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

New Email Address:

Monday, January 31, 2005

Language Morphing and "Islamophobia"

Lefties have long loved changing the definitions of terms to achieve ulterior motives. Just that term "liberal" is a great case in point. Once "liberal" was a respectable term referring to those who upheld Enlightenment values. Somehow, and I do not know yet the nitty-gritty of how, collectivist liberals morphed the definition to mean worshipping statism such as communism, fascism, and other varieties of socialism and tyranny (cf: Democrat Senate). Liberals also switched the traditional election colors of blue for Republicans to red. It seems that red tends to give Liberals and other Democrats away by association.

Another language scam these days is this term "Islamophobia." Liberals and other anti-Americans such as Islamapologists and Wahhabi lobbyists, aided and abetted by those Left-sucking dogs in the media, have been pushing "Islamophobia" like crazy. They want it to stick on anyone who dares to speak anything but inane complimentary lies about Islam.

It is supposed to convey that anyone who opposes Islam is worse than a McCarthyite--he or she is an "Islamophobic." And, Oh, my God, no one wants to be THAT!

Happily, people on the side of seeing the truth about Islam are getting tired of this propagandizing.

Those of us who have done our homework and thrive on reason and logic see Islam for what it is, and we call it for what it is. Groups like C.A.I.R. just hate that truth-telling, as do all the academic anti-American professors of the inglorious Left--those who want to further the agenda of destroying America. Truth, they can't handle, as the movie Marine colonel said, more or less.

After looking for suitable suffixes and prefixes, synonmyms, antonyms, and homonyms for those of us who are anti-Islam, pro-America, etc., I am numb. I have been looking for a catchy sounding term that describes us. To my dismay, I found none.

I did have success, however.

I am now willing to call myself an "Islam expositor." It has euphony even though it is not a single word. Unlike "Islamophobia," it conveys no psychopathological state about the world's worst collection of ideas, which we do not fear, rationally or irrationally. Expositors expose, and that is what we do. Sometimes we present expose's while at other times, we simply expose the facts to the light of truth. We do opine, and we do clearly express contempt about a savage ideology that wants to extinguish us, our loved ones, our country, and our civilization, to replace them with Middle Eastern Nazism. Yes, really contemptuous.

So, out goes "islamophobic" and in comes "Islam expositing."

English akbar.

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Bad Day at Democrat Rock

How awful it must been to awaken this morning and realize that the Iraqi election went well.

For Democrats and other anti-American Lefties and Islamapologists, there is nothing so depressing as success. When I write this, I realize that there are some pro-American Democrats; however, they are staying in the party and not changing it for the better, so they get tarred with the same brush. After the past week or two of Democrat Party performance in the U.S. Senate, that party has lost any reasonable claim to be heard by reasonable people.

That same post-election depression spreads from the anti-American Americans into the anti-Enlightenment Left of Europe and all of Islamia. No matter what they do, they keep losing to reality, reason, individual freedom, and capitalism. Is there no mercy?

Just think, now, if Iraqis who are so happy today to have voted in massive numbers, come to like having none of those automobile bombs able to access crowds and commerce. Just think, if the voting populace feel enough pride to start turning in the anti-democratic perpetrators and shooting down those who threaten to take away their spark of freedom. Just think, despite many difficult days ahead, freedom might come to a part of Islamia.

Every despot in Islamia has to be in a foul mood today. Since Muhammad hated dogs, they don't even have one of those to kick today.

And in Europe and America, all the Lefties ate another big one. They just can't win for losing.

Despite having been assaulted and villified by her inferiors in the U.S. Senate, Dr. Rice gave an inspired and inspiring appraisal of the Iraqi vote today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. She, a black girl from a formerly vilely racist state, sat glowing and projecting the values of the Enlightenment as the United States' Secretary of State. Now, she has to don her wet suit and go swimming in the cesspools of Europe, but she does so with everybody, and I do mean everybody, knowing that the Iraqi election was a success regardless of the details of its outcome.
Maybe the dissipated Left of Europe could queue up with the same crowd in America for some good old-fashioned electroshock therapy. For sure, they will do anything but change their vile values. In their cases, everybody loves a loser, and they are the losers loving losing.

Meanwhile, to all of those in red states and who are red state in heart, smile. Freedom won again!

Saturday, January 29, 2005


To view this item online, visit, Friday, January 28, 2005

Every day brings us another reason why we need a private school system which is free of destructive policies such as this one from the Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Lincoln, R.I.

We already know our schools are an exercise in futility when it comes to teaching the truth about Islam--how can we expect any better when they are such failures at teaching simple academics? I just have to say it as bluntly as I can--this is nuts!

As Eleanor, another contributor to this site has so aptly commented, "It is a conspiracy for an uniformed population and electorate is easily led
and manipulated."

Please, read it all!

© 2005
A school district in Rhode Island canceled its annual spelling bee this year because administrators decided the crowning of only one winner violates the main principle of the federal No Child Left Behind Act – that all children should succeed.

Competitor in Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee finals in Washington last June. (Photo: National Spelling Bee)

Linda Newman, assistant superintendent of schools in Lincoln, R.I., said it's her understanding that President Bush's education initiative says all children must reach high standards, which conflicts with the spelling bee, the Woonsocket Call of Rhode Island reported.

"It's about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind," Newman said of the competition, which culminates with the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C. "That's contrary to No Child Left Behind."

A spelling bee, she continued, is about "some kids being winners, some kids being losers," which "sends a message that this isn't an all-kids movement."

The competition pits students in 4th through 8th grade against each other in a district round, with the winner advancing to a state playoff and the chance to move on to the national finals in Washington.

Newman said she and the district's elementary school principals made a unanimous decision to cancel their local competition shortly after the January 2004 event, agreeing that a spelling bee does not meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards, the Woonsocket paper said.

She argues that professional organizations now encourage elementary school children to participate in activities that avoid winners and losers, which is why sports teams have been eliminated for that age group.

Building self-esteem is the emphasis.

"You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids, so they believe they're all winners," Newman told the Call. "You want to build positive self-esteem so that all kids can get to where they want to go."

Karen Adams, a news anchorwoman for local WPRI-TV, said she will miss covering the event.

Adams told the paper she's not familiar with the specifics of the No Child Left Behind Act but can't figure out why it has anything to do with a spelling bee.

"It was just a fun time," Adams said.

Winning a spelling bee "just meant you were a good speller."

"It was fun for the kids because it gave them poise and confidence to stand in front of a crowd," she said.

School Committee Chairman Jeff Weiss told the paper he was unaware the event had been cancelled. But Newman said the cancellation is an administrative decision that does not require committee approval.

Karen Martin, the mother of last year's winner, Brianna, called the cancellation "strange."

Her daughter benefited from the experience, she told the Call, overcoming nervousness to advance to the state competition.

"I'm disappointed," she said. "I thought it was a fun activity."


Thursday, January 27, 2005

Marxist-Americans in Senate Are Revolting

Thirteen senators performed their toilets on the Senate floor yesterday and the day before. The issue was the confirmation of Dr. Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. During the "debate" held the day before the confirmation vote, many other Marxist-American senators expressed their droppings.

Years ago, Al Capp, the creator of L'il' Abner cartoons, published a story set in the Sunday paper during the late 1960s or in the 1970s. The only frame I recall is the one where dirty, long-haired, beaded, body-pierced, sign-carrying and screaming hippies were running down the street en masse. When asked what they were doing by a passerby, one said, "We are revolting." The passerby said, "You certainly are."

What we witnessed from the main ballast of Democrats in the Senate regarding the hearing, floor debate, and confirmation vote for Dr. Rice showed that the Democrats have earned this highly appropriate label of being "revolting."

Except for Jeffords whose only streak of independence is being labelled "independent," meaning belonging to no political party, all of these senators belong to the Democrat Party. The only surprise in their number is Evan Bayh, whom I used to think was a rare American among Democrats like Joe Lieberman.

To make the contrast greater, Dr. Rice spoke to the assembled throng inside the State Department building this morning. What came across was a lady of great depth and character, speaking with great strength. Those of us watching remarked almost simultaneously of being reminded of Margaret Thatcher. None of us had seen a woman of such greatness since her.

By comparison, the Marxist-American Democrat senators who figuratively flashed in public looked even cheaper, smaller, and less significant than any time previously. These are very small men with the exception of Sen Boxer, who is a very small woman in terms of intellect and character. It would be utterly wonderful to wake up to headlines that aliens had abducted these Marxist-Americans overnight and taken them to a galaxy far, far away. Obviously these people learned nothing from the election and seem incapable of profiting from experience.

Meanwhile, America has a towering principal taking over the State Department. The contrast with Colin Powell could not be greater or better.

I love the fact that Dr. Rice is a woman, and a woman of enormous accomplishment. I also love the fact that Dr. Rice is black. She is the second black American appointed, in sequence, to head the State Department. Other blacks in America have been watching what Democrats have been doing to this woman, and they are seeing Republicans promoting highly qualified blacks, women, and people of sundry races of both genders to very high positions, unlike Democrats who just try to tear down anyone who is not one of "their _____." (you fill in the racial or gender blank.)

Silent are NOW, the NAACP, and all sorts of the usual anti-this-and-that caterwaulers. Blacks who recognize this woman's qualities are speaking up, but they are not being heard by the crowd who wants more of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and of course, Barbara Boxer, et al.

We are watching a sea change in American political power.

America Is Now a "Free Market of Religion". Will That Change With Islamification?

It is true that Islam is the fastest growing world religion. However under close examination we find that fluctuation of numbers of adherents or congregants does not occur as it does in the West because under Islam the rules are different.

Westerners, dissatisfied with their religion or their clerical leadership, because of intermarriage, or any other personal reason, often move from sect to sect or leave religion all together, although few really do. There is little stigma attached to this practice.

Islam, however, has a much more rigid view and takes a jaundiced if not authoritarian stand against change of religion called apostasy. Christians that move from sect to sect or change their religion to Buddhism or Judaism would be considered apostates. Needless to say, apostasy is severely frowned upon under Islam.

But the biggest no-no under Islam is Muslim apostasy. Muslims that leave Islam become criminals. Apostasy for Muslims brings a death sentence. Even converts, or “new Muslims, aren’t allowed to return to their previous religion. Islam actively recruits new believers under the system of d’awa but will never let them go.

The religious playing field in Islam is uneven. Muslim countries allow private worship for non-Muslims. That means that existing churches and synagogues cannot display religious symbols, ring bells, sing hymns, distribute or even print religious tracts.
Proselytizing is a serious no-no with unfortunate consequences: prison or death. As sanctuary building is considered part of proselytizing, nothing new can be built and existing structures may not be improved.

The lot for Christians and Jews is unpleasant, considered to be people of the book, but the situation is even worse for other religions such as Buddhists, Hindus, animists, Wiccans, or even atheists. There is no tolerance at all for these religions.

The free market bazaar of religion will be razed quickly once Islam comes to power either through influence or the power of sheer demographics. In fact, freedom and liberty itself will be changed or eliminated as we have seen happen so often in the Muslim countries.

Will we allow ourselves to be conquered through the stealth, the slow changes that come about through influence. Influence can be as blatant and visible as Congressional lobbying or as seemingly innocuous as the funding of Middle Eastern studies departments of universities with strings attached or the hiring of previous U.S. government employees to serve on boards of directorates, participate in think tanks, on select committees. Influence is often peddled when lobbyists act as agents for Muslim countries or when previous government employees are paid consultants.

All these are encouraging a Muslim way of thinking or doing that is contrary to liberty and the freedom of thought and action, including freedom of religion.

When Americans suggest that the Constitution will protect us from change, they have forgotten that historically constitutions have come and gone and have been trampled by invading armies that have installed totally new and totally different governments, changing forever the lot of their conquest.

America, the land of the free and open-market for religion will cease to exist as have so many others under Islam if we don’t care enough to guard or liberties and stop influence peddling and to stop judicial activism that has slanted or moved the founder’s intent away from freedom and liberty to intolerance and despotism under which the freedom of religious change would become a crime.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

FIFTH COLUMN FOLLIES: Which is funnier?

The Left in America must advocate and resort to force to achieve their aims because they have become too ridiculous to persuade. Of course, there are susceptible souls who "want to believe," and they do. They swallow the pap of the Left without chewing and even without digesting. Alas, their anuses have replaced their mouths, or vice versa. But, as a persuasive force, the Left are dead--they just don't know it yet.

One example of Left "wisdom" comes from a disgruntled commentator to a recent piece by one of our bloggers. The part which is so pathognomonically Leftist is this: "...if the people who write on this blog had their way America and the world would be be a much darker place, a place where US capitalism reigns supreme."

Who knows from where on the globe this commentor surfaces for air. All Lefties are interchangeable. This archtypical Leftie sees U.S. capitalism as a sort of chronic, global, nuclear winter. Obviously, this person emits undigested pap from any of numerous Left sources, professors, Leftie screeds, Leftie "journalists and editorialists," and other illiterate fellow travelers such as himself or herself.

Another piece, however, makes some other points for me. Protesters Accuse Bush of 'Exterminating the Muslim Race' -- 01/20/2005, by Marc Morano, Senior Staff Writer, January 20, 2005.

In cold, snowy Washington, about a hundred protesters gathered outside the "Black Tie and Boots" inaugural ball on Wednesday night, comparing President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler because Bush is "exterminating the Muslim race."

"It is no different in that Hitler killed so many Jews, and George Bush, you know, is exterminating the Muslim race and others," said a man who identified himself only as Don from Florida.

Don held up a sign with the words "Vote Republican" written over a Nazi swastika.

"It's just a form of fascism -- the Patriot Act and everything -- they stole the vote. Diebold (the electronic voting machine company) and their money stole the electoral vote of the people," Don told Cybercast News Service.

Another protestor, a Steve, opined that "...people attending this week's inaugural balls in Washington "are basically a bunch of rich, filthy, selfish people who are out of touch with the real world. "They don't care about other human beings on this planet, and they are destroying the planet."

Yet another brilliant protestor:

"How can anyone who has a heart come and pay thousands of dollars to do this when the tsunami wave just knocked out so many people and there are over 100,000 dead in Iraq?" said Sam Joi from the group Code Pink.

Joi said the United States is in dire straits: "Education is going, all our social services are going, unemployment is soaring, people are suffering here in this country. How can they have a celebration tonight for this obscene amount of money when our world is suffering, our country is suffering?" asked Joi.

Joi said the inaugural partygoers were "greedy, they are hogs, they are pigs. How much do they need?" Code Pink members passed out bumper stickers with "Hallibacon" written on them, a mock reference to the defense contractor Halliburton, formerly chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Of course, we have to knock capitalism if we are true Lefties:

Molly from Massachusetts slammed capitalism: "This is a perpetuation of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are dividing the country into two classes, and that is disgusting; and there are starving people all over the world and they are having this absurd, excessive party," Molly said.

"Capitalism right now is just making rich people rich," she added.

'Shame on you'

This is downright pitiful. These nihilists want to destroy America, the West, and the good of our post-Enlightenment civilization, and this is the best they can do?

Destroying the "Muslim race"? Since when did Islam become a race?

Republicans are selfish? If only they were. They, like Democrats, are altruists who believe in the ethical creed of self-sacrifice which they got from Christianity on the one hand and Immanuel Kant in its secular form on the other. Are the demonstrators selfish? Hell no! They have learned that the creed of the Left, just as with the Right, is to uphold self-sacrificial service to others as opposed to any form of rational self-interest. Show me a Leftie, and I will show you someone seriously in need of a "self."

Of course, they must knock capitalism. Loaded with parental and guilty foundation money, they demonstrate in synthetic fibers keeping them warm to a degree unknown in the pre-capitalist world. Their bellies are full and stay that way. Most are in excellent to outstanding degrees of health. Most, if not all, have gone to universities and have become partially literate. No one did these things before capitalism.

Indeed, they damn capitalism because their dim minds rely on logical fallacies in order to perpetrate this flatulence. They damn capitalism while relying on it for their very survival and their highly advanced state of well being. This is the fallacy Ayn Rand called the "stolen concept" fallacy, which consists of denying the very conceptand its antecedents which using it.

How easy it is to goad Lefties. The first "critic" I cited views U. S. capitalism as "darkness," and this person decries the writers on this blog as atavists at best, and monsters at worst. If capitalism is "darkness," then BRING IT ON! No filthy, cold, hungry, and diseased Rousseauian states of nature for me.

It is good fun to deride Lefties, and I do not know which is the most fun--goading or deriding. Talk radio, particularly Rush Limbaugh, taught Americans the invaluable lesson of laughing at the Left. We took them seriously before this big change. They intimidated us with their sense of moral superiority. Now we see them naked and hilariously foolish. The examples I have cited illustrate really typical examples to laugh at.

All of these young and would-be-young-again Lefties mouth pap. They sloganize and repeat standard Leftie talking points. All of this activity occurs in them at no higher level than the midbrain, if that high. These are not skulls full of mush. They are skulls full of feces. Squeeze their heads, and the feces squirts from their mouths.

Note a very important point about Lefties. They are for all practical purposes stupid in their degree of illiteracy. By illiteracy, I mean that they know little or nothing and read even less. They do not want to know the facts of reality. They want certain things to be a certain way, that is, to be how they feel they should be.

By and large, conservatives and any others who might be loosely clustered on the pro-freedom or Right axis, read and write. Conservative books sell well. Even Lefties buy them. Some Lefties just read them under the covers at night by flashlight so that no other Lefties can discover their "treason." The Leftie Chattering Class read them so they can knock them on the air and in print.

Leftie books sell to an absolutely predictable market of fellow Lefties overwhelmingly. They buy the pap each produces to create the illusion that Left-ism has something to say and sells (note the capitalism dependency). Their books don't make even good toilet paper for the Third World. Honestly, it seems that if you read one, you have read them all. These people on the Left preach to the choir but they do not want to learn anything new. They still huddle together for self-identity and self-protection like packs of frightened chihuahua dogs--no longer packs of Doberman Pincers.

As Larry the Cable Guy says: Now, that's funny--I don't care who you are.

It is this crowd of ignorant Lefties that make up the foot soldiers of the American and international Left. These are the minions of the FIFTH COLUMN which seeks to employ Islamists to bring down the West, particularly America. Frankly this crowd can't find their derriers with both hands.

Let's goad and laugh at them until we laugh them into election losses in great numbers. Let's goad and laugh at them until universites refuse to populate teaching, administrative, and student positions with these rabble. Let's goad and laugh until we get objective journalism. And, while we are at it, let's goad and laugh at these ridiculous Islamists who notoriously have no sense of humor.

Laughter is the best medicine, so goes the cliche'. Let's laugh these Lefties out of existence, and enjoy goading and deriding as we go. But, you say, not everything can be reversed and improved while having uproarious fun. Oh, really?

Monday, January 24, 2005

Everything Old Is New Again

The same problems with security that we are facing were envisioned in the 1970s during the Nixon administration.

Following the slaughter of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich, a committee was formed to assess and manage risk.

"Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss," Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.

The full committee that met only once in October 1972, included such figures as Henry Kissinger and Rudi Giuliani. It’s experts did get together twice a month for nearly five years to identify threats and debate solutions.

"It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism," Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.

"It is equally important that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively in the event that, despite all efforts at prevention, an act of terrorism occurs involving the United States, either at home or abroad," the president said.

But as we all know, interest in terrorism waned after Watergate. Bureaucratic turf wars took their toll and the rest is history.

What is chilling is the fact that neither governments nor industry, or even the U.N. wanted to take responsibility especially since doing so would cost millions of dollars. We are paying the price for those decisions today.

The proposals that were made in the 1970s are the shockingly familiar. The task force:

- discussed defending commercial aircraft against being shot down by portable missile systems;

- recommended improved vigilance at potential "soft" targets, such as major holiday events, municipal water supplies, nuclear power plants and electric power facilities;

- supported cracking down on foreigners living in and traveling through the United States, with particular attention to Middle Easterners and Arab-Americans;

- developed plans to protect U.S. diplomats and businessmen working abroad against kidnapping and attack.

Though the CIA routinely updated the committee on potential terrorist threats and plots, task force members learned quickly that intelligence gathering and coordination was a weak spot, just as Bush would discover three decades later.

Read about the shocking negligence.

Bin Laden Isn’t the Only One Out to Bankrupt the U.S

How the U.S. Through Statutes and Bureaucracies Intends to Tax Into the World’s Biggest Economy for the Purpose of Wealth Redistribution.

Bin Laden has stated that one of his objectives is to bankrupt the United States, to get his hands on the human capital, resources and treasure to further the goals of Islamism and the glory of Islam. The United Nations has similar designs on the U.S. economy, but for different reasons.

The U.N. continues to try to get direct regulatory access to the U.S. economy. The proposed “Internet Tax” is one way. The Kyoto Protocol that we didn’t sign is a part of the U.N. the second-ever “World Conference on Disaster Reduction” this week in Kobe, Japan, “attempting to blame natural disasters on, of all things, people,” us. And President Bush is standing in its way.

“The U.N.’s first disaster conference, held in 1994, was the “World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, which, incidentally (sic), occurred during the U.N.-proclaimed “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.” (1990-1999). (U.N. has a habit of naming years and decades for its projects)

Instead of focusing on the 10th anniversary of the deadly 1995 earthquake in Kobeand the enormous problems still facing the world following the Indian Ocean tsunami, “you would think they would focus on “natural disasters.” For the U.N. natural disasters appear to be no longer “natural.”

The U.N. has bought into the unproven notion that humans are significantly altering global climate for the worse. Thus people, industrialized countries, the U.S., are responsible for costly hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, the rise of the seas due to melting ice caps, desertification of Africa, the inundation of Bangladesh, and so on.

And the particular people that the UN would most like to pin the blame for global warming on would be deep-pocket Americans, American businesses and the American government. As the global warming alarmist community likes to point out, the U.S. is the largest single contributor to the alleged global warming, emitting 25 percent of all greenhouse gases while possessing only 4 percent of the world’s population.

Toward the goal of blaming the U.S. for what used to be considered “natural disasters” in order to eventually extract financial compensation, the UN conference’s draft action plan is riddled with references to climate change [read, “U.S.-made climate change”] as causing or contributing to “disasters.”

The Bush administration rightly opposes the UN’s effort to de-naturalize disasters and has requested that the document’s references to climate change be removed. But UN officials oppose such changes.

The U.S. has achieved much through great effort. The world continues to hammer us with the fact we are a small part of the world’s population using much of the world’s resources. IF INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, or WORLD SOCIALISM, is successful, the wealth of the rich countries will be given out to others “according to their need.”

Jan Egeland, the U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, the same Jan Egeland that called the goaded the world, and called them, especially the U.S., “stingy” and “under-taxed,” said: “I hope there will be a global recognition of climate change causing more natural disasters.”

Weather disasters have always been with us. This summer the state of Florida in the U.S. experienced four major hurricanes, the American Midwest has just experienced major flooding of the Ohio River Drainage Basin in the states of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois. A major winter storm with blizzard conditions and hurricane-force winds has dumped feet of snow on the Northeast, and California and parts of the Southwest has suffered from excessive rain and snow that led to mudslides, raging rivers and loss of life. All of these “natural disasters” led to loss of life that Americans and the American government dealt with.

There is no credible evidence that humans, much less Americans caused these or any of the other natural weather—related disasters: cold snaps, heat waves, ice storms, floods, droughts, all that have plagued man from the beginning of time before the development of the industrial world.

In earlier days, God was given credit for natural disasters, now the U.N. has decided that God-like, the United States has “discernible impact on the frequency and severity” of these disasters in Nature.

The media accuses President Bush of being “anti-science”, and has made the misinformed case which attributes all weather-related disasters to global warming. Some scientists “now feel compelled to go out of their way to reaffirm that global warming ISN’T causing natural disasters.

Not only is President Bush, a member of one of America’s richest families, being targeted, but “deep pocketed Americans, American businesses, and the American government [as] the U.S. is the largest single contributor to the alleged global warming..”

The U.N. dramatizes the need for an “action plan” by claiming that: economic damages resulting for “disasters” have increased from about 1,500 disasters costing $700 billion during the 1990s; and the number of “threatened” by “disasters” has increased from about 750 million people in the 1970s to about 2.5 billion people in the 1990s.

And we don’t know yet how many people the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami will ultimately affect.

How accurate are these estimates?

But “to the extend that natural disasters do wreak more natural havoc and threaten more people now than 30 years ago, that is most likely dure to all the upscale development that has spreading during that time to coastal regions and other areas more vulnerable to the whims of Mother Nature.

The end game is to get the United States to pay for damages due to weather-related damage. Who pays for them now? In some cases, such as in the United States, the Federal Government in the form of FEMA pays as well as insurance companies.

Participating in the U.N. conference is the German insurance company Munich Re, which has issued a report “Megacities—Megarisks: Trends and challenges for insurance and risk management. This 83-page report discusses the “alleged impacts of global warming and other ‘disasters’ on insurers.” It would be wonderful for the insurance industry to be able to assign liability to the United States government!

The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the UN, is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.

Insurers, apparently, are more than happy to accept premiums for writing risky policies, but not too happy when Mother Nature and policyholders force them to make good on claims.

Munich Re, the German insurance company colluding with the U.N., claims that

… “the urban heat island effect” – the modern-day phenomenon where cities are warmer than surrounding rural areas due to increased heat trapping by concrete and asphalt—amplifies the effect of global warming to increase the number of deaths caused by heatwaves.

Despite any intuitive appeal, this assertion is unfounded since there is no scientific evidence that global warming — which involves a hypothesized few-degree rise in global temperatures over the course of a century — has anything to do with summer heatwaves — which involve sudden dramatic, short-term shifts in local temperature.

Weather, after all, is not climate. (my emphasis)

The end game is more than to give relief to the insurance industry. The U.N. has its eye on the considerable assets of the United States and the rest of the industrialized world and believes that U.N. elites know better than anyone else how to manage and spend them. Recent financial scandals, such as “Oil for Food,” can lay to rest that notion, and like bin Laden, the U.N. will continue to forge ahead with its notions of a world government and financial system operated and distributed by the IMF, International Monetary Fund, a subsidiary of the United Nations.

It is unlikely that United States will voluntarily cede political or financial sovereignty to either bin Laden or to the U.N.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

CAIR’s Blatant Attempt to Paint Christian Aid Workers in Banda Aceh as “Evil-Doers”

CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper appeared on a segment of the John Kasich Show, Saturday night, January 22, 2205 not to try to smooth over feelings of ill will against Muslims by condemning terror activities of the Islamists that he previously claimed have “hijacked Islam”. Nor did he come to protest feelings of distrust between Coptic Christians and Muslims in the slaughter killing of a New Jersey family, not even to
thank non-Muslim Americans
for expeditiously coming to the aid of the tsunami victims in the predominately Muslim Indonesian province of Banda Aceh. Hooper’s mission was to rail against
some Christian missionaries
on the grounds that, in his view, were using aid work in an “inappropriate manner” by distributing Bibles and Christian literature as they also gave out food, water, and other relief. Hooper was equally distressed by the fact that some tsunami orphans were “removed” from their villages to be raised as Christians in an undetermined place.

Questioned by Kasich we also learned that Hooper would consider such behavior to be “inappropriate if done by Muslim relief workers and missionaries.” Hooper was reacting to information about Christian missionaries given in the mainstream press that told of “abusive behavior” by aid workers leaving us with the impression that all were guilty of taking advantage of victims in difficult situations and of kidnapping Muslim orphans. Reality appears to be quite different from the impression left by Hooper and these articles. It appears that the Hooper and the government of Indonesia would rather that the children remain homeless and without resources than to fall in the hands of non-Muslims.

Anyone would be outraged to think that Missionaries would so abuse traumatized victims in that manner. Could it be true that they were withholding aid and shamelessly proselytizing helpless tsunami victims? A review of the evidence was in order. Indeed some Christian missionary groups were guilty, but most were not. But wait, Muslim aid workers and missionaries, some with an
extremist bend,
were also there, handing out Korans and veils along with comforting aid. Once again Hooper was dealing in half-truths.

What about his other charge: tsunami orphans were removed from their village settings, spirited away to an undisclosed location to be raised as Christians? The evidence of this “is confusing.” A Christian group was planning to take 300 to Jakarta where they would be housed in a modern orphanage. Expressed outrage in the local press put a stop to the plans that were then scrapped.

The Indonesian government is so concerned about the safety children of Banda Aceh that they are being placed in government camps and guarded night and day by armed soldiers. Adoptions of orphans will be under the supervision and approval of an appointed Muslim cleric. It is estimated that sixty percent of Banda Aceh’s children disappeared by the wave, many are left orphaned and homeless, unable to be placed in homes or establish a normal routine or get psychological counseling of their obvious post-traumatic syndrome because of religious bigotry. The children are still alive because of quick reaction of Western aid workers, some of them Christian missionaries.

Muslim aid is slow in coming but it appears to be coming. The Gulf States governments have donated millions and privately many millions of dollars have been raised to go to the aid of Muslim victims. Aid workers from other parts of Indonesia and the Muslim world are now on the ground. Some are dismissing non-Muslims as “spies” or “no longer necessary” and non-Muslim aid workers and American military personnel are finding themselves at risk of attack from both Islamist extremists and the Indonesian military that consider their presence to be a distasteful provocation and an anathema. Others want the aid workers to stay “as the government is unable to deal with the scope of the tragedy.” Although he gave no dollar amount, during the Kasich interview Hooper stated: “every American mosque has contributed.”

Kasich didn’t let Hooper off the hook in spite of his railing. Why is the distribution of Christian tracts and Bibles so offensive? What’s wrong with telling the survivors about “God’s love”? What’s wrong with that? Hooper’s only reply was that it was an abuse of those are in bad situation that “feel they have to take the Bibles” in order to get the relief. We were left with the idea that Christian aid workers were withholding relief unless the victims took Bibles and participated in Christian activities. An uniformed observer would have taken away that feeling and that Kasich was bullying Hooper. In fact, Kasich was attempting to give Hooper and opportunity to give the complete facts.

Kasich pressed Hooper to explain why Christian proselytizing was so offensive. Americans and most other Westerners don’t understand that within Islam a change of religion is considered to be apostasy and discussion of the merits of other religions is blasphemy, both crimes against Islam that are punishable by death. Thus Muslim children of a certain that are to be raised as Christians could be considered apostates. All would be considered as kidnapped Muslims. Ironically verified reports are made all the time of Christian children and adults that are kidnapped and forcibly “reverted” to Islam. Reversion means that all humans were originally Muslim until other religions “seduced them from the true religion.”

Although Hooper did not waiver from his attempt to rail against “abusive Christian missionary kidnappers”, he seemed surprised by the steadfastness of questioning of Fox’s Kasich. Fox has recently been under fire by CAIR in two cases: the drama “24” included a character, in their view, that was seen as unfavorable to Islam and a situation that “made American Muslim families all seem to be terrorists.” CAIR has also produced a set of public service announcements titled “I Am An American Muslim” that Fox has chosen not to air. Using action alerts on their website, CAIR is putting pressure on Fox to maintain a favorable stance on Muslims and to pressure them into airing the public service spots.

CAIR’s website has other sections that are troubling. “Provocation Watch” lists and summarizes those groups and individuals that seem to harass, persecute, or provoke hatred of Muslims and Islam. On the surface this seems innocuous until one considers the effect of similar campaigns in Europe: Sweden, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, and Canada, all of which have legislated “anti-hate rhetoric” and/or “blasphemy laws” that Muslims have used to silence their critics. Individuals are fined and jailed for their anti-Muslim opinions or for quoting and discussing the Koran and for “insulting Mohammad” by describing events in his life that are troubling to non-Muslims. In fairness, France and other countries are using this same law as an attempt to curtail the hate-rhetoric of some Muslim clerics. Britain hasn’t decided exactly how the new law will be applied, but freedom of speech is definitely on the way out wherever Muslims mix with Christians.

The United States no longer has laws against blasphemy nor is “hate-speech” yet a crime. If it were, perhaps a case could be made against this article and others critical of Islam. The United States has “hate-crimes” laws that view violence and other acts to be examples of hate crimes. The danger for the United States is in the interpretation of laws. Recently judicial activists have taken it upon themselves to interpret statutes more broadly than the original legislative intent. Perhaps, someday in this manner, hate speech will become a hate crime. Or, as in other countries, Muslims will convince legislators to make laws curtailing free speech in America as they have in so many other countries. Using the laws listed above and in most cases, Muslim speech attacking non-Muslims is not curtailed nor considered to blasphemy nor hate-speech, a double standard.

CAIR puts itself forward as a Muslim civil right’s group. CAIR has a long history of, if not supporting, at least not criticizing Muslim extremism. Daniel has an extensive archive of articles about CAIR, some of which focus Hooper and on CAIR’s criminal activities. Some members of CAIR have been prosecuted successfully for criminal activities.

CAIR would have us curtail speech and remain silent on all things Muslim. Hooper, CAIR’s official spokesperson, is often in the news. But we should take everything he says with a grain salt and do our fact checking.

Reading List to Learn the Truth About Islam

On the Recommended page at our website, 6th Column Against Jihad, we have books and websites listed as sources of the truth about Islam. All of these lists are open-ended, in that they can grow as other good sources become available. We see people asking here and there for recommended readings. Go to our site and read about these books recommended.

FIFTH COLUMN WARNING: The greatest Intelligence Failure of the Iraq War Is NOW!

Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: The greatest Intelligence Failure of the Iraq War was not about WMD, January 23, 2005.

Venerable contributor to Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, follows up Diana West's excellent article in the Washington Times about the general officer about to command American ground forces in Iraq. No munitions are ever as dangerous as bad ideas and absent good ideas. This general is plastering over the truth about Islam by forcing his staff to read books which avoid the truth. He is sending the message of 1984! This matter is very serious. We have far too little education among Americans about Islam already. Contact those who are alleged to represent you in the national government as well as the Department of Defense.

Fitzgerald: The greatest Intelligence Failure of the Iraq War was not about WMD

Lt. Gen. John H. Vines, who is set to take command of American ground forces in Iraq, has assigned a series of books on Islam to his staff members. Here are comments on Vines' choices from Jihad Watch Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald:

The Reading List of General Vines deserves further detailed study. There are two books by Esposito. There is one by Karen Armstrong, whom, one would have thought, is by now regarded as a complete buffoon. There is something about Islam for Dummies. There is a book by the jejune Sandra Mackey on Iraq, when either the Letters of Gertrude Bell (those from Baghdad up to 1927, when she killed herself), or Philip Ireland's book published in 1939 would have helped -- and best of all would have been the essay on Iraq by the native of Baghdad, Elie Kedourie, published in Islam in the Modern World.

Nothing by Lewis. Nothing by Kedourie. Nothing by J. B. Kelly, not even that essay "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies" which, while it dates in the section on the Soviet threat, does not date as a description of the misperception of Saudi Ararbia. The spirit of ARAMCO propagandists still lives.

What is good about the Reading List is that it is so bad, so truly bad, that eyebrows should be raised all over Washington. Who compiled this list? Who carefully allowed in, as the single sop, the Naipaul, but left out the Lewis, the Kedourie, the Kelly? Who left out any serious essays on the nature of Islam, on Jihad? How are the Infidel soldiers supposed to comprehend the hostility that is felt towards them, even though they are only there to "rebuild" Iraq? For if they cannot understand that hostility -- which is in every textbook, every mosque, every madrassa, every Arab satellite channel, every Qur'an and volume of the Hadith and every life of Muhammad, they will be eternally confused. And confusion and incomprehension, or miscomprehension, leads to demoralization.

Here is an example of a little colloquy reported by NPR Correspondent Deborah Amos this morning. She was reporting from Basra. She interviewed a man, asking him as follows:

Amos: "Do you want foreign troops to leave?"
Iraqi: "Would you want your country to be occupied?" (Iraqis, she said, and soldiers know, tend to reply to questions cannily, warily, with questions of their own, and almost never give a straight answer to anything).

When Amos then presses him if he wants the Americans to leave, he answers:

"Yes, I do. But not before they fix everything, and stop terrorism."

How nice. I hate you, and I want you to leave. But first you have to "stop terrorism" and, oh by the way, "fix everything."

That kind of attitude will not be understood by reading Karen Armstrong, who describes Muhammad as the man who "brought peace" to the Arabian Peninsula. It will not be understood by reading John Esposito, author of The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (we know which he chose), a man who in previous editions of his books does not give more than a single mention of the word "Jihad" and has never treated of the dhimmi.

How can American officers figure out why the Christians are being terrorized, if they know nothing about the 1350 year history of Jihad-conquest and of the imposition of dhimmitude? How?

How can American officers understand what is going on if the inculcated hostility toward them is not understood?

The greatest Intelligence Failure of the Iraq War was not about WMD. It was about Islam, its tenets, its nature, the attitudes and atmospherics it engenders. It was an intelligence failure that continues as long as we prate about how everyone wants freedom (nonsense), that "democracy" will lessen the threat in the Middle East (double-nonsense), that the best way to limit a threat based entirely on the classic ideology of Islam is to say nothing, to learn nothing, to hint at nothing, about Islam itself.

Supposedly, the "faculty at Yale" and people at the "Foreign Service Institute" were responsible for this list. Let's find out something more about precisely who was involved in the selection of the final group of eight books. What are their names? What are their own interests?

Note to Hollywood: it is time for movies and television stories, not about Muslim terrorists, but about those who are apologists for Islam, and who are determined to keep certain truths from getting out, in very high places indeed. One need not be of a conspiratorial frame of mind to see that with such a Reading List, something is very amiss -- and very high up.

This has to be thoroughly investigated.

Posted at January 23, 2005 07:09 AM

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Is a Cause of America’s Immigration Problem “Immigration Anarchy”?

Anarchy has been around for a long time. Sophocles, an ancient Greek playwright, refers to the evils in 442 B.C. in his “Antigone.” Everyone understands that among humans, some form of governance is necessary, but anarchy, meaning “without government,” is a tool that can be used to create a situation in which power will fall into other hands. Thus, the belief that rioting will lead to unlimited personal freedom is both dangerous and naïve.

Anarchism is the “progressive replacement of Communism in academia” since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Such notables as MIT’s Noam Chomsky and institutions such as Claremont College encourage students to adopt anarchist ideology. Young people so smitten have rioted against globalization, but with a twist: disillusioned communists and socialists are in charge and have refused to abandon their goal of world domination.

One of their “gambits” is open borders, and a similar philosophy is an open society. Immigration is touted as the solution to America’s economic problems and immigrants are praised as “hardworking risk takers” that deserve to be included in the promise of America and to share in the rights and privileges of American citizens.

Those activists who “include open borders in their game plane for creating confusion and disorder in the United States” have been labeled “immigration anarchists.”

In the press we often see ski-masked anarchists in waves of violence, breaking windows, throwing bombs, pillaging, plundering, make anti-globalization statements about the misuse of government power, of exploitation by transnational companies, and of pollution and degradation of the environment. Their protests mask a more sinister agenda: the overthrow of the United States and the hijacking of world government into their hands. The stage is being set and conditions are being formed so that Americans and the world will be willing participants and even grateful for being pulled out of the coming chaos that inevitably anarchy would bring.

This is a well-thought out plan for the take over of an oligarchy. The struggle will be to determine the make up of the oligarchial world council.

Already we see Europe in the grip of socialism and the beginnings chaos brought on by Islamo-fascist terror. Personal responsibility has been overthrown on both sides of the Atlantic and nihilism, rampant in the Muslim world, is on the rise in America. Nationalism is being downplayed as internationalism and world citizenship is touted as a virtue. National borders are being erased and protesting citizens are being condemned as xenophobic.

In the United States we see both apathy toward national heritage that devalues U.S. citizenship and the respect for U.S. laws, and the ethnic and religious identity movements that would Balkanize the United States and Canada. Some immigrant special-interest groups refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants and put forward immigrant culture, ethos, heritage, language as their imperative for special treatment: bilingual education, official business in other languages, recognition of religious preferences that must be reinforced in law. They argue: “every foreign nationality regardless of immigration status are due all the rights of citizenship, even voting rights…[and] that immigrants need not assimilate but may keep their own cultures.”

It doesn’t take much of an imagination to understand the implication and effect of continued immigration by such groups will have on the United States. The immigrant special-interest groups, in reality, “want a nation divided” with laws to apply only “when immigrants choose to obey them.” Amazingly some misguided jurists have gone so far as to opine “illegal aliens” have the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.

National Council of La Raza (or The Race), a Mexican-American political organization in the United States, and its “gringo” supporters work for the elimination of all borders (land and sea) around the United States of America. Their supporters include giant philanthropies, such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation.

And we must not forget the present struggle with world Islamists that wish to re-create the Caliphate and the united body of the Ummah, or Muslim fellowship against who we are presently engaged in a world war. A network of agents operates all over the world and several of them have been apprehended since the World Trade Center bombing on September 11, 2001. Some American Muslims applaud their actions and tenants of Islam tend to support the ideology of jihad extremism. Some Muslim groups refuse to assimilate and are among those that would balkanize the United States with ultimate goal of creating an Islamic republic that would eventually become a part of a new caliphate.

The present goal of the Islamists, however, is with the no-border advocates “who see to bring the United States down to the economic and social level of Third-World nations. To do this they “seek a poorly educated populace ruled by weak government controlled by a totalitarian oligarchy.” Obviously their vision of the ruling world oligarchy would be Muslim under Sharia Law.

Immigrants have changed. In the past immigrants were grateful to come to take part in the American dream. They chose to learn English and to adopt American mores. In fact, many refused to allow their children to learn the languages and customs of the old country for fear they would be marked or would seem “less American.” They generally obeyed the rules and staunchly obeyed the laws of the land and were willing to be assimilated into the melting pot into one indivisible nation. “E Pluribus Unam,” Latin for “One from many” or “Out of many, one,” was taken to heart with great pride.

All of that changed around 1970. Today immigration anarchists are striving to Balkanize the United States by creating enclaves of immigrants who refuse to assimilate, who pledge their loyalties to foreign governments, who participate in politics in other countries and even hold political offices in these countries as dual citizenship now permits.

Owing no allegiance to the United States and disdainful of the American way of life, they are here “merely for economic gain.” They “opt to accentuate their ethnic differences”, and many choose to send their children to schools sponsored by their home countries so as not to be influenced or polluted by American culture. Influential groups such as academia, the news media, philanthropic trusts, progressive politicians, jurists, multiculturalists, and a growing group of America-haters are promoting or upholding these detrimental policies that will only bring irreparable harm to the United States.

Open borders advocates have seen to it that labeling dissenters as bigots, racists, xenophobes, or even Islamophobes chills debate and discussion. Their methods are many but the result is the same:

By portraying immigrants as victims, open-borders advocates attempt to demean U.S. culture and thus render the country unable to defend its borders. Although the news media accepts the immigrant-as-victim portrayal, it is actually U.S. immigration policies that are being victimized by an unrelenting wave of untruths and distortions unprecedented in American history. Open-borders advocates offer no objective, constructive criticisms but only blatant attacks meant to fractionalize the nation. The result is immigration anarchy.

If the major goal of immigration anarchists is unbridled immigration into the United States, the latest numbers indicate their success. Estimated numbers of immigrants residing in the United States in November 2004 reached a record 34 million men, women, and children. Some sources say this total includes all immigrants, but others insist that it reflects only undocumented (illegal) immigrants. All agree that 6 million illegal immigrants have entered the United States each year since 2000.

Walsh has proposed these five steps for refuting immigration anarchy and neutralizing the anarchists that “are using the politically correct concept of open borders to create chaos”.

Step 1: Tone Down Anti-Government Rhetoric. The first step is to defuse the caustic accusations that the United States is the cause of all the world’s ills and maladies. Tone down the rhetoric against the U.S. president and the agencies enforcing immigration laws.

First Amendment free speech is not threatened by a call for civil discourse. Constructive criticism and practical solutions always will be welcomed.

Step 2: Expose One-Worlders. Anarchy is a paradox. Although anti-globalization anarchists would seem the opposite of One-Worlders, their call for open borders places them in the same camp.

One-Worlder billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Institute with foundations in 50+ countries funds radical causes, such as liberalizing U.S. immigration policy. The fallacy of his utopian ideas, disproved along with dialectical materialism, need to be exposed. Even the progressive United Nations recognizes the rights of nation-states to protect their borders.

As the leading democracy in the world, the United States has a form of government based on elections by U.S. citizens, who swear allegiance to the nation, foreswearing all others. Illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens regardless of the One-Worlders and their strange bedfellows, the immigration anarchists. Mere presence in a country does not confer rights, and compliance with U.S. immigration laws is the first duty of those wishing to become citizens.

Step 3: Expound the Benefits of Liberty. Anarchists say that they should be free to do things they want to do, and they should not be compelled to do what they do not want to do. Although this may sound like liberty, it can only lead to chaos.

In a democracy, liberty flows naturally from the nation-state to the citizen as an inalienable right. Immigrants must be willing to assimilate or be denied the rights of citizenship. Immigration anarchists oppose this concept of liberty and malign the government that protects it.

Step 4: Reverse Balkanization. Multiculturalism at the cost of assimilation can destroy government guarantees of liberty. Balkanization by unassimilated immigrants weakens the nation. This does not mean that Chinese restaurants, Irish pubs, Italian pizza parlors, and kosher delis are to be closed; but city-states, whose residents owe allegiance to foreign countries, pose a growing threat to national unity. To qualify for U.S. benefits, legal immigrants must choose to pledge their allegiance to the United States.

Step 5: Reform Immigration Laws. U.S. immigration legislation is in dire need of reform. An immediate remedy is to require all federal, state, and local officials to report undocumented immigrants to the Department of Homeland Security, which in turn, must respond in a decisive manner.

Remedies to immigration abuse include use of an eye print, fingerprints, or other technology to create a national identity card. Such prints can be logged into a central database and checked against “wanted” lists that already exist.

Driver's licenses and Social Security cards are already unsecured national identity cards, even though such a requirement is opposed vehemently by anarchists and terrorists.

U.S. consular officers working in the field deserve better training, and the standards for granting visas need to be raised. Countries should be limited to one visa-issuing consular office, and each visa needs to be tracked by code. The administrative costs of processing and issuing travel visas need to be covered by the applicants.

Deportation of any person attempting to enter the country without proper papers needs to be expedited. The time has come for remedy.

Do we have the political and spiritual will to neutralize the immigration anarchists and set the nation back on a secure immigration footing? Grassroots efforts are necessary to encourage Congress to include serious immigration reform, as that which is now proposed seems to be more of the same. Many business elites see open borders and cheap labor as good for America. They must be convinced that it isn’t.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Doh! Doh! and Doh!

I have to keep repeating this plea until everything comes clear to me.


Cars and trucks, including ambulances, can be outfitted with deadly explosives.

Cars and trucks, so outfitted, can be driven into Iraqi areas with civilians, politicians, the military forces, and police.

Such outfitted cars and trucks can be detonated, thereby killing and maiming many personnel within the scope of the explosive.

It happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, again.


When cars and trucks cannot enter areas with all of the previously cited personnel, their explosions cannot harm those personnel.


I guess I am just too stupid to get it.

ACTION ITEM: Heed This Message

This afternoon, we received this email message. It is crystal-clear and fully delineates appropriate actions. Here it is in full:

Regarding FOX's tv show 24 and CAIR:

The Fox affiliates KNOW what CAIR is up to, and no Fox affiliate want to run those wonderful pro-Islam PSAs that have been forced upon them, produced by CAIR. They are not REQUIRED to run them, and they are not running them.

Therefore CAIR today is sending an ACTION ALERT to all their members,telling them to call their local Fox affiliate, ask to speak to the person that handles their PSAs and demand those spots from CAIR be aired! (They didn't put it that way, but that's what they want.)

So YOU better call your local Fox affiliate, ask for the person that handles the PSAs and also the station's general manager. Make sure they both know the truth about CAIR, their goals for America, and who their masters are.

I've called two Fox affiliates today, and both were well aware of what CAIR really is. Neither has any intention of running the spots. Hopefully YOUR local affiliate knows the truth too, but can you take that chance?

You'll find your local Fox affiliate's phone number in the yellow pages, under "Television Stations."

Security, Hate-Speech Laws, and Dhimmitude

We are becoming used to the stepped up security measures to which we are now subjected: metal detectors at shopping malls, schools, and government buildings, body searches and bomb-sniffing dogs, I.D. checks and restricted entry to areas that were once free and open to all. Even looking at the 2005 Inauguration route with all its police presence and bullet-proof limousines, one would have thought that we live in a military dictatorship, not the United States of America. This is a sorry state of affairs.

Yet there are plenty of people that don’t believe in the “War on Terror,” that the bombers, reacting to our foreign policy, will stop and everything will return to the way it was if we pull out of Iraq and leave the rest of the world to its own devices.

Talking about Islam and jihad is useless to these people. They will never accept the premise that Islamists have pretensions on America regardless of what we do or what we don’t say about them.

Diana West
clarifies this problem: even our bureaucrats, politicians and military have been duped by apologetics. There is no clarity in their thinking and writers make that attempt are brushed off:

Clarity is the goal. We are unlikely to witness a security-lite inauguration four years -- or eight or 12 years -- hence if we remain confused about the ideology that animates our foes. And we are unlikely to ward off the spread of jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law the world over -- including the U.S.A. -- if we know nothing about it, or, worse, know only apologetics about it. Infinitely more pleasant, they are also misleading.

But apologetics are what we get. Take the reading list that Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, our new commander in Iraq, has given senior staff. It whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. No Bat Ye'or; no Ibn Warraq; no Robert Spencer; no Daniel Pipes; no Paul Fregosi; no Oriana Fallaci; not even any Bernard Lewis. Ignorance before September 11 was bad enough; perpetuating that ignorance is inexcusable.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the military are becoming dhimmis without even knowing it.

Will the threat go away if we ignore Islamism and allow them to have their way? Already some of our citizens have paid the price and media continue to be cowed by charges of “perpetuating terrorist stereotypes.” The deaths of the Coptic Christians in New Jersey may well be unrelated to Islam, but they are being used by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations are the justification for encouraging Fox to change the Muslim character appearing in the series “24” and for dropping a previously-vetted interview with Fox’s Greta van Susteren about the deaths of the New Jersey family with Michael Meunier as reported in the same Diana West essay. It appears that Muslims are creating a dhimmi attitude at Fox.

A correspondent in Britain recently described the rapidity with which Islam has taken hold in the British government. The Conservative Party has recently put forward a hate-speech law that would make it against the law to quote or even discuss the Koran, ahadiths, or Sira, or even the life of Mohammad. Violators will be jailed. A court in the Australian state of Victoria has a similar law under which Christian ministers have been prosecuted for merely discussing the contents of the Koran, contending that Islam teaches violence. And Canada has decided that teachings in the Bible constitute hate speech.
Will dhimmi attitudes such as Muslim apologetics or hate-speech laws make us safe? No, the Islamists have vowed to make Islam triumphant over the Earth. Dhimmitude will only make it easier for them to enslave us.

To All the Screeching Partisans

The presidential campaign of 2004 and the confirmation hearings for Dr. Condoleeza Rice are examples of the self-indulgence that is rampant in politics and politicians in general. Forgetting that they serve the people, American politicians have set their sights, not on what they can do for their country, but what they can do for their group of constituents and for themselves rather than for the body of the American people.

The world is a more dangerous place since 2001, not only because of the Islamists. There are other serious problems: “signs of the emergence for the first time since the fall of the Soviet empire, of an anti-American block anchored by Great Powers.”

On one hand, there have been successes in the spread of democracy:

First, the good news. The great project of the Bush administration -- the strengthening and spread of democracy -- is enjoying considerable success. Most recently we witnessed the triumph of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which followed the Rose Revolution in Georgia, bringing historic breaks from authoritarianism in two key former Soviet republics. Less publicized were elections in two critical Muslim states -- Indonesia and Malaysia -- in which Islamic parties were decisively defeated.

Elsewhere in the Islamic world, we saw (though many downplayed) the Afghan miracle -- free and successful elections in perhaps the world's least hospitable soil for democracy. That was followed by Palestinian elections and the beginning of political reform. Even more encouraging was a public statement issued just weeks earlier by more than 500 Palestinian intellectuals demanding democracy, the rule of law, transparency and an end to Arafat-style dictatorial rule.

And in spite of the violence in Iraq, the political process moves forward and Al Qaeda has been diminished, although other extremists groups are likely to fill the gap.

Other more familiar dangerous are nascent. Anti-Americanism feelings are becoming more obvious in Europe, specifically in France and Germany, core countries of the E.U., Russia, still a nuclear power, quietly is beginning to revert to czarist authoritarianism and Russia and China are cooperating in economic ventures and military exercises.

China continues to be a concern by “developing relationships with such virulently anti-American rogue states as Iran…various self-styled anti-imperialist flotsam as Syria, North Korea, Cuba and (Chavez’s) Venezuela.”

Closer to home and even more troubling: China is out-producing our trading partners south of the border canceling out the economic gains of Mexico and other American states that would have benefited by free trade in the Americas, making the lure of migration to America more potent.

To thwart America’s interests abroad, “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives that many Pentagon analysts believe will be used to undermine the U.S. and regional security as well as “creating a climate of uncertainty about the safety of all ships on the high seas.”

The U.S. military’s Southern Command produced a classified report in the late 1990s that warned that China was seeking to us commercial port facilities around the world to control strategic “chokepoints.” An example: a Chinese company with close ties to Beijing’s communist rulers holds long-term leases on port facilities at either end of the Panama Canal.

"China ... is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes, but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.

Chinese weapons for sea-lane control include new warships equipped with long-range cruise missiles, submarines and undersea mines, the report said. China also is buying aircraft and long-range target acquisition systems, including optical satellites and maritime unmanned aerial vehicles.

To nullify the Monroe Doctrine, China is also developing a relationship with Fidel Castro’s protégée, Hugo Chavez. After a December 2004 visit, Chavez pledged support for Chinese oil exploration in Venezuela.

Emphasizing that bilateral energy partnerships have a "bright future," Chavez, who is visiting China, said the Venezuelan government would grant Chinese companies production permits to explore oil in Venezuela's oil-bearing blocks, the Xinhua news agency said.

He also promised to support Chinese companies' involvement in exploring off-shore natural gas fields in Venezuela, according to Xinhua, which said Chavez made the comments to businessmen.

Noting that Venezuela was planning to form a state-owned petrochemical corporation, Chavez said Venezuela also "welcomes China to help build this plant."

The two countries can also join hands to construct an oil pipeline reaching ports along the Pacific, he said.

The world is fraught with dangers that President Bush alluded to in his 2005 Inaugural Speech. Some of the dangers exist today in spite of the measures that are being taken to root out and thwart terrorist activities that, according to Bush, “can not be prevented even by the most secure borders.”

We have long had problems with narco-traffickers that have now turned to human trafficking for profit, moving illegal immigrants across the border for work and prostitution, and, it appears now for the purpose of terrorism.

Our prisons are overflowing with angry, dangerous and resentful men and women that are being recruited to extremist Islam by other prisoners and by visiting Immams that are there “to minister to the prisoner’s spiritual health.” Prisons are known as school for crime and now are becoming terror-recruitment camps.

Gangs that once were confined to big cities are now spreading out to find other outlets. Youth and adult gangs for both sexes routinely fight over turf and rights to criminal activities and reported are now being recruited for terror purposes.

Mexican irredentists are slowly re-occupying the Southwest. With collusion of the Mexican government, some plan to secede from the Union while others just want to drive Anglos out. Former President Ernesto Zedilla stated in a speech in Chicago that the territory of Mexico extends outside its borders and the present President Vicente Fox is working with President Bush to create a guest worker program that essentially with be an amnesty for the millions of Mexicans that are presently don’t recognize the legality of the U.S. Mexican border.

Extremist Islam has arrived to the U.S. in the form of Saudi Arabian petrodollars that fund everything from university chairs to “experts” in think tanks and U.S. government bureaucracies as well as various Muslim lobbies such as CAIR. Although beheadings and other violent murders have not yet been attributed to Muslim immigrants and have not received much press, such crimes have occurred.
Distrust and suspicion are again mounting between Muslim and non-Muslim as the apparent message of a recent killing in the Egyptian Coptic community is that Muslim extremists plan to continue their murderous ways to silence critics and opponents of Islam.

Screeching self-indulgent politicians focusing only on the Battle of Iraq and turf battles within the Beltway seem not to notice these other dangerous and important issues that threaten America. By appearing divided on the world stage they are heartening our enemies and emboldening terror contractors that believe we are weak and too involved in partisan politics to see or understand their machinations at here and abroad.

To the screeching partisans: shut up already and look around!

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Email Some Spine to Fox for “24”

Islam Online- News Section, Fox Cuts Out Anti-Muslim Scenes from “24”

The following are snippets from the full article:

WASHINGTON, January 16 ( & News Agencies) – The Fox television network has decided to remove some stereotypical aspects about American Muslims from its action drama “24” thanks to immediate action from community leaders.

Following a January 12 meeting with representatives from CAIR, the largest US Muslim civil liberties advocacy group in the country, Fox officials promised that the popular series will be balanced in its portrayal of Muslims.

“There aren't any positive or even neutral portrayals of Muslims on TV,” the BBC quoting Ms Ahmed as regretting.

“When Muslims or Arabs are portrayed, it is always in a stereotypical way.”

Premiered on January 10, the drama portrays a Muslim family as a terrorist “sleeper cell,” who are plotting attacks inside the US.

A young man is seen helping his parents mastermind a plot to kill as many Americans by launching an attack on a commuter train.

The drama showed the mother poisoning her son's non-Muslim girlfriend because she poses a threat to their plans.

The US secretary of state is also seen taken hostage by the “Muslim terrorists.”

It climaxes with the defense secretary shown on an Internet video tape like those coming out of US-occupied Iraq.

Pro-Muslims Ad

Fox further decided to distribute a CAIR public service announcement (PSA) to network affiliates to be aired in proximity to “24.”

CAIR's 30 and 60-second PSA feature American Muslims of European, African-American, Hispanic, and Native American heritage.

Each person in the spots states how he/she and his/her family have served America and ends by saying, “I am an American Muslim.”

We need to reinforce lagging fortitude and shore up moral uncertainty at Fox. Email We, on the right side of freedom, life, and country, presently lack the organization that C.A.I.R. has built for its fifth column work in America. While we are building, we need to act on our own behalf in large numbers as individuals.

C.A.I.R. took advantage of our years of national inattentiveness and built a propaganda machine with Saudi backing and funding. Right now they are ahead. Let's catch up and pass them by.

The Big Sell Out

America will never militarize nor close the borders to illegal immigration. There are many forces and groups that will never allow America to put safety first at the expense of their interests.

1. Businesses big and small have always relied migrant to provide cheap labor to, in their words, remain competitive with nations in which wages are depressed and benefits and environmental constraints are absent. American workers are just too expensive to create the goods that they themselves want to buy, or so they say.

They also say that American workers also are unwilling to do certain jobs that are unpleasant and frankly dangerous. In the past there was dignity in work. The poor and uneducated submitted to this type of work that is offered mostly to migrants that are not members of any union or to the un-unionized that would rather work than to live on the dole.

2. Central American countries and Mexico are lobbying for “normalization” and “equitable treatment” of their citizens that supply the labor on this side of the border. Normalization agreements exist between the U.S. and at least twenty countries. Remittance checks from their citizens employed in the U.S. outstrip the GNP of their economies that would take a nose-dive if the borders were closed and dollar-faucet was shut off. Workers, legal and illegal, have been subjected to what they feel is lack of respect and improper treatment as they don’t get the benefit of other American workers such as social security, health care, unemployment benefits, welfare payments, and a safe working environment. Illegals also have to leave in constant fear of exploitation by the unscrupulous that play on their fear of deportation.

3. The NAFTA lobby will never allow the end of mass migration for the free movement of goods and services throughout the Americas is a dream come true for those that want to trade and partner with the Americas. For this reason the past amnesty programs and guest-worker programs will be pushed and ultimately become new normal as the world breaks up into trading blocks: the E.U., the Americas, and the Pacific rim. The Globalization lobby most definitely wants to keep the borders open in order to foster free trade among nations and ease of migration so that labor becomes available wherever needed. Mexico and Central America are dependent upon NAFTA for the health of their economies.

4. The Open Society lobby wants open borders so that national governments are eliminated in their belief that nationalism is evil and the multiculturalism and socialism are the greater good. World governance would be by the secular socialist elite, not necessarily the United Nations. Individual liberty would be subordinate to group-need with resources to be collected and given out according to need by an all wise elite reminiscent of the now defunct Soviet Union. Variations of this theme exist throughout Western Europe and the Americas. Multi-cultural elites believe that values and culture are conditional and that no one culture or value system is better than another. Thus national borders are unnecessary and nationalism is a past evil to be stamped out at all costs.

5. MECha, an irredentist Mexican movement will never allow the Southern border to be closed or militarized for they demographically hope to occupy and reconquer the Southwest, or Atzlan, with the ultimate goal of seceding as either a separate nation or to merge again with Mexico. Angry and resentful still after the result of the Mexican-American War and the loss of Texas and what was known as Alta California in the 19th century, Mexican-Americans and Mexicans in general are pushing for this social movement to occur. The Mexican government, in fact, assists migrants to the border and advises them how to survive the dangerous crossing by providing a comic book-style manual.

Past Mexican officials have made statements to the effect that Mexico actually “extends outside its borders” as tens of millions of Mexicans now reside in the United States. Past President Ernesto Zedilla made that statement in Chicago. Mexican and Mexican-American politicians campaign in the United States and as Mexican Americans now have dual citizenship, allowing them to live in the United States and vote in both the U.S. and Mexico as well as to hold office in Mexico.

Mexicans want the “right of return” to lands that they say were theirs before the Mexican-American War. They consider themselves America’s Palestinians as the border came to them and “this is really Mexico.” Mexicans in California and the Southwest are quite vocal and some have been obnoxious about this point. Some American-born Mexican politicians are pushing for free and open access to the border, American driver’s licenses, voting franchise, and all other rights of Americans because they were on the continent long before the arrival of the English colonists.

Circularity and family reunion has been hampered by the most recent attempts at border closings. Past generations crossed the border at will to return to their villages with earnings and to see their families. In their view, checkpoints and physical examination are unnecessary and illegal indignities that keep families apart and impede the “natural migration over the land by indigenous peoples that have more rights than the Anglo/Gringo invaders.”

6. The Muslim lobby will never allow the closing of either of the borders as their belief is that Islam must be triumphant. As Mexicans don’t consider themselves to be immigrants, only migrants, many Muslim immigrants see themselves as migrant re-colonizers of lands that were once Muslims for Islam, in their view, pre-dates Hispanic claims to the New World for Christopher Columbus included Muslim navigators in his crew. Islam requires Allah to rule the world and for Muslims to overspread using any tool and means possible: demographics, economic, education, charity, religious recruitment, as well as war. War is deceit and, in their view, non-Muslims are not free to criticize or discuss Islam, only to wait upon, receive, and implement the policies that Muslims have brought to “make America and the world a better place.” Closed borders are a bother to them especially at the yearly gathering of Muslims in Mecca. Customs are an annoyance as well as a polluting factor for non-Muslim inspectors must examine both people and luggage. Muslims are the natural rulers of the world that have to regain their natural place in the world.

7. Immigration lawyers are waiting in the wings for the millions of clients that await their help to negotiate the red tape of the immigration bureaucracy. They will never allow the borders to be closed and are lobbying fiercely for programs that will assist migrants and immigrants.

These and a myriad of other groups want to maintain open borders for their interest group. They are selling out the safety, and in some cases, the existence of America, for the interest of their group.

Border control is now a very touchy subject. Labels are attached to those that want to control the borders in order to neutralize those that advocate control of any kind. Nativists, or even Americans that believe in restricted, closed, or even safe borders are held up to ridicule labeled: naïve, racist, bigots, parochial, stupid, hysterical, Christian fundamentalists, Zionists, exploiters of immigrants, and so on. Competing groups are tearing at the fabric of American society, each with an agenda that overlooks and ignores the will of the majority of the American people. Most Americans want a feeling of security and are demanding safe and well-regulated borders.

The Federal Government has created the Bureau of Homeland Security for the purpose of regulating of commerce, migration, public transportation, national security, and a host of other duties and requirements. The biggest obstacle to security is negotiating among the various lobbies and special interest groups that now influence Congress to our detriment.

Hating America - A History

The whole world seems to hate America. It appears that this is not a new idea.

From FrontPageMagazine:

Hating America a History
By Richard B. Speed
History News Network | January 20, 2005

“I am willing to love all mankind, except an American.”--Samuel Johnson.

“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.” --Oscar Wilde.

“Why do they hate us?” The question seems to be on everyone’s lips these days, and everybody seems to have an opinion. According to some observers, people throughout the world simply, “hate our democracy.” According to others the United States sides with Israel against the Palestinian people, thus incurring their justifiable wrath. In Europe it is common to assert that Americans act like arrogant “cowboys,” and that we are religious fanatics attempting to impose our ways upon the rest of the world. Radicals and even moderates in Latin America insist that the United States is responsible for the squalor so common in that region. Throughout the world the consensus of opinion seems to be that the United States has constructed an empire that snuffs out the aspirations of its victims. This has given rise in recent years to a wave of paranoid hatred of the United States. But few seem to know that such loathing of America is nothing new.

Long before the United States was founded, Barry and Judith Colp Rubin inform us in their new book, Hating America: A History, enlightened Europeans were convinced that America was inferior to the Old World and that nothing good would ever come of it. During the eighteenth century European intellectuals attempted to explain why no great civilization had arisen on American shores (the Incas and the Aztecs did not count) as it had across the Atlantic. The greatest biologist and naturalist of his time, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, was convinced that climate was the critical factor in human development. Although he had never been to America, he read a great deal about the severe blizzards of New England and the heat of the tropics and concluded that it was impossible for civilized life to thrive there. In fact, he was convinced that life degenerated in American conditions. Without any evidence whatsoever, he contended that animals in America were smaller than their European counterparts. The American mountain lion for example, was “smaller, weaker, and more cowardly than the real lion.” He even held that animals such as horses, goats and dogs which had crossed the Atlantic to America diminished in stature after they arrived!

What was true of animals, naturally was also true of humans. Accordingly, Buffon wrote that the American Indian “is feeble in his organs of generation; . . . has neither body hair . . . nor ardor for his female . . . .” In terms similar to those often used by anti-American critics two hundred years later, he concluded that their “heart is frozen, their society cold, their empire cruel.”

The Rubins explain that Buffon was no exception in his bizarre estimation of America. The great French philosopher Voltaire echoed his opinions. Another eighteenth century popularizer of anti-American views was Cornelius DePauw of the Netherlands who contended in his popular 1768 book, Philosophical Research on the Americans, that everything across the Atlantic was “either degenerate or monstrous.” Immanuel Kant wrote in 1775 that Americans were “too weak for hard work . . . incapable of all culture, in fact even lower than the Negro.” So many European intellectuals accepted and repeated these and other similar claims that they formed the European consensus about America. In response to the prevalence of views such as these Benjamin Franklin wrote his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, an essay demonstrating that Americans were not sickly, that the population was fertile and growing more rapidly than that of England. Thomas Jefferson’s famous Notes on the State of Virginia is an explicit defense of native creatures. American bears, he explained, were as twice as big as old world varieties, and the fossilized remains of American elephants were enormous.

Critics were not deterred however. Nikolas Lenau, a Hungarian poet went so far as to complain that he could find no nightingales or other songbirds in America. This he thought was emblematic of the region’s spiritual poverty. Unlike many European critics, Lenau had at least traveled to America in the 1830s, but he became ill, lost money in a land speculation scheme, and was embittered by his experience. He later wrote that “Americans are shopkeepers with souls that stink towards heaven. They are dead for all spiritual life . . . . The nightingale is right when he does not want to come to these louts.”

This enlightening new book places contemporary hatred of America in historical context by describing the trajectory of anti-Americanism over the course of three centuries. According to the Rubins, during the first phase of anti-Americanism, European intellectuals blamed the inferiority of America on the natural environment. During the second phase, which began with the Revolutionary era, they placed blame for American degeneracy upon the people. Even in Jefferson’s day, Americans were after all, the descendents of a polyglot collection of Europe’s criminals, outcasts, religious cranks, and failures—in short, the scum of European society. Furthermore, they were rebels who, having proclaimed the virtues of the common man, had rejected monarchy, the only system of government for which mankind had ever proven suitable. It was impossible that such a people could make a successful nation. European intellectuals dripped contempt as they discussed the United States. The democratic experiment across the Atlantic could not possibly last.

Most European critics were children of privilege, born into a class hierarchy they believed was the natural order of any society. They believed that all the benefits of culture, literature, the arts, poetry and the opera were the work of such an aristocracy of breeding. Yet Americans not only insisted on the revolutionary doctrine of equality, but practiced it. Americans refused to defer to their betters. Not only did Americans have offensive table manners, but they were filthy, crude and violent, prone as European visitors noted to knife fights, duels, and lynching. Europeans constantly complained that American women talked too much and didn’t know their place. Some sarcastically referred to the United States as a “paradise for women.” Even children were allowed to run wild without adequate discipline. The habit that repulsed them the most was, as the British traveler Francis Trollope put it, “the remorseless spitting of Americans.” With their eyes focused determinedly on the bottom line, Americans would never produce a culture worthy of note. Degradation was the natural, indeed the inevitable tendency of democracy.

What most bothered European intellectuals about Americans was that they neither appreciated the arts nor deferred to a refined upper class. In short, they refused to recognize their own inferiority and the natural superiority of the learned. To Americans, the latter were merely effete snobs unwilling to get their hands dirty with a little honest sweat. In 1824 a Jacksonian campaign slogan that ridiculed the highly educated John Quincy Adams expressed their contempt. According to the Democrats of that year, “Adams writes. Jackson fights!” Amidst the democratic mob, there was no place for an intellectual elite, certainly not in politics. One hundred-fifty years later little had changed as American politicians from George Wallace to Spiro Agnew made sport of “pointy-headed intellectuals,” and “eggheads” like Adlai Stevenson. Even in the twenty-first century, Americans prefer a plain talking Texas cowboy who expresses himself in sentence fragments to a Harvard educated liberal who speaks in nuanced paragraphs.

Through the middle of the nineteenth century few critics worried much about the impact of America because they knew it could not last. At most, the United States might be an obnoxious model that appealed to the lower orders of European society--a frightening prospect in itself. But when the Confederate states seceded from the Union igniting the Civil War in 1861, they were convinced that their predictions were coming true. When however, the Union triumph demonstrated that the nation was a permanent feature of the international landscape, they began to fear the impact of the United States. The third phase of anti-Americanism had begun. By the turn of the century, as the monster across the Atlantic began to out-produce the great powers of Europe, and compete with them in the imperial arena, some began to fear that the United States might at some time in the future impose its dreadful system upon them. Worse, their own people might prefer the boorish American mass consumption society to the cultured but sluggish class societies of traditional Europe. In short, the elites of “old Europe” feared “Americanization.”

During the nineteenth century anti-Americanism was an intellectual orientation of both the conservative right which loathed the “masses,” and of the romantic left which simultaneously championed and feared the “dangerous classes.” With the Bolshevik Revolution anti-Americanism acquired a state sponsor. Hostility to capitalism merged with hostility to the United States in the torrent of propaganda sponsored by the Soviet Union throughout most of its history. Fascists on the right conflated anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Accordingly one Nazi propagandist commented that “Uncle Sam has been transformed into Uncle Shylock.” Hitler himself once asked a friend, “What is America, but millionaires, beauty queens, stupid records, and Hollywood?” Demonstrating that he had accepted Buffon’s degeneracy theory, Hitler told another friend, “Transfer [a German] to Miami and you make a degenerate out of him—in other words—an American.”

During the forty-five years or so of the Cold War, western European anti-Americanism was muted because that region depended upon the United States for its defense against the Soviet Union. It was muted everywhere that is except in France, which has always been a prolific source of anti-American bile. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its dreary empire, hysterical fears of American “hyperpower” have arisen once again. After all, without the Soviet Union to restrain the Americans, what is to prevent the United States from extending its repugnant culture, not to mention its economic and military hegemony everywhere? Intellectuals throughout the world who embraced socialism during the Cold War, have embraced anti-Americanism as their new ideology in the wake of the Soviet collapse.

In a series of persuasive chapters, the Rubins describe anti-Americanism as it metastasized first throughout Latin America and then the Middle East, where it has acquired new state sponsors who use it to shift blame for the failures of Islamic societies to come to terms with modernity. Then Rubins finds that “third world” intellectuals have generally adapted old anti-American themes to the new circumstances of the post Cold War order. It is worth noting that the authors fail to discuss the emergence since the Vietnam War of American anti-Americanism, a disconcerting yet pervasive aspect of our contemporary intellectual life. It is however, a phenomenon which could be easily explained within the intellectual framework the Rubins adopt. Nevertheless, Hating America is an otherwise comprehensive guide to the development and spread of yet another paranoid ideology—one they note bears a disquieting similarity to anti-Semitism, its ancient and evil sibling.
Self-hating Americans are responsible for the Open-Borders and immigration problems we are experiencing today. It seems that all cultures are relevant and that American nationalism is an evil to be stamped out. Why do others hate us? We hate ourselves so what else can we expect?