Saturday, November 27, 2004

George Bush's Commitment to Democracy


Captain Ed over at the Captain's Quarters says George Bush has brought classic liberalism back to American foreign policy:


CQ reader Peter Ingemi points out an important perspective on the American reaction to the Ukrainian political crisis. In their election, the Kuchma government candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, actually represents the closest partner we would have in the war on terror. Yanukovych has pledged to increase troop strength in Iraq and mirrors Putin's resolve to conduct a forward strategy in the fight against Islamist terror. Viktor Yuschenko speaks of pulling Ukrainian troops from Iraq, where they comprise the sixth-largest segment of the Coalition.

One would expect the Bush Administration, therefore, to have sat quietly and hoped for Yanukovych to come to power regardless of the means. That focus on expediency has been an unfortunate hallmark of American foreign policy for decades, a leftover of our Cold War-style binary approach to the world. Instead, both Colin Powell and George Bush spoke strongly about their rejection of the election's results and the need to hold a credible election in Ukraine.

The reaction demonstrates the Bush Administration's commitment to democratization as the guiding principle of his term, a transforming and radically liberalizing foreign policy in the traditional sense of the term. Prior to the 1960s, American liberalism championed the march of democracy as the primary American mission to the world. Only after the defeatism of the 1960s baby boomers infected the political process did classical liberalism give way to the moral relativity and rank isolationism of the Democratic Party and the American left (not to mention a significant, but rapidly shrinking, segment of the GOP).

George Bush has resurrected classic liberalism in foreign policy as a key part of our national-security strategy. His moves in the Ukrainian crisis shows that he strongly believes in the transformative power of democracy, and his commitment to the process regardless of the policy shifts it brings internationally.


What Captain Ed says is true. I wonder when Bush will finally get the credit he deserves for his noble efforts.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Europe's Final Solution


This is from an article called Europe's Final Solution, by Melanie Phillips:


An article by David Frankfurter in The Sprout magazine (subscription required) offers an acute, if chilling, analaysis of the role Europe is really playing in the Israel/Palestinian impasse. Its ostensible position is to push for its own plan (excuse me, what about the Road Map?) which would confirm a two-state solution, supported by elections and overseas policing in the Palestinian territories. But Frankfurter suggests its real agenda has to be deduced from the game the Palestinians are now playing. The EU regards the Palestinian Authority as the instrument to lead the Palestinians into statehood. But the PA, he suggests, is simply the old PLO, still intending to terrorise or otherwise dispatch Israel into oblivion. And it's the otherwise that we should note, as much as the terror. Frankfurter observes:

'In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Michael Tarazi, who draws his salary from the PLO Negotiation Support Unit, explained that the Palestinians are discarding the public acceptance of the European vision of a two-state solution. He ingeniously calls on Europeans to work towards equal citizenship, a euphemism for a one-state solution and the annihilation of Israel. And here's the catch: Taraziâ's Unit is funded by Britain, Sweden and others. Seemingly, they are innocently financing a group working in contradiction to their own policy of a two-state solution.

Innocently? Given these contradictions and financial fiascos, should Israel trust the EU? It is easy to see why not. European complacency to the public statements by UNRWA Commissioner General, Peter Hansen, that his organisation employs members of Hamas did not surprise the Israeli public. While Hamas is catgorised as a terror group by Europe, the EU and member states are UNRWA's leading donors. And then compare the public outrage by senior Europeans, like Swedish Prime Minister Persson and Dutch Foreign Minister Bot, at the senseless slaughter of women and children at Beslan with the relative equanimity of the daily targeting of innocents by Palestinian terrorists. And the EU is starting to wave the weapon of economic sanctions in the direction of Israel. Put bluntly, if Israel does not play ball, the EU will pull the plug on trade concessions. This matches recent assessments by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Leaks of a confidential report showed fears that Europe is willing to sacrifice Israel and turn it into a pariah state, if she does not capitulate to European demands.

'Rewarding the proponents of terror at the expense of a democracy is consistent with the EU's new commercial policy, having signed a new trade deal with Syria last month, on the very same day the UN endorsed a French led demand that Syria cease its occupation of Lebanon, where it is supporting Hizbollah terrorists. In the summer of 2000, Chairman Arafat realised that the heavy compromises of Prime Minister at Barak at Camp David demanded a full recognition of Israel. The Palestinian leadership could not accept this. It ran to Europe, specifically President Chirac, for a soothing cuddle. Europe obliged its charge. Two months later, war was declared on Israel and terrorists, arrested under the Oslo accords, were released from their cells in Ramallah and Gaza.'

In other words, Europe is trapping Israel in a pincer movement, between Palestinian terror on one side and the opporobrium of the EU, with escalating economic pressure, on the other. And just what is it that it is pressuring Israel to do? Why, nothing other than sign its own death warrant. One way or another, Europe wants Israel gone. it would prefer not to have its own fingerprints on the corpse, and so it is placing the gun in Israel's own hand while pointing another at its head.


Europe has found someone who will do the dirty work for them this time. Ultimate plausible deniability. It's frightening to watch the nations of the world step away from Israel. Earlier today, I posted an article calling for the U.S. to get out of the UN. It is becoming clear that the question of what to do about Israel will likely be the end of the UN. I don't believe the United States is going to join all the other nations in betraying Israel.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I'll Trade You Two Jews
For One Terror-Supporting French Journalist


Little Green Footballs noted today that Hezbollah-owned Al-Manar Television recently ran a program featuring the mothers of suicide bombers:


Umm Said: "In the name of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful, Allah be praised for granting my son to me, on this blessed day. I can not begin to explain what this day means to me, how great and significant it is for me and for all martyrs’ mothers. I am talking about the martyrs’ mothers and all mothers in Lebanon. Whatever I could say about them would not be enough, especially since they paid the price in blood, liberated southern Lebanon, and brought us closer to victory. They granted us a great reward.

"It is enough that they granted us paradise, the greatest thing in this world. I wish a good year to all the martyrs’ mothers and our children, may Allah honor them. Allah be praised for having granted us our sons. Allah be praised."

Interviewer: "Do you feel that as a martyr’s mother you have a special status that is different from that of mothers who don’t have martyred sons?"

Umm Said: "Definitely, Definitely..."

Interviewer: "How do you cope with this?"

Umm Said: "If I’m in the company of others, I can sense the respect and the pride. They say, ‘She’s a martyr’s mother.’ What does this name mean? For me, it’s very meaningful. I walk about with my head high. Allah be praised, Allah be praised, every hour and every minute."


This is, clearly, propaganda designed to motivate more young boys to strap on the belt and blow themselves to bits in the interest of killing Jews. France recently lifted it's ban on Al-Manar and reapproved Hezbollah TV for broadcast within it's borders. Melanie Phillips writes:


'The spike in Moslem attacks on Jews in France last year paralleled Al-Manar's transmission of the horrific Syrian miniseries "Al-Shatat" ("The Diaspora"), based upon The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that depicts rabbis ritually slaughtering children to mix their blood into matzah for Passover! The Center's initial protest galvanized broad public support leading the Broadcasting Authority to ban these broadcasts, which were in clear violation of French laws against spreading antisemitism.'

So why has France suddenly revoked the ban? I am told this was being demanded as the quid pro quo for the release of the French hostages in Iraq (remember them?) who I am also told have been moved to Iran. This deal has been on the cards for weeks. Thus the French barter the lives of some of their citizens for many others; thus they display gross cynicism and absence of principle, decency or indeed a sense of self-preservation; thus they once again show that in the fight against terror, they are on absolutely the wrong side.


I love you Melanie. You are absolutely fearless. Yes, France is willing to trade away the lives of it's Jewish citizenry in exchange for a few journalists. It is disgusting, but really, should it surprise us anymore?

The Elusive Moderate Muslim


Thanks for Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this article by Robert Spencer, from Human Events Online:


Imam Siraj Wahaj is in great demand. Last week he was a featured speaker at the Mosque for the Praising of Allah in Roxbury, Massachusetts. A few days before that, he addressed four hundred people at a Muslim Students Association gathering at Western Michigan University. His star has shone for years: in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. And why not? Not long after 9/11, he said just what jittery Americans wanted to hear from Muslims: "I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism."

But what he thinks actually constitutes extremism is somewhat unclear; after all, he has also warned that the United States will fall unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda." He has lamented that "if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." In the early 1990s he sponsored talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahaj was designated a "potential unindicted co-conspirator."

The fact that someone who would like to see the Constitution replaced has led a prayer for those sworn to uphold it is just a symptom a larger, ongoing problem: the government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to find Muslim leaders who have genuinely renounced violent jihad and any intention, now or in the future, to impose Sharia on non-Muslim countries.


The other day I heard Michael Medved saying on the radio that he had interviewed Ibrahim Hooper (head of the supposedly moderate Council on American-Islamice Relations, otherwise known as CAIR) once, and Hooper had told flat out that his goal would be to have the American Constitution replaced by Islamic Sharia Law.

UN Out Of The United State, Now


Thanks for Michelle Malkin for making me aware of this, from Move America Forward:


Americans must demand our government remove the United Nations from our borders and cease serving as the major financial supporter of an organization that has veered from its original purpose.

The United Nations was originally founded according to its charter “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” However, it has become apparent that leading voices in the United Nations have positioned the organization so that it is increasingly a body that sides with those who find the use of terrorism against unarmed and innocent civilians tolerable.

Instead of serving as a rallying point for free nations and free people to unite to combat terrorism, the United Nations has become a safe harbor, apologist and defender of terrorist organizations and their agents...

Watch the ad and join the campaign here.


I'm not necessarily in agreement with the idea of doing away with the United Nations. However, I do believe that it has proven itself to be a sick and largely irrelevant organization in light of,

1) The Oil-for-Food Scandal

2) The Nigerian Sex Scandal

3) It's overwhelming anti-Semitism (Durban Racism Conference, 1/2 UN resolutions in any given year are condemnations of Israel)

4) It's history of support for Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, whose charter calls for the elimination of the state of Isreal. By the way, that charter is posted at the UN website.

So, why do I not fully support the elimination of the UN. Well, I can't really coherently explain myself, to tell you the truth. I can say this, I am a former liberal Democrat and I still have a soft spot in my heart for the notion that keeping lines of communication open (even with your enemies) is almost always necessary. I'm having a very had time letting go of that idea.

However, the very fact of the UN's existence seems to lend credibility to it's member states. How credible a state is Iran really? Or Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? To my mind production of goods and services, and the economic power that goes with it, do not make a state credible. Certainly the pre-Civil War Southern states were not credible. Neither was Nazi Germany. And we would never think of conferring credibility on the Drug Cartels of South America. So, then why include states like North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia in the United Nations? Why give them the idea that they have a right to their opinion on the world stage?

Arafat Condemned Terror In English - Urged It In Arabic
On Palestinian TV


From Canadian columnist Licia Corbella:


On Nov. 1, while Yasser Arafat was slowly dying in a Paris hospital, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy accomplished what Arafat had been encouraging him and all Palestinian children to do for years.

He became a "Shahid," a martyr, committing Shahada -- death for Allah -- amongst the Jews.
Eli Amer Alfar, laden with explosives, walked into a crowded outdoor Tel Aviv market and blew himself up, killing three and wounding 32 Israelis who were engaged in the highly risky and provocative business of buying vegetables.


Palestinian leaders -- including Arafat, who was on his death bed -- immediately condemned the attack for the ears of Europeans and North Americans.

"(Arafat) appealed to all Palestinian factions to commit to avoid harming all Israeli civilians and he appealed to (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon to take similar initiatives to avoid harming Palestinian civilians," Arafat's spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh said in France.

That quote which got worldwide play did not get any play on the Palestinian Authority television.

Even if it did, however, his followers would know he was only stating this lie to fool the world.
They would know it's a lie because they have watched the pro-suicide bombing music videos on PA Television, as well as heard the speeches Arafat has made urging children to blow themselves up and seek death for Allah.


These messages are played around the clock to Palestinians -- particularly children -- to seek Shahada amongst the Jews.

Those of you who have believed the lies told about Arafat -- the ones the Nobel Peace Prize committee swallowed whole and those who get their news on the Middle East only by watching the 10-second clips of Israeli tanks being greeted by children with rocks -- will think I'm lying.

Well, this week I played a CD on my computer for a bunch of colleagues.

Many were amazed when they saw Arafat -- who died on Nov. 11 -- urging children in schools to follow the example of other children who became martyrs for Allah.


The 25-minute video called Ask for Death! can be downloaded from the website of Palestinian Media Watch (www.pmw.org.il)

It would be great if our own Prime Minister Paul Martin and his inept speech writers could watch it.

If they did, they would be ashamed at their effusive and complimentary words delivered upon the death of Arafat -- who for 40 years has kept his people from peace and has stolen an estimated $1 billion from them, if not more.

The PMW video shows how the Palestinian Authority -- ruled by Arafat -- indoctrinates its entire population to become martyrs for Allah through various media including: Short propaganda films and music videos for children, school events and textbooks, cultural programming, Arafat's own speeches, and interviews with the parents of suicide bombers as well as religious leaders.

These music videos -- and many of them can be watched and listened to in the film -- very often have lines such as this: How sweet is Shahada ... Be joyous over my blood and do not cry for me ... My beloved Mother."

These lines are important because they are very often repeated -- verbatim -- in the suicide notes left by youngsters prior to embarking on their suicide missions.

Similar lines were written by 14-year-old Faris Ouda who left his home with a slingshot after making himself a wreath decorated with photos of himself and having written on it: "The Brave Shahid Faris Ouda."

He also wrote: "Don't worry, mother, Shahada is sweet," as reported in the Palestinian Authority official daily newspaper Al-Hayat Al Jadida, Nov. 30, 2000.

On Aug. 4, 2003 on PA television, Arafat is seen speaking to what appears to be a school assembly.

"We are proud of this growing generation that is representing the steadfast and the sacrifice," says Arafat.

"And self-sacrifice that was represented by your colleague, the hero Shahid, Faris Ouda."

Nothing appeared on the Palestinian Authority television station or in the newspapers that wasn't in keeping with the views of its president, Yasser Arafat.

Arafat was a two-faced terrorist who said one thing in English to a gullible media and world -- and quite another to his own people.

Despite their adoration for him, Arafat was the worst thing that could have happened to the Palestinian people.

Now, there is a real chance for change, but the programming on television and radio and the messages in the mosques and in the texbooks will have to change before change happens.
Only then is peace even remotely possible.



Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is laying a wreath at the grave of this evil Arafat. I find it impossible to believe that Jack Straw does not know about Arafat's anti-Semitic machinations. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that Jack Straw doesn't care that Arafat's life's goal was killing Jews, instead of the stated goal that he was working to gain of a homeland for his people.

I have a hard time believing that Jack Straw thinks this is an admirable goal, so I'm guessing that Jack Straw is a desolate human being who tenaciously adheres to the logic of power; that powerful men deserve respect (even in death) merely because they are powerful, no matter from what, or where, they derive their power.

Simply put, Arafat's power derived from his visceral hatred of Jews, and from the fact that his hatred resonated with the Palestinian people.

Sadly, the possibility of peace does not look promising in the near term either, because Mahmoud Abbas (the supposed moderate) is also a virulent anti-Semite, who was awarded his Doctorate (from Moscow Occidental College) for a dissertation which engaged in Holocaust Minimization and posited that the Jews worked with Hitler to create the Holocaust in order to gain sympathy which would end up in their being awarded the land of Israel by the U.N.

The Wages Of Appeasement Are Death


From Medienkritik:


Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice Commentary by Mathias Döpfner

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it?

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary—we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house.


A longtime reader of CUANAS (and there aren't many) would know that I have consistently characterized Europe as Grandma Europa (a poor doddering old lady, shut in her house, senile, a danger to herself and her neighbors). I love Dopfner's description here . Sounds like the behaviour of Grandma Europa to me.

Finally, Something That Will Make Hollywood Shut Up


Bridget Johnson laments the appalling silence of the artistic community in the face of the murder of Theo Van Gogh:


Since Nov. 2, I've had an icky feeling in the pit of my stomach. As an ardent Bush backer, my queasiness has nothing to do with the glorious election results, but is prompted by a murder that occurred the same day in Amsterdam.

Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh's short film "Submission," about the treatment of women in Islam, written by female Dutch parliamentarian and former Muslim Aayan Hirsi Ali, had aired in August on Dutch TV. Van Gogh was riding his bike near his home when a Muslim terrorist shot him, slashed his throat, and pinned to his body a note threatening Ms. Ali. This appears to be an organized effort, not the act of a lone nut; Dutch authorities are holding 13 suspects in the case.

After the slaying, I watched "Submission" (available online at ifilm.com) and my mind is still boggled that 11 minutes decrying violence against women incites such violence. There've been many films over the years that have taken potshots at Catholics, but I don't remember any of us slaughtering filmmakers over the offense. You didn't see the National Rifle Association order a hit on Michael Moore over "Bowling for Columbine."

One would think that in the name of artistic freedom, the creative community would take a stand against filmmakers being sent into hiding à la Salman Rushdie, or left bleeding in the street. Yet we've heard nary a peep from Hollywood about the van Gogh slaying. Indeed Hollywood has long walked on eggshells regarding the topic of Islamic fundamentalism. The film version of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" changed Palestinian terrorists to neo-Nazis out of a desire to avoid offending Arabs or Muslims. The war on terror is a Tinsel Town taboo, even though a Hollywood Reporter poll showed that roughly two-thirds of filmgoers surveyed would pay to see a film on the topic.



Roger Simon has also noted this cowardice, from a community of people who have no trouble speaking out against George Bush, calling him "Hitler," "evil," "anti-Christ."

The shameful silence of the artistic community shows an immense lack of self-respect. Pathetic.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Thanksgiving


A Thanksgiving column from Michelle Malkin:


My 4-year-old daughter recently learned to say grace at mealtimes. I taught her the same little prayer my mom taught me in childhood:

God is great
God is good
Let us thank him for our food
By his hands we all are fed
Give us Lord our daily bread

Amen.

At first, my daughter questioned the need for reciting this strange passage. "Why do we have to thank God?" she wondered. "To show that we are grateful for our daily bread," I explained.

"What is 'grateful'?" she asked.

"Being appreciative for what we have," I answered.

"But I'm not eating daily bread," she argued in between bites of macaroni and cheese.
"It means whatever fills your tummy each day," I clarified.


"Oh."

In typical toddler fashion, my daughter is now absolutely fanatical about her new routine. Not only must we say grace before every meal, but also before each snack. And anytime we have a drink. And anytime her baby brother gobbles Cheerios in his car seat. Failure to give thanks to God is met with swift retribution. Our daughter has no qualms about chastising us in public -- at restaurants, airports or Starbucks:

"Hey, stop eating! You forgot to say grace!"

Despite the embarrassment it sometimes causes, I love her unrepentant zeal. It reminds us not to take for granted our too-infrequent gestures of daily thanksgiving. It reminds us to be humble. Following her lead, we must all bow our heads and fold our hands and shut our eyes and shout a full-throated "Amen!"

The snobs of secularism will no doubt disparage such simple-minded expressions of piety. They call us "Jesus freaks," "Bible-thumpers" and "fundies." They accuse us of being "weak" and of suffering from a "neurological disorder." They consider us such a threat that they have sought to expunge even the most innocuous references to thanking God in the public schools.

When Garwood, N.J., student Kaeley Hay wrote a Thanksgiving poem mentioning the Pilgrims' gratitude to the Lord, according to the Newark Star-Ledger, skittish administrators initially removed the word "God" from her piece:

Leaves are falling out of the air,
Piles of leaves everywhere.
Scarecrows standing high up with the corn,
Farmers harvest in the early morn.
Pilgrims thank [blank] for what they were given,
Everybody say . . . happy Thanksgiving!

Here in my home state of Maryland, according to the Annapolis Capital, "Maryland public school students are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th century celebration of Thanksgiving -- as long as it's not God."

True to the religio-phobic conception of educational "diversity," Maryland public school officials have turned Thanksgiving into a multicultural harvest devoid of its spiritual essence. Students are taught that Pilgrims had a "belief system," but nothing further. Not to worry, though. "The Pilgrim Story is read in Spanish and English," Alfreda Adams, principal at Mills-Parole Elementary School in Anne Arundel County where 70 Hispanic students attend, told the Capital. "We make sure that we celebrate all cultures."

Such politically correct muddle-headedness explains why Maryland students can't learn Pilgrim prayers in public schools while the town of Hamtramck, Mich., feels free to blast Islamic prayers over public loudspeakers five times a day.

Once an unabashedly pious land, we have been transformed into a nation of historically clueless ingrates -- embarrassed about our heritage, afraid of offending all newcomers, and more committed to inculcating a sense of entitlement over a culture of gratitude. Abe Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation of 1863 rings truer than ever:

We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, the many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to God that made us!

Amen.

Christians Rise Up In Europe


More than a million people from all over Europe are to deliver a petition to Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders calling for changes to the constitution recognising Europe's Christian heritage.

Refusing to accept a secular "fait accompli" from Brussels, a Christian coalition is demanding that each EU state publish its version of the constitution's preamble, with references to God if desired.

Already armed with 1,149,000 signatures and with thousands more pouring in from Holland since the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh, the group claims that most states want some reference to Christianity but were blocked by France.

The move is keenly backed by Pope John Paul II, who has repeatedly condemned the "moral drift" of Brussels. "One does not cut the roots to one's birthright," he told pilgrims this summer.
Euro-MPs voted this week to back the calls for a change in the text. Petitioners, led by Italy's International Mission Centre, will now take their case to EU governments. The current version of the preamble eschews Christianity, talking vaguely of "the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe".


Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, deliberately left the issue open when he wrote the document, inviting a petition.

"I have chosen not to insert the reference to the Christian heritage in the constitution,"he said. "Rather I appeal to you to persuade me of its necessity."

A British official said it was too late to change the preamble, although national parliaments could add a "rider" stressing their country's Christian roots.

An EU official said: "These Christians could at least have the good grace to accept that they lost the argument."


Shut up and sit on your hands you dumb Christians. Only speak when you are spoken to.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Romance With God


Yesterday, I posted the lyrics to one of my favorite love songs, Please Forgive Me by David Gray, along with the following comment:


Whenever I hear this song, I think of two people in my life. One of those people is my wife. I wonder if my wife would know who the other person is.

Ok, the answer is (drum roll) ...

It's a guy ...

Am I gay? ...

Well, no, but I certainly am not the kind of Christian who dislikes gay people, so you can think I am if you want to, and it wouldn't bother me one bit ...

Ok, it's ...

Yeshua. Meshiach (Messiah). Immanuel. Jesus Christ. Prince of Peace. Creator of the heavens and the earth. My Savior, the man/God who died for my sins, and the sins of all mankind.

Also, unfortunately, the person I've been the most cruel, disrespectful and arrogant to in my lifetime. But that's just me, huh?

Anyway, why would I say I think about God when I listen to the lyrics of a romantic song? Because, I have a romantic relationship with God. We are the Bride Of Christ, after all.

Think about what romantic feelings are. Say you're out on a date with someone who you really like, and you're wondering do they like you? Your senses are all lit up, the air smells sweet, colors are more nuanced, yet more intense, the cold weather makes you feel even more alive.

Well, who created the colors, the fragrances and the cold? God did, of course. So, what you are in love with, what you are celebrating is His creation. Falling in love is a time of pure and deep praise and worship. It's true that we can separate our romantic feelings, and our life itself, from God. If you do this in a relationship, all you are left with is sex. If you do it in your life, all you are left with is desolation.

If you connect your romantic feelings to God, you can feel like you are falling in love everyday, and your relationship with your partner will be more alive and deep.

Now, I'm not saying that I feel like this all the time. No, I'm a loser in love just like everyone else. But, I have been feeling like this lately. Thank God.

But, of course, it's not all about our feelings. It's about what we do. We have to set aside thought time to allow these beautiful moments to happen. And when we are going through hard times, it is, of course, even harder to have romance. But it says in Psalm 23 that God will prepare a table for us in the midst of our enemies, and I believe that that table contains the tableware of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.


Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Columbia University Supports It's Anti-Semitic, Racist Faculty


Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this from NY Daily News:


In the world of Hamid Dabashi, supporters of Israel are "warmongers" and "Gestapo apparatchiks." The Jewish homeland is "nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States." It's a capital of "thuggery" - a "ghastly state of racism and apartheid" - and it "must be dismantled."

A voice from America's crackpot fringe? Actually, Dabashi is a tenured professor and department chairman at Columbia University. And his views have resonated and been echoed in other areas of the university.

In three weeks of interviews, numerous students told the Daily News they face harassment, threats and ridicule merely for defending the right of Israel to survive. And the university itself is holding investigations into the alleged intimidation.

The 53-year-old, Iranian-born scholar has said CNN should be held accountable for "war crimes" for one-sided coverage of Sept. 11, 2001. He doubts the existence of Al Qaeda and questions the role of Osama Bin Laden in the attacks.

Dabashi did not return calls.

After the showing of a student-made documentary about faculty bias and bullying that targets Jewish students, six or seven swastikas were found carved in a Butler Library bathroom last month.

Said Brinkley: If a professor taught the "Earth was flat or there was no Holocaust," Columbia might intervene in the classroom. "But we don't tell faculty they can't express strong, or even offensive opinions." Yet even some faculty members say they fear social ostracism and career consequences if they're viewed as too pro-Israel, and that many have been cowed or shamed into silence.

One apparently unafraid is Dan Miron, a professor of Hebrew literature and holder of a prestigious endowed chair. He said scores of Jewish students - about one a week - have trooped into his office to complain about bias in the classroom. "Students tell me they've been browbeaten, humiliated and treated disrespectfully for daring to challenge the idea that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish nation," he said.

"They say they've been told Israeli soldiers routinely rape Palestinian women and commit other atrocities, and that Zionism is racism and the root of all evil."

To identify the Columbia faculty with the most strongly anti-Israel views, The News spoke to numerous teachers and students, including some who took their courses; reviewed interviews and published works, and examined Web sites that report their public speeches and statements, including the online archives of the Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper.

Their views could be dismissed as academic fodder if they weren't so incendiary.

Columbia's firebrands

Nicholas De Genova, who teaches anthropology and Latino studies. The Chronicle of Higher Education calls him "the most hated professor in America." At an anti-war teach-in last year, he said he wished for a "million Mogadishus," referring to the slaughter of U.S. troops in Somalia in 1993.

"U.S. patriotism is inseparable from imperial warfare and white supremacy," he added. De Genova has also said, "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people. ... Israel has no claim to the heritage of the Holocaust."

De Genova didn't return calls.

Bruce Robbins, a professor of English and comparative literature. In a speech backing divestment, he said, "The Israeli government has no right to the sufferings of the Holocaust."

Joseph Massad, who is a tenure-track professor of Arab politics. Students and faculty interviewed by The News consistently claimed that the Jordanian-born Palestinian is the most controversial, and vitriolic, professor on campus. "How many Palestinians have you killed?" he allegedly asked one student, Tomy Schoenfeld, an Israeli military veteran, and then refused to answer his questions.

Rashid Khalidi, who is the Edward Said professor of Arab studies. When Palestinians in a Ramallah police station lynched two Israeli reservists in 2000 - throwing one body out a window and proudly displaying bloodstained hands - the professor attacked the media, not the killers. He complained about "inflammatory headlines" in a Chicago Sun-Times story and called the paper's then-owner, Conrad Black, who also owned the Jerusalem Post, "the most extreme Zionist in public life."

Reached at Columbia, Khalidi declined to comment on specifics.


Imagine a white Professor telling a classroom full of African-Americans that they have no right to the sufferings of slavery. Imagine what would happen if American soldiers killed two "Iraqi insurgents" and threw one of their bodies out a window and proudly displayed their bloodstained hands. Imagine if a white Professor wished a million Sabra's and Shatilla's on the Arab people.

Racism and incitement to violence is never ok, no matter the color of the skin around the mouth that utters it's vile phrases. We are a nation of fools to let Professors at one of our best universities get away with these things.

Our top news networks, daily papers, and news magazines should be shouting out the news of this filthy racism from every rooftop in the nation. We cannot allow such racism and anti-Semitism to continue to gain momentum.

Peace And Justice Action Network For Suicide Bombings


Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs makes the point that.


... in the sick political world of the left wing: if a group proclaims they’re for “Peace and Justice,” it means they support violence and terrorism.

Case in point: WESPAC, a “Peace and Justice Action Network” in White Plains, New York, is trying to raise money to display an “art exhibition” titled Made in Palestine—featuring works like this vile painting depicting Ariel Sharon collecting and boiling blood from a Palestinian child, and this vile exhibit, glorifying Palestinian mass murderers.


Here's a quote from the Official Introduction on the website for the "art exhibit":


To several of the artists, the subject of the martyrs is an all-important topic. A true martyr is anyone who gives his life in service of his people, including the rock-throwing children and suicide bombers that attack Israeli civilians.

Please Forgive Me


Lyrics to Please Forgive Me, a song by David Gray:


Please forgive me
If I act alittle strange
For I know not what I do.
Feels like lightning running through my veins
Everytime I look at you
Everytime I look at you


Help me out here
All my words are falling short
And there's so much I want to say
Want to tell you just how good it feels
When you look at me that way
When you look at me that way


Throw a stone and watch the ripples flow
Moving out across the bay
Like a stone I fall into your eyes
Deep into some mystery
Deep into that mystery


I got half a mind to scream out loud
I got half a mind to die
So I won't ever have to lose you
Won't ever have to say goodbye
I won't ever have to lie
Won't ever have to say goodbye


Please forgive me
If I act alittle strange
For I know not what I do
It's like my head is filled with lightning girl
Everytime I look at you
Everytime I look at you
Everytime I look at you
Everytime I look at you



Whenever I hear this song, I think of two people in my life. One of those people is my wife. I wonder if my wife would know who the other person is.

Answer tomorrow.

Monday, November 22, 2004

The Larger Plan of The War Against Islamofascism


An article by Victor David Hanson, from the National Review:


In September and early October 2001 we were warned that an invasion of Afghanistan was impossible — peaks too high, winter and Ramadan on the way, weak and perfidious allies as bad as the Islamists — and thus that the invasion would result in tens of thousands killed and millions of refugees. Where have all these subversive ankle-biters gone? Apparently into thin air — or to the same refuge of silence as all the Reagan-haters of the 1980s who swore that a nuclear freeze was the only humane policy of dealing with Soviet expansionism.

After the seven-week defeat of the Taliban, these deer-in-the-headlights critics paused, and then declared the victory hollow. They said the country had descended into rule by warlords, and called the very idea of scheduled voting a laughable notion. We endured them for almost two years. Yet after the recent and mostly smooth elections, Afghanistan has slowly disappeared from the maelstrom of domestic politics, as all those who felt our efforts were not merely impossible but absurd retreated to the shadows to gnash their teeth that Kabul is not yet Carmel. Western feminists, homosexual-rights advocates, and liberal reformists have never in any definitive way expressed appreciation for the Afghan revolution now ongoing in the lives of 26 million formerly captive people. They never will. Instead, Westerners simply now assume that there was never any controversy, but rather a general consensus that Afghanistan is a "good thing" — as if the Taliban went into voluntarily exile due to occasional censure from The New York Review of Books.

The more ambitious effort to achieve similar results in Iraq is following the same script, despite even more daunting challenges. Fascistic neighbors rightly see elections in Iraq as near fatal to their own bankrupt regimes. Some have oil; others have terrorists; still more, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, have both. Unlike Afghanistan, there is no neutral India or Russia nearby to keep Islamists wary, only the provinces of the ancient caliphate to supply plenty of jihadists to continue the work of September 11. Our mistakes in the reconstruction of Iraq were never properly critiqued as naïve and too magnanimous, but rather they were decried by the Left as cruel and punitive — as if being too lax was proof of being harsh.

Yet, thanks to the brilliance of the U.S. military and despite the rocky reconstruction and our own election hysteria, there is a good chance that the January elections can begin a cycle similar to what we see in Afghanistan. And at that point things should get very, very interesting.

Just as the breakdown of a few Communist Eastern European states led to a general collapse of Marxism in the east, or the military humiliation in colonial Africa and the Falklands led to democratic renaissance in Iberia and Argentina, or American military efforts in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Panama City brought consensual government to Central America, a reformed Afghanistan and Iraq may prompt what decades of billions of dollars in wasted aid to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians, the 1991 Gulf War, and 60 years of appeasement of Gulf petrol-sheiks could not: the end of the old sick calculus of Middle East tyrannies blackmailing the United States through past intrigue with the Soviet Union, then threats of oil embargos and rigged prices, and, most recently, both overt and stealthy support for fundamentalist killers.

The similar effort to isolate Arafat, encourage the withdrawal from Gaza, and allow the Israelis to proceed with the fence have brought more opportunity to the Middle East than all of Dennis Ross's shuttles put together, noble and well-meant though his futile efforts were. The onus is on the Palestinians now either to turn Gaza into their own republic or give birth to another Lebanon — their call before a globalized audience. They can hold elections and shame the Arab League by being the embryo of consensual government in the Middle East, or coronate yet another thug and terrorist in hopes that again the United States will play a Chamberlain to their once-elected Hitler.


The divide between left and right over the War On Islamofascism breaks at our respective understandings of who, exactly, the enemy is and what constitutes his support network. The left seems to believe (and it really is kind of a sweet-hearted belief, bless their souls) that there are just a few bad guys out there, hanging out in apartments in Marseilles, and Arizona, or in caves in Afghanistan. All we need to do then is send some policemen out to knock on their doors and handcuff them. Yes, the policemen might need to draw their guns occasionally, but this war really can be, pretty much, an enlightened pursuit executed between peace rallies. And, as for the terrorists support network, why that's simple, it's all about the money, so we need to seize their bank accounts, and donate the money to daycare services for single moms.

Of course, we will need to monitor and arrest terrorists, and seize bank accounts. Oh, but wait, the left even has trouble with what is meant by "monitoring."

Oh, for God's sake.

The laughable part of all this is that the Bush Administration clearly delineated the goals of the War On Terror from the very beginning. And yet, every new move seems to shock the left into ever-worsening spasms of horror at the ever-descending evil mind of George Bush.

Here's what Bush told us, from the very beginning. The War on Terror (Islamofascism) is a war against the terrorist networks and the states who fund them. In some cases there will need to be regime change in order to put a stop to the support and funding of these Islamofascist terrorists. Afghangistan would be first because it's Taliban government supported the Al Qaeda network by encouraging them to set up training camps within Afghanistan. After that, it will be on the the "Axis of Evil;" which George Bush also clearly delineated. First Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea.

Along the way (just to make sure that the left is fully informed), it is possible that other monsters will rear their frightening heads. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, any of these coutries may decide to lend support to the terrorists, or they might, as in the case of Libya, decide they want to make it very clear that they want to work with the United States, and it's goal of ending Islamofascist Terror. Either way, the United States, under the Bush Administration, will move forward in the pursuit of these goals.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Human Rights Or Realpolitik?


From Belmont Club:


Two different visions of the future of the world were separately articulated over the last few days. The first was delivered by Jacques Chirac, the President of France at a gathering sponsored by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

He said the West could not impose its values on the world and confuse democratisation and Westernisation. "Granted, it is still possible to organise the world based on a logic of power yet experience has taught us that this type of organisation is, by its very definition, unstable and sooner or later leads to crisis or conflict. ... It is by recognising the new reality of a multi-polar and interdependent world that we will succeed in building a sounder and fairer international order. This is why we must work together to revive multilateralism, a multilateralism based on a reformed and strengthened United Nations."

In Chirac's view the United States had tried to impose this "logic of power" on the world and stood condemned. The New York Times reported on remarks the French President had delivered earlier.

Most prominently, Mr. Chirac reiterated his view that the war in Iraq had led to an "expansion" of terrorism in the world. Though he said that France was willing to put its differences with Britain and the United States aside and look to the future by helping to rebuild a stable, democratic and sovereign Iraq, Mr. Chirac indicated that he thought the judgment of history would go against the Iraq war and vindicate those who opposed it. ...

"We have another choice," Mr. Chirac told an audience at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (remarks delivered later). "That of an order based on respect for international law and the empowerment of the world's new poles by fully and wholly involving them in the decision-making mechanisms. "Only this path," he added, "is likely to establish a stable, legitimate and accepted order in the long run." The new "poles" he spoke of are the emerging regional powers of the new century, including Europe, China, India and Brazil.

A fortnight earlier, an American Undersecretary of Defense gave a quiet interview to Radek Sikorski, at one time a deputy minister of defense himself in Poland, on the future as he saw it. Paul Wolfowitz. The full article is in the Prospect Magazine.

Export of democracy isn't really a good phrase. We're trying to remove the shackles on democracy. What you would hope is that governments can be encouraged on a path of gradual reform because that's the best way to avoid the sort of cataclysm that will come otherwise. ... We're not trying to graft our system of government on to people who are different from us. We're trying to remove shackles that keep them from having what they want. And it's astonishing how many of them want something that's similar to what we in the west have.

Sikorski put a rhetorical question to Wolfowitz: "The US president used to be seen as the leader of the free world rather than just president of one country and America used to be seen as a benign global empire. Now, after 9/11, understandably, this is a more patriotic, perhaps even a more nationalistic country. But won't the price of running a nationalistic American empire be much higher than managing a co-operative one?" Wolfowitz responded with the most astonishing assertion of the interview, the idea that a cooperative "empire" -- if empire it could be called -- could only consist of free nations.

"The premise of your question is that we're out to run an empire, but there is no American empire. Look at Japan and Korea. They were part of this so-called empire in the cold war. After the second world war and the Korean war, we invested heavily in the defence and economic systems of countries like Japan and Korea - hardly an imperial undertaking. I would submit that we have benefited enormously from their strength and their ability to stand on their own feet. They're now contributing to the rest of the world. We're so much better off with a Japan as a strong trading partner than a Japan as a basket case. If people want to redefine the word "empire" to mean this as an empire, then it's just semantics. We are not trying to control these countries so we can exploit their resources. We're trying to enable these countries to stand on their own feet and our experience says that when they do so, we're better off.

It's back to the absurdity of saying we're trying to impose our ideas on other people when we want to help them become democracies. There's more legitimacy to the question of whether we are really prepared to live with what they produce when they become democratic. There's an uncertainty about the democratic process and there's always a danger that bad people will get elected. But it's a funny empire that relies on releasing basic human desires to be free and prosperous and live in peace. One of the things about this moment in history is that nobody really thinks they can produce an army, a navy or an air force that can take on the US. That should channel human competitiveness into more productive and peaceful pursuits. "

History may remember Jacques Chirac as one of the most prolific institution builders of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The European Union and the United Nations are but some of the multilateral projects he sought to strengthen in the belief they would serve as a prototype for the future ordering of the world. Wolfowitz's vision seems altogether more complex. He seems unwilling to speak of institutions outside the context of empowerment, as if to speak of instruments of governance without freedoms was tantamount to prescribing tyranny. Their difference of opinion may be rooted, not so much in an argument over bureaucratic arrangements, but in their view of the nature of man himself.


I have been astonished over the past three years to have watch as the evidence of a polar shift between left and right continues to reveal itself. The left used to harangue the right for it's reliance on Realpolitik in international affairs. And they were right to do so. The right used to rely on the "practical" approach, saying, in effect, of certain governments, "Yes, he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

The right preferred a stable trading and negotiating partner, while the left worked towards, or at least said they believed in working towards, human rights for the peoples of the world.

Now, it is the complete opposite. George Bush ran, in the 2000 Presidential Elections as a candidate opposed to "Nation Building." But here in 2004, he gives speeches proclaiming that "Freedom beats in the heart of all people, everywhere," and making the extraordinary claim that we as Americans should fight and die to see that the momentum of history moves in that direction. And, the majotiy of the American people have supported him in this noble idea.

Meanwhile, the Left has become the party of Realpolitik. Those opposed to the War in Iraq can often be heard scolding the Bush Administration, saying that the people of Iraq might not want a democracy, that maybe they prefer to live under an Islamic dictatorship. This notion is antithetical to the idea of Human Rights.

Back in the days when I traveled with the liberal musican/artist set, I did some work with Amnesty International. I recall being told by their people that Freedom of Expression was the first, and most important, Human Right, because free speech gives birth to all the other rights we inherit as Humans.

I agreed with that idea then, and I agree with it now.

And what is a Democracy other than a large body of people who share Freedom of Expression? And why has the left given up on this Human Right first? And, if they are no longer willing to fight for Freedom of Expression where and when do they think the chaos and oppression will end?

Former Muslim Says,
"The Main Theme Of Jihad Is Murdering Christians and Jews."


From Jihad Watch:


A former Muslim spoke at the Ridge Southern Baptist Church on Sunday evening to explain the "True Under-standing of Islam."

Pastor Mujahid el-Masih had been Muslim for 14 years before he converted to Christianity in his native country of Pakistan.

Armed with a power-point presentation and a slew of quotes, he now travels around the United States as a part of The Voices of Martyrs."I came from a country where there is no freedom of speech and no freedom of religion," el-Masih said.

Very little was said about el-Masih's conversion to Christianity.

Instead, el-Masih focused on the teachings of the Quran and how they relate to the political climate today.

"The best source of the truth of Islam is the Quran," el-Masih said.The speech was peppered with anecdotes and references were cited from the Quran through out the lecture, as well as the resounding "Amen" when the energy of the congregation seemed to lull.

He also asked that his picture not be taken due to the fact that he still had Christian family members in Pakistan, which is predominately Muslim.

First and foremost,
el-Masih refuted any claims that Islam was a peaceful religion.
"The main theme of jihad is the murdering of Christians and Jews,"
el-Masih said.

According to el-Masih, Allah, the Muslim God, told Muslims to go forth and spread the religion through out the whole world by any means. Therefore, Muslims justify warfare as a means to spread the religion.

Any arguments such as passages in the Quran of tolerance for other religions were also quickly dismissed by el-Masih. He claimed that Mohammad had said the passages of tolerance before Muslims started having any clout. Once the Muslims gained some power, they rejected the idea of tolerance for other religions in favor of conquering a nation and telling them to either convert to Islam, pay a tax or be put to death.



Honestly, I have a hard time believing that most Muslims would want to kill Christians and Jews. And I have a hard time believing that most Muslims would think that it is their duty to kill Christians and Jews. But, if even a small percentage believe that it is their duty, or the duty of a subset of Muslims to do so, then we have a very big problem on our hands. And, I suspect we do.

Chris Matthews and Michael Scherer
Recommend Not Negotiating With Terrorists
And More Military Force


Here's a transcript of Rush Limbaugh discussing and rolling tape of an interview Christ Matthew did with Michael Scheuer:


Let's move on to Chris Matthews last night. He outdid himself last night over Monday night. Last night he was talking to the former chief of the CIA bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer. Now, this is a man who wrote a book while still working for the CIA and went on television anonymously sitting in shadows to explain how the Bush administration was totally botching the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and everything was going wrong.

He shows up with Chris Matthews. His ID is blown now and he's out there actually speaking under the bright lights. He quit the CIA last Friday. By the way, his new book is called "Imperial Hubris," and Chris Matthews says, "What is bin Laden's motive? Why does he want to kill us?"

SCHEUER: His motive is, uh, to change our policies, sir. Uhhh, notwithstanding what the president or Mr. Kerry said during the campaign, he really doesn't give a darn about our democracy or our society --

MATTHEWS (Interrupts): Right.

SCHEUER: He's after a change in policies which he views as lethal to Muslims --

MATTHEWS (Interrupts): Does he think, for example, let me try this -- and I don't want to sound like an apologist -- but suppose we had truly an evenhanded policy in the Middle East. Suppose there was a Palestinian entity of some kind, and it had reasonable borders, and it was contiguous enough to be a working state, and we didn't back dictators like the Saudi Royal Family and people like that who are simply selling the oil to keep their fingers filled with rings and girlfriends in London, all right? Suppose we were a good country and an evenhanded country, all right? Would that make it any less hostile to us?

SCHEUER: We are a good country, sir.

RUSH: Uh (sigh) do I need to amplify this? I don't think I need to amplify this: "Suppose we were a good country and an evenhanded country," Chris Matthews asks a renegade CIA agent -- and this continued. Matthews says, "Well, what are the problems beside the Middle East and the oil kingdoms?"

SCHEUER: With bin Laden --

MATTHEWS (Interrupts): Yeah.

SCHEUER: -- his opposition was based on support for Israel, uhhh support for the tyrannize --

MATTHEWS (interrupts): Does he want to eliminate Israel?

SCHEUER: I think he does. I think that's --

MATTHEWS (interrupts): Okay, well, that makes it simple.

SCHEUER: -- clearly his goal.

MATTHEWS: So there's no policy negotiation we could ever have with this guy?

SCHEUER: It has to be a change of policies and a, and a more assertive use of military force.


This is a perplexing conversation, isn't it? Here, you have Michael Sheuer (who dislikes the Bush Administration and it's War On Terror policy so much that he wrote and book called "Imperial Hubris") and Chris Matthews who night after night (on CNBC) criticizes the Bush Administration for it's arrogance and lack of nuance) discussing the Middle East. And what conclusion do they come to?

That we can't negotiate with the terrorist, Bin Laden, and that we need a more assertive use of military force.

So, really, what the heck are they so angry with the Bush Administration about?

An American Islamic Women Explains Why Our Marines Are Fighting


From PowerLine Blog:


I thought this comment, by a woman named Monir Kazemi, is worth repeating. She is responding to a comment from another woman who ridiculed her criticisms of the Islamofascists:

Jana says: "Monir you dont know anything about Iraq or Islam or the Koran ...."

Dear Jana, I was born in the Middle East and went to Islamic school and at one time I memorized parts of the Koran. I am from a neighboring country to Iraq.

The Koran says Sureh 4, Verse 35: Men have authority over women (not just the wife but sisters, daughters, maids, etc.). If they disobey, "first admonish them, then refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them". You can read it for yourself at http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/ or other sites. Also try

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html

to see the 2nd class citizenship of women in Islam (for example they are counted as half of one witness, or receive inheritence half of a man).

Now Jana you are wrong that this is a matter of interpretation. When the Koran says women receive half the inheritence of a man, then this is not an issue of interpretation. It says Sureh 4:11 - "A male shall inherit twice as much as a female". Now how can you interpret mathematics in multiple ways?

You say that I am "not allowed" (by whom may I ask?) - that I am not allowed to say that the Koran has recommended to beat women or to disinherit women because of their gender. And why can't I say this? What stops me and other open minded people to say that the Koran contains nonsense of this sort?

If it offends you that I say this, well then take a cold shower, and if you are a moslem (by the sound of it) then change your religion instead of being so embarrased about it, as I am just repeating what is in there complete with verse numbers and am exercizing my right to free speech, and I can say all I wish about Islam, including facts about the Koran - and this is exactly why the Marines are in Fallujah beating the hell out of these Islamofascists - because they want to stop me from saying the facts, and no Jana, you cannot stop me as those Marines are protecting me, the Iraqis, and ultimately America, and neither can you stop the good Marines who are risking their lives, to bring out the truth about this decrepit religion. You should be ashamed of yourself to undermine our men and women in danger in the battlezone who are fighting tyranny, while people like you suck up to it.


Well put, Monir. Thanks