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

New Email Address:

Monday, October 31, 2005

El Norte in the Year 2054!!!

Pinkerton beat me to it. All this talk about "reforming" immigration, building a protective fence, stopping and expelling "illegal" immigrants (Oops, entrants, I mean migrants, or is it immigrants?) is just that: talk.

We have been hoodwinked. Government has been dragging its feet for years...for what??? Here's "what:"

Washington Nuevo, Districto de Colombia, January 7, 2054 -- In our chronicle of the formation of the North American Union, we must pay special attention to the period half a century ago, at the beginning of the 21st century. In those critical years, it became clear that the logic of continental integration was unstoppable. And yet few saw the coming Paradox of Prosperity, which proved to have so many ironic, even tragic, manifestations. In fact, the most crucial event in our story occurred 50 years ago today.

In 2000, the second president of the Bush Dynasty, George W. Bush, won the White House. Outreach to Hispanic voters was a major plank in his "compassionate conservative" platform, and that solicitude to Latino concerns included Mexican in-migration. As he said during the 2000 campaign, "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." Indeed, the 43rd president's first meeting with a foreign leader, in February 2001, was with Mexican president Vicente Fox, whom Bush gallantly described as "an old friend."
The two amigos agreed on a joint plan to help ease the passage of people, goods, and services across the 2100-mile border between the countries, and also to begin to "normalize" the status of Mexicans living in America. A few sticklers about national sovereignty were upset; they noted that even before meeting Bush, the Mexican president had been bold about claiming extraterritorial influence north of the border. Fox liked to say that he was the leader of 118 Mexicans -- that is, 100 million in Mexico, plus another 18 million Mexican-Americans in the US.
However, both men's visionary hopes had to be put aside after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- at least for awhile.

It appears that there is every intention of creating the North American Security Perimeter and forming an economic block that stretches from Canada on the North to Panama on the South, using the agencies of NAFTA and CAFTA.

An economic block today, what about tomorrow? Within fifty year a new, planned America, with a completely new cultural base will be in place...without our input or consent.

Here's "The Why."

Response to Bungee Prince Charlie's Coming to the Colonies to Plead Islam's Cause

In a "warm-fuzzy" article, the London Telegraph reported that Prince Charles thinks the colonists in America are too harsh on Islam. He wants to come to spread the love and have a group hug with Bush, et al. Here are two pieces from that article that give the entire jist:

Prince Charles to plead Islam's cause to Bush
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
(Filed: 29/10/2005)

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, was also at the meeting at St James's Palace. "His criticism of America was a general one of the Americans not having the appreciation we have for Islam and its culture," he said.

It is one thing to put out Sampson's eyes with searing heat, with Sampson unable to resist. It is quite another to put out one's own eyes with searing ignorance and no resistance. Lost. poor Bungee Prince Charlie has spent decades trying to find himself. He has been unsuccessful because of a lack of self--there is no "there there." Islam may be his latest persona, which, as a true believer now, he feels compelled to proselytize. However, his mission to America on behalf of Islam to try to peddle poison as nutrients puts Charles a full step beneath the old medicine shows and magic elixirs. We are not sure he knows just what he is promoting, not in any depth. He just doesn't seem bright enough to know enough about Islam to be evil, but we could be wrong. We cannot forget, for example, that a carrier of typhoid can be just as dangerous as an infectee.

On our sister website, 6th Column Against Jihad, we have gone to great lengths to spell out what makes Islam toxic. We have detailed its poisonous lethality at length, but we have done it by going to the roots of Islam. We have chosen to focus on Islam's very principles, rather than repeating myriad, well-known, and already very well publicized facts so beautifully covered in books, blogs, and websites from outstanding authors. It is one thing to know and document all the contradictions and envenomizations of the Koran, for example, or document all of the historical travesties committed by Islamists for the past 14 centuries. No one can doubt the value of such factual material, and one must have reasonable knowledge of these. However, beneath those facts lies the core question to answer, "What is it that makes this fact or the other about Islam evil?" Answering that question explains what makes Islam "tick," and defeating Islam absolutely requires knowing its principles as well as the principles which constitute the antidote to Islam.

Islam invalidates itself right at its fundamentals, and it cannot under any circumstances mount a rational defense of itself at that level. Knowing its fundamentals cuts through Islam's facade like a blowtorch through warm butter.

Specifically, on 6th Column Against Jihad, we have assembled a set of short articles, in plain English, which go right to the core of Islam and lay it bare. These are our rejoinder to Prince Charles and are presented for anyone to read:

Basics of Islam (I, II, and III; Lies of Islam: Islamic Deception Practices)

Fundamental Ideas Needed to Create Muslims


Root Rot (Part 1, Metaphysics)

Broken Tools (Part 2, Epistemology)

Obedience Training (Part 3, Ethics)

Muslim Identity and Purpose (Part 4, Politics)

Erasing Life (Part 5, Esthetics)

Summary: Pulling It All Together

Why Islam Is Untrue. The Real Reasons

From D.C. Watson: Could It Be True?

Could it be true? Was Ibrahim Hooper from CAIR also former childhood star "Spanky", of "Little Rascals" fame?

Spokesman for "Our Gang"

Spokesman for CAIR

Sunday, October 30, 2005

YOU'VE GOT TO READ THIS IF YOU OWN ANYTHING: Is your private property in jeopardy?

Posted: October 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Henry Lamb

© 2005

In the United States of America, where private property was considered to be sacred by the Founders and where the right to private property is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, your private property is not in jeopardy – unless: 1) your property lies within a municipality, 2) your property lies within a county, or 3) your property lies within federal land.

There was a time when local elected officials created building and zoning ordinances to ensure that structures met minimum safety standards and to separate residential from commercial properties. These ordinances had to be acceptable to the people governed by them, or the local elected officials would be replaced by new officials more responsive to the will of the governed.

This fundamental principle of freedom gives meaning to the idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed.

In recent years, this principle has been replaced by a new idea, advanced by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Goal number 8, of the PCSD, says:

"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals."

This new decision process empowers professionals to make the policy decisions that govern how people must live and empowers bureaucracies to implement and enforce these policies.

During the sustainable-development epidemic of the 1990s, the federal government provided millions of dollars in grants to the American Planning Association to develop a master plan that would bring all communities into compliance with the PCSD's vision of sustainable development.

The 1,500-page plan is called Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change.

Prodded by state-level planning professionals and enticed by the promise of federal funding for implementation, state governments rushed to enact state comprehensive planning laws fashioned by the American Planning Association. Invariably, these state laws require counties to develop local comprehensive land-use plans that conform to the regulations set forth in the APA's master plan.

Municipal and county governments, dependent upon state and federal government funding, have no choice but to comply with the dictates of the state's comprehensive planning laws. Consequently, it no longer matters what the people who are governed want; they must comply with the regulations designed and decided by the professionals, and implemented and enforced by government bureaucrats.

These regulations may be so detailed as to dictate the varieties of plants that may be used for landscaping, the color of paint used inside and outside structures, the size and color of business signs, and require that materials used for construction be certified as "environmentally friendly" regardless of the cost.

One of the more onerous concepts introduced in the master plan is the idea of "Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses." This scheme allows structures that do not meet the new regulations to continue in use for a specified period of time. If the structures are not brought into compliance by the deadline, the owner loses his right to the property, which could be taken by government, without compensation.

No private property within any municipality or county is safe from this new vision of sustainable development.

People who have a property interest in federal land are in even greater jeopardy. Ranchers who have invested thousands of dollars and years of sweat-equity in fences and watering systems are seeing their grazing allotments reduced to the point of economic non-viability. Loggers are now prohibited from harvesting timber on vast stretches of the national forest. Miners and drillers who pay for leases and invest millions in equipment are denied the right to extract natural resources from federal land. People whose families have invested in summer cabins on federal land are discovering that their permits are not being renewed, and the cabins are being confiscated or destroyed. Off-road vehicle enthusiasts are finding it increasingly difficult to use federal land. Even sightseers and bird watchers have discovered that new signs are spawning all across federal lands that read: "Area Beyond This Sign Closed – All Public Entry Prohibited."

Ownership of private property means that the exclusive right to use the property belongs to the owner. Restrictions on the use of private property, imposed by any authority other than by elected officials accountable to the people who are governed is usurpation of a fundamental principle of freedom.

This "new collaborative decision process" called sustainable development effectively extinguishes the rights of property owners, as well as the idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed.


Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill: A Milestone on Britain's Road to Dhimmitude

This excellent essay succinctly explains the sinking into dhimmitude of the British. The remarkable "Racial and Religious Hatred Bill" attempts to curb "disharmony among the religions" by making any utterance or published criticism or "expression of hatred" that is deemed to be offensive a prosecutable offense. Muslims have agitated for this bill as they "are not protected" against "hatred" as are "other religions."

The British are afraid as well they should be. Freedom of speech is enshrined in the American Constitution. The British have no written Constitution and are ruled by Parliament and "common law." The bill has not been to law. It is still under advisement. We hope that Parliament thinks long and hard before squelching free speech, an ancient right and privilege of the British people.

Read the essay and visit the accompanying links.

Here is a link to the bill.

Understanding "Understanding Condi"

It gives us no pleasure to state that we have lost considerable respect for Dr.Condoleezza Rice. In fact, acknowledging this is darned near painful This has come about through what we have read and have heard coming from Dr. Rice herself since she has become a high profile personage as secretary of state. Now the main stream media pays much more attention to citing her thoughts.

Dr. Rice is an extremely bright, highly educated, and highly accomplished professional. She did everything she has done on her own power, not climbing the affirmative action ladder for racial cripples. She deserves nothing but praise for these accomplishments. As a person, she seems top drawer. Borrowing from an old game, we could easily imagine a “cross country bus trip” with her as a seatmate. She would be charming, fascinating, and bedazzling with all she knows.

We also acknowledge that she came up through racially hard times, very hard times, in a place where injustice against those of her race was the norm. To be hated for nothing you have ever done to anyone but just because your racial heritage is not “modal” in the eyes of the majority has to be among the bitterest of pills. She, and all black Americans, should never have had to endure that. We, ourselves, are intimate with the social world she endured because we grew up in the segregated, racist Deep South starting some ten years earlier than she did—but our experiences are not germane here, except to exult in the death of that era.

No, it is what Condi tells us about herself and her personal philosophy that cuts so deeply.

Diana West, in her Jewish World Review column, Understanding Condi, 29 October 2005 adds to the philosophical profile of Dr. Rice in ways we were not privy to. Ms West begins by citing Dr. Rice’s “gotcha” comment: “…[W]hen the Founding Fathers said, `We the people,' they didn't mean me." Fair enough and accurate enough, as it goes. Then the trouble starts.

Says Ms West,

“…Ms. Rice drops it [the “gotcha” comment] in by way of illustrating the historic flaws of democracy, American-style; and this she drops in by way of dismissing the current flaws of democracy-building in the Muslim world.” What follows is astonishing: "We should note that unlike in our
Constitutional Convention, the Iraqis have not made a compromise as bad as the one that made my ancestors three-fifths of a man."
Has Dr. Rice heard that there is this thing called “Islam”?

Ms West hits the ball out of the part with this rejoinder:

“But it is the miracle of that 18th-century document that it contained the blueprint for abolition. By contrast, the 2005 Iraqi Constitution (also the 2003 Palestinian Authority constitution and the 2004 Afghanistan constitution) contains provisions for a sharia state under which all men are not created equal, and freedom of conscience is denied.”

Dr. Rice continues:

"Across the empire of Jim Crow, from upper Dixie to the lower Delta, the descendants of slaves shamed our nation with the power of righteousness and redeemed America at last from its original sin of slavery. By resolving the contradiction at the heart of our democracy, America finally found its voice as a true champion of democracy beyond its shores."

To which, Ms West responds:

"In this worldview, it's not, say, the 700,000 casualties of the Civil War plus one assassinated president who redeemed that original sin of slavery, but rather the civil rights movement that helped overturn Southern segregation laws a century later. Indeed, it was only at this relatively late date, if I'm reading Ms. Rice's words correctly, that America could finally sally forth as a "true champion of democracy"—which makes you wonder who it was who went to Belleau Wood in 1918, St Lo in 1945, and Chosin Reservoir in 1950.

"The implication seems clear: American democracy wasn't all that much to be proud of until the civil rights leaders Ms. Rice calls the "impatient patriots" — Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, for instance — came along. This supports one of her main policy points; namely, that even in America "democratization is a long and difficult process, not a singular event." So much for the miracle at Philadelphia."

Of course, we do not have the full transcript of one of these very typical speeches by Dr. Rice, but we have no reason to doubt Ms West. She is a superb journalist and thinker, possibly the best of today’s columnists. One of the reasons she is so very good is that she “gets it.”

Dr. Rice apparently does not “get it.” As a result, for the second time in this Bush presidency, we have a secretary of state who is not philosophically up to the job. Whether we have ever had one who ever was, other than Founders, could be debated ad infinitum.

Dr. Rice’s great deficiency is that she has no philosophy with which to focus that brilliant mind and extensive education, knowledge, and experience. In that sense, she is just another George Bush “chip off the old block.” And, it does not matter which George Bush we speak of—neither is a man of any substantive ideas with which to conduct the affairs of America.

Of course, Dr. Rice has some philosophy. We all do. We cannot avoid it as long as we possess the faculty of consciousness. She like most people has picked up this and that as she grew up, as she schooled, and as she has conducted herself through life. One of the problems of philosophy via “seine netting” is that your catch is an indiscriminate pile of EVERYTHING scooped by the moving net. She, like most people who have a “seine net philosophy of life,” has errors and serious conflicts. She has errors of omission and commission, and a whole lot of conclusions derived from feelings, random thoughts, some focused thoughts, and stuff passively accepted from adults and others around her. In this common means of arriving at a personal philosophy, nothing gets integrated in order to weed out the contradictions, or even to be able to recognize them.

Dr. Rice deals with the world in part, and surprisingly, through some American Negro prism from her formative years, one she and the rest of black America must now drop as obsolete and deleterious. As Diana West points out, American history and the profound significance of the measures to eliminate the evil of slavery do not begin for her until the Martin Luther King era. What a major disappointment from such a brilliant person.

Then, she makes some enormous epistemological errors, not the least of which is extending a blank check to that abysmal excuse for a constitution and a so-called “democracy” in Iraq. She seems to be saying: Why, we did not start out perfect, so why should they? Well, Dr. Rice, we started out by standing on the shoulders of Western civilization and the greatest thinkers of the world. We, America, were sired by the Enlightenment, the enshrinement of reason, the first since the Golden Age of Ancient Greece. The Enlightenment gave rise to the cardinal Rights of Man, derived from the nature of man and implemented through reason. Our Constitution is a masterpiece. Rereading it a couple of days ago for umpteenth time, we were just overwhelmed with its majesty.

Add to that our 218 years of life as a nation, which is unlike anything in history. We harnessed religion and abolished slavery. We provided the fertile means for the development and flourishment of capitalism, which has freed us all from the agonizing life before capitalism.

Once again, we should never have had slavery, not for one person, not for one day, ever. And, having abolished it, we should have had the human decency to welcome former slaves and their progeny into our national company to enjoy the same protection of the Rights of Man which they have as much as any of the rest of us. We should never have abused these men and women of color. And, worst of all since emancipation, we should never have reenslaved them with the welfare state, which has aborted their efforts at self-esteem and slowed their progress to a crawl. But, we made it, some 218 years late, but we are here.

What in Iraq compares in any way to anything in America? How can Dr. Rice see anything comparable or extend Iraqis any kind of blank check?

The answer “ain’t purdy.” She does this because she has the same thinking error that George Bush has, aside from not properly appreciating our own national history and philosophical development. Time after time, she proclaims, “Islam is a great religion.” Like GWB, she sees what Islam causes to be solely the result of those few who somehow bizarrely distort Islam. Has she read nothing about Islam? How can THE Secretary of State remain so ignorant? Citing Ms West again:

Only "cynics," as Ms. Rice said—the same people she said "once believed that blacks were unfit for democracy"—argue "that the people of the Middle East, perhaps because of their color or their creed or their culture or even perhaps because of their religion, are somehow incapable of democracy."

That goes far beyond “disappointing,” all the way to frightening. Yes, indeed, the answer is: Islamists, “…because of their religion, are somehow incapable of democracy.” Those who are Islam’s true believers ARE INCAPABLE OF DEMOCRACY. Maybe if Dr. Rice read Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Serge Trifkovic, among many others, and some of the great blogs and websites, which tell the truth about Islam, she would drop the George W. Bush cognitive anchor.

The simple fact is that as long as Iraq adopts a constitution, which makes Islam the state religion and gives shari’a a major role in making and enforcing the laws of Iraq, our efforts in Iraq are doomed. For sure, they are doomed in the long run under such conditions, but the long run may turn out to be the intermediate term or the short run. These are not people in the tradition of Western civilization and the Enlightenment. They are in the tradition of Arabic tribes—tribes to this day, if you believe such still exist. They think with their feelings and their penises, and nothing higher. They are said to be among the best educated of the Middle Eastern Islamics, but that is akin to calling people who are able to read parts of a primer as educated. Yes, of course, a few Iraqis seem highly educated; most are at a primitive level of education compared to the Western world.

For all of the sins against blacks in America, let us never lose sight of the fact that these slaves were manumitted into Western culture, which their contemporary leaders want to destroy. Even those who became black rednecks, to borrow a term from Dr. Thomas Sowell, did so in a young nation, which stood on centuries of Western knowledge and tradition, which had percolated even down to white trash in the South, though it might have been hard to recognize in its popular form. Suppose those blacks had been released from slavery in Iraq? Just try to think of that without shuddering.

As for democracy, Dr. Rice, try this thought. In your childhood, in the dismal days of racist Alabama of the mid-20th century, you experienced democracy. No, it was not that bastardized, one-term-fits-all “democracy” slung around today as though it had meaning like “republic” has. This was the literal democracy of MAJORITY RULE. The white majority ruled, and the black minority suffered. That is not the case in a republic.

Democracy prevails in Iraq. In the north, Kurd majorities rule. In the south, Shiite majorities rule. In the middle, Sunni majorities rule. Why in the name of Hell would anyone want more “democracy”?

Dr. Rice joins many others bemoaning the status of women under Islam. Isn’t ½ a person in Islam less than 3/5ths of a person as our Constitution spelled it out before our Civil War? What about slaves? Under Islam, they are ½ of women. That makes them something like 1/4th people. And what about dhimmis? They can keep their own religion as long as they live in indentured servitude to Muslims, having no rights and an existence subject to eradication at the slightest whims of Muslims. This is majority rule, with the Muslims being the democrats.

An Islam-free and shari’a-free constitution, one based on the Enlightenment concept of Rights of Man, would go a long way to enfranchising women, abolishing slavery, and abolishing such a hideous status as that of dhimmitude. Yes, yes, it took us until 1919 to enfranchise women fully, but the American woman prior to 1919 was infinitely better off than most Muslim women today.

We had hoped for so much more from Dr. Rice. Having said that, however, let us be very, very clear about one thing. If, perchance, Dr. Rice runs against Senator Clinton in 2008, we will vote for Dr. Rice “early and often.” After all, there is “disappointing,” and then there is “really, really bad.”

Battles Change, Wars Don't

Hanson, retired professor from the University of California, reflects on the similarity between wars, ancient and modern, and thinness of the veneer of civilization, then and now. Human nature is what it is. The reactions of humans in their capacity to use the most violent and bloodthirsty ways of humilitating, punishing, and eliminating enemies hasn't changed.

War is like water — its fundamental character remains unchanging precisely because the nature of the humans who fight it is constant over the centuries. True, the pump — the delivery system of flint, arrows, firearms, nuclear bombs, guided missiles and satellite weapons — radically changes the face of battle with each generation. But the essence of war nevertheless stays the same, as we are reminded when we study the distant past.

Limb-lopping, terrorism, biological attack, roadside executions, kidnapping of diplomats, murders of school children, all these and more occurred 2,400 years ago in the Peloponnesian War 2,400 years ago between factions of the Spartans and the Athenians. Barbarism exists when "fear, honor, and self-interest drive hostilities."

And then a warning (hopefully not a premonition):

Study of the Peloponnesian War should also remind us that it is not assured that the wealthiest, most sophisticated and democratic state always triumphs over less impressive enemies. After all, Athens, for all its advantages, finally lost its war. And as Thucydides reminds us about the democratic empire's lapses, arrogance and major blunders, more often the chief culprit was its own infighting and internal discord than the prowess of its many enemies.

Read it all.

The Folly of Apology

Americans need to muster the necessary grit to win.

Doesn't it burn you when hearing and reading statements from American leaders and journalists that are downright dhimmi-talk, apologizing to Islamic barbarians, heartening the enemy?

The stories about the video of US troops burning the bodies of dead Taliban are disgusting––but not because of anything our troops may have done to the corpses of fanatical murderers. What’s disturbing is the groveling reaction of our government and military officials, who are falling all over themselves to apologize to people who cheer every time an American is killed.

Remember what type of people the Taliban are? Like the jihadists we are fighting in Iraq, they are murderers whose religious beliefs warrant any kind of brutality and atrocity against the “infidel.” These are the people who, when they ran Afghanistan, tortured and murdered their own citizens in a soccer stadium built with Western money. These are the people who behead and murder, the people who kill women and children. And these are the people whose corpses we are supposed to worry about mistreating, whose religious beliefs, the ones that justify murder, we are supposed to be respecting.

I know all the rationales for the apologies and investigations and anxious assertions of how much we respect Islam. We need to win the “hearts and minds” of all those alleged “moderate” Muslims who hate us only because they don’t understand us, don’t realize how much we admire their wonderful religion, don’t quite get everything we’re doing for them, and who are abetted in their misunderstanding by the bad behavior of some of our troops. So the State Department has issued “talking points” to U.S. embassies “to explain to foreign journalists and officials that the alleged misconduct was an aberration that did not reflect American values,” as the New York Times reported.

This false belief that Muslims only react to Western deeds also puts a powerful weapon into the hands our enemies, who can then deflect their true intentions and manipulate our behavior, as the jihadists of Palestine have been doing for decades. How else explain the bizarre spectacle of the terrorist Mahmoud Abbas being welcomed to the White House, at the very moment we claim to the world that we are at war with those who use and endorse terrorism? When has Abbas ever condemned terrorism as categorically evil and unacceptable in any circumstance, rather than condemning terrorism for being the wrong tactic at the wrong time? How can we keep saying terrorism “won’t work” when we are giving financial and moral support to a Palestinian regime that incorporates terrorists like Hamas that say explicitly they want to destroy Israel and will use any means necessary to do so?

More important, when our enemies compel us to apologize and investigate and assure the world how much we really respect Islam, they validate their estimation of our spiritual weakness and corruption. From their perspective, why else would we apologize, unless we had doubts about the rightness of our cause and the beliefs that drive our actions? The jihadists, after all, are convinced of the rightness of their belief, one validated by Islam and its traditional intolerant and arrogant disdain for the infidel. So why should they ever apologize? They believe they are right, and that Allah sanctions their slaughter. Christians can be brutalized, as is happening right now in Alexandria, where Egyptian Copts are being murdered and terrorized by Muslim mobs. Christian churches can be desecrated, Christians and Jews murdered and mutilated on videotape, and we never hear even from secular Muslim leaders the sort of anxious protestations of regret that the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth indulge in.

Read it all.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Did We Say That We Wanted to Be Transformed?

It's Un-American to Complain About or Even Point Out the Changes That Few Americans Want

Multiculturalism is transforming America. For decades policies have been foisted upon unsuspecting Americans who now are suddenly noticing that they are having to make the changes once expected to be made by immigrants moving into a country. America as we knew it is being abolished to be replaced by an unrecognizable landscape.

What Is Multiculturalism?

In America,

1. "multiculturalism"
came into wide public use during the early 1980s in the context of public school curriculum reform. Specifically, the argument was made that the content of classes in history, literature, social studies, and other areas reflected what came to be called a "Eurocentric" bias. Few if any women or people of color, or people from outside the Western European tradition, appeared prominently in the curriculums of schools in the United States. This material absence was also interpreted as a value judgment that reinforced unhealthy ethnocentric and even racist attitudes.

Observers noted that teaching and administrative staffs in schools were also overwhelmingly white and/or male (whiteness being pervasive at the teaching level, maleness at the administrative level, reflecting the politics of gender and class as well as race in the educational system). Eventually parallel questions were raised (once more) about the ethno-racial or cultural biases of other institutions, such as legislatures, government agencies, corporations, religious groups, private clubs, etc. Each of these (interest groups) has in turn developed its own response and policies regarding multiculturalism.

Finally, "multiculturalism" may also have become a popular term as "race" lost much of its former credibility as a concept. Scientists agree that, in terms of DNA genetics, "race" has no significant meaning as a way of categorizing human differences. Intermarried families offer the puzzle of a parent and child considered as belonging to two different races--clearly an absurd idea given that race was thought of as biologically passed from parent to offspring. Thus "culture" began to replace "race" as a term for distinguishing among distinct human groups.

2. Is there any justice in this world? Apparently not in America. As America is the expression of white colonialism, White Americans can not be just and immigrants were moved in to increase America's justice quotient.

3. Melt or get out of the pot! In the past, Americans expected immigrants to assimilate. No more. The European culture that created the American base is considered to be oppressive and must abolished.

Then multiculturalism becomes a movement that insists that American society has never been white, but always in fact multiracial and diverse. This movement seeks to preserve distinctly different ethnic, racial, or cultural communities without melting them into a common culture. Here the common culture is seen as white supremeacy, a culture of bigotry and discrimination, and the remedy as an emphasis on the separate characteristics and virtues of particular cultural groups.

4. Out of Africa?
Most controversial in this regard is the movement known as "Afrocentrism," which in various versions seeks to document the centrality of African cultural traditions to the foundation of American and Western history, and to celebrate that African tradition so as to increase the self-esteem and educational success of African-American students. Critics of Afrocentrism dispute both its intellectual claims --- the scholarship and historical conclusions it advances --- and its educational claims --- especially regarding the effect of an ethnically-centered curriculum on the academic achievement of students.

Defenders of multiculturalism have published a number of respected books to substantiate their scholarly claims. They point out that critics of Afrocentrism rarely investigate whether or not the traditional Eurocentric curriculum has artificially improved the performance of white students. See, for example, debates about the cultural biases of "standardized" tests like the SAT or the GRE, on which many of the questions assume a body of cultural knowledge more likely to be found among white suburbanites than students in the ghetto or barrio. Or consider arguments that white males in the past created an artificially easy time for themselves in college admissions and job competition by excluding women and minorities. Critics of Afrocentrism have had more success challenging some of the details of its historical claims than in refuting the general charge of Eurocentrism. Many middle-of-the-road writers claim to reject both "-isms" as making the same mistake of asserting a dominant "center." They instead advocate models of cultural hybridity and impurity that see each culture as a changing node in a network without a single center.

5. Is Identity Political?

One problem with certain strands of multiculturalism is their reliance on "identity politics." "Identity politics" refers to the tendency to define one's political and social identity and interests purely in terms of some group category: race, ethnicity, class, gender, nationality, religion, etc. Identity politics became more popular after the 1960s for many of the same reasons that multiculturalism did. The critique of America's "common culture" led many people to identify with a particular group, rather than with the nation --- a nation, after all, whose policies they believed had excluded or oppressed them. People increasingly became Native-Americans, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, Gay-Americans, etc., in an explosion of hyphenation.

This movement for group solidarity did in many cases provide individuals with the resources to defend their interests and express their values, resources that as disparate individuals they could not possibly attain. As the American economy began to decline in the late 1980s, the scramble for a piece of the shrinking pie increased the tendency of people to band together in groups that together might have enough power to defend or extend their interests. American society is now often seen as a battleground of special-interest groups, many of them defined by the racial, ethnic, or cultural identity of their members. Hostility between these groups as they compete for scarce resources is inevitable. In defense of identity politics, others point out that these divisions between cultural groups are less the voluntary decisions of individuals than the product of discrimination and bigotry in the operation of the economy and the social institutions. It is these that divide people up by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc., privileging the dominant group and subordinating the rest, they claim.

Multiculturalism is complex, involving at least seven Critical Contexts.

1. Cultural Studies
2. Liberation Movements
3. Post Colonialism
4. Globalization
5. Postnationalsim
6. Postmodernism
7. Poststructuralism

Where is basic "American" history and the study of "American" culture? It won't be found as we remember it, for the forces that are transforming and abolishing America are re-writing history, marginalizing those that remember, and labeling as racists, bigots, or "un-American" those that complain or make mention of the changes. Even the U.S. Constitution is being downplayed in favor of "international" law.

An excellent explanation of who, why, and how this happened is given by Peter Brimelow in a speech entitled "Immigration's Impact on Education and Multiculturalism." Follow the links to an eye-opening revelation of how America is being abolished and why.

I don't recall reading about the abolishing of America in mainstream newspapers. From time to time reports about studies were given about the effect of immigrants on education, healthcare, crime, but no one explained the why, the how...and especially the who!

This is why Americans don't have a chance. Perhaps contacting your congressmen could help, but with all the special interest lobbyists and the "transformed" educational system, who is there to listen?

Is it too late? It is possible to turn back the tide or an avalanche or a tsunami? I'm afraid it maybe too late. All the talk of border control and immigration control in on the news and Washington is just that-- talk.

Nothing will come of it. Politicians will prattle on and the Minute Men Patrol will stand a lonely vigil while their leaders and special interest groups betray them and us as they abolish America and as Americans become strangers in their own land.

Monday, October 24, 2005

An Alternate Solution to the "Islam Problem"

From time to time, we hear various solutions to the "Muslim problem." Islam is so profoundly anti-life, anti-human, anti-knowledge, anti-reason, anti-progress, anti-reality, anti-, anti-, anti- EVERYTHING, that it has become a serious pest. All the rest of us in the infidel world are beginning to tire of always having to turn around to clean up after some mess some Muslim or other has made.

They make the messes, and yet they blame all of us infidels for them. They have the emotional maturity of two-year-olds; they do not play well with others, they're in a constant state of pique--which they discharge by throwing temper tantrums--they seek immediate gratification, they want what they want and they want it NOW, all their problems are ALWAYS the fault of others, they NEVER consider taking any responsibility for themselves, they have no insight, they are professional victims who blame everyone else in the world for their hideous way of life, their unhappiness, their frustration and their hostility--all because they have a total disregard and antipathy for the requirements that reality places on them. Reality is, for them, the enemy; they don't understand anything about it; when it comes to reality, they are slow learners who just can't grasp the fact that reality always wins in the end, and that it won't change to accommodate them and their whims, wishes, and desires.

We infidels are a tolerant lot; even under the malignant influence of the Postmodernists, though, our patience is finite, and one day, we will have to solve the "Islam Problem." We cannot, and will not, indefinitely put up with their attacks, whether they involve murder and mayhem or da'wa, on our way of life.

We're willing to give them time to grow up, and we even supply a role model for a happier way of relating to reality. Many individual Muslims throughout history have observed infidels, and consciously or subconsciously, some have seen that there is something more satisfying beyond the restrictions of Islam.

Among those who understand that Islam is, indeed, a problem for all the rest of us, numerous suggestions for a solution have been offered.

One so-called "solution" is to cave, to give in; that's the Postmodernist-Leftist-Liberal "solution." Europe, Canada, Central and South America, Africa, and parts of Asia have already made the decision to become dhimmis, but we, and with any luck, Australia, will not go that route. So caving is out--at least for a few of us.

A second "solution" is to destroy their three holiest sites: the Kaaba in Mecca (the meteorite that they believe was built under the supervision of Adam to resemble the heavenly house of Allah), the Mosque of the Prophet Mohammed in Medina (the burial site of Mohammed and his family), and the Dome Mosque in Jerusalem (for an explanation of the nature and importance of both the initial "vision" of Mohammed, and his "night voyage" to Jerusalem, please see

Victor Mordecai, the pen-name of a respected authority on Islamic terrorism, says that if these sites were destroyed, it would prove to Allah's followers that he was not "the greatest" after all, and that they would feel the need to find themselves a "strong" God--maybe even the Christian God--and that the effort to make a world wide caliphate would then fizzle.

If all else fails, and Islam doesn't change its moral code to one that no longer maintains as its "standard of the good" the conversion of the entire world into an Islamic planet, the destruction of these sites certainly remains a viable option, as does a much wider path of destruction throughout the Islamic world. If it comes down to an "us vs. them," situation, we're on our side, and while we do not presently have the political will to carry out this version of a solution, we certainly have the capability.

There actually is a third solution, but while it would be an uphill climb for those few Muslims who really want to "give peace a chance," and lead productive, happy lives, it is a solution taken from their own history and would not require them to leave Islam. Doubtless, it would be considered heretical in the worst way by the current crop of mullahs and ayatollahs, and by many of their ordinary Muslim neighbors and family members, but it does offer a potential solution.

That having been said, once upon a time, after Mohammed died and before al-Ghazali, the "father of Islamic fundamentalism" won the battle to mold Islam into the shape we see today, there was actually a group that didn't feel threatened by the beliefs of other religions, that understood that human beings had free will, that considered debate to be a good thing, that realized that innovation wasn't a sin, that believed that questions needed to be raised and answered, that considered much of the content of the Koran to be allegorical, that realized that knowledge was beneficial to humankind--well, you know; it was definitely not the version of Islam that we have all come to know and hold in so much contempt today.

These guys were a sort of a philosophical "flash in the Islamic pan" called "Mu'tazilites."

The Mu'tazilites were "rationalists," who believed that truth could be discovered with the use of reason; they were very active in the scholarship that exixted during that window of opportunity between the death of Mohammed and the meeting of religious authorities a couple of hundred years later, when it was decided at an Islamic version of the "Conference of Nicea" what Islam was to "look like" from then on.

During that brief period, even some Muslims were free to think, to question, to debate, to discover--all the good stuff that later became known as the "Golden Age."

Greek philosophy, upon which this sort of thinking was based, had spread with Alexander the Great throughout the still pagan world, and that included the Arabs. It was the Greek way of thinking, especially Aristotelian thinking, that led to all the great centers of learning where scholarship thrived--Alexandria, Byzantium, Pergamum, Damascus, etc.

The reason the Mu'tazilites were able to take such great advantage of Greek philosophy without undue interference, even though they were Muslims, was because Islam hadn't yet become crystalized into the form we see today. There were many varieties of Islam, among them these Mu'tazilites, who, because 1) of their own non-fundamentalist views (as described above); 2) of the relative disregard that the first dynasty of caliphs, the Umayyads (661-750), had for the Koran (one of them is even said to have stuck a Koran with a lance and shot it to pieces with arrows); and 3) of the fact that the attraction of Islam for the Bedouins was not for its spritual qualities, but for an opportunity to participate in wars leading to booty and wealth (some estimates of the number of true, believing converts to Islam at the time of Muhammed's death were fewer than one thousand).

The Mu'tazilites, who were against the establishment of a theocratic state, were seriously opposed by many fundamentalist groups who wanted one. The fundamentalists prohibited debate, said that question about Islam were not permitted, that innovation was a sin, that the Koran had been revealed from Allah and contained all the knowledge that was worth knowing and was the literal word of Allah. Scientific discoveries of the sort being spread about by the Mu'tazilite scholars and their ilk seriously contradicted much of what was contained in the Koran, so science, among other things, was a "no-no."

The Mu'tazilites could have gone on and continued to influence Islam, but they shot themselves in the foot. For all their "rationalism," despite certain bits of very advanced thinking, they had some very serious flaws. The most important was that they had not yet developed any concept of "rights," a problem that enabled them to behave in a self-destructive manner later on.

When the "godless" first dynasty of caliphs was overthrown, the second dynasty, the Abbasids, took their place. These latter were convinced that the Mu'tazilites' relative indifference to religion--Islam in particular--was a form of opposition to religion. Certainly, the Mu'tazilites' open opposition to a theocratic state was a problem for the Abbasids, who wanted to establish one. All the authority would come from Allah, but (of course) they, the Abbasids, would be his only legitimate representatives, and thus the only ones who could communicate his will.

There were many significant points of disagreement between the Mu'tazilites and the new, more fundamentalist-inclined dynasty, and the Mu'tazilites weren't well treated because of that. One of the most contentious differences was whether the Koran was eternal, something that had been in existence for all time, and merely revealed to Mohammed at the moment of his "vision" (for an explanation of just what this was, along with the famous "night voyage to Jerusalem" that is causing so much trouble between the Palestinians and the Israelis today, please see:, or whether it had been created de novo at the moment of the "vision." The Mu'tazilites believed that it was created de novo, and not that it was eternal.

The Abbasids treated the Mu'tazilites poorly, but nevertheless, one of the Abbasid Caliphs took their side on the particular issue of the eternal vs. the finite existence of the Koran. He began a campaign to force all government officials, and many others, to state that this was their belief. To encourage them to do so, al-Ma'mun, the Caliph in question, took to imprisoning, torturing and executing people until and unless they confessed this belief. The whole thing turned into a sort of Muslim predecessor of the Spanish Inquisition. This process of imprisonment, torture, and execution continued throughout the reigns of three caliphs.

The Mu'tazilites jumped right on this bandwagon; their own intolerance of superstition, mythology, literalism, etc. was extreme, and so they were pleased with this movement in support of their own view, even if it was only of one part of their belief. When the persecution of "eternalists" ended, it was under the reign of a caliph who was himself very intolerant of the entire Mu'tazilite position, and the tables were turned; the Mu'tazilites now became the persecuted.

That was how the Mu'tazilites shot themselves in the foot, and quite possibly contributed to the failure of Islam to develop along a more reasonable line. Had they merely held firm, and gathered about them more and more followers who believed as they did, and not climbed aboard the persecutorial wagon, it is entirely possible that Islam might have evolved differently. Even the Asharites, followers of the fundamentalist al-Ashari, who were among the more traditional groups opposing the Mu'tazilites (and who were considered to be the ones who were responsible for their final defeat), left a teensy bit of room for a less literalist way of thinking, in that they believed that knowledge that depended solely on the most traditional sources was not always entirely reliable, and that it sometimes needed to be confirmed by reason.

It was the strict fundamentalists, though, who in the end, won the battle for control over the direction that Islam was to take, and it was they who were responsible for what Islam is today.

The bottom line, and the reason for giving this mini-history of early Islam here, is that Islam actually included a way of thinking that, had it survived, had the potential of becoming something that could have become something very different from the hard-core anti-life, anti-knowledge, anti-human nature entity that we see today, and which makes of its followers the miserable, non-productive, frustrated, hostile, humans they are today, who have been taught that all the very things that characterize human beings are morally corrupt.

If those Muslims who have succeeded in "compartmentalizing" their beliefs--that is, who accept the more reasonable aspects of Islam, and reject those aspects that make it impossible for them to work productively with non-Muslims--the problems of both Muslims and non-Muslims would be significantly reduced, and Muslims could be a happier people. Nobody ever accuses them of being dumb, it's just that their substantial intellects are held prisoner by a viciously anti-life system that causes them to lose out on patents, non-politicalized Nobel Prizes, accomplishments equal to those of any of the infidel world--oh, it is a very sad thing.

It is the Mu'tazilite tradition that gives Muslims a stepping stone, from within the history of Islam itself, to a form of their religion that could accomplish this. If that could be done, thinking about other "solutions" could be abandoned. Islam could keep its stories, its scriptures, its festive practices, its rituals, and still not put its very existence at risk.

They just have to adopt a form of their religion--and the Mu'tazilites had sown the seeds of such a form--that permits them to have a moral code that does not insist that its "standard of the good" be the imposition of Islam on everybody else.

This shift in emphasis requires the kind of respect for reason that the Mu'tazilites had just begun to have, and that the West later adopted and refined.

Good luck, all you Muslims. There is still time.

How To Tell If There Is A Terrorist At The Airport

One indicator of beating them is being able to joke and laugh at them:

You Want to Know Why We are Not Winning This "War on Terrorism"?

We have people within our own government who chronically sabotage us. Bleeding Hearts say these are well-meaning people who do not understand. We offer no charity of this kind--the stakes are too high.

[We are reprinting this from an excellent new website, American Congress for Truth. Visit and support them.]

School for Shar'ia : Islamist School Wins Dept of Education Blue Ribbon for Excellence Award

Islamist School Wins Dept of Education Award
By Beila Rabinowitz, Militant Islam Monitor

October 20, 20005 - Philadelphia, PA - - Jihad through Da'wa [conversion of non-Muslims] in the form of domestic Islamic education has gotten a boost from an unlikely source, the U.S. government.

The administration has just presented the New Horizons Islamic School in Pasadena, California the United States Department of Education's "Blue Ribbon for Excellence" award.

This first ever award to a Muslim school appears to validate the predictions which cleric Yusuf Qaradawi made a decade ago, at a Muslim Youth conference in Ohio.

"...Some countries will fall to the armed Islamic jihad, but in others, such as the United States, victory will come through Da'wa - the teaching of Islam to non-Muslims - which will trigger Westerners to convert to Islam 'in droves.' We will conquer America not by the sword but by Da'wa."
Qawadari has since been banned from the U.S. due to his terror connections, but his vision of Da'wa transforming America into a United States of Allah, is reflected in the curriculum used in schools like that of New Horizons and as developed by affiliates such as ISNA [The Islamic Society of North America]. the BIAE [The Board of Islamic and Arabic Education] and the UK based IBERR [International Board for Education Research and Resources].

The BIAE, based in Los Angeles - which plans the curriculum of the New Horizons School together with the Islamic Center of Southern California even offers an Islamized version of the Pledge of Alliance on their website. It begins with the phrase - "As an American Muslim I pledge alliance to ALLAH and his Prophet."

Another component of the Wahhabist funded domestic Islamic educational network is The Islamic Schools League, the mission of which reflects the role of Islamic education inculcating the fard [religious obligation] to convert non-Muslims to Islam.

"For the League, the success of Islamic schools is not an option; it is a must. Our vision is achievable. Our mission requires that we all work together in support of Islamic schools. Ultimately this service is to Allah (swt)."
The Da'wa agenda is also promoted by the Bureau for Islamic and Arabic Education (BIAE), which "aims to increase the impact of Islam on the daily life of both Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere."

As the curriculum provider for the Islamic School of Pasadena, the BIAE underscores the conflict of interests between Islamic education, and the goals of the US Department of Education. The latter insisting that, "schools singled out for national honors will now reflect the goals of our nation's new education reforms for high standards and accountability." This begs the question as to who will be held accountable for the decision to present an award to an Islamist school which aims to replace the Constitution with shari'a.

The clash between the Islamo-fascist weltanschauung of the Islamic school enterprise in the U.S. and the ideals of American education is evident in the activities of Amina Al Sarraf [a consultant and author of textbooks and syllabi for Islamic schools] who serves as the interim principal of the Islamic School of Pasadena.

Most recently Al Sarraf spoke to ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] a Wahhabist Da'wa front.

ISNA is the foremost distributor of Islamist educational materials in North America. ISNA is the founder of the New Horizons schools - such as the one lead by Al Sarraf - both in North America and abroad.

A recent report by Freedom House - "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques" highlighted the dangers posed by Wahhabist publications because they incite hatred and ultimately promote violence in the United States.

ISNA's lead role in this activity is beyond doubt.

Without challenging Freedom House's main finding, ISNA merely criticized the report as "misleading." ISNA's executive director Louay Safi, who runs their "Educational Leadership Program," is a founder and board member of several other Islamist organizations such as the IIIT, whose offices were raided during the Virginia based Operation Greenquest crackdown on terror funding .

This year's ISNA speakers were predominantly radical Islamists, and included the North American spokesman of Al Muhajiroun - Kamran Bokhari.

Noted Middle East authority, Dr. Daniel Pipes called Al Muhajiroun, " the most extremist group operating in the West today." The group's leader and founder, Omar Bakri Mohammed recently fled the UK after being linked to the London bombings.,,22989-1693739,00.html

In addition to ISNA, New Horizons is affiliated with both the Board of Islamic and Arabic Education , and the Islamic Center of Southern California.

ISNA and the BIAE clothe their Da'wa aims in candy-coated aspirin - "to be a source of enlightenment [and] to increase the impact of Islam on the daily life of both Muslims and non- Muslims everywhere."

The New Horizons curriculum was developed in conjunction with the Islamic Center of Southern California , which then designated the BIAE to create the curriculum.

"The ICSC is lead by Imam Muzzamil Siddiqui, former ISNA president, and influential Islamic cleric. Siddiqui instructs Muslims to interact with non-Muslims on the premise that "every non Muslim is a potential Muslim", which is the quintessential expression of Da'wa." Siddiqui's latest "conversion success story" involves former ICSC congregant Adam Gadahn who was last seen with his face covered in a kaffiyeh, on an Al Qaeda videotape threatening bloody attacks on the United States.

As a consultant New Horizons' principal Al Sarraf has helped write Islamic elementary schools textbooks which are published in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, under the supervision and financing, of IBERR, the International Board of Educational Research.

IBERR's treasurer and chairman is Yusuf Islam. IBERR plans Islamic syllabi and curriculum for Sharia schools.

Yusuf Islam [the former Cat Stevens] has been linked to terror funding and was denied entry into the US in 2004 on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security.

Islam's IBERR works closely with New Horizons Schools both in the US and abroad.

In 2001 Yusuf Islam attended a meeting together with the heads of several California Islamic Schools - including the New Horizon School.

Ameena Al Sarraf participated in a curriculum, syllabi, and textbook planning session in California together with Muzammil Siddiqui and other radical Islamists.

Plans to broadcast Islamic programs via satellite to the schools have been in discussion with funding provided by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

A 2002 report on an IBERR meeting in the UK lists Amira Al Sarraf as part of their textbook editorial group .Another member of this writing group was Ameenah Bilal Philips.

Phillips is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, who called "Saudi missionary" Gulshair Shukrijumah - the father of dirty bomber wannabe Adnan Shukrijumah - his mentor.

Phillips, himself a convert to Islam, is considered a leading Islamic educator. He also worked closely with former American Muslim Council [AMC] president Abdulrahman Alamoudi.

Almoudi was jailed for 23 years on terrorism charges.

Philips led a program - organized by Alamoudi - which was used as a "cultural information" course that distributed Wahhabist propaganda and resulted in the conversion of scores of American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia to Islam.

On his personal website Philips responded to a question about execution 'etiquette' according to the Koran.

"We were instructed to carry out the cutting of hands or heads, stoning people to death, lashing, etc. in public and the greatest gathering of Muslims, excluding the two Eids and Hajj, is on Fridays.public executions do keep crime levels down (in Saudi Arabia), and that is a fact."
Of Amira Al Sarraf ISNA touts:

" will travel to Washington, D.C. in November to receive the award from the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, at an awards ceremony attended by the other private schools recognized with this honor. At the ceremony New Horizon will receive a flag and a plaque signifying its Blue Ribbon status."

If the United States Department of Education's intent is to encourage schools to develop curricula which embodies (sic) the "goals of the nation's new educational reforms," we suggest that making awards to Islamists schools immediately cease.

Rather, the Dept. of Education must turn a critical eye towards Islamic schools in the United States, shutting those down who because of their fundamentalist teachings resemble madrassas.
To do otherwise could ultimately lead to violence against all non-Muslims.

Instead of presenting the ISNA backed Pasadena's New Horizons Islamic School with a Blue Ribbon award, the United States Department of Education should be asking the Senate Finance Committee - which listed ISNA as a group which "promotes and finances terrorism" - about the implications of this schools association with it.

A new generation of ISNA modeled students - indoctrinated from an early age in the importance of establishing an American caliphate - is emerging from schools like New Horizon, where previously one had to look to Pakistan for similar models.

Failure on the part of the Department of Education to exercise due diligence - rescinding New Horizon's award - will mean that Wahhabism has become legitimized as the template for future Islamic education in North America.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

How did the Palestinians descend into barbarism?

The Israelis are usually held up as the blame for the barbarous behavior of the Palestinians in recent years. Could this be true, or is there another explanation? Bret Stephens at WSJ offers he following:

Many explanations have been given to account for the almost matchless barbarism into which Palestinian society has descended in recent years. One is the effect of Israeli occupation and all that has, in recent years, gone with it: the checkpoints, the closures, the petty harassments, the targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. I witnessed much of this personally when I lived in Israel, and there can be no discounting the embittering effect that a weeks-long, 18-hour daily military curfew has on the ordinary Palestinians living under it.
Yet the checkpoints and curfews are not gratuitous acts of unkindness by Israel, nor are they artifacts of occupation. On the contrary, in the years when Israel was in full control of the territories there were no checkpoints or curfews, and Palestinians could move freely (and find employment) throughout the country. It was only with the start of the peace process in 1993 and the creation of autonomous Palestinian areas under the control of the late Yasser Arafat that terrorism became a commonplace fact of Israeli life. And it was only then that the checkpoints went up and the clampdowns began in earnest.

How, then, can this be explained?

Consider a statistic: In the first nine months of 2005 more Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians than by Israelis--219 to 218, according to the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Interior, although the former figure is probably in truth much higher. In the Gaza Strip, the departure of Israeli troops and settlers has brought anarchy, not freedom. Members of Hamas routinely fight gun battles with members of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas's ruling political party. Just as often, the killing takes place between clans, or hamullas. So-called collaborators are put to the gun by street mobs, their "guilt" sometimes nothing more than being the object of a neighbor's spite. Palestinian social outsiders are also at mortal risk: Honor killings of "loose" women are common, as is the torture and murder of homosexuals.

Atop this culture of violence are the Hamas and Fatah leaders, the hamulla chieftains, the Palestinian Authority's "generals" and "ministers." And standing atop them--theoretically, at least--is the Palestinian president. All were raised in this culture; most have had their uses for violence. For Arafat, those uses were to achieve mastery of his movement, and to harness its energies to his political purpose. Among Palestinians, his popularity owed chiefly to the fact that under his leadership all this violence achieved an astonishing measure of international respectability.

Mahmoud Abbas, the successor to Arafat may not be a violent man, but "his fate as a politician rests in the hands of violent men, and so far he has shown no appetite for confronting them."

That is the problem with Islam. Many Muslims are not violent, although they accept Jihad as a concept. Extremists such as Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda are merely extensions of the original extremist, Mohammed, who set down the rules for Jihad more than 1350 years ago. Even Muslims become tired of war and violence. Eventually a period of peace and quiet will come about because EVERYONE will be exhausted in the effort both the Jihadists and the defenders must expend in this new round of the eternal conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Palestinians have been abandoned by their wealthier co-religionists in the Gulf States, and the American taxpayer will not suffer the support of these barbarians that hate them forever. No amount of tax (jizya) money will quell their hatred nor will a state diminish their rage.

Their future is obvious:

Talk to Palestinians, and you will often hear it said, like a mantra, that Palestinian dignity requires Palestinian statehood. This is either a conceit or a lie. Should a Palestinian state ever come into existence in Gaza and the West Bank, it will be a small place, mostly poor, culturally marginal, most of it desert, rock, slums and dust. One can well understand why Arafat, a man of terrible vices but impressive vanities, spurned the offer of it--and why his people cheered wildly when he did. Their dignity has always rested upon their violence, their struggle, their "prisoners of freedom."

Good luck, Mr. Abbas. No politician can survive in the hands of violent men.

US Government Seeks to Promote Arabic and Sharia Studies?

"Know your enemy" may not be the impetus behind the U.S. government's decision to familiarize American students with Arabic and Sharia as well as to help "Saudi teachers improve their English." Ooops!!! For the Saudis, this may be A way to "know" their American enemy and to indoctrinate those American students sent to them.

Students should be taught about Sharia and how to read Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages. The students that enter these programs must be carefully screened and warned against the taqiyya and kitman tactics used by Muslims to beguile the impressionable and easily led.

The kicker is that this arrangement was made in April 2005 on Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch when "Saudi Arabia's then Crown Prince, now King Abdullah and George Bush pledged to increase the number of students traveling between their countries, as well as visitors and business travelers." That's all we need -- more Saudis.

Dubya... what were you thinking????

UPDATE It gets worse.Over 10,000 Saudi Students U.S. Bound

"In total, 21,000 Saudis are expected to take part in a government-sponsored program following the adoption of new measures by the Ministry of (Saudi) Higher Education."

Prospective students can submit their applications to the Ministry of Higher Education through a Ministry special office or its website for nine different specializations and will be able to benefit from assistance with their visa applications at the US embassy and its diplomatic missions throughout the country.

Fahd al Manur, a student who decided to enroll in the program told Asharq al Awsat, “I do not fear traveling to the US since Americans are a friendly people. Relations between our two countries have greatly improved recently and travel procedures are easier nowadays after being almost impossible following September 11th 2001.” Studying in the US would be a dream come true, he added, despite recent events. King Abdullah’s visit earlier this year strengthened bilateral relations and “reassured Saudis.”

Currently studying in the U.S., Mohammad al Mateeri described the initiative as an important step and described how in eight years of living in the US, “I have never been hassled, save for an increase in security checks to which a country is entitled to when protecting its citizens.”

Someone is braindead. They must not realize that, one way or another, the acquired knowledge someday will be turned on us. The poor and ignorant are busy trying to survive while making a living. The college educated are those that plan, finance, and carryout Jihad. Jihad means "Struggle for Allah," which is not necessarily an exercise in violence with an explosive ending. Jihad is pushing forward the aims and goals of Islam using any means necessary and possible. Turning a Western education against the West is already a proven tactic.

This is not rocket science. More Saudis in the United States is not a smart move.

What are the rights and restrictions of Dhimmis in Moslem Countries?

Although Islam is not the official religion of countries of the West, Muslims are quickly entering, occupying, and agitating for Sharia. Soon, this could be you!

What is Dhimma? Who are Dhimmis?

• Dhimma is the policy of treatment of Jews and Christians living in Islamic countries. Therefore a dhimmi is a Jew or a Christian living in an Islamic country. This policy does not apply to other peoples or religious groups, such as Hindus, for whom a strict policy of 'conversion or death' exists.

What are the rights and restrictions of Dhimmis in Moslem countries?

"The vile and ignorant dhimmis (non-Muslims in an Islamic country) must be humiliated, belittled and rendered abominable and able to be distinguished by their appearance." For example, "different colored shoes, one white the other black"; for males badges such as an "ape for a Jew and a pig for a Christian: for women yellow veils." The distinctive dress shows the Muslim that the dhimmi is to be treated as an inferior - not to stand up for her or shake his hand, not to give them Muslim charity. He is to expect respect and deference from the dhimmi who shall not join a group of Muslims or raise his voice in their presence. The non-Muslim is to stand aside if the pathway is narrow. It is haram (unlawful) for him to slaughter animals; reserved for him is the cleaning of lavatories and sewers, and carrying away rubbish and refuse. His house should be painted a dull color and be no larger than that of a Muslim neighbor.
- from various medieval Muslim documents, compiled in The Dhimmi, by Bat Ye'or

What follows details some of the "rights" that were extended to those groups with the status of "Dhimmi": Jews, and Christians - there are still a few remaining Christians unfortunate enough to remain in "Muslim lands".

• "No Jews or Christians are allowed to live in Saudi Arabia. Jews may not even set foot in Saudi Arabia, while Christians are allowed temporary residence. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. The American government does not allow its soldiers, who are stationed in Saudi Arabia to prop up the Saudi king against his own people as well as his fellow Muslims, to have an open display of Judaism or Christianity.

• Outside of Saudi Arabia, pre-existing synagogues and churches are allowed, but no new ones may be built, and permission must be obtained to repair old ones. Synagogues and churches may never be apparent, no Jewish stars, no crosses, no church bells. They may never be higher than any mosque. There may be no public processions, and funerals must be discreet.

• Jews may not enter mosques on penalty of death. In the "good old days", Jews were killed for coming too close to a mosque. Jews were never allowed into the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, or onto the Temple Mount. Arafat looks forward to the time when this condition can be restored. He used the opening of the tourist tunnel as practice for the Jew-killing he plans to do in the future. It is an amazing example of the dhimmi mentality that still exists, that Arafat was exonerated for killing Jews, and Netanyahu was blamed.

• Jewish and Christian religious "leaders" in Muslim lands may only serve with the permission of the Muslim authorities. The Muslims allowed the Babylonian Jews to keep an official "Head of the Community" and "Head of the Yeshivas" for several hundred years, but then abolished it. The Turks continue to choose who may be the Greek orthodox patriarch, and Mubarak chooses the Coptic Pope. Every couple of centuries they would murder one or the other of these guys to remind them who is boss. Needless to say, they do not complain much out loud.

• In fact, it is forbidden to complain out loud. Anything taken as a criticism of Islam or Muhammad is punished by death. A non-Muslim proselytizing a Muslim is killed. A Muslim who converts is killed. A non-Muslim who becomes a Muslim and then reverts is killed.

• ... A Jew who struck a Muslim was killed. There is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew; at most it is manslaughter and the killer pays a fine. There is no such thing as the rape of a Jewish woman by a Muslim. (The idea that Sephardic Jews are "pure Jews identical to the ones who originally lived in Judea" is idiotic.) Jews may not testify in a court of law against a Muslim, and have no legal recourse to anything done to them by a Muslim.

• - Samuel Fistel

Read the rest.

The Road to Serfdom - In Cartoons

The concepts and progressive steps of Hyack's The Road to Serfdom are put forward in simple illustrations. Everyone should get the point.

Three Killed in Church Riot in Egypt

What caused the riot?

Coptic Christians, the ancient Christian sect that predates Islam by over 1,000 years is under pressure to convert.. to convert to Islam. Conversion to Islam is simple: repeat a few simple words and, lo and behold, you are a Muslim. One doesn't need to know a thing about Islam before conversion and many don't. One important fact that all should know before repeating those few simple words is that once the commitment is made, you can't change your mind. Those that do pay the price of their lives.

The demonstration in Egypt was about a play entitled "I Once Was Blind But Now I See," about "a poor young Copt who is drawn to Islamist militants who then try to kill him." What did he do to deserve to be killed? Was he an informer or commit a criminal act? No, he became disillusioned with Islam. Islam didn't live up to his expectations and he decided to leave: he became an agnostic which is a criminal act to Muslims. That's right. Individuals that become Muslims share the same principle as do made members of the Mafia -- they cannot leave on pain of death.

Although the production was shown on a DVD two years ago, militants are thought to have distributed them "to stoke sectarian tensions ahead of (upcoming) legislative elections November 9."

The Interior Ministry described the protesters as "fanatic elements" who "escalated a negative reaction to a play." The ministry said about 5,000 Muslims marched to the church after Friday noon prayers at mosques.
"The police tried to prevent (the demonstrators) from approaching the church and attacking it, but the protesters did not heed the warnings and started to hurl stones at the church, security forces and pedestrians," the ministry said.
The riot was sparked by the distribution of a DVD of a play that was performed at the church two years ago. The play, "I Was Blind But Now I Can See," tells the story of a young Christian who converts to Islam and becomes disillusioned.
The church's director, the Rev. Augustinous, said it was difficult to explain the reaction to a one-time performance that took place two years ago.

The church director, the Rev. Augustinous played down the possibility that the DVD was offensive: the "Christian hero is ultimately saved by a Muslim friend." Copts walk a thin line. Once the majority, today they represent only 10 percent of Egypt's population of 70 million and must appear as inoffensive as possible. The showing of the DVD, even in private, violated the rules -- nothing that shows Islam in bad light is permitted; violators are severely punished.

Books, articles, blogs, and messages that criticize Islam are considered to be an insult. Even authors and bloggers in the West are sometimes verbally threatened, sued, attacked physically, sentenced to death, or even killed. These are examples the most well known in the West. In the Muslim world there are thousands of the witting and non-witting that have threatened or murdered for "insulting Islam."

Muslims claim that there is no compulsion in religion," meaning that each is free to choose and practice. The riot in Egypt shows the lie to this claim: Muslims are willing to commit violence to drive out or silence practitioners of other religions. In this case they killed two birds with one stone, using outrage over an event that occurred two years ago for political reasons and to drive home the dhimmi or zimmi status of the non-Muslim population, reminding them what Islam allows or disallows for their non-Muslim subjects.

Many find dhimmitude too hard to bear. It is easier to "revert" as they call conversion, or go along with the claims and demands of the Muslim overlords. From time to time Egyptian Copts complain to authorities that their members, especially young women, have been kidnapped and forced to convert. Muslim authorities tend to do nothing. The practice is widespread throughout the world where forced conversions and riots are sparked at the slightest pretext of offense. But then, what doesn't offend Muslims?

Europeans and Americans would be wise to think very hard and carefully to invite more Muslims to live among them. After all, Egypt was once a predominately Christian country. Look what happened in the space of a few centuries and regard how Islam treats non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and in the areas of Nigeriawhere Islam is spreading through the usual way: violence, intimidation, and deception.

What Can the Individual Do? Read on.

Often, people like us, the grass-roots Americans, tend to feel that there is little we can do to stand up to these juggernauts which are trying to rule and ruin our way of life. Yet, the evidence of individual efficacy is all around us, and it is growing. We truly are beginning to sense a sea change within Americans, although it is much too early to become very definite and predictive.

One of the proudest moments for Americans came recently when the 9-11 families, with the added support of other Americans, literally stopped that Freedom Center travesty planned for the Ground Zero site. That center would have been a monument to anti-Americanism and would have relegated 9-11 to some basement backroom. Take Back the Memorial took back the memorial and stands as a terrific example of just what we citizens can do.

Someone recently steered us to what happened on a MSNBC show hosted by Tucker Carlson. Mr. Carlson interviewed Ibrahim Hooper, the mouth of CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) and literally pinned Hooper with important questions, so much so that Hooper was reported to be sweating as he did all he could to duck, evade, and avoid answering the repeated questions.

The bottom line is that we get what we allow and we stop what we refuse to accept. It is just that simple.

Recently, another delicious example came along. Commedienne Joan Rivers on tour in England was interviewed on the BBC. Well, let's let the London Times tell it:

Decorum was thrown to the winds on BBC Radio 4's Midweek chat show today when Joan Rivers had a furious row with the black British commentator Darcus Howe.

The American comedienne is famous for her barbed humour and is rarely lost for a sharp retort, but she was left gobbling with anger when Mr Howe slipped in a sly aside saying that the word "black" offended her.

"What? No! What? Now just stop right there!" said Rivers, thumping the table. "Black does not offend me. How dare you! How dare you say that! Black offends me? You know nothing about me! You just sat down there... How dare you!"

Mr Howe compounded his offence by repeating: "The use of the term 'black' offends you."

Rivers repeated his words incredulously. "The use of the term 'black' offends me? Where the hell are you coming from? You have got such a chip on your shoulder! I don't give a damn if you are black, white..."

Laughing, Mr Howe said: "I do."

Ms Rivers burst out: "... but don't you dare call me a racist!"

While this Black Panther droned on about his own alleged racial victimization, Joan interrupted:

"I'm so bored with race... I think people should intermarry, everyone should be part this and part that and race shouldn't mean a damn thing."

She said that drawing distinctions between black and white was about hatred.

As presenter Libby Purves tried to keep the peace, describing this as an American ideal, the two protagonists brushed her aside to square up to each other.

"The reality is you married a white woman and you have two mixed race children. Let them go forward," Rivers said to Mr Howe.

He objected: "I don't have two mixed children, I have two children."

"Children, yes! But you are making them choose," said Rivers.

Hearing the exchange is exhilarating, but we do not have that available, so this commentary must do:

Mr Howe's fatal comment came as he said the audience for a new film about him and his estranged son included "hundreds and thousands of Caribbean children". He went on: "And since 'black' offends Joan..."

As the row got out of hand Purves tried to intervene, saying the comment was not personal, but Rivers was having none of it. "I think this is a language problem," said Mr Howe.

Rivers said: "I don't. I think this is a problem in your stupid head. You had a child. You left him. Your wife said you weren't there. You married a woman, you deserted her, now your son comes back and he's got problems. Where were you when he was growing up, till he was eight years old?"

As Ms Purves helplessly said: "I have great sympathy with both sides but..."

Rivers screeched: "Both sides? Then you're a racist!" There was a brief silence until she started to backtrack. "Er, er, er, how stupid... Let's continue. But don't you dare call me that. Son of a bitch."

Ms Purves: "Can we just..."

Rivers: "Yes, let's continue about this wonderful father who left his three children."

After an exchange of more insults Mr Howe made a belated attempt to make peace, saying: "No, she's not a racist."
You should read the whole article and listen to the interchange.

Joan Rivers took on this pompous racist and refused to accept his intimidations. She get in his face and ripped the phoniness off it. And, guess what? She won. How many Americans do this to Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton, Bond, Belafonte, NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus--the vilest racists in all of America?

Ms. Rivers said that Britons have been stopping her on the streets as she tours England to thank her for standing up to this racist bully.

Well, that is where it is at. CAIR and the like, as well as all of the black race-baiters, cannot and will not succeed when grass-roots Americans stand up and tell them "Enough!"

Friday, October 21, 2005


On this blog, we have published remarks to the House of Representatives by Representative Curt Weldon on 19 October 2005, and we have published some resource materials regarding the subject of Rep. Weldon's speech: the ungodly attempt by U. S. government agencies and personnel to ruin as much of the life of an outstanding American soldier as possible. And, the efforts involve pettiness, cheap tricks, lies, and flexing "the system" in order to crush the existence of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaeffer, United States Army, who blew the whistle on the Operatin Able Danger cover-up.

In short, here is the issue: Col. Shaeffer, a military "spook," worked on Operation Able Danger, a project which used a sophisticated program called "data mining" to identify from non-classified, commonly available sources potential dangers from groups like al Qaeda. By January 2000, they specifically identified Mohammed Atta and the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda as serious threats. DoD would not let them pass on their findings, and no one in DoD listened. Not only this, but Operation Able Danger found out about the planned attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen two weeks ahead. Able Danger team members went nuts trying to pursuade DoD not to allow the Cole to enter Yemeni waters. No one listened. Even though Operation Able Danger was subsequently terminated, with every effort made by DoD to destroy its documents, its programs, and all traces to it, a number of people who worked the project tried to tell their findings to the 9-11 Commission. No one listened, and they lied about being approached.

Lt. Col. Shaeffer was the first to come forward, but there are now ten who worked the project and have come forward. All tell the same story. To the best of my knowledge, only Col Shaeffer has been singled out for punishment.

You must read Rep. Weldon's speech, which we have blogged on this site and which is on the congressman's website. I had the unexpected opportunity to watch most of this speech via C-SPAN on 19 October. I was riveted by what the congressman had to say and so enraged by the injustice that I must do what I can to let Americans know what is going on and encourage them to stop this NOW.

Despite having earned a bronze star and having served as a Defense Intelligence Agency operative for 23 years, LTC Shaeffer now has had his security clearance stripped and is under threat to have all his retirement and medical benefits stripped. He is not being allowed to retire, the means by which DoD keeps him from being able to talk to the press. DIA and DoD people have been spreading lies about him in order to discredit him. They have compiled some sort of dossier of his "sins." To show the quality of their approach, they cite the fact that the colonel owes some $2000 in indebtedness. In addition, he stole government property.

Most of us would be damned glad to owe only $2000. And, as for the theft of government property, this goes back to the colonel's days as a 15 year old. He took some ball point pens from his military father's office to pass out to his classmates, a fact volunteered by the colonel long before anyone thought to ask. This is petty. What is vicious is the lying about the colonel. One DoD type told congresspersons that the colonel was carrying on an affair with someone in Congressman Weldon's office--someone Col Shaeffer does not even know!

We cannot let this stand, as Americans. We cannot let certain forces within government silence this man and intimidate all other service personnel who profess their allegiance to the Constitution rather than some tribal-like organization of government.

And, yes, we can stop this travesty. Our role model comes from the Take Back the Memorial group's efforts to stop Ground Zero from becoming a liberal-leftist, anti-American, taxpayer funded monument to all the sins of the USA, relegating the honoring of those who died at Ground Zero on 9-11-2001 to some out-of-sight basement room. These fine citizens, joined by volunteers who threw in support, did take back the memorial. What they did stands as the role model. Let us now apply the same to end the injustice already done to Col Shaeffer, to restore what he has earned to him, and to prevent any further injustice to him.

It is unique for us to join with Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) about anything. However, she has joined the fight against the injustice to Lt. Col. Shaeffer. We will fight along with her to make this right just as we fight along with all sorts of other Americans of all sorts of diverse backgrounds but who share the fight to defeat jihadists.

Let us also not lose sight of the Operation Able Danger cover-up and help Representative Weldon expose and rectify the governmental corruption which endangered us all back then. If it gets away with the cover-up, none of us will enjoy the proper protection the Constitution requires of our government.

At a minimum, contact Cong. Weldon via his website to register support. Email your own congresspersons and senators. Let's reaffirm that right trumps might.