West. A Saudi intellectual stooge, Dr. Abdullah Muhammad Sindi, who has walked freely about the U. S. while being paid by U. S. universities expressed his support of Ahmadinejad's statement in an interview with an Iranian press agency, recently reported by MEMRI. Sindi's importance is that solely as a vehicle for conveying Ahmadinejad's proclamation:

Interviewer: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he thinks that the Holocaust is a myth. However, he also said some European countries insist that millions of innocent Jews were killed during World War II by Hitler, and asked why the Europeans don't give part of their land to the Jews if they are correct. What is your view?"

Dr. Sindi: "I agree wholeheartedly with President Ahmadinejad. There was no such a thing as the 'holocaust.' The so-called 'holocaust' is nothing but Jewish/Zionist propaganda. There is no proof whatsoever that any living Jew was ever gassed or burned in Nazi Germany or in any of the territories that Nazi Germany occupied during World War II. The holocaust propaganda was started by the Zionist Jews in order to acquire worldwide sympathy for the creation of Israel after World War II.

Recently on a television news interview, noted historian Victor Davis Hanson pointed out that those who deny the Holocaust should be watched very carefully for their intentions to set up a holocaust of their own.

"Jew hatred" was institutionalized into Islam by Muhammad, and it has been an Islamic staple since, whether Sunni, Shia, or Sufi. "Jew hatred" serves as the means of focusing rage and destruction, which permeate and dominate the contents of the Islamic psyche. There is nothing rational about hating the Jews, but, of course, rationality has never been allowed to examine "Jew hatred." Hitler and the Nazis explicitly refused to allow rationality to interfere with their feelings. "Thinking" with their "will, blood, and Volk," they wallowed in unexamined emotion. So do Islamists, for the same reasons and purposes.

It is worth our while to see what a Nazi had to say about what they were doing to Jews in Germany and Poland, before the "final solution." All the while, we must keep context about Ahmadinejad's blatant dismissal of the Holocaust as historical fact. We also need to recall that "Holocaust" covers much more than the death camps from their beginning in 1942 to their end in 1945. A Felix Landau wrote a diary in 1941 while he was serving voluntarily with the Einsatzkommando. Two quotes set the flavor of the mind-set:

2 July 1941: "Shortly after our arrival [at Lernberg] the first Jews were shot by us. As usual a few of the new officers became megalomaniacs, they really enter into the role whole-heartedly."

3 July 1941: He was ordered to get ready "...with steel helmets, carbines, thirty rounds of ammunition. We have just come back. Five hundred Jews were lined up ready to be shot... I have little inclination to shoot defenceless persons--even if they are only Jews. I would far rather [sic] good honest combat."

(Emphasis mine.)

This is not all. We are merely beginning. Read the next entry in the context of Holocaust denial and what that means about someone who denies it.

On 5 July 1941, a Wehrmacht guard had been found shot dead. Naturally, the Nazis assumed that the Jews were responsible. Poles and Jews were massacred in wholesale lots. However, more happened in town that evening:

"There were hundreds of Jews walking along the street with blood pouring down their faces, holes in their heads, their hands broken and their eyes hanging out of their sockets. There were covered in blood... We went to the citadel; there we saw things that few people have ever seen. At the entrance of the citadel there were soldiers standing guard. They were holding clubs as thick as a man's wrist and were lashing out and hitting anyone who crossed their path. The Jews were pouring out of the entrance. There were rows of Jews lying one on top of the other like pigs whimpering horribly. The Jews kept streaming out of the citadel completely covered in blood. We stopped and tried to see who was in charge of the Kommando. 'Nobody'. Someone had let the Jews go. They were just being hit out of rage and hatred. Nothing against that--only they should not let the Jews walk about in such a state."

[Quotes exactly as written in my source: Haste, Cate: Nazi Women; Pan Macmillan Ltd., London; 2001; ISBN 0-752-21575-2; pages 167 and 168.]

(Emphasis mine.)

Throughout Islamia, Jews are regarded like this, whether Sunni, Shia, or Sufi. Historical, this is how Islam has dealt with Jews, this and much worse. Ahmadinejad's desire to wipe Israel off the map means the foregoing taken to the 10th power.

The hatred will not stop with Israel and the Jews. Given half a chance, this is what Islam will impose on us. Remember: There may be some "moderate" Muslims, but there is NO "moderate" Islam.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Blogsphere in the Crosshairs Again!

The Plot to Shush Rush and O'Reilly...and the Rest of Us
(At FrontPage)

The rise of alternative media—political talk radio in the eighties, cable news in the nineties, and the blogosphere in the new millennium—has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The Left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party’s current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media’s vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today’s liberals quietly, relentlessly, and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what’s going on—and resist it.

The most imminent danger comes from campaign-finance rules, especially those spawned by the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. Republican maverick John McCain’s co-sponsorship aside, the bill passed only because of overwhelming Dem support. It’s easy to see why liberals have spearheaded the nation’s three-decade experiment with campaign-finance regulation. Seeking to rid politics of “big-money corruption,” election-law reforms obstruct the kinds of political speech—political ads and perhaps now the feisty editorializing of the new media—that escape the filter of the mainstream press and the academy, left-wing fiefdoms still regulation-free. Campaign-finance reform, notes columnist George Will, by steadily expanding “government’s control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government,” advances “liberalism’s program of extending government supervision of life.”

The irony of campaign-finance reform is that the “corruption” it targets seems not to exist in any widespread sense. Studies galore have found little or no significant influence of campaign contributions on legislators’ votes. Ideological commitments, party positions, and constituents’ wishes are what motivate the typical politician’s actions in office. Aha! reformers will often riposte, the corruption is hidden, determining what Congress doesn’t do—like enacting big gas taxes. But as Will notes, “that charge is impossible to refute by disproving a negative.” Even so, such conspiracy-theory thinking is transforming election law into what journalist Jonathan Rauch calls “an engine of unlimited political regulation.”

McCain-Feingold, the latest and scariest step down that slope, makes it a felony for corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups, and labor unions to run ads that criticize—or even name or show—members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election, when such quintessentially political speech might actually persuade voters. It forbids political parties from soliciting or spending “soft money” contributions to publicize the principles and ideas they stand for. Amending the already baffling campaign-finance rules from the seventies, McCain-Feingold’s dizzying dos and don’ts, its detailed and onerous reporting requirements of funding sources—which require a dense 300-page book to lay out—have made running for office, contributing to a candidate or cause, or advocating without an attorney at hand unwise and potentially ruinous.
Not for nothing has Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas denounced McCain-Feingold’s “unprecedented restrictions” as an “assault on the free exchange of ideas.”

Campaign-finance reform has a squeaky-clean image, but the dirty truth is that this speech-throttling legislation is partly the result of a hoax perpetrated by a handful of liberal foundations, led by the venerable Pew Charitable Trusts. New York Post reporter Ryan Sager exposed the scam when he got hold of a 2004 videotape of former Pew official Sean Treglia telling a roomful of journalists and professors how Pew and other foundations spent years bankrolling various experts, ostensibly independent nonprofits (including the Center for Public Integrity and Democracy 21), and media outlets (NPR got $1.2 million for “news coverage of financial influence in political decision-making”)—all aimed at fooling Washington into thinking that Americans were clamoring for reform, when in truth there was little public pressure to “clean up the system.” “The target group for all this activity was 535 people in Washington,” said Treglia matter-of-factly, referring to Congress. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot—that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.”

Treglia urged grantees to keep Pew’s role hush-hush. “If Congress thought this was a Pew effort,” he confided, “it’d be worthless. It’d be 20 million bucks thrown down the drain.” At one point, late in the congressional debate over McCain-Feingold, “we had a scare,” Treglia said. “George Will stumbled across a report we had done. . . . He started to reference the fact that Pew was playing a large role . . . [and] that it was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress. . . . The good news, from my perspective, was that journalists . . . just didn’t care and nobody followed up.” The hoaxers—a conspiracy of eight left-wing foundations, including George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation—have actually spent $123 million trying to get other people’s money out of politics since 1994, Sager reports—nearly 90 percent of the spending by the entire campaign-finance lobby over this period.

It gets worse.

Campaign-finance reform now has the blogosphere in its crosshairs. When the Federal Election Commission wrote specific rules in 2002 to implement McCain-Feingold, it voted 4 to 2 to exempt the Web. After all, observed the majority of three Republicans and one Democrat (the agency divides its seats evenly between the two parties), Congress didn’t list the Internet among the “public communications”—everything from television to roadside billboards—that the FEC should regulate. Further, “the Internet is virtually a limitless resource, where the speech of one person does not interfere with the speech of anyone else,” reasoned Republican commissioner Michael Toner. “Whereas campaign finance regulation is meant to ensure that money in politics does not corrupt candidates or officeholders, or create the appearance thereof, such rationales cannot plausibly be applied to the Internet, where on-line activists can communicate about politics with millions of people at little or no cost.”

But when the chief House architects of campaign-finance reform, joined by McCain and Feingold, sued—claiming that the Internet was one big “loophole” that allowed big money to keep on corrupting—a federal judge agreed, ordering the FEC to clamp down on Web politics. Then-commissioner Bradley Smith and the two other Republicans on the FEC couldn’t persuade their Democratic colleagues to vote to appeal.

The FEC thus has plunged into what Smith calls a “bizarre” rule-making process that could shackle the political blogosphere. This would be a particular disaster for the Right, which has maintained its early advantage over the Left in the blogosphere, despite the emergence of big liberal sites like Daily Kos. Some 157 of the top 250 political blogs express right-leaning views, a recent liberal survey found. Reaching a growing and influential audience—hundreds of thousands of readers weekly (including most journalists) for the top conservative sites—the blogosphere has enabled the Right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream. Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times’s editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, garlanded with praise—and John Kerry might be president of the U.S., assuming that CBS News had gotten away with its last-minute falsehood about President Bush’s military service that the diligent bloggers at PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs, and other sites swiftly debunked.

Are the hundreds of political blogs that have sprouted over the last few years—twenty-first-century versions of the Revolutionary era’s political pamphlets—“press,” and thus exempt from FEC regulations? Liberal reform groups like Democracy 21 say no. “We do not believe anyone described as a ‘blogger’ is by definition entitled to the benefit of the press exemption,” they collectively sniffed in a brief to the FEC. “While some bloggers may provide a function very similar to more classical media activities, and thus could reasonably be said to fall within the exemption, others surely do not.” The key test, the groups claimed, should be whether the blogger is performing a “legitimate press function.” But who decides what is legitimate? And what in the Constitution gives him the authority to do so?

A first, abandoned, draft of proposed FEC Web rules, leaked to the RedState blog last March, regulated all but tiny, password-protected political sites, so bloggers should be worried. Without a general exemption, political blogs could easily find themselves in regulatory hell. Say it’s a presidential race, Condi Rice versus Hillary Clinton. You run a wildly opinionated and popular group blog—call it No to Hillary—that rails daily about the perils of a Clinton restoration and sometimes republishes Rice campaign material. Is your blog making “contributions” to Rice? Maybe. The FEC says that a “contribution” includes “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office” (my italics). If your anti-Hillary blog spends more than $1,000, you could also find it re-classified as a “political committee.” Then you’ve got countless legal requirements and funding limits to worry about.

In such a regulated Web-world, bloggers and operators of political sites would have to get press exemptions on a case-by-case basis. The results, election-law expert Bob Bauer explains, would be “unpredictable, highly sensitive to subtle differences in facts, and to the political environment of the moment.” Even when the outcome is happy, says Bauer, “a favorable result is still an act of noblesse oblige by a government well aware that if it turns down a request, the disappointed applicant is left with litigation as the only option.”

Sites would live in fear of Kafkaesque FEC enforcement actions, often triggered by political rivals’ complaints. “If the matter is based on a complaint,” notes former FEC counsel Allison Hayward, “the ‘respondent’ will receive a letter from the FEC with the complaint and will be asked to show why the FEC shouldn’t investigate.” An investigation involves “the usual tools of civil litigation—document requests, depositions, briefs, and the like.” The outcome can take months “or longer” to determine, says Hayward. “If a complaint is filed against you, there will be a flurry of activity while you respond, then perhaps silence—then another letter will arrive and you will be required to respond promptly, then maybe nothing again for months.” Most political bloggers aren’t paid “professional” reporters or commentators but just democratic citizens with day jobs who like to exercise their right to voice their opinions. If doing so without a lawyer puts them or their families at risk, many will simply stop blogging about politics—or never start.

If you think such fretting is silly, says Bradley Smith, consider the case of Bill Liles, who faced an FEC inquiry when Smith was commissioner. In 2000, a businessman in the little Texas town of Muleshoe, Harvey Bass, painted save our nation: vote democrat al gore for president on a beat-up box and plunked it on his furniture store’s porch. Sick of looking at it, Liles and a friend pasted a “bigger and better” poster praising W. on a trailer and parked it right across from Bass’s store. This was too much for another local, Don Dyer, who complained to the FEC that Liles’s sign lacked mandated disclosures about who paid for it and whether Bush had signed off on it.

Though the FEC in the end let Liles and his fellow activists off, the men had in fact broken not just disclosure rules but any number of other regulations, too, recalls Smith. They had clearly spent a bit more than $250 on their makeshift sign, for example, but hadn’t reported it, as required, to the FEC. “Total statutory penalties could have easily exceeded $25,000,” Smith observes. How different is Liles’s praiseworthy activism from that of many political bloggers? The medium differs, but Liles, like a blogger, is simply voicing his opinion. And this was pre-McCain-Feingold.

Even if the FEC starts by regulating only a little bit of Web politics, instead of the extensive oversight it had at first planned—and a laxer regime is likelier, thanks to the fierce outburst from political blogs, right and left, when they discovered their freedom of speech under fire—there’s no guarantee that the commission won’t steadily expand its reach later. “If the history of campaign finance regulation is any guide,” notes Commissioner Toner, “once the FEC exercises jurisdiction over the Internet, the Commission’s initial set of regulations, even if narrowly tailored, are likely to lead to broader regulation in the future.” Right after McCain-Feingold became law, co-sponsor Senator Russ Feingold opined: “It is only a beginning. It is a modest reform. . . . There will be other reforms.” Most campaign-finance reformers share that regulate-to-the-max outlook, aiming—swiftly or incrementally—to close all the loopholes.

Recognizing that McCain-Feingold is out of control, liberty-minded Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling introduced the Online Freedom of Speech Act (HR 1606) in the House last April. (Harry Reid has sponsored identical legislation in the Senate, showing that not all Democrats are lost on the issue.) The bill reinforces the Internet’s current regulation-free status by excluding blogs and various other Web communications from campaign-finance strictures. Brought to an expedited vote under special rules that required a two-thirds majority in early November, the bill—opposed strenuously by the campaign-finance reform “movement”—failed. “Today’s action marks a sad day for one of our nation’s most sacred rights: freedom of speech,” reflected House Speaker Dennis Hastert. “The last thing this Congress should be doing is trying to stifle public debate online.”

The House Democrats torpedoed HR 1606, but they had surprising help from about three dozen Republicans. Why did so many normally staunch opponents of campaign-finance speech restrictions shift camp? One possible explanation, perhaps cynical: it’s hard to unseat incumbents, given their advantages of name recognition, free media exposure, and an easier time raising donations. If they can make it harder for their rivals to speak, which campaign-finance rules help them to do, the challenger’s task gets harder still. (Notably, after Congress began campaign-finance restrictions in the seventies, incumbency rates began to rise.) Once in office, some Republicans may suddenly like McCain-Feingold’s power to shield them from criticism—including on the Web.

It’s not just the blogosphere that’s at risk. The Left has also begun to use campaign-finance reform—not McCain-Feingold but equally onerous state regulations—to try to shush political talk radio. The oldest of the new media—Rush Limbaugh went national around 15 years ago—political talk radio is the Right’s dominion. Not one of the top 20 nationally syndicated political shows features a left-of-center host, and right-leaning radio talkers outnumber liberals three to one. Over 40 percent of Americans tune in at least occasionally to this extremely influential medium, and over 20 percent use it as a primary source of political information. Given the Left’s continuing inability to compete on the dial—its much-ballyhooed Air America doesn’t even register in the Arbitron ratings in some markets—its preferred strategy in the future likely will be to force conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and William Bennett off the air.

Read the rest, then fire up your word processor and get in touch with Congress before we are all silenced.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Peering Into the Mind of An Activist Federal Judge, Part Two

With Judge Alito coming to Senate Judiciary Committee vote 24 January 2006, we must continue to stress that ordinary Americans must judging our judges in order to begin righting the grievously wrong American judiciary.

In Sixth Column, "Peering into the Mind of an Activist Judge, Part One," 08 January 2006, we cited an article by Jeff Johnson, Senior Staff Writer,
9th Circuit Judge Sets Standard for Liberal Activism. In our Part One, we began looking into the thinking of a liberal activist judge of the federal 9th circuit court, Judge Reinhardt, using his own words. Referring to the contents of the linked article, we also stated, "The article demonstrates magnificently the problems on both sides; and, if anyone thinks these concerns and arguments are trivial, then that person should be advised that these are the people abrogating our rights and destroying our Constitution--Left and Right!"

Being a judge on the Right does not mean that you get a free pass. Take this statement about the highly Left Judge Reinhardt by his rightist colleague (from the article linked):

Reinhardt's conservative Ninth Circuit colleague, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, holds a more literal view of the nation's premier legal document. "If the text of the Constitution does not preclude the government's action, the judge must uphold it," O'Scannlain wrote in an essay about government property seizures, published on the website "He must do so even if the government's action is patently unfair or plainly inappropriate, for determining that something is 'unfair' or "inappropriate' without an independent standard for fairness or appropriateness requires an exercise of sheer will. And the power to direct government action pursuant to one's own will is the power that a judge lacks."

The scary part is this: ""If the text of the Constitution does not preclude the government's action, the judge must uphold it..." This illustrates the danger inherent in literalistic interpretation of the Constitution. It shows that Judge O'Scannlain knows no more about the nature of rights than his Leftist colleague, Judge Reinhardt, and he also does not understand the reason for the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution was to establish a government based on guaranteeing individual rights (that's a redundancy since there are no other kind). Because the Constitution does not specifically say that governments can seize property (a la the Kelo decision), it does not authorize giving the green light to socialist-fascist-communist style seizures by the government. The Constitution, particularly in the 9th Amendment, provides the umbrella protecting the individual from all sorts of governmental actions at all levels of government.

The U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo Decision of 2005 allowed governments to seize any individual's property to give to one or more other private individuals, DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION. Reading the majority decision, one is struck by how much Leftist Supreme Court Justices hate the concept of individual rights, because they bridle the power of the state. To the Left, the State is all, and the individual is the servant of, if not the property of, the state. Hitler and Stalin would have approved of the Kelo Decision.

That the literalist colleague of Judge Reinhardt, Judge O'Scannlain, fails to grasp the real issue is worse than tragic. It is dangerous. So the Right cannot be given any pass until they prove themselves.

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."

-- Samuel Adams(1722-1803), was
known as the "Father of the American Revolution."

Getting back to the far Left Judge Reinhardt, the cited article adds more to understanding how this judge thinks. For example:

Chapman University constitutional law professor John Eastman told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly about the graduation speech Reinhardt gave there in 2001. "Well, he basically accused anybody who didn't agree with his positions of being not fit to be a member of the bar or a lawyer or violating their oath of office," Eastman recalled. "And on a range of issues, from racial quotas to religion in schools, on the whole list, if you didn't agree with him, then you weren't a proper lawyer, and you ought to just get out of the business."

That is classic Leftist arrogance.

But the final piece beats all.

As for the consequences of the behavior of a judge, coming from his philosophy:

Reinhardt shows no signs of slowing down in either his willingness to promote his liberal viewpoint or his alleged encroachment on legislative powers. When reporters ask him about being, arguably, the most overturned federal appeals judge in history, Reinhardt routinely smiles as he notes that the Supreme Court reviews only a handful of the decisions he hands down each year. "They can't catch them all," he says.

This is the essence of activism: Pushing the envelope to overwhelm the system in order to get work an agenda.

Incrementally, the Left have been chipping away at the foundations of America, most particularly at the concept of individual rights, or, as our Founders called them, the Rights of Man.

Judicial activism in the name of anything other than promoting, preserving, and protecting individual rights is what we must put a stop to. To do it requires that each citizen grasp the very foundations of his life under freedom, and to do it soon, before he loses the rest of his freedom to control his own government. Each citizen must come to understand the nature of rights and demand that they be upheld. This will put a stop to rights-eroding judicial decisions of the future and roll back many of the very bad decisions still on the books and still undercutting America.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Ray, Louis, and What's-His-Name

Going to bed last night, after 24, I was surfing the radio dial for something of interest and stopped at a local, liberal-oriented talk radio program. The team doing the show was authentically dismayed at Mayor Ray Nagin for a number of things he said in his speech during Martin Luther King Day, yesterday, in New Orleans.

Here is a very good summary:

BREITBART.COM - New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad at U.S. by BRETT MARTEL, Associated Press Writer, NEW ORLEANS

Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day. "Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina."It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans _ the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

What you cannot get from reading Nagin's words are the inflections and rhythms in his speech. He sounded like he was imitating the speaking style of Louis Farrakhan. What Mayor Nagin said added significantly to that impression. To make matters worse, Farrakhan has invoked everything to explain Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, from God's Wrath to George Bush planting charges under the levees in New Orleans, to say nothing about the extensive racial plots. Furthermore, the words and speech patterns of the mayor, suggested another who seems to think in somewhat similar terms: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran.

Ahmadinejad has been quoted by Daniel Pipes (op. cit.) as saying recently:

When addressing the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad flummoxed his audience of world political leaders by concluding his address with a prayer for the Mahdi's appearance: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

On returning to Iran from New York, Mr. Ahmadinejad recalled the effect of his U.N. speech:

"[O]ne of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. … And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic."

President Bush, as well as others, receives endless criticism from the Left for his speaking of matters of faith. He is accused of being dumb, ignorant, and backward. According the Left, people of faith are all on the Right, and they are all defective, if not downright dangerous.

Far be it for me to pose as a defender of faith. Nevertheless, here are men of the Left, invoking everything from divining to racial pandering.

Despite how much some people in New Orleans allegedly adore Mayor Nagin, he is a most unimpressive political figure. He and the governor of Louisiana, Blanco, made and make a matched set.

Demogoguery by no means belongs solely to the Right.

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad

We have extensively updated 6th Column Against Jihad following the December and holidays hiatus. You are cordially invited to stop by and read, and come back again.



We at 6th Column Against Jihad take the greatest pleasure in announcing that we are beginning the serialization of an original novel, Hatred of the Angels, in twelve chapters, by new author, Jane Scully. Her biography precedes Chapter One: Faith Square. This novel presents profound scholarship about Islam in fictional form.

From George Mason, Review: Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto

From Jacob Thomas, Western Intellectuals Need to Study Islam before Making Comments on the Subject, and Ninety Years of Denial

From Winifred Thomas, “The American People” according to Lehrer and Shields

From The Religion of Peace, 4000 Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

New Link on Recommended page

Jihad Isn't Just Suicide Bombing and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saudi Interest In America

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, is well aware of just how insidious the smiling, hand-shaking Saudis can be. They are well aware that no one can beat us militarily. Instead they have found our weaknesses: Americans like to live well and are accustomed to the use of oil to run the economy and, for decades, have borrowed heavily from foreign governments to fund our life style.

Many are aware of widespread Saudi investments in the United States, but few know how potentially harmful they are. Moreover, U.S. policy-makers remain unaware of this grave danger.

On Sept. 28, 2001, after the attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden called for financial jihad against the United States, and on Dec. 27, 2001, he called on jihadists "to look for [and strike] the key pillars of the U.S. economy." Although now the Saudis claim bin Laden is their enemy, many of them continue to follow his agenda.

Religious and ideological support has been also provided by Hussein Shihata, a leading Sunni scholar of Islamic Economy at Cairo's al-Azhar University. Mr. Shihata's July 10, 2002, fatwa says: "We do not use the term 'economic jihad' as a mere motto or a resounding slogan with no action. Rather, we mean by it a practical jihad that requires action to turn it into an effective and concrete reality. The aim behind that is to benefit all Muslims and to challenge the aggression staged by the U.S. and Jews against Islam and Muslims."

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who claims to abhor bin Laden, seems nevertheless eager to follow his agenda. In an interview with Arab News in May 2002, the prince said that if the Arabs "unite through economic interests," they would achieve influence over the U.S. decision-makers. Since government sources estimate Saudi holdings in the United States at $400 billion to $800 billion, the matter warrants public attention.

The Saudi agenda extends far beyond policy-makers. In the late 1990s, the privately owned Massachusetts technology company, Ptech, designed software used to develop enterprise blueprints that held every important detail of a given concern. The company was financed with more than $22 million, by Saudi multi-millionaire Yasin al Qadi, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. The Saudis thus gained access to strategic information about many major U.S. corporations such as SYSCO, ENRON, and the U.S. Departments of Defense, Treasury, Justice, Energy, and even the White House. The extent of the damage, if it was investigated, remains a mystery.

Meanwhile, substantial Saudi and Gulf financial contributions "to bring the proper message to America's brightest minds," are pouring into U.S. educational institutions through Arab and Islamic centers and professorial chairs. Last month the prince gave $20 million each to Georgetown and Harvard universities. According to the Center for Religious Freedom, the Saudis also supply textbooks for public libraries, schools and colleges, and provide the content concerning Islam to some U.S. textbook publishers.

The Saudis' potential influence on U.S. and international media was recently illustrated by the prince's purchase of 5.6 percent of voting shares in News Corp., the world's largest publisher of English newspapers. Moreover, Reuters reported on Dec. 5 that the prince announced his plan to "spread the right message" via a new television channel, "The Message," to broadcast to the U.S. within two years.

Yet, information regarding the magnitude of the Saudi economic infiltration into the United States is secret. The U.S. Treasury's interpretation of the census law, supported by a 1982 court decision, shields this data from the public. On Oct. 27, 1982, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) was denied information requested under its own FOIA inquiry, by the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. (Civ. A. No. 81-1745). The AJC litigated its FOIA case up to the Supreme Court, but the government won.

Read the rest.

Perhaps the rich Arabs are already pulling the strings behind the scenes. One day we'll wake up with Saudis and other rich Arabs openly flaunting their power in Washington D.C. and we'll wonder "how we got there.

Monday, January 16, 2006

IRAN: Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat

It is most unsettling to hear numerous Washington pundits state that no one in our government has any plan for dealing with Iran or knowing what to do. That we are in a war of ideas, Islam (and its variants) versus capitalism, escapes those who should know better. Iran is thoroughly aware of it and is miles ahead of us in waging such a war.

The danger from Iran comes from it being an Islamic theocracy, from its being the number terrorism sponsoring state, and from its development of fissionable materials. A "democratic election," carefully engineered by the Mullahs, put into power a potential Hitler for a president. Like Hitler, he is apocalyptic and mystical (see the very good article by Daniel Pipes, "The Mystical Menace of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"). In fact, he is the Mullahs' trigger man, deranged enough by Shiite Islam to think he could become the fabled Mahdi, returning to earth to rule it all.

Jaw-boning seems to be the way Iran is being handled right now, and Iran is reacting exactly as did Nazi Germany in the latter 1930s to all of the European and North American Neville Chamberlains of "speak softly but carry a big carrot." The BIG THREAT boils down to referring Iran's nuclear thumbing of its nose at the world to the U. N. Security Council. They might issue a stern letter of disapproval to Iran. Or, they might not. Talk of impotence! Even though Europe can be reached with Iran's nuclear-tipped missles right now, Europe continues to wallow in cowardice and any unwillingness to act on behalf of its survival. Even Jack Straw, England's equivalence of secretary of defense, has recently publicly rejected any military option. Iran was listening, Jack. Get it?

What are our national options? Are we faced with either military action initiated by us or joining the impotence of the U. N. and Europe? The answer is NO. We have an option we have not used, and we have the example of Iraq to show us what not to do.

First, let's see the what-not-to-do option from Iraq.

While we were "pacifying" Iraq at great expense of military personnel, dollars, and materiel, Iran was creating MANY radio and television stations beaming its philosophy into Iraq. We had one or two newspapers, perhaps, fewer than three radio stations, and no television until more than a year after Saddam. During this time, Iran beamed in dozens of radio and television stations carrying its message. After long delay, we finally created Al-Hurra (the free one) to televise truthful news to Iraq. We were not and are not competing in the arena of ideas.

Cutting to the basics, we need to wage total war with ideas against Iran. Experts like Michael Ledeen make it clear than ordinary Iranians are very pro-American and very anti-Mullocracy. All the Iranians need is the clear sense that we stand behind them, morally and materially.

Here are some suggestions for getting started.

  • The U. S. should publicly come out with a policy statement advocating overthrow of the Iranian mullocracy and state publicly that we will do everything possible to support Iranians overthrowing their regime. Standby for protests, from Iran, Europe, Democrats, and U.N. but ignore them.
  • The U. S. should pledge cash and materiel to Iranian rebels, including setting up or furthering all covert activities of espionage and sabotage against the mullocracy.
  • The U. S. should establish elaborate covert communications and supply routes and mechanisms to Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan. If spy satellites need to be increased as well as communication satellites, putting them over Iran will be money well spent.
  • The U. S. should establish large numbers of radio stations (a.m., f.m., and short-wave) as well as satellite television stations devoted to broadcasting everything from direct propaganda to directions for doing all sorts of things in support of overthrown. All forms of media should be exploited fully.
  • The U. S. should ensure maximum internet capability and websites for Iranian rebels.
  • The U. S. should smuggle into Iran all sorts of books and other printed material, on all sorts of media, extolling individual rights, freedom, and capitalism.
  • The U. S. should not waive in its commitment to causing and supporting overthrow of the mullocracy.

No one can fight bad ideas with no ideas. We did that in Iraq, and it cost us dearly. We must take a moral stand for the right, and public declaration of intent against Iran begins this process.

Ideas count. Actions directed by proper ideas are effective. Results will not be instantaneous or rapid, but we can effect regime change in Iran without losing American lives or engaging in direct military action. And, with the proper ideas, Iranian regime change can result in long-lasting positive change.

This has not been tried. Let's "git-r-done."

Smoking Is "Legal Again" -- Only If You're Muslim

The camel's nose in under the tent in the Astoria section of NYC where patrons cluster around tables and puff on fruit-flavored tobacco through pipes called hookahs. "The hookahs allow us to come together and unwind," Beirut-born Mahamoud Abraham, co-owner of the cafe said. "It's an important part of our culture."

Gee. Non-Muslims in America for centuries make tobacco smoking "an important part" of their culture and are forbidden to do so in public, and in some cases at home where young children are present. It's the law. Do Muslims think that Muslim culture trumps the law of the land?

Trampling the laws of host countries is standard operating procedure for Muslims insinuating themselves into other cultures. New Yorkers, and others, should be on the lookout for other examples.

Hattip: Gates of Vienna."I Am Special. Got a Light?"

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Judge Cashman and Vermont Followup

Judge Cashman was not required to complete the resentencing of the "60 Day Rapist" this past Friday. A formal request from the prosecution will necessitate some formal response from Judge Cashman in ten days. As of the evening of Thursday, 12 January, Judge Cashman indicated that he has no plans to change his sentencing.

Meanwhile, in Vermont, the former chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court has come out in support of Judge Cashman. Why not? Birds of a feather flock together. He called Cashman a conservative and prudent judge. Do you think the raped woman who appeared before him a few years ago would agree? Cashman told her that her being raped was just one of the harsh realities of life. That reminds us of truly one of the worst comments from the past we have heard: If you are being raped, you may as well just lie back and enjoy it.

Vermont's House of Representatives can impeach Judge Cashman, but the Speaker, Gaye Symington, has rushed the Cashman matter into committee and barred the door to prevent any timely consideration. Symington, according to the photographs of her, is an old granola girl who looks like she has not gotten over the 1960s.

The governor of Vermont twists like a weathervane. If he keeps wetting his finger to find out which way the political wind is blowing, he will have the most crenelated finger in Vermont. He needs to make a consistent stand, for the right.

Bill O'Reilly had a Vermont legislator, a Democrat, on the O'Reilly Factor on 13 January. The legislator expressed outrage about Judge Cashman. As for what to do, he took the position of the Democrat dominated House in Vermont of letting this matter be resolved by not reappointing the judge when his term is up. That is over a year from now. Cashman's superior could remove him from cases immediately, by the way, but is not visible. O'Reilly properly protested letting Cashman hear more cases for at least another year, but the Democrat legislator remained soft and gooey.

Lastly, power Democrats in Vermont are pointing out that Cashman is a conservative Republican. Is this true? We don't know. Who cares? He is a menace who needs immediate neutralization. Irrationality is not confined to the Left, the Right, the mushy center, to Democrats, Republicans, or any others.

Wrong is wrong. Vermont needs to move swiftly to turn this wrong into right.

Just Too Good Not To Share

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Major Attack Imminent?

Unfortunately, the good doctor al-Zawahiri, who is Number Two in al-Qaeda and presumed heir-apparent to bin Laden (if he is still alive), was reportedly NOT killed in a drone attack on a house in Pakistan last night. About 30 of his colleagues and associates were sent to meet Allah, however, and that's a step in the right direction.

If the following January 11 article by Staff Writer Sherrie Gossett is on the mark, we should all be on the lookout for the troublemakers to do more of what they do best, and that's to create mayhem and murder.

Boy! Nobody has ever accused these people of lacking energy or being IQ-challenged; if only they were free of the intellectually hobbling effects of Islam's paralyzing philosophy (their philosophy would be positively FUNNY if Muslims weren't so damned busy lobbing their "issues" at people who would otherwise care less), they could be among the planet's happier, more productive people. But given Islam's straightjacket approach to life, killing is about the only way they can get anyone to pay attention to them.

Oh, well. Anyway, here's what Gossett has to say, and if she's right, we may get some sort of nastygram in about two to three weeks:


The recently released video message from al Qaeda's number two leader is part of a pattern that signals a countdown to a major terrorist attack within the next 30 days, warns a Washington D.C.-based analyst.

The new video was aired by the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite network on Jan. 6. In it Ayman al-Zawahiri portrays U.S. government discussion of troop withdrawal from Iraq as a victory for Islam.

"If your forces with all its aircraft, missiles, tanks and fleets are moaning, bleeding and looking for an escape from Iraq, then will the hypocrites, conspirators, infidels (the Iraqi government) resist what the 'greatest power in the world' has failed to resist?" al-Zawahiri asked.

But it is not the content of the video that is a sign of a possible imminent strike, said terrorism expert Christopher L. Brown. Instead, it is the timing of the video that is consistent with previous patterns. Brown, a researcher with a Washington think tank, has briefed members of Congress and senior administration officials on key threats, and he has prepared testimony and briefing materials for officials at the Department of Defense, State Department, CIA, National Security Council and the White House.

The pattern Brown observed is that each Zawahiri video appears to be part of a pair, with the second video followed by a significant attack within 30 days, outside of the major combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The videos released on Sept. 9 and Nov. 9, 2004, were the first "set" and were followed by the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, bombings on Dec. 6, 2004. The second "set" of videos was released Feb. 20 and June 26, 2005, followed by the July 7 London bombings. A third set of videos was released Aug. 4 and Sept 1, 2005, followed by the bombings in Bali, Indonesia, on Oct. 1, 2005.

A Cybercast News Service exclusive report on Sept. 8 of last year detailed Brown's warning regarding an impending October attack.

The fourth set of videos, according to Brown's theory was released on Oct. 23, 2005 and last week -- Jan. 6.

"This pattern has held for at least three of al Qaeda's last large-scale attacks," said Brown, "This most recent video is likely a signal that a large-scale operation is about to be launched within the next 30 days. The question is where."

A clue may be found in the Internet postings of the enigmatic Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, said Brown. The brigades appear to be 'green-lighting' coming attacks prior to the release of the second video of each pair, Brown said.

The video that preceded the London bombings was itself preceded by a post by the "European division" of the brigades under the title, "Letter to mujahedeen in Europe." The posting stated in part, "We now call on the mujahedeen around the world to launch the expected attack." The message appeared on an al Qaeda-linked Internet forum.

Brown believes the larger pattern of two videos sandwiching an Internet posting by the Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades was repeated when a November web message declared that the upcoming attack would occur in the "land of the Romans," widely seen as a reference to Italy.

The Internet posting, under the name of al Qaeda's reputed military commander Saif al-Adel, mentioned future attacks involving unidentified poisonous substances and surface-to-air missiles procured from Chechnya. Brown notes that the Abu-Hafs Al-Masri Brigades are overseen by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the top al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq who is also known to have ties to Chechnya.

"It is even more interesting to note that Western intelligence officials believe that al Qaeda has had some of the most advanced Russian man-portable surface-to-air missile systems (the SA-18) within Europe for at least one year."

On Oct. 29, 2005, the London Telegraph reported that Abu Atiya, an al Qaeda operative close to al-Zawahiri, revealed to French authorities that a group called the "Chechen network" entered France with the missiles and chemical and biological agents such as botulin, ricin and cyanide. The missiles were reportedly purchased in 2002 and eventually smuggled through Georgia and Turkey to be used in a planned attack against French airliners in 2004.

Following the London bombings the brigades posted a communique on the Internet, stating: "We are in Italy, and not one of you is safe as long as you refuse [Osama bin Laden's] offer. Get rid of the incompetent (Prime Minister Silvio) Berlusconi or we will truly burn Italy."

A July 19, 2005, story in Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper indicated that Italian intelligence feared the statement was a coded message activating known cells in Italy, which had previously been providing only logistical support.

Three more messages from the Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades were posted in July, promising to "burn Italy down.

"We will raze the cities of Europe to the ground and you will be the first, Berlusconi!" one of the messages declared. On July 31, the brigades claimed to be "calling up all our cells in Rome and other Italian cities for this war ..." Another Internet message followed in August.

However, the November reference to the "land of the Romans" could be misdirection Brown said, since al Qaeda is known to use coded language in many of its communications. The Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) has indicated that al Qaeda intentionally labeled Italy as its target, prior to the London bombings.

If the "land of the Romans" doesn't refer to Rome, what might it refer to? Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute believes it could be a reference to the United States. "It could just as easily apply to the U.S. -- America as the new Rome," said Darling.

Brown also believes the al Qaeda threat could apply to the U.S. and that America is the likelier target.

The "land of the Romans" could be a symbolic reference to the "countless examples of Romanesque architecture in Washington, D.C.," said Brown.

The missiles reportedly obtained from Chechnya have not been located and Brown believes it is possible that some of the weapons have been smuggled into North America since individuals involved in the "Chechen network" who procured the missiles were allegedly involved in the 1999 conspiracy to bomb Los Angeles International Airport.

About Brown's theory of a timing pattern and imminent strike, Dan Darling said "I definitely think there's something behind this theory. One of my earliest observations about al Qaeda is that when people look for patterns they tend to forget to include events in places like Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq. "

Darling also noted that analysts often fail to take into account thwarted attacks. "Italy has arrested several members of GSPC cells intent on attacking Italy or U.S.-related installations," said Darling. The GSPC is also known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, an Algerian group linked to al Qaeda. Italian officials announced on Dec. 23 that the suspected terrorists had plans to carry out attacks against the U.S. that would have surpassed 9/11.

Terrorism expert B. Raman told Cybercast News Service that Brown's theory is "fascinating" but that he was not in a position to agree or disagree with it.

"I personally feel that while the London explosions were externally inspired from Pakistan, the timing and the modus operandi used were decided locally. I would have difficulty in connecting it to Zawahiri's second message," said Raman. He also believes that Zawahiri's importance as an operational head tends to be over-estimated by many Western analysts.

"I also feel on the basis of my reading of the situation that there is a very high probability of a terrorist strike against Italian lives and interests this year," said Raman.

"In Europe, Al Qaeda's next targets in the order of probability are Italy (its Prime Minister is closely identified with Bush), France (ban on head scarves, its interior minister is hated in the Islamic world) and Germany (its role in Afghanistan)."

Raman is the former head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing in India's external intelligence agency and director or the Institute of Topical Studies, Chennai, India.

Italy has been bracing for possible attacks targeting the February Winter Olympics in Turin or the April 9 general elections. Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu told media last month, "The global resonance of the Games, and the coincidence with the election campaign could be of great interest to terrorist organizations, which carry out major attacks in order to rock public opinion and influence political stances."

The CIA has declined to comment on Brown's theory. "We don't comment on our own analysis. And we can't comment on Mr. Brown's theory either," said the spokesman.

Regarding the video release pattern, "once can be an interesting anomaly, twice could be a coincidence, but three times is a pattern," Brown said, indicating "that in all likelihood al Qaeda will launch a major attack sometime in the next month."

Friday, January 13, 2006

Adding Impetus to Citizens Cleaning Up the Judiciary NOW

Perhaps there are a few people left on the planet who do not know this story, from some sources. Here is a synopsis:

WorldNetDaily: Judge gives child-rapist 60-day sentence

Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.

Judge Edward Cashman ... said he's more concerned now about rehabilitation. "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," Cashman told a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim. Cashman said he wants to make sure Hulett gets sex-offender treatment.

Members of the victim's family were outraged. "I don't like it," the victim's mother told the TV station, in tears. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house."

The victim's mother retains proper "reality testing," as the psychiatrists like to say. For that matter, so do a number of Vermont legislators, Vermont's governor, and ONE Vermont newspaper. Americans and internationals with good reality testing have been flooding the governor's office with emails about Judge Cashman and this travesty of justice. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News judiciary consultant, confirmed that Judge Cashman is violating his role and duties as a judge and is totally in the wrong job if he can no longer administer punishment. Were it not for the bulldoggedness of Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel, this story would have gotten little traction.

Except for the Burlington, VT, paper, all the Vermont newspapers are being apologists and providing endless excuses for this judge. The Vermont Speaker of the House, a Democrat, shoved the matter into "committee" before disappearing down her rat hole to hide. Vermont child protective services officials, although outraged at Judge Cashman's decision, are TOO AFRAID to go public with their outrage. Why? I do not know.

Did Howard Dean, during his governorship, appoint Judge Cashman? No one is yet saying, although it would fit.

Today, there is a rehearing on sentencing. Judge Cashman has one last opportunity to administer justice to this raping child destroyer. Will he? Watch the O'Reilly Factor to find out.

Judge Cashman and a host of similars are what our law schools are turning out, and have been turning out for decades. They are another example of why philosophy matters to every human, right down to where the rubber meets the road. People are only as good as their ideas. Judge Cashman is a sterling representative of today's judiciary.

Ask yourself if you think you could expect justice (you know, represented by the blind-folded lady with the scales) from a Judge Cashman? Do not forget that there are many more Judge Cashman's taking up space on the benches in our courthouses.

As for the fellow travellers, the media, they have followed the example of the Vermont media. If covered at all, this Vermont travesty has been hidden in the back pages. World Net Daily and Fox News have done fine jobs in providing exposure, in stark contrast.

It is no secret that the journalistic media, in all its forms, is now far Left. From the far Left, they excuse dictators, socialists, criminals, and morally reprehensible persons of all sorts. They either turn blind eyes and report nothing, or they hide their reporting, in hopes no one will find it.

This specific story about Judge Cashman is far from over, but, we can reaffirm, as Vermont goes, so goes the nation.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

New Low in Dhimmitude

It is simply too bad that so few of us will have the opportunity not to fly this airline. If the British had enough spine, they would make it hurt by boycotting it. Here is the whole article, to be "appreciated" in its entirety.

Airline bans Bibles to avoid offending Muslims
Carrier to Saudi Arabia also precluding crucifixes, teddy bears

© 2006

A British airline banned its staff from taking Bibles and wearing crucifixes or St. Christopher medals on flights to Saudi Arabia to avoid offending the country's Muslims.

British Midland International also has told female flight attendants they must walk two paces behind male colleagues and cover themselves from head to foot in a headscarf and robe known as an abaya, the Mirror newspaper of London reported.

Teddy bears or other cuddly toys also are not allowed.

Airline officials, who have sparked outrage, the paper says, explain the Islamic kingdom's strict laws – enforced by religious police – prohibit public practice of Christianity and figures of animals.

BMI spokesman Phil Shepherd said: "In providing air services people want, demand and use, we have an obligation to respect the customs of the destination country."

An airline employee who asked not to be named told the Mirror: "It's outrageous that we must respect their beliefs but they're not prepared to respect ours."

The employee said his grandmother gave him a crucifix shortly before she died that he wears at all times.

"It's got massive sentimental value and I don't see why I have to remove it," he said.

The airline's staff handbook says: "Prior to disembarking the aircraft all female crew will be required to put on their company issued abaya. It will be issued with the headscarf which must be worn."

The employees' union wants staff members to be able to opt out of the flights, but the airline says the only option is to transfer from overseas staff to domestic flights, which could mean a loss of about $30,000 a year in wages.

About 40 staff members have filed complaints since the route began in September.

Some of the male members who are homosexual have called in sick, because they are afraid of traveling to Saudi Arabia, where homosexual activity is punishable by flogging, jail or death.

Sunday, January 08, 2006


We are beginning the process of linking to other blogs. This will take time, so, if you do not see your link, it may mean that we will have it cited as soon as we can. On the other hand, please do not hesitate to send us an email requesting linking--this will speed up our listing from "later" to "sooner." We call this linking list development "a work in progress" because it is anything but speedy. We are starting from our companion website, 6th Column Against Jihad.

Our original intent was to cite all links on the Recommended page of 6th Column Against Jihad. The evolution of both sites has made it necessary to offer a separate links column on Sixth Column. The two lists will differ.

Peering Into the Mind of An Activist Federal Judge, Part One

It is really hard to say which groups are doing the greatest harm: Those attacking our rights, or those defending our rights. The problem comes from the very simple fact that neither side, not even in the most hallowed halls of legal erudition, has anything but a totally inadequate grasp of the nature and application of the concept of rights.

Take sections from this article, 9th Circuit Judge Sets Standard for Liberal Activism, by Jeff Johnson, Senior Staff Writer. The article demonstrates magnificently the problems on both sides; and, if anyone thinks these concerns and arguments are trivial, then that person should be advised that these are the people abrogating our rights and destroying our Constitution--Left and Right!

( - The "right to privacy," which liberals maintain is implied in the U.S. Constitution and which was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize abortion in 1973, apparently mattered little to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month when he ruled on a case involving parental rights.

On Nov. 2, Reinhardt wrote the Ninth Circuit Court's decision declaring that the "right to privacy" did not apply to parents who wanted to prevent public school officials in Palmdale, Calif., from giving their elementary school age children a sexually explicit survey. The ruling is but one of many that Reinhardt's critics say qualifies him as one of the most liberal and activist judges in the nation. "Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex," Reinhardt wrote in Fields v. Palmdale School District. "They have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so."

We cover the issue on which the judge ruled in two articles on 6th Column Against Jihad as Rights Differences Between Children and Adults and The Right to Privacy. Judge Reinhardt's ruling, cited by the article, is totally wrong, but not as an issue of the very legitimate right to privacy. Obviously, this judge does not know rights.

The issue of rights is much more fundamental than "liberal versus conservative," since both are usually totally wrong on all accounts about rights. Fortunately for us, Judge Reinhardt speaks openly enough for us see just how the mind of an activist judge of the Left works:

"How can you tell a judge is a liberal?" Reinhardt asked law students during a speech at Georgetown University. "Liberal judges believe in a generous or expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We believe that the meaning of the Constitution was not frozen in 1789; that, as society develops and evolves, its understanding of constitutional principles also grows.

"We believe that the Founding Fathers used broad general principles to describe our rights," Reinhardt continued, "because they were determined not to enact a narrow, rigid code that would bind and limit all future generations."

Regarding the Constitution, Reinhardt wrote to [SCOTUS Justice] Breyer that he should "Carry on the work of the court's great progressive thinkers.

"It was progressive justices with a view of the Constitution as a living, breathing document who gave full measure to that instrument," Reinhardt wrote, "not the legal technocrats, not those whose view of the Constitution was frozen as of 1789.

"When lawyers and judges adhere too rigidly to legal rules," according to Reinhardt, "they lose sight of the broader purposes for which those rules were created: to do justice."

(Emphases mine)

Before going any further, we must dissect just what Judge Reinhardt is telling us; he tells just how the mind of a Leftist judge works. Let's break down those phrases in bold type which the article provided.

  • "Believe." This may seem innocent enough. After all, don't people use this word commonly? This is true, but this man of legal precision refers to a serious epistemological error on the Left, one which common usage may or may not mean. Leftists try to think with emotions instead of reason. They live in a mental world of feelings, wishes, desires, and the like, and they give their core feelings a pseudo-credibility of convictions by calling them "beliefs" or something similar. An emotion-dominated set of convictions by-passes something Leftists hate, namely objectivity. Objectivity requires that words mean something particular and that thinking be clear and logical. Feeling-based pseudo-cognition allows one to act on out-of-focus mental contents which boil down to going with what one likes or what one dislikes. Herd animal pseudo-thinking with feelings makes Leftists share pretty much the same likes and dislikes among themselves. That is one reason why most if not all Leftists seem to have come from the same mold.

  • "A generous or expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights" implements the foregoing "beliefs." What this phrase boils down to is a license by the Left to undercut the precision and crystal clear intent of those who wrote the Constitution to sabotage, subvert, and literally destroy the Constitution. Sections are literally "interpreted away" by refusal to adhere to objective standards.

  • "Court's great progressive thinkers" and "progressive justices" do not refer to the Progressive Era in the early part of the 20th century. "Progressive" is a mask term, meant to hide the real meaning: "Socialism." Socialism does not sell in America, and it has been a dismal failure in every instance in human history. That fact does not stop the feeling Left, whose thinking is sufficiently abnormal so that they overlook inconvenient facts in order to stay with their "beliefs," i.e., their feelings. They want socialism, and they hate capitalism. If they told the truth, assuming they recognized it, about their desires and thinking, they would be rejected by vast numbers of Americans, so they use code words, like "progressive." Capitalism is based on and fully recognizes the Rights of Man; socialism subordinates the Rights of Man to the authoritarian state in order to control people. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) loves to refer to herself and her ilk sanctimoniously as "progressives." What she means is what they all mean: they want to control you.

  • "Living, breathing document" refers to the Left view of the Constitution, meaning that it is a rubbery document that can be stretched to mean anything they want. When the Left use this term, they confess their epistemological error, which they seem completely unaware of. Their use of these terms refer to words (concepts) as having no objective (contextual) meaning, matching the vagueness of the contents of their thinking. In fact, words do mean something, something in particular, and without that degree of objectivity, no one would be able to communicate anything. Leftists want to cheat reality and get away with it, and this statement reflects their desires and intentions well. A "living, breathing document" would mean that the document would mean nothing in particular, which means that it would mean absolutely nothing. Can there be any doubt that Leftists want and need this meaning in order to be able to control people? Well, if there is any doubt left, try the following analogy on for size; it makes "living and breathing" very clear. It comes from Dr. Walter Williams, the brilliant free market economist: Dr. Williams asks if you would like to play poker with him, using "living
    rules." That makes it all very clear, even to the Left. The cardinal point to remember is that PRINCIPLES DO NOT CHANGE with time or changing circumstances. By this, we mean moral and political principles. The Constitution is a document of principles, and these principles "live" because they apply today just as well as they did in 1789. That is the nature of principles. Now, you can see what the Left want to get away with.

  • "To do justice." Justice requires absolutely objective evaluation of all obtainable facts measured against existing laws. This ethical and legal virtue requires holding reality and truth sacred, and keeping context scrupulously, to render the best judgement for or against any person or issue. When Leftists speak of "justice," they mean something entirely different, so different that is no longer justice. By "justice," they mean: following an agenda. This is subjectivity, not objectivity. Thus, Leftists come up with bastard terms such as "social justice," which means to take from the haves by force to redistribute in ways Leftists wish, then to call it "concern for the poor." In the rubber language of the Left, "justice" in its real meaning is something to escape from, to distort it into what it is not. Thus, we read of phenomena such as the Vermont judge who no longer "believes in punishment," so he sentenced a multiple offending child rapist to 60 days in jail.

Judge Reinhardt tells us that he is a proud member of the Left, thus is a total judicial subjectivist. He rules by feeling and wish, i.e., by whim. He rejects objective reality in favor of a reality conforming to his wishes, and he rejects all the objectivity of the Constitution. In fact, he clearly rejects the Constitution.

He does what he does and calls it "doing justice." He may as well have said that he was "doing lunch." This man holds his position for life, and he is an arch-typical representative of the Leftist activist judge.

We must save our justice system.

(To be continued...)