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

New Email Address:

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

The Freedoms We Fight For

Islam hates individual freedoms and Islamists are moving quickly and violently to hasten the demise of any and all freedoms we cherish in the West.

Free speech has never been allowed by Islam. Freedom of speech is under attack because the dissemination of information and opinion that is unfavorable to Islam could not be possible without the unimpeded access we have to get and give information. Today's world is shrunk by technology that allows groups and individuals greater access than every before to information and to each other.

Will technology force us to adopt the kind of self-censorship that has been imposed on Muslims since the beginning. If we in the West allow Muslims to force and enforce our silence. it will only be a matter of time before our other precious freedoms will be lost forever and Islam will have won.

Ironically Islam is becoming very successful in silencing speech in the West. Everyone remembers the plight of Salmon Rushdie, the novelist against whom a death sentence has been issued and Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker against whom a death sentence has been carried out. But they aren't alone.

Omar Sharif has been threatened because he gave credence to Christianity while playing St. Peter in an Italian film. Ali Hirsi, a member of the Dutch Parliament, must live in hiding due to her death sentence. Khalid Duran produced a book called Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews for the American Jewish Committee that caused an escalating furor in the Muslim world that, according to the scholar Daniel Pipes, resulted in a fatwa that "religiously condones Duran's death." Ironically CAIR did not condemn Duran but the American Jewish Committee for publicizing the remarks to Abu Zant, a powerful Islamist leader in Jordan.

Read the rest for more chilling examples of death threats and other intimidation against those that have the courage to expose themselves by criticism or by even giving information about Islam that has not been given the seal of approval by Muslim leaders, mullahs, and scholars.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

SCOTUS, "untruthful," "outside the mainstream," "ideologue," "precedent," and "extremism": Sorting Through

Once more we must gives thanks for an editorial in the New York Times for providing such good grist for our mill--we have been wanting to grind these issues for some time now. The subject is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the flimsy oppositional thinking going into justice selection. Some really bad ideas are afoot, but they are bandied about as if they meant something, particularly now that Samuel Alito has been nominated to fill the O'Connor vacancy on SCOTUS.

We have severely excerpted the editorial from the Times because it adds nothing of value. We have retained the buzzwords, however.

Editorial (November 16, 2005): Ignore the Man Behind That Memo

Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s insistence that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights is not the only alarming aspect of a newly released memo he wrote in 1985. That statement strongly suggests that Judge Alito is far outside the legal mainstream...

First, he has extreme views on the law...

Second, Judge Alito does not respect precedent...

Third, he is an ideologue...

On the bench, Judge Alito has voted to uphold extreme limits on abortion and on other important rights, like freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Equally alarming is the notion that he fudged the truth [on a 1985 employment application] to tell a potential employer what it wanted to hear. Senators should certainly keep this in mind when they try to decide whether to believe how he describes his views at his confirmation hearing.

(All emphases mine)

First, the standard of truth issue. According to this editorial, Judge Alito lied on a 1985 employment application because he told the potential employer what that employer wanted to hear. Complaints about lying from the New York Times ring hollow. Imagine that: Someone telling someone else what that someone else wanted to hear in order to get something--Shocking, utterly shocking! Why, no one at the Times has ever done any fudging... In fact, if fudging facts were the criterion for rejection of employment, national unemployment would near 100%. If, indeed, in this case, Mr. Alito lied on a job application, it does not reflect a pattern of evasion, lying, or even “fudging.” The Times needs to focus on serious stuff, not an instance of a minor moral transgression.

A pattern of lying is a pattern of fraud. That is very serious because it is characterological. No evidence has been found, nor do we believe any will be found, to indict the man’s character on this charge.

As for “lying,” these confirmation hearings have taken on a character akin to the Inquisition. No nominee can possibly get his nomination confirmed any more without some lying, by commission and omission. Senators insist on being told what they want to hear, and that is, in most instances, formulaic stuff. Every nominee has to engage in senatorial gamesmanship of morbid mendacity; if nominees are evasive, then senators are getting just what they have long been asking for.

Second, the outside the mainstream issue. What does “mainstream” mean? Realistically, it means nothing more than someone being “moderate,” even “militantly moderate.” A moderate tries to appear principled while actually avoiding being firm on principles. Moderates approach principles, regardless of how important and mutually exclusive some of these basic principles might be, as if selecting from the fabled Chinese menu: Some from column a; some from column b; and some from column c. Practically speaking, moderates cancel themselves out by the contradictions they try to hold. By trying to be all things to all people, they become nothing to anyone. They negate identity. So, being in the mainstream means what? Nothing.

Why accuse someone of being out of the mainstream? The accusers hope that unthinking people will jump to the emotional conclusion that the accused is "rabid."

Third, the extremism issue. The first time we heard people go crazy en masse about “extremism” was in the aftermath of Barry Goldwater's famous remark about extremism in his 1964 presidential nominating convention speech, particularly when he said that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Perhaps Leftists had been going nuts about the use of "extreme" before then; we cannot say. However, since then, we have heard countless repetitions of concerns about “extremism” from the executive and legislative branches of government, the media, and academia, all pounding the idea that “extremism is bad, bad, bad.”

What is extremism? At best, it is a junk term, which collects into one pile all sorts of things that do not go together, both the good and the bad, and makes all items and issues in the pile equivalent. By this argument, all extreme positions are bad because they are, well, "extreme." A good illustration of this kind of thinking came out of the mouth of one of the weekend hosts of Fox and Friends on the Fox News Channel. A highly conventional host stated recently that all truth taken to the extreme becomes false. (We did not make this up). Aside from the fact that this statement makes no sense, in fact, truth is truth; and, if it is truth, it is "extreme" only because it is fully logically consistent. That is the nature of truth.

Properly used, the term “extreme” means no more than taking as consistent a position as merited by the premises. That is what Barry Goldwater meant. His enemies tried to paint him as some id-dominated monster who would eat babies, blow up the world with nuclear devices, etc.--i.e., their view of extremism. The cry of "extremist" or "extremism" from the Left tries to paint the target emotionally as a lunatic. In fact, it may well mean that the target person is rational, something the Left can hardly abide.

Fourth, the "precedence" issue. In the Supreme Court legal lexicon, the "precedence" issue is known as stare decisis. This doctrine gives such gravity to prior decisions that SCOTUS justices are all but handcuffed not to challenge prior decisions. When those prior decisions are rational, that is, when they support rights and the Constitution in a fully rational manner, they need not be overturned. However, stare decisis has become a Leftist litmus test in the Senate.

Leftist senators are terrified that someone like John Roberts or Samuel Alito will challenge the beloved pro-socialism decisions made by the Court in the last 125 years or so. They hang their fears on the Rowe vs Wade as THE symbol of all they stand for. If SCOTUS reverses that decision, they fear, SCOTUS might start interpreting laws by "strict construction" and start dismantling the semi-fascist-socialist state that America has become, thanks in large measure to the activism of SCOTUS. (We are addressing the fears of the Left about Rowe vs Wade, not challenging the validity of the decision here). Knowing how to play the confirmation game, all nominees rush to assure the Schumer's, et and al, that they believe in stare decisis, just as they believe in God, country, mother, and apple pie.

What SCOTUS needs is men and women of principle, conviction, and backbone, willing to subject prior decisions to the test of reason and Rights of Man, keeping the good, and overturning the bad. Advice to the nominees then is to tell Schumers what they want to hear, then do what reason dictates.

Fifth, the "ideologue" issue. The ideal expressed by this editorial and among almost all politicians is that holding an explicit philosophy of life (which would qualify as “extremism,” please note, because explicit = definite=extreme in the Leftist bizarroworld), particularly a judicial philosophy, makes one just terrible. But, in fact, ideologues are people who hold specific sets of principles, usually social or political. These sets of ideas may or may not integrate with a full philosophy of life. Ideologies are smaller sets of principles rather than a full philosophy of life. Some ideologies are rational, and some are not. Muslims are ideologues, for example. So are people like the infamous professor, Ward Churchill. Hitler was an ideologue. Many conservatives and liberals are ideologues. Using “ideologue” this way tries to make it an epithet so that people will associate “ideologue” with “evil.” Further, by using the term this way, users intend to scare people that the “ideologue” will try to cram his ideas down their throats, like Muslims or Hitler. Well, that could be the case--or, maybe not. It all depends on the nature and extent of the ideas held and by whom; figuring that out far exceeds the capacities of politicians these days.

What this Times editorial and mouthy Leftist senators mean is that someone with principles guiding his or her thinking, feeling, and behavior, has to be bad because ideas guide his or her thinking, feeling, and behavior. By implication, their ideal is to be fluid, flexible, indistinct, malleable, and willing to bend in the wind, changing directions as the wind shifts—to keep principles in a form resembling the blobs of a lava lamp.

Where would they get such a notion? They were taught that by America's universities and college, bastions of irrationality since pragmatism, and the philosophical spawn that followed pragmatism’s heyday, became the dominant academic, then cultural, philosophies, starting in the latter 19th century. The world created by this "ideology" is an unstable world: Reality is entirely malleable--if you want something, and take action (from the Greek, "pragma"), and if it all works out, then it was true; morality or ethics is nothing more than following your feelings and learning that something was right because it all worked out the way you wanted--you act, then examine--anything goes. Bill Clinton is a good example.

As for politics, pragmatism and its progeny require force wielded by the all-powerful state to be able to control all those people following their versions of reality, truth, and morality, some of which are bound to clash. Taking a firm stand on principle is anathema to pragmatism, which holds that reality is too subjective to take a firm stand on. Thus, politicians go nuts when people take principled stands. Those that do take principled stands become labeled "ideologues," i.e., "extremists," and definitely "outside the mainstream." Moussolini loved pragmatism as taught by William James because James' ideas taught him to act first (instead of thinking), and, if it all worked out, then it was right.

The mainstream, to those thoroughly soaked in pragmatism and its postmodernist progeny, consists of all sorts of compromises and deal makings to get what participants want, having nothing whatsoever to do with what is true or right, as normal people use the terms.

These buzzwords and buzz-terms have been trotted out, as expected, in order to smear Judge Alito, as though his detractors really mean something when they use them. However, these accusations smear about as effectively as fog smears. The Left do not want someone who knows what his principles are and follows them. They want someone who sees life as they do, where anything goes--except principle.

What then, do these Leftist complaints really say about Judge Alito?

1. Truthfulness: He erred morally once .
2. Outside the mainstream: He is an independent thinker.
3. Extremism: He has integrity to stand firmly for what he regards as right.
4. Precedents: He might well challenge prior SCOTUS decisions, if he thinks they were based on false premises.
5. Ideologue: He is a man of principle.

So, these are supposed to be disqualifying negatives? Only the Left, never at home in reality, would consider these obvious strengths as negatives.

Do You Want the United Nations to Design A Curriculum for Your Child's School?

Bill Clinton and Bill Gates do...and so does George W. Bush

For sometime now, the United Nations and transnational companies have insinuated their way into the governance of the United States, the workplace, and American society. What better way to prepare American citizens for life a "citizen of the world" rather than a citizen of the United States than to mold the minds of the next generations.

On Jan. 22, 1997, President Bill Clinton made a speech to a suburban Chicago audience so friendly that it interrupted him with applause 29 times. One line in his speech, however, was greeted with stony silence: "We can no longer hide behind our love of local control of the schools."

Clinton is gone from the White House, but the federalization laws of his administration - Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and Workforce Investment - are still in place. President George W. Bush, who says the federal government has "a role to play in education," has merely substituted labels more comforting to Republicans: standards, tests, and accountability.

Now we find that the process is no longer just federalization; it's globalization. Who would have guessed that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization would be positioning itself to design curricula for U.S. schools?

Former President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from UNESCO on Dec. 31, 1984, because it was corrupt, anti-Western and a vehicle for far-left propaganda. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO in 2003.
UNESCO's efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to influence U.S. school curricula were unsuccessful. But now UNESCO has found a sugar daddy.

On Nov. 17, 2004, at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft Corp. to develop a "master curriculum (syllabus)" for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques. The Agreement states that the syllabus will "form the basis for deriving training content to be delivered to teachers," and "UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development."

Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates initialed every page in his own handwriting. You can read the agreement at, but Microsoft has fixed it so you can't print it out.

Following the signing of the agreement, UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura explained it in a speech. One of its goals, he said, is "fostering Web-based communities of practice including content development and worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values."

No doubt that is agreeable to Gates, because the agreement states "Microsoft supports the objectives of UNESCO as stipulated in UNESCO's constitution."

This is the same Bill Gates that sold out American tech workers. This is the same Bill Clinton that supported NAFTA and GATT. And this is the same George W. Bush that transformed the role of the Federal Government in Education.

Now we have a big brother in Washington and a slew of overseers in the United Nations dictating not only how our children will be educated, but what they will learn and not learn to help them overcome the parochial mindset of Americans, another sacrifice on the altar of diversity and multiculturalism, a step away from accepting the role of dhimmitude in the world of expanding Islamism.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Could This America?

It’s December 2030, and I’m shopping with my grandson in a mall in Northern Virginia. We’ve purchased a gift for a relative.

“Gift wrap?” inquired the clerk.

“Yes, thanks.”
“Happy Chanukah, Merry Kwanzaa, or Eid Greetings?”

I frowned. The clerk whispered, “Listen, I think there may still be a few rolls of Christmas wrap in the back if you want…”
My grandson looked up at me and asked, “Why is the man whispering, Grandpa?”

The clerk leaned over the counter: “The store’s Diversity Regulations stipulate that we’re no longer permitted to offer anything saying ‘Christmas.’”

“Grandpa,” David asked, “when did the stores stop offering Christmas paper?”

“I’m not exactly sure,” I replied, “but I do remember that already back in 2005 stores like Kohl’s and Target no longer allowed their employees to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ Now even schools are forbidden to print the word ‘Christmas’ on their calendars in the December 25th box.”

“But, Grandpa, the President still lights the National Fern!”

“Yes, David, and it was once the National Christmas Tree. But there were these very powerful and well-moneyed groups such as the ACLU that for over 50 years relentlessly tried to remove anything of Christmas from American public life and social discourse. Then there was this other group, the ADL, which claimed to be fighting bigotry, but really appeared to be promoting bigotry against Christians and people with political views the ADL didn’t like. Anyway, by the time 2005 had arrived, most American people no longer had the conviction and mettle of the people who founded this nation in the 18th century.”

“Why not, Grandpa?”

“Well, believe it or not, they simply were worn down by constantly being called names like anti-Semite, Islamophobe, racist, or homophobe.”

“You mean, people 50 years ago were so scared that they’d allow their country to be taken from them rather than be called a name? I thought sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me!”

“Well, there was another factor at work. Back then we called it ‘political correctness.’ If you spoke out against the ACLU, you were called ‘intolerant.’ If you cherished our American freedoms and were patriotic, you were ‘reactionary.’ If you were revolted by the in-your-face perversions of the day, you were ‘unsophisticated.’ If you believed in right and wrong, your thinking was ‘un-nuanced.’

“Some of the people who stood up against the ACLU,” I continued, “were called Conservatives. In those days, you weren’t welcomed in ‘progressive’ circles if you were a Conservative. You didn’t get those high-paying jobs in the media, Hollywood, or in the University. In fact, if they knew you were Conservative, you could even lose your job -- and, if you wanted to keep your job, you had to undergo diversity training at Sensitivity Sessions and mouth the appropriate platitudes and apologies, even against your own conscience.”

“How did the ACLU control everybody?” David asked.

“You see, they insisted that any references to Christmas and Christianity were ‘offensive’ to some people.”

“Were the Christians trying to impose their religion on everybody?”

“Heavens, no, David. But when Christians wanted simply to express themselves as other groups did, they were accused of having a hidden agenda of ‘Christianizing’ America. Black ‘pride,’ Jewish ‘pride,’ Islamic and Hispanic ‘pride’ were considered social goods and ‘diversity,’ but Christian expression was considered a symptom of concealed anti-Semitism, racism, Islamophobia, and even American imperialism!”

“Grandpa, how did you feel when someone wished you Merry Christmas?”

“I felt fine being on the receiving end of good wishes and that person’s desire to include me in his season of joy. Besides, it was the gracious thing to do. Then along came the Left and they politicized every harmless and gentle aspect of everyday life, rendering almost anything any normal person said as somehow ‘insensitive’ to some person or group. They took regular daily life which had been sweet and turned it into a political brawl. They made fair-minded Americans self-conscious of every word, and relations between people strained and bitter. They busy-bodied into everything private and personal. And out of a desire to be considered ‘inclusive,’ Christians allowed their Christianity to be rubbed out from the public sphere.”

“Just so they could be called ‘nice’ by a bunch of bullies, Grandpa?”

This, of course, is a satire, with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Read the rest and ponder how our traditions are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Eurabia's Morass Elicits Mythical "Solutions"

Muslims continue to play up the "tolerance and justice" of Moslem Spain and the Ottoman Empire which were neither tolerant nor just to non-Muslims. A lie repeated often enough begins to have the ring of truth. The same can be said of the claims of the recent rioters in France and Europe that "trivialize the role of Islam" in those events. From the processor of Andrew Bostom at The American Thinker.

After nearly three successive weeks of rioting in France by predominantly Muslim youths, the violence has ebbed, albeit to an uneasy level in considerable excess of the early October “baseline” before the riots (for example, in terms of vehicles burnt per day see this graph).

The prevailing apologetics regarding these disturbances, which emanate from pundits across the political spectrum, denies or trivializes the role of Islam. For example, although twelve Christian churches were desecrated and/or burned by the overwhelmingly Muslim rioters in France during the intifada, these bigoted acts were barely reported by investigative journalists or bloggers, and ignored altogether by pontificating commentators.

Apologetic assessments further ignored the existence of ominous and influential Islamic entities such as the Arab European League (a hideous group which equates the assimilation of Muslims within a European context, to rape), or the European Fatwa Council, headed by Muslim Brotherhood “spiritual” leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who sanctions homicide bombings against Israeli non-combatants, and has stated  publicly that “Islam will conquer Europe”.

Also absent from such discussions were the alarming statements made by European Muslim leaders at a conference entitled, “Islam in Europe” that accompanied the July 10, 2003 opening of the new Granada Mosque. The keynote speaker at this erstwhile “ecumenical” conference, Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, a Spanish Muslim leader,  implored Muslims to cause an economic collapse of Western economies (by switching to gold dinars, and ceasing to use Western currencies), while the German Muslim leader Abu Bakr Rieger told attendees not to adapt their Islamic religious practices to accommodate European (i.e., Western Enlightenment ?) values. 

Finally, none of the apologetic narratives acknowledged, let alone addressed the implications of disturbing survey results from British Muslims polled shortly after the 7/7/05 London bombings. These data revealed that one-third of British Muslims were brazen enough to admit, “Western society is decadent and immoral and …Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”, expressing ostensibly, their desire to replace Britain’s current liberal democracy with a Shari’a-based theocratic model .
French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has noted, appositely, that it is a reductio ad absurdum to view the “social dimension” of the riots in France exclusively (and obsessively), as,

…a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity….in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult—Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese—and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character.
Despite Finkielkraudt’s salient observations, and others by the rare reporters Melanie Phillips aptly lauded for simply having “…their heads screwed on the right way”, Phillips warned of the dominant mentality which sought to negate the truth through vilification, and replace reality with fantasy.

Amir Taheri  has cited perhaps the most disturbing examples of this proclivity to indulge ahistorical and dangerous fantasy. Two mythical inventions of purported “ecumenical” Islamic rule in Europe have been revived— the “Andalusian paradise” of Muslim Spain, and the former Ottoman millet system (most relevantly, in Eastern Europe, primarily the Balkans). Taheri reports that Gilles Kepel, who (despite arguing prior to 9/11 that  jihadism was a spent force within the global Muslim umma!) currently serves as an adviser on Islam to President Chirac, recommended the creation of a modern Andalusia,
“…in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis”.

Taheri, but unfortunately, not Kepel, Chirac’s adviser, possessed the wisdom to ponder the critical matter of sovereign political power, asking “…Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?”. Other muddled thinkers, “…are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the ‘millet’ system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs”, according to Taheri.

Read it all. The internal links included in the original are very informative.

The March of the Extremists: Attacks Threaten Religious Harmony in Southeast Asia

There is no surprise here. From the beginning, thuggish warriors led by Mohammed, on the backs of horses and camels, using fire and sword, murder and mayhem, have ground countless peoples and cultures under the Muslim boot. Only the scope has changed.

Contemporary technology is allowing them to cut a greater swath than ever before as ocean-going ships and air transport is opening up opportunities to spread their vile ideology of hate, murder and violence.

Each world region is under attack. Recent events in North America and Europe are only tiny fraction of what other parts of the world are suffering at Muslim hands:

Buddhist monks are being murdered, Christian schoolchildren beheaded and dissenters blown up. Southeast Asia's peaceful co-existence among religions is under siege, from Bangkok to Jakarta. Meanwhile, politicians and military leaders are using Islamic fervor to boost their own power...

Terror is everywhere. Although Indonesia recently reported the death of dangerous bomb-maker Azahari bin Husin ("Dr. Azahari"), a member of the notorious Indonesian terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah and the man believed responsible for the 2002 attacks in Bali, among other acts of terror, the whereabouts of the more than 40 suicide bombers he trained remain a mystery. In Australia, authorities reportedly managed, at the last minute, to prevent a group of Muslim extremists from staging "an attack on the scale of the London bombings." The would-be attackers had apparently singled out the country's only nuclear power plant as their target.

But "the most dangerous battle" in Southeast Asia's religious melting pot, says al-Qaida expert Rohan Gunaratna, "is currently being waged in southern Thailand." Indeed, the growing violence is proving a challenge to the Thai military, as evidenced by the fact that Thailand's version of the "Marines" have barricaded themselves behind barbed wire and sand bags in the town of Yala. Even the country's elite forces face the threat of car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers.

Not a day goes by here without an attack. On some days, state-run schools are set on fire and teachers murdered, and on others unknown attackers in pickup trucks target Muslim teahouses in drive-by shootings. In late October, a train carrying military recruits was blown from its tracks. Last Wednesday, armed assailants armed with machine guns and hand grenades wiped out a nine-member Muslim family because the father had worked as a police informant.

Fighting a war against a shadow army

Who is behind these attacks? Army spokesman Lieutenant Somkuan Saenypatharanetr is a tall, thin man with delicate facial features. "There are no letters claiming responsibility for the attacks," he says, "we are fighting a war against a shadow army."

Western terrorism experts already refer to southern Thailand as an Asian Caucasus. According to the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, two groups are responsible for the unrest, the "Patani Islamic Mujahidin Group" and "New Pulo," both offshoots of a once-powerful guerilla organization that until the 1980s fought for a separation of Thailand's 2.4 million Muslims from the country's 60 million Buddhists -- and for an independent Muslim state.

Throughout history, the pattern has always been the same.

Read the entire sorry story.
Hattip: Fjordman

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Thanksgivng--A Grand and Patriotic Holiday

All of us remember the stories about Thanksgiving from our earliest school years--how difficult conditions were for the Pilgrims, how grateful they were to have survived the harsh conditions of New England, and how thankful they were to their Indian neighbors.

The first to help had learned some English from English fishermen who regularly traveled to the North American coastal waters to fish, while the second and most famous had actually been taken back to England by some fishermen for purposes of display, and became quite fluent while there.

When about half the colonists attempting to establish a permanent presence in North America died during that first winter, the English-speaking Indians taught them better methods of growing food in the New England soil, and at harvest time, they brought additional food and sat down with them for a celebratory feast. The colonists gave thanks to the Indians and to God on this happy occasion.

This was the first Thanksgiving—or was it?

The Daughters of the American Revolution and other groups interested in “truth in history” have been trying for decades to persuade the American educational system to tell the true story of the first Thanksgiving, but to no avail.

In fact, the festive meal of the Pilgrims was a lovely and happy occasion, but it was not the first Thanksgiving, even though the colonists were, indeed, thankful. It was a harvest festival, a meal much like those that had been a part of harvest ceremonies from temperate mankind's earliest times. These festivals celebrated the change of seasons, and the gathering of enough to sustain them through the fruitless time of winter. They were held everywhere in the world where winter caused low productivity. These festivals had then, and continue to have today, a deeply important place in human society.

Unfortunately, the colonists didn’t fare so well in subsequent years, and they rarely held a similar harvest festival after that first and most famous one.

On this momentous occasion, on this particular day of celebration, I would like to share with you the story of the REAL first Thanksgiving in the United States.

It all started in New York, on October 3rd, 1789. . . But wait; it’s better to let the man who started it all tell you about it in his own words:

“WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me ‘to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:'

“NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

“And also, that we may then united in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations, especially such as have shewn kindness unto us; and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.”


G. Washington

This holiday, the one George Washington asked Congress to have in that year, was celebrated quite regularly thereafter, although the dates changed slightly from year to year, and it remained "unofficial" until Franklin Roosevelt established a permanent date for it--the last Thursday of November, as Washington had requested.

So you see, Thanksgiving—the one we celebrate today—was created as a peculiarly American celebration, specifically in gratitude for the Constitution of the United States of America. The fact that it occurred in the fall, during harvest time, was coincidental. By that coincidence, however, the two reasons for celebration were rolled into one. It is from the harvest festival component that we get the meal. Unfortunately, the real reason it was established has largely been ignored by our schools and forgotten by our citizens.

A “constitution” is a document that describes the relationship between an organization and its membership. The Constitution of the United States was then, and remains today, the most breathtakingly sophisticated description of the proper relationship between a government and free men that has ever existed.

Please note in particular some of the other things which our first President thought worthy of gratitude: “. . .the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have (since) enjoyed...the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government...the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge...(the rendition of) our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws...the increase of science among (them and) us (and) to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”

Fellow Americans (and, in fact, ALL of us who are citizens of the Civilized World), these gratitudes are indeed worthy of our deepest and most sincere Thanksgiving. The Constitution of the United States represented the highest level of reason ever applied to the relationship between the individual and government. It was a product of the Age of Enlightenment, the end-product of an ancient line of philosophical thought beginning with Aristotle, salvaged for us by the great Muslim Aristotelian Commentator, philosopher, judge, and physician Ibn Rushd (Spanish born of parents thought to have been converted by force, and whose commentaries on Aristotle were destroyed by his North African colleagues), then spread throughout Italy and the rest of Europe by his near contemporary Thomas Aquinas, then to the Enlightenment English philosopher John Locke, and finally to the Founders of our country, who created this nation from “scratch," based on deliberately chosen and carefully considered philosophic principles.

We are today the fortunate beneficiaries of this long line of intellectual thought; it is the Founders who illuminated for us, as had never been done before, the nature and meaning of “rights,” and laid them out, in writing, in a way that could not be hidden away from us by tyrants. We experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a manner never before seen in human history.

Please look carefully at the last, but most assuredly not the least, of the things George Washington considered worthy of our gratitude: “ grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity...”

George Washington, and others who had inherited the shining light of reason from his predecessors, recognized that life on this earth, and the material riches required to support and celebrate it, were blessings, not sins.

So great was the threat to life during the winter that it is termed, allegorically, as the “wasteland” in those aspects of the Arthurian legends whose origins stretch back perhaps as far as the last Ice Age. Light in the darkness, heat in the cold of winter, plenty during the time where nothing grows, and the energy to enjoy life during the season of emptiness, are all gifts of reason.

I would like to suggest that we all--no matter where on this earth we may live, or from what source we believe our origins derive--lift our glasses in gratitude and to toast the great thinkers who preceded us, as well as those as yet unborn, who will follow and continue to refine what was begun 2500 years ago.

And to all, a very Happy Thanksgiving!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Muslim Terrorists Are Swimming in Saudi Money

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In describing his guerrilla army, Mao Tse-tung used an aquatic analogy: "Guerrillas are the fish, and the population is the sea in which they swim." He realized that a neutral, if not supportive populace was essential to guerrilla success. Once the majority was swayed to at least tolerate the guerrillas, then only a small portion need be committed to the cause to achieve victory. Today's Islamofascist terrorists are ignoring Mao's dictum in dealing with populations -- witness the atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by terrorists occupying Fallujah and Tal Afar -- and in so doing have alienated themselves from the populations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This arrogance will in time contribute to their failure.

But the terrorists have applied his metaphor assiduously to the financial sphere, for the modern Islamofascist terrorist movement swims in the rich waters of international finance. Far from being poor, ignorant peasants as many in the West fancifully envision the terrorists, these men and their organizations are highly sophisticated, technologically aware, and extraordinarily adept at moving money within the intricate web of international financial institutions. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of these terrorists is that many of the most virulently anti-Western have matriculated in British and American institutions of higher learning. More than one detainee in Guantanamo has an advanced degree in international finance from schools such as the London School of Economics. Admission standards may have changed, but one does not reasonably expect to find a simple Afghani opium farmer conscripted by the Taliban to be on the roster of distinguished graduates.

So for the modern terrorist money -- and lots of it -- is the ocean in which they swim and without which they will cease to live. Post-9/11, one of President Bush's stated objectives was to dry up that ocean and deny the terrorists the funding needed to carry out their horrific attacks. These sorts of financial tracking operations are done by analysts in front of computer screens pouring over endless printout sheets. It is mostly thankless work that is conducted in the back offices of CIA, Treasury, FBI, and Homeland Security. Information is obtained by liaison to foreign countries intelligence agencies and banking establishments -- thus bringing in State Department, and though signal and information intercepts - that means the Pentagon and National Security Agency.

The vast majority of money transfers are accomplished by electronic means. In the early days, these systems were relatively unsophisticated and vulnerable. No longer. Today's systems are under constant attack, but are protected by sophisticated, complex security software. It is a constant war of bits and bytes as hackers fight guardians in cyberspace. But so far sophisticated technology has been good news for the terrorists and those who support their cause, because it means that transfers are extraordinarily difficult to track. Tom Clancy's new novel, Teeth of the Tiger, discusses electronic intercept and offers an optimistic view of American capabilities. We are not there yet. Highly encrypted software, multiple accounts in a myriad of international banking and financial institutions, and covert tradecraft, such as use of electronic "cut-outs," can preclude any but the most persistent, careful analyst from finding the money trail. This is the challenge faced by our financial specialists who try to find walk the cat backwards to the lairs of leading al-Qaeda operational leaders.

Terrorists get funding everywhere imaginable. Some fundraisers are academics or private citizens -- the Sami al-Arian case in Florida is one example -- but by far the largest contributors are worldwide Muslim charities. These so-called charities are significant providers to al-Qaeda. Some of the largest and most generous are in the U.S. It was only a few years ago that the charities have been identified as the terror support groups they are. They have been legally challenged, investigated, and in some cases prosecuted, for funneling money illegally to al-Qaeda and terrorist accounts. The country behind most of the charities is Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi infiltration of American Islam has been as frighteningly quiet as it has been pervasive. Virtually every imam at an American mosque is a Wahhabi -- Saudi trained, funded, and vetted -- a religious leader who promotes a virulent brand of fundamentalist Islam with the ultimate aim of imposing Shari'a law upon the non-Moslem world. Even more frightening, our prison system is staffed by Moslem chaplains who are products of Saudi training. As a consequence, anti-American Islamofascist ideology is being taught to some of the most dangerous, unstable, and violent members of American society. Meanwhile, the mosques continue to beat the drums for anti-Israeli causes including fundraising for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other terror outfits.

Opium production, distribution, and sale, manufacture of morphine base and heroine and other income sources as well as
Meanwhile, across the Middle East and Central Asia strange, exotic gatherings are taking place. In what the Union for the Conservation of Raptors calls the "money camps," elaborate, ultra-luxurious temporary facilities are periodically set up in remote places in the region for gathering of the rich Arab sheiks from Saudi, the Gulf States, and other Arab countries. These people meet and indulge themselves in many of their favorite activities, including sale of protected species of falcons and eagles that are used in sport hunting. Hunting with birds of prey is a traditional Arab male activity, essential to the macho image they like to portray, along with rhino horn-handled knives, and a bevy of wives and concubines.
At these money camps, huge amounts of money are exchanged for such trinkets, including the birds. Some of these illegal birds bring payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars into the millions for the very rare. During the social sessions at the camps funding is also arranged for some of the sheiks pet projects, including the promotion of Wahhabi Islam and support for terrorist organizations like bin Laden's al-Qaeda. It is a way of both salving their Moslem consciences and paying off the wolf that may turn on them if neglected. Read more of the story at

All of these operations -- the charities, gems, drugs, payoffs from the money camps, and other shakedown scams -- eventually result in substantial sums of money put into terrorist coffers. Even larger than that, however, is the support -- direct and indirect -- that the terrorists receive from legitimate corporate business interests. These are investors who, according to Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, "hold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stocks in companies that partner with Iran, the other Islamofascist regimes and their friends." This, in fact, is where huge, below-the-radar support for terrorism is largest.

For some reason, most Westerners fail to recognize this danger. Anyone with half a brain knows that Jihad is more than bombs and bullets and that the other forms and more effective and more deadly. Our survival depends on divesting ourselves from the tentacles of these evil people.

Hattip: Fjordman

Open Source Media Changes Back Into Their Pajamas

Too bad. This could happen to the best of us.

I, for one, stake my claim to be an official participant in the PajamaBrigade After all, this how we all started.

Here's Why the "True Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2005" Is Just More Hype

"Until the time comes when Americans look out of their windows one morning and see vans, trucks, buses and trains filled with illegal aliens and criminal alien residents streaming outbound toward the border, or to the nearest airport out of the country . . . ONLY THEN will we know that something is being done.

"But until that day comes, Americans can know with absolute certainty that the federal government has done NOTHING to halt the illegal alien invasion of these United States . . . But until then, you’ll know that all of the "solutions" emanating from Congress—including the ghastly specter of another "amnesty"—are all just a lot of hot air."

When the day comes that this actually happens, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Don't hold your breath. The powers behind the powers have a different agenda and playing the system for financial gain at the expense of the American taxpayer. We will be registered, not the aliens.

And by the way, Section 433 of TRUE Enforcement allows the HHS Secretary to create a nationwide "electronic birth and death registration system" with "a common data exchange protocol" in order to allow "the implementation of electronic verification of a person’s birth and death." But doesn’t "true" immigration law enforcement entail keeping track of aliens, not U.S. citizens?

So what's being enforced and why are we being tracked? This smells fishy to me.

Read it all. The internal links give a "true" picture on "True Enforcement."

Jordan - The Model

This Is How We Should Be Acting. Jordanians are "outraged" because they're own people bave been slaughtered.

Look at our behavior:

The Jordanians’ response to the ghastly hotel suicide bombings in Amman is refreshing: They are  blaming terrorists for terrorist attacks. Filled with righteous rage, they flooded the streets of their capital, calling for the head of the man who planned the attacks. “Barbaric and subhuman,”  Jordan’s ambassador to the U.S. Karim Kawar denounced the bombings. While such reactions may seem obvious and fitting, they are not the case throughout much of the world.

Just think of Americans’ behavior after September 11, 2001, the biggest and most heinous terror  attack the world has ever seen. Americans assembled for hushed candle-light vigils and moments of silence; they gathered not to condemn the terrorists, but to urge the American government to refrain from revenge. Americans flew flags from their windows, but were vilified by fellow citizens for doing so. When they didget angry and take to the streets, it was to carry signs proclaiming that “Bush knew.” Millions of Americans explicitly did not blame the terrorists for the terrorists’ actions.

When Islamic terrorists blew up commuter trains in Madrid last year, killing 191 people, Spaniards reacted with grief and anguish, but very little rage toward the perpetrators. The Spanish people’s biggest statement against this terror? To vote out their U.S.-backing government, in accordance with the terrorists’ wishes.
In fact, no Islamist terror attack—whether 9/11, Madrid, the Bali nightclub bombings, or the London bus and subway blasts—has led people to take to the streets to denounce the terrorists. Always there is talk of “strength,” and “resolve,” and “getting on with our lives,” and, of course, of addressing the “root causes.” When it comes to Israel, where men, women, and children are regularly blown to bits by Palestinian suicide bombers, much of the world is united in assigning blame to the victims, not their assassins.
Regardless of who has been massacred, never has rigorous, steadfast, and full blame been assigned to the murderers and their sponsors, not by Arabs, not by Muslims, not by Westerners, not by average citizens, not by politicians.
Even the supposedly tough-on-terror president of the United States, the number one terror target on the planet, spends more time lecturing Americans about how “Islam is a religion of peace,” than illustrating the constant and mounting threat of attacks that will dwarf the horrors of 9/11.
While the harshest condemnation that President Bush could conjure up about the 9/11 plotters was the underwhelming “evildoers,” Jordan’s King Abdullah promised the beasts behind the Amman bombings that he would “pull them from their holes” and assured the world that Jordanians “get mad and get even.”
In the West, no matter how monstrously we are attacked, our main priority is not to stop those trying to destroy us, but to avoid calling barbaric subhuman killers, barbaric subhuman killers. Just imagine if an American official were to make such a statement.

Compare our wimpy behavior to that of the tiny country of Jordan:

What a relief, then, to see the Jordanians rise up against such slaughter—no flaccid stoicism for them. “Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!” they shouted, blaring car horns and waving flags.
Of course, the same Jordanians clamoring for Zarqawi’s head because he spilled innocent blood have famously been silent about the continual spilling of innocent Israeli blood, referring instead only to the purported injustice suffered by the Palestinians, who now make up about 60 percent of Jordan’s population.
The same Jordanians who believe that “Death to Zarqawi!” is the appropriate response to the deaths of more than 50 innocent Jordanians, have been unperturbed by their fellow countryman’s success at blowing hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Iraqis to smithereens. An NPR reporter, interviewing the protesting crowds, recounted that the prevailing mood among the demonstrators was that if the terrorists want to wage such a war, they should do so in Israel or Iraq, but stay out of Jordan.
“These are criminal and terrorist acts which no Muslim can accept and which go against our religion,” proclaimed Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood—an organization known for its refusal to condemn such attacks in Israel. The blasts are a “crime against humanity,” railed Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, a man who downplays suicide bombings when carried out by his own people.
“We condemn these criminal actions that target innocent people,” said none other than a spokesman for Hamas, one of the world’s leading terror groups—lacking, apparently, any sense of irony.

Of course Jordan only reacted to the slaughter of their own people. They, like most other Muslims, ignore the slaughter of non-Muslims for to do so would be a rejection of the tenets of the Koran. Their reaction, nevertheless, is far more appropriate to ours.

Where is OUR outrage? To our peril, we are sinking into a passivity and boredom with the "Long War Against Radical Islam" which should be the struggle to foist off the insinuation of a predatory ideology, Islam,into our culture.

Of course we can not win a war against a billion people intent on making us over, but we can resist, and we don't have to have them among us as fifth columnists. We should be following the example of the Joradanians, outraged at the idea that our precious country is being victimized and our citizens are under attack by an ideology long infamous for its predation. This is not "racism," but common sense.

Anti-Muslim "Racism"?

The term pejorative "racism" is evolving to include matters of culture, ethnic background, and now religion.

Racism is now increasingly used to mean something far beyond its dictionary definition. The director of the influential London-based Institute of Race Relations (IRR), A. Sivanandan, has been pushing the concept of a “new racism” which concerns immigration, not race:

It is a racism that is not just directed at those with darker skins, from the former colonial territories, but at the newer categories of the displaced, the dispossessed and the uprooted, who are beating at western Europe’s doors, the Europe that helped to displace them in the first place. It is a racism, that is, that cannot be colour-coded, directed as it is at poor whites as well, and is therefore passed off as xenophobia, a “natural” fear of strangers.

An official paper from Australia goes in a different direction, that of “cultural racism”:

In the modern era the underlying assumption of “racism” is a belief that differences in the culture, values, and/or practices of some ethnic/religious groups are “too different” and are likely to threaten “community values” and social cohesion.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment, but this isn't racism. Pipes gives us three references:

American Heritage: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”

Merriam-Webster: “A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racial prejudice or discrimination.”

Oxford: “The belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. Discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.”

The charge of "racism" is increasingly being used by leftists and Islamists as an "all-purpose pejorative term, a magical insult that discredits without regard to accuracy..."to include the word "terrorist", political decisions such as worrying about too much immigration (even of poor whites), preferring one's own culture, fearing radical Islam, and implementing counterterrorist measures."

In other words, one must quietly accept without protest everything and everyone that thrown one's way regardless of how it will affect liberty and lifestyle. This contradicts human nature and common sense.

Read it all.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Vote in a Mosque

Whoo-hoo! Take a look at this article! It gives me some--make that a LOT of--petty pleasure that CAIR is offended (boo-hoo) because there are actually some citizens--from Murthra territory, no less!--who resist carrying out their Constitionally guaranteed right to vote in a MOSQUE!

Keep it up, Pennsylvanians!

Here it is:

Pennsylvania Voters Don't Want to Vote at Mosque
By Monisha Bansal Correspondent
November 15, 2005

( - Some voters in Whitehall Township, Penn., were offended that the Lehigh Valley County election board had them vote at a local mosque on Nov. 8. The county uses 58 religious establishments for voting, but this was the first year that residents in the 12th District voted at the Islamic Center of Lehigh Valley.

"Anytime you have people objecting to a voting place merely because it's an Islamic house of worship, I think that is a symptom of anti-Muslim prejudice," Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington, D.C. based Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Cybercast News Service.

"It's something that religious and political leaders, not only in Pennsylvania, but nationwide, need to address," he added.

Betty Hillwig, the chief clerk of the county's election board, said the Islamic Center of Lehigh Valley was generous to offer its space for voting booths, and that the center would continue to be used in future elections.

"About a half dozen people called and said they weren't happy about it, but we were really lucky to be able to use the space," said Hillwig.

"They just didn't like the fact that it was in a mosque, because they didn't want to have to visit a Muslim house of worship," said Hooper.

The Morning Call, which reports Lehigh Valley local news, indicated that one-third of the voters at the mosque expressed concerns about voting there.

"It's a political thing, not a religious one. If the mosque is a radical one, then I've got a real problem with it, and chances are it is. The people of that community would know what's in their neighborhood," said Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank promoting American interests in the Middle East and a critic of radical Islam.

Want a Secure Border?

There is a campaign to elect Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, to Congress. Here's how you can help our country to retain its sovereignty, described in an appeal from the Minuteman organization:

You Can Help Jim Gilchrist
Get Elected To Congress in California’s 48th District.

Send a Minuteman to Washington!

Though you may not be able to vote in this election, you can make a difference!

In three days, over 60% of the voters in California’s 48th District will begin voting by absentee ballot, weeks before the actual, December 6th Election Day.

This weekend, before these absentee voters mark their ballots, we must speak directly to them and urge them to vote for Jim Gilchrist!

If you have two or even three hours free this weekend to place calls, you can make a direct and positive impact on this election.

Even if you live outside Jim’s district, you can still help. By using your cell phone’s free weekend minutes to place calls, you can help to ensure a Gilchrist victory.

We are appealing to everyone who has stood with Jim and me in the past to continue to stand with us now! Many Minutemen who share our dedication to solving our border crisis have made volunteering for Gilchrist for Congress their November mission. I personally have joined with Jim fulltime through December 6th as part of the campaign for the final push toward victory.

This is urgent! Your support may well make the difference in achieving victory!

Help us send Minuteman Jim Gilchrist to Congress!
Sincerely for America,

Chris Simcox

Please Call
949-588-VOTE (8683)

With your help, Jim Gilchrist will win!

For the Appeasers and Moderates

Jordan's Anti-Terror Rallies

Another "So-What" Moment

Where were the street rallies in sympathy for the victims of Jihad in non-Muslim countries? Where were rallies in sympathy for the persecuted Christians of Egypt, the West Bank, Gaza, the Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria, etc.? The Jordanians are only reacting to the suffering of their people.

Their ox was gored and now they feel outrage and are finally repudiating their so, their progeny, the fruit of their social order. Big deal. Well, I must begrudgingly admit that at least they've made this effort to repudiate "terror."

Signs of Al Qaeda Desperation?

Richard Miniter at FrontPageMag:

Though the American media is slow to report it, U.S. forces are relentlessly destroying Zarqawi's senior leadership. A November 2 air strike killed two senior al Qaeda operatives in Iraq: Abu Zahra, the so-called Emir of Husaybah, ran all insurgent operations in that Iraqi city, and Asadallah, Zarqawi's key recruiter. U.S. forces have now confirmed the identities of both dead terrorists.

On October 23, U.S. forces captured Abu Hassan, the head of al-Zarqawi's media cell. Hassan was responsible for producing video tapes of insurgent attacks to give to al-Jazeera and other television networks. Hassan even produced forged police and press passes to allow insurgents to case targets and film the devastation following insurgent attacks.

Following these air strikes and captures, Zarqawi ordered the Amman attacks. Was it a sign of desperation? Was he trying to regain the initiative from weeks of reverses?

Another sign of desperation: Consider who Zarqawi sent to run the Amman operation, Mrs. Al-Rishawi's husband. He also a member of Zarqawi's inner circle. He is now dead. Why did Zarqawi send a top officer to die? He has already lost so many. It suggests that either he's running short of suicide bombers (typically Saudi recruits) or he's running short of people he trusts. Either way, it's a sign of desperation.

So what!!!

We are experiencing the opening salvoes of only the current round of the perpetual Islamic triumpalist jihad that has raged for more than 1300 years. The passing of one "terror" grouplet on which we have focused our attention is of little consequence. Step back and look at the big picture: the world is dotted with Islamic-Jihadist-inspired conflicts. This is a resurgence of the movement begun by the brigand himself.

The world has been lulled into a false sense of security during an interval of little activity by the world Ummah of Muslims some of whom believe the "religion of peace" propaganda, but they, as "good Muslims," will have to step up to the plate to be counted in the Jihad against the infidel of face hell.

Jihad is not only war and violence; Jihad is outreach, Da'wa. Jihad is commerce - Islamic banking system. Jihad is self-segregation: Muslim-only housing. Jihad is persecution or disrespecting of non-Muslims. Jihad is all of these and more.

The news that the grouplet Al-Qaeda might be desperate and fading away is of little consequence in the face of the big picture and the long view of history. Note that the patterns and trends developed in a long look back at the history of Islam are being duplicated and each will be replicated in the future. It is time that we wise up, get our acts together, and push back.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Newest Fashion Trend - Shoes For "Jumping" Across the Border

I thought I'd heard it all. I must have missed this in August:

Some disgraceful woman has designed a new tennis shoe that comes equipped with a flashlight, a compass and a map of the U.S./Mexico border.

The “Brinco” has a retail value of $215 but for now the designer is content to pass them out free of charge…yeah, at a “migrant shelter” in Tiajuana.

For some of you, this may be old news as the shoes were introduced last August at a show in San Diego.
[Yeah, I think I heard about that…it was something like the “Crook and Traitor World Expo of 2005” but I could be wrong—it may have been a symposium.]

It seems that the inventor is an immigrant from Argentina who claims that she "is not encouraging illegal immigration" and that the shoes are an "expression of the issues at hand today" and the Brinco shoe is art! ("Brinco" is Spanish for jump.)

You've got to love her initiative and that of the Chinese that are manufacturing the shoe. Don't you wonder who her sponsors are in the United States and how they sleep nights knowing all this cheap labor is sneaking into the United States aided by a pair shoes with a built flashlight, compass, and map of the border? Now this is intelligent design, don't you think?

A Report From the Immigration Front Lines

Want to know how bad it really is? Ask Joe Guzzardi, who has been working with adult immigrants and struggling to get the attention of policy makers to affect reform. Finally, after twenty years he has their attention...and ours.

Following this essay's internal links lead me to the conclusion that when it comes to idiotic immigration policy, we have business pointing the finger at any other nation and that our future as a nation is bleak.

Not War, But Not Peace

I'm in a dreadful hurry this morning, unfortunately, but I wanted to point out that we in the U.S. haven't been at war since WWII.

We've been at conflict, but we haven't been at war.

That's so because ever since our misguided association with the United Collectivist Nations, we have been involved with many armed conflicts, using the same human beings, the same weaponry, the same support services, BUT! we have NOT had the same legal standing.

A declaration of war involves certain legal responsibilities, the most important of which is to WIN. In all the conflicts since WWII, political games, not victory, have run the show. Under a state of non-declared armed conflict, we find ourselves blowing in the wind, bending to this poll or that, open to what amounts to treasonous efforts to bring us to our knees, and to tie the hands of our military behind their back.

The next time we decide to enter into armed conflict, we'd better damned well make sure that we declare war. If it's worth risking our citizens and our resources on, it's worth making every effort to be sure that the price we pay for their sacrifice is the only acceptable one--victory.

Gotta go.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Recipe for Victory

The Postmodernists have made a conscious decision to mount a campaign of deconstruction of our country, a campaign that is carried out day in and day out with a lack of respect for truth and integrity that is rivaled only by their soul-mate, Islam.

I hate to be a nag, but Colonel Ralph Peter's list of "must-dos" to achieve victory in any war, including the current one, is as follows (again):

1. Be feared

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you can.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful.

4. Speak bluntly.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialogue with terrorists.

7. Avoid planning creep.

8. Maintain resolve.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think is necessary.

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorist.

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with the ultimate mission accomplishment.

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker a "peace", a truce, or any pause in operations.

15. Don't flinch.

16. Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations.

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances.

20. Never declare victory.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backwards towards past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion.

This is the kind of thinking we need in the Oval Office setting policy. If we don't HURRY UP and decide to elect someone with "attitude" who doesn't give a hoot whether anyone else "likes" us or not, someone who will give us the "permission" our current leadership has not given to win this thing, we will eventually have to deal with some really nasty consequences.

Lock and load. Thank goodness for the Second Amendment, even though it is in some disarray.

The Tunnel of Oppression

Multiculturalism and diversity gone mad. Thank God they didn't have thiis during my college days.

Will We Win or Not Win? The Enemy Wants to Know!

It has long been known that if something is repeated enough, and said loudly enough, that it will APPEAR to reflect the view of the majority, whether it is or not. For many months, the Postmodernists, made up mostly (but not exclusively) of Democrats, have been hammering the "talking point" of the lie that the President lied to get us into the war in Iraq. They attempted to sound as if they were speaking for a majority of Americans with repititions and volume.

Last night, the Republicans forced the Postmodernists' hand; they forced them to put their money where their mouths are by publicly showing the citizens of the United States where they stood on the issue of withdrawing our military from Iraq.

Along with Americans, the enemy watched the outcome of the vote on the resolution with baited breath; the result would be a benchmark on the progress made by one side or the other.

The result was a resounding rejection of the Postmodernists' attempt to do further harm to our country--at least for now, in this way. But a Postmodernist's work is never done; they will, as the Terminator said, "be back," with another issue, another method. Always, however, they will use the same strategy, that of trying to sound as if they represent majority views.

The problem, however, remains. By refusing to conduct the war in a manner that leaves no doubt that the goal is to win militarily, we leave ourselves open to the interpretation that we are willing to cut and run. Aristotle's "Law of Identity" states that "A is A"--something is either "A" or it is "not A;" it is not, as is so often misinterpreted, "A or B." In other words, we either win or we don't win; there is no middle ground. It isn't a matter of we "win or lose." I repeat: We win or we don't win.

If we withdraw before accomplishing the goal, we don't win.

At the beginning of the conflict, Our Leader promised that our military would be allowed to do what it does best--win. Such has, once again, not been the case, and we are now experiencing the consequences.

We can still pull the fat out of the fire, but will we? I stress the word "will." Given the mixed premises of Our Leader, there is serious room for doubt. At the very best, if he made the decision to get on with achieving victory, the indecisiveness, the lack of recognition of the nature of the enemy, has made this thing far more costly than was necessary. Bush 2 and Bush 1 share a potentially fatal flaw, and that is his failure to appreciate the importance of reality, never better illustrated than when Bush 1 said that he didn't understand "...the 'vision' thing." He just couldn't analyze an idea or problem, pick out the essential elements, then pull them all together to formulate, in a single sentence or two, the nature of the goal or solution.

We have only a short time until the next election, and as the Postmodernists continue the loud and continuous drumbeat of their efforts to "deconstruct" our country, to recreate it in a way that it is a 180 from what the Founders gave us, it becomes critical that we elect someone who understands the problem, and who has the vision to pursue a reality-based solution.

If we fail to do so... Well.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Here's a Winner

I am so angry that I am posting here a book review by Charles Martel, originally published on

Ralph Peters is a retired Army colonel--and it shows; here is his winning strategy, as presented in the review of his book, "Beyond Terror."

In addition to Martel's review, I am following it with a re-posting his article on "Islam in the Schools," since it plays into my concept of a "permanent solution" to Islam.

BOOK REVIEW: Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World
by Ralph Peters
Stackpole Books, © 2002
Paperback edition published 2004

"...needs to be read by every American...if you buy only one book this year, make it Beyond Terror."
Robert B. Loring in Leatherneck

It's hard to go against a ringing endorsement in Leatherneck, the award-winning magazine of the United States Marine Corps, and true to form, Beyond Terror, by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, USA (Retired), does not disappoint. In this collection of essays, written between 1994 and shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Peters brilliantly tackles myriad issues, including the stasis of Islamic civilization, practical versus apocalyptic terrorism, the impact of modern information systems, and the nature of contemporary military operations, while offering strategies to fight terror, to adapt US foreign policy to contemporary conflicts, and to transform the United States militarily to meet the demands of 21st Century warfare. Written by an American patriot for patriotic Americans, Beyond Terror is a penetrating analysis of the dynamics driving modern conflict and the role of the United States and its military in these troubled, yet promising times.

Before beginning, it should be noted that Beyond Terror needs to be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated, so this review intentionally avoids delving too deeply into its content. I agree with Robert B. Loring that every American should read this book, so this review will not attempt to serve as a substitute for adding Beyond Terror to your library.

Beyond Terror consists of an Introduction, Coda and two Parts. Part One, At the Walls of Jericho, is a collection of 11 essays that deals with a wide array of topics. Part Two, And Rumors of War, consists of 6 essays focusing primarily on military matters. Given that 6th Column Against Jihad is dedicated to confronting jihadism, we will limit this overview to the material pertinent to this subject, which is found primarily in the Introduction and the first two essays in Part One.

Introduction: A Small Matter of Honesty

In the Introduction, Colonel Peters provides us with a few of his own personal observations regarding the collection of the essays that make up Beyond Terror. This is, of course, the usual introductory fare, but since this was written shortly following 9/11, the author gives us a glimpse of what's to come in the book. Pointedly rebuking President Clinton and his do-nothing apparatchiks (the sanctimonious Richard Clarke immediately comes to mind) for their complicity in this catastrophe, Peters reveals that

"many of us took terrorism and Osama bin Laden seriously well before the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon. The problem was not lack of awareness, but the most cowardly American administration in history, one that cared little for its uniformed dead - except as political liabilities - and wanted only to ignore what it lacked the courage to resolve. History will declare that a significant portion of the blame for the suffering and loss of September 11, 2001, lies with former President Clinton, who, despite his personal revisionism, disgraced himself and failed our nation. As terrorists successively bombed a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia, two of our embassies in Africa, and one of our warships, the Clinton Administration barely pretended to retaliate, encouraging gloating murderers to ever more daring attacks. Cowardice is never a good strategy, and one's enemies do not simply disappear. We must stand up to foreign threats wherever they arise, promptly and with ferocious resolve. We have learned that now, and let us hope that knowledge will not fade too swiftly."

Part One: At the Walls of Jericho

After his hard-hitting Introduction, Ralph Peters moves on to arguably the two finest essays in his book: Our Place in History and When Devils Walk the Earth (which is available in PDF format on-line). In Our Place in History, Peters analyzes Islamic civilization and violence in greater detail than all the other essays in Beyond Terror, and his views on the subject are worth exploring in detail here.

Unlike those who have been intimidated by the colossal death and destruction of 9/11 and the taqiyya emanating from the mouths of Tariq Ramadan and other Muslim supremacists, Peters does not view contemporary Islamdom as an ascendant civilization, but rather one that is sliding into further decline, ruin, and irrelevance.

"Bigoted, hopelessly corrupt, close-minded, uneducated, psychologically infantile, self-important, and incapable of dealing not only with the twenty-first century, but even with the demands and developments of the twentieth, Muslim states and societies are rotting while their ancient competitors flourish. Because it cannot progress without fundamental and pervasive changes in virtually every public and private sphere, the Islamic world will continue to be a source of trouble for every other civilization. The stasis of Islamic civilization is the most colossal failure of our time, a situation without precedent even in the early days of European Imperialism."

Peters concludes his analysis noting

"The world of Islam must now decide whether to wallow in a comforting, medieval form of religion that warms the heart with hatred of others and whose greatest strength lies in its ability to shift blame, or to make the far more difficult choice of attempting to build tolerant, more equitable, open and honest societies. Most Islamic states will make the wrong choice, and they will pay for it by continuing to crumble into irrelevance...The followers of Islam must decide for themselves whether to cling to a mythologized past or to embrace a challenging future. If we may be honest, the likeliest future role for the Islamic world is that of an irrelevant annoyance, which intermittently wounds others while building nothing of worth. Enmeshed within a religion frozen in time, and betrayed by their own viciously corrupt leaders and greedy elites, men, women and children throughout most of the Muslim world will continue to slide deeper into poverty and bitterness. And it is not our fault. A civilization that is anti-meritocratic, that oppresses and torments women, that mocks the rule of law, that neglects education and lacks a work ethic simply cannot prosper under modern conditions. Flawlessly intolerant and blithely cruel, the Islamic world does far more harm to its own people than it has done - or will ever be able to do - to the West. Occasionally, we will have to punish unruly bits of Islamic civilization for excesses that affect us; but, between our interventions, Muslims will continue to do far more damage to each other than we are apt or able to inflict."

After painting this bleak picture, Peters goes on to contrast it with the dynamic social and economic progress and success of the American people, and our prospects for an even brighter future. Near the conclusion of the essay Peters offers this advice:

"When men and women seek to improve their societies through legitimate means, we should do all that is reasonable to help them; when they ask for self-determination, we should support them, rather than their dictators; and when they ask for fairness, we should accommodate them, no matter the complaints of our own special interests. But when America is attacked, our retribution cannot be merely "proportionate". It must be stunning even to our allies. The occasional leveling of Carthage is the price not only of empire, but of the international rule of law, and of peace."

The second essay, When Devils Walk the Earth: The Mentality and Roots of Terrorism, and How to Respond, was written for the Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities in October 2001, and provides us with one of the most useful analyses of the nature terrorism and the mind of the terrorist. Peters breaks terrorists down into two basic classifications: the practical and the apocalyptic. The lesser of these devils, the practical terrorist, is defined as the idealistic, political terrorist, who is driven by worldly concerns, such as "bellies, wallets, security, land and authority." Myriad Leftist terrorist organizations operating in Europe and Latin America during the Cold War are typical examples of practical terrorist groups. The greater, and far more dangerous, of these devils is the religious, apocalyptic terrorist, who sees himself as a tool of divine retribution sent to inflict punishment on those whose belief is "less pure" - these are the religion-robed jihadis who are at war with the United States and the West today. "Jealous of our success and our power, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the twenty-first century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their religion and their God."

Peters goes on to add that the

" of any religious community can be gauged by the degree to which it rejects these bloody apostles of terror, and the Islamic world's acceptance of apocalyptic terrorists as heroes is perhaps the most profound indicator of its spiritual crisis and decay."

Moving on, we are presented with a variety of fascinating psychological profiles of the apocalyptic terrorist.

"No change in the world order will ever content the apocalyptic terrorist, since his actual discontents are internal to himself and no alteration in the external environment could sate his appetite for retribution against those he needs to believe are evil and guilty of causing his personal sufferings and disappointments - for such men, suicidal acts have a fulfilling logic, since only their own destruction can bring them lasting peace."

Peters also points out several psychological commonalities amongst practical and apocalyptic terrorists, such as

"The terrorist is always an egotist with a (desperate, fragile) sense of unappreciated superiority, aggravated by his inability to establish satisfying social, personal, or vocational relationships"

and the most striking, yet somehow unsurprising fact that they are, by and large, men who have either been unable to develop and maintain healthy relationships with women. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, was a notorious misogynist.

"A review of historical terror cases makes it startlingly clear: Terrorists rarely have successful dating histories. Sexual fears and humiliation as young adults - and the consequent loneliness and alienation - may be the single greatest unrecognized catalyst in the making of a terrorist..."

Peters adds that

"...the general rule is that the more repressed the society and the more fervent its rejection pf reciprocity in sexual relations, the more terrorists it produces; and the greater the gap in social status between men and women in the society, the more likely it is to produce suicidal male terrorists. Societies that dehumanize women dehumanize everyone except those males in authority positions - and the ability to dehumanize his targets is essential to the psychology of the terrorist. While those who will become terrorists may wed to accommodate social norms or familial insistence, the rarest form of human being may be a happily married terrorist."

Colonel Peters concludes When Devils Walk the Earth with a list of recommendations entitled "Fighting Terror: Dos and Don'ts for a Superpower":

1. Be feared
2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you can
3. Do not be afraid to be powerful
4. Speak bluntly
5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable
6. Do not be drawn into a public dialogue with terrorists
7. Avoid planning creep
8. Maintain resolve
9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think is necessary
10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot
11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorist
12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with the ultimate mission accomplishment
13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion
14. Do not allow third parties to broker a "peace", a truce, or any pause in operations
15. Don't flinch
16. Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations
17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people
18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear
19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances
20. Never declare victory
21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising
22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves
23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backwards towards past failures, not forward to future successes
24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's
25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion

The remainder of Beyond Terror deals primarily with military matters and addresses jihadism in concert with American foreign policy and military strategy. The New Strategic Trinity, is a brilliant analysis of the "two salient factors that determine the success or failure of states and peoples in the postmodern age: the quality of the information available to the population and the ability of the population to discern quality information." Peters examines how the flow of accurate information and the ability of people to access, discern and act on accurate information is integral to the the success of individuals, peoples, economies and armies - this is illustrated by a comparison of information dynamics in the United States, Egypt, Russia and Saddam Hussein's Iraq circa Gulf War I.

The next four essays, The Hourglass Wars, Heavy Peace, The American Mission and Killers and Constables are important discussions concerning the nature of modern conflict and the role of the United States and its military. A passage form Killers and Constables is worth mentioning here: "We must prepare psychologically and practically for a century that is violent and irresolute. The disruption of the world in the wake of empire, aggravated by the accelerating pace of technological, social and economic change, will not subside into a new, more peaceful order for generations..." The eighth essay, The Plague of Ideas, is a return to the discussion of the role of Information in the 21st Century.

The ninth essay, Stability, America's Enemy, is another essay that is worthy of note. Peters points out that betraying America's finest values "to keep bad governments in place, dysfunctional borders intact, and oppressed human beings well-behaved...stands against the tides of history, and that is always a losing proposition." Interestingly enough, President Bush recently echoed these sentiments in a major foreign policy address in Riga, Latvia (discussed within the context of the failures of the Yalta agreements negotiated near the end of World War II) outlining changes in US foreign policy goals and initiatives.

The tenth essay, The Black Art of Intelligence, is an insightful look into our nation's intelligence community, and finally, The Rejection of the West, looks into the rejection of Western values and institutions throughout the world. This essay looks into the naive and arrogant expectations - which have been raised by Hugh Fitzgerald and others - that the United States is capable of bringing "freedom and democracy" to regions and cultures that are foreign and/or hostile to such concepts.

Part Two, And Rumors of War, is devoted to matters concerning military theory and strategy. The essays include The Seeker and the Sage, The Casualty Myth, Hard Target, The Human Terrain of Urban Operations, Hucksters in Uniform and The Future of War, and all are important essays that every American should read, contemplate and act upon.

While it is important to understand the role of Islam and jihadism in 21st Century conflict, it is equally necessary to understand how America, and the Free World, must respond to this existential threat to Life and Liberty. This is why Beyond Terror is an important book, and well worth adding to your library.



Islam has become an increasingly important subject in America’s public schools, therefore it is critical that
parents and citizens ensure that the next generation of Americans be presented with a complete and accurate analysis of Islamic civilization. Unfortunately, an alliance of Muslim and multiculturalist pressure groups have persuaded textbook publishers and school officials to promote a whitewashed and misleading version of Islamic ideology and history that minimizes or eliminates reference to anything that Americans would find immoral, offensive or objectionable. Worse yet, some activists and school officials have turned classrooms into venues where students are subjected to Islamic religious indoctrination and forced to perform Muslim prayers and rituals, which is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State established in the United States Constitution.

Enhancing the Image of Islam in Textbooks

Critical analyses of widely used textbooks such as “Across the Centuries” and “World Cultures: A Global
Mosaic” reveal that students are being presented an incomplete, unbalanced and inaccurate portrayal of Islamic
civilization that prevents the development of a clear and comprehensive understanding of the ideology, politics and
history of Islam. For example, unflattering topics such as the deaths of tens of millions of people during the Islamist wars of expansion between 634-750 A.D. and 1021-1689 A.D., the systematic enslavement and persecution of non-Muslim populations and the incompatibility of the Shari’a (Islamic Law) with international human rights standards are largely ignored, trivialized or dismissed in what has been described as an effort to enhance the image of Islam at the expense of the education of America’s youth.

Islamic Missionary Activity (Da’wa) in Public Schools

Proselytizing in public schools is prohibited by law, yet Muslim missionary groups continue to succeed in
persuading school officials to turn public classrooms into venues where school children are forced to learn the tenets of Islam and perform Muslim religious rituals. The attitude and goals of Islamist missionary groups is articulated at, where public schools are portrayed as “fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed into the hearts of non-Muslim students”.

The Consequences of Academic Fraud

For students to understand the complex history, culture and ideology of Islam, the information they receive
in their textbooks and classrooms must be thorough and accurate. Withholding or sanitizing information to appease
cultural supremacists is a betrayal of children and their development into well-informed adults who are capable of
accurately evaluating issues concerning Islam. Furthermore, subjecting children to Islamic missionary activity
(Da’wa), often without the knowledge and consent of parents, is a perversion of the mission of public education and a violation of the United States Constitution. Since school officials are abdicating their responsibility to guard against proselytizing and academic fraud, it is incumbent upon parents to participate more actively in the oversight and education of their children.


1) Be involved. Take the time to review the content of your child’s History and Social Studies textbooks and the
activities in these classes. Your child’s understanding of these subjects will have a profound impact on their view of the world and their place within it. Make sure you play an active and guiding role in this aspect of your child’s

2) Be informed. Take the time to learn about Islam and the history of Islamic civilization. You cannot accurately
judge the content of your child’s textbooks and class activities if you yourself are ignorant of this subject.

3) Be firm with school officials. School officials have a responsibility to provide you with any and all information
that you request concerning the content of your child’s textbooks and classroom activities. Do not accept, under any circumstances, a lack of responsiveness from school officials regarding your inquiries or concerns pertaining to the education of your child. If necessary, seek legal assistance.



The American Textbook Council Overview

Textbook League By William Bennetta


“Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide”
Bat Ye’or
Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002

“The Myth of Islamic Tolerance”
Robert Spencer
Prometheus Books, 2005

“Why I Am Not a Muslim”
Ibn Warraq
Prometheus Books, 1995

WEB RESOURCES (complete list of websites offering critical analyses of Islam)


“Islam Undressed”

Islamist Plan to Establish an Islamic State


USC Translations of the Qur'an

USC Translations of the Sunnah and Hadith

Updated: 08 August 2005

Copyright (c) 2005 6th Column Against Jihad--All rights reserved