Saturday, January 15, 2005

What The PCers Will
And Will Not Tolerate


From Fire, via Michelle Malkin:


Florida’s Indian River Community College (IRCC) is engaging in a campaign of repression against a Christian student group for attempting to show Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ on campus. In November 2004, the college banned the Christian Student Fellowship (CSF) from showing the film because it was R-rated, despite the fact that the college has hosted a live performance entitled “F**king for Jesus” that describes simulated sex with “the risen Christ.”


Fear Of A Blog Planet


Bill O'Reily is "frightened" by bloggers.

So is this guy.

:)

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
Ask The Imam
Some Advice From The Fatwa Dept.


Hope you find this as funny as I do:


Question: The west is often criticised by Muslims for many reasons, such as allowing women go to work.

But shouldnt the west also recieve praise because its always them who intervenve when muslims r being tortured,they stopped Milosovic kiling muslims and sent their own troops to the country,they r usually the first to send aid when theres a flood,they r also intervening in Isreal and condeming them killing Muslims ,so should we appreciate their efforts or not?

Answer 1394: In simple the Kuffaar can never be trusted for any possible good they do. They have their own interest at heart.

Was salaam

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

Well, I guess it's not really funny. But, you just gotta love your enemies when they show how incredibly stupid they are.

Friday, January 14, 2005

One Man's Freedom Fighter
Is Another Man's Armed Forces


I have always thought that the Palestinian terrorists were despicable in their willingness to target innocent women and children on buses, and in restaurants. I have also always been extremely disappointed in people who, when confronted with the terrorists atrocities reply by uttering the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

But, I have never denied that these terrorists are "freedom fighters" in the sense that they are fighting for a cause, and that they do want to be "free" of something. I believe that. It's just that what they want to be of is Jews.

That's very noble, right?

I think we all should just acknowledge the truth, that the noble Jihadi's are doing exactly what they say they are doing. They are waging Jihad. They are fighting for the freedom of the Palestinian people. That they are serving as the de facto army of the Palestinian Authority because "What do you expect them to do, the Israeli's won't allow them to have a real army."

Therefore, it would be reasonable for Israel to do what any sovereign state would do, when they are under attack by the armed forces of another. That is, wage all-out war against their enemy and beat them until they surrender. The Israeli government owes protection to their people, and to the state as a whole.

If the Israeli's want to be compassionate, though, they could seal off their borders and completely cut off all relationship with the Palestinian people. This would allow the Palestinians to build a state on their own, without the meddling of the Israeli's whom they hate so much.

Then, if the Palestinian's once again attack the Israeli's, it will be even more clear that the sovereign Palestinian government is waging war against the state of Israel.

Giving In To The Extortionist Demands
Of Civilization's Enemies


Following up on the post below about moral relativism, here is an excellent critique, by a self-identified liberal, of another article which had made a relativist argument about the Theo Van Gogh murder. From the Yale Daily News:


One way to understand the significance of van Gogh's murder is through a facile equation of the values of the murderer with the values of the murdered. Ashley provides a rather eloquent summary of such a position: "[B]oth [van Gogh] and his killer were peculiarly vicious examples of their respective views on life, savaging each other with knife and camera, committed Muslim and committed secularist alike unwilling or unable to deal with the other's very existence."
I fear that far too many Yalies, especially my fellow liberals, would subscribe to the odious notion that "knife and camera" are morally equivalent, or that van Gogh's film was somehow "flamebait" and that he was therefore at least partly responsible for his own death. It is tantamount to suggesting that making films, which is what van Gogh did with his camera, belongs to the same ethical category as slaughtering an innocent man pleading for his life, which is what Bouyeri did with his knife. Moreover, it is just not the case that the "committed secularist" and the "committed Muslim" were mutually unable to cope with one another's existences. Van Gogh publicly expressed his opinion that fundamentalist Islam posed an existential threat to liberal Dutch society, and Bouyeri then proved van Gogh correct in the most gruesome way imaginable.
The events in Holland this November were hardly the first occurrence of their type. There may be older examples of artists being credibly threatened with death or injury for their supposed offenses against Islam, but the paradigm case is undoubtedly the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for having dared to satirize the Koran. Then as now -- at least to the extent that anyone is commenting on the van Gogh murder in the first place -- a significant cadre of liberals is entertaining the thought that the artist in question was somehow "asking for it," or that his "chickens had come home to roost."
The Ayatollah Khomeini's promise to pay off whoever succeeded in killing Rushdie had to be explained (so we were told in 1989) as a regrettable but foreseeable consequence of insensitivity to Muslim cultural values. This is precisely the point of Ashley's column, and if, as I suspect, it is representative of the left/liberal reaction to van Gogh's death, then it will be quite clear that the left has learned nothing about the unqualified evil of murder, let alone the global applicability of principles like freedom of speech and gender equality.
Let us call this line of thinking by its proper name: capitulation to the extortionist demands of civilization's enemies, and cynical postmodern indifference to an ongoing assault on the core values of liberal society.
There is no possibility of compromise or coexistence with a culture that regards the mere existence of rights for others as an offense to be avenged by murder and terrorism. Try, in other words, to live peacefully alongside someone who regards your very being as an affront to God, and you will fail. Furthermore, everyone who is genuinely committed to defending the rights of women and racial, religious and sexual minorities must necessarily be outraged by their oppression anywhere, no matter how far away. To claim to oppose such oppression but to tolerate its practice in one's own nation -- and this is the circumstance of European cultural relativists confronted by the reality of horrific abuses of women within Europe's growing Muslim population -- is to make a commitment that extends no further than empty rhetoric; in effect, to commit to nothing at all.
Freedom of thought, community and faith, civil equality, and the rights of due process, are meaningless unless they are universally valid. They are also non-negotiable. As Salman Rushdie himself said shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the things that the jihadists are against -- "freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex … even the short skirts and dancing … are worth dying for." Rushdie's maxim holds true all the more in light of Theo van Gogh's murder. The viciousness of our enemies -- and they are our enemies -- remains undiminished. We liberals had better find the courage not to be intimidated.


Moral Facts vs. Moral Opinions


In this article, Dennis Prager goes over some well-trod territory. Starting with the idea that there can be no absolute foundation for morality without the existence of God, he works through some interesting observations and declarations about the difference between those who have a belief in an absolute, and those who do not. His arguments may seem simplistic and heavy-handed at first, but I encourage you to follow the thread of his logic through the whole piece. Many of his observations and assertions are undeniable. From Front Page Magazine:


For those who subscribe to Judeo-Christian values, right and wrong, good and evil, are derived from God, not from reason alone, nor from the human heart, the state or through majority rule.

Though most college-educated Westerners never hear the case for the need for God-based morality because of the secular outlook that pervades modern education and the media, the case is both clear and compelling: If there is no transcendent source of morality (morality is the word I use for the standard of good and evil), "good" and "evil" are subjective opinions, not objective realities.

In other words, if there is no God who says, "Do not murder" ("Do not kill" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew which, like English, has two words for homicide), murder is not wrong. Many people may think it is wrong, but that is their opinion, not objective moral fact. There are no moral "facts" if there is no God; there are only moral opinions.

Years ago, I debated this issue at Oxford with Jonathan Glover, currently the professor of ethics at King's College, University of London, and one of the leading atheist moralists of our time. Because he is a man of rare intellectual honesty, he acknowledged that without God, morality is subjective. He is one of the few secularists who do.

This is the reason for the moral relativism -- "What I think is right is right for me, what you think is right is right for you" -- that pervades modern society. The secularization of society is the primary reason vast numbers of people believe, for example, that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; why the best educated were not able say that free America was a more moral society than the totalitarian Soviet Union; why, in short, deep moral confusion afflicted the 20th century and continues in this century.

That is why The New York Times, the voice of secular moral relativism, was so repulsed by President Ronald Reagan's declaration that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire." The secular world -- especially its left -- fears and rejects the language of good and evil because it smacks of religious values and violates their moral relativism. It is perhaps the major difference between America and Europe. As a New York Times article on European-American differences noted last year, "Americans are widely regarded as more comfortable with notions of good and evil, right and wrong, than Europeans. . . . " No wonder. America is a Judeo-Christian society; Europe (and the American Democratic Party) is largely secular.

In the late 1970s, in a public interview in Los Angeles, I asked one of the leading secular liberal thinkers of the past generation, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., if he would say that the United States was a morally superior society to that of the Soviet Union. Even when I repeated the question, and clarified that I readily acknowledged the existence of good individuals in the Soviet Union and bad ones in America, he refused to do so.

A major reason for the left's loathing of George W. Bush is his use of moral language -- such as in his widely condemned description of the regimes of North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an "Axis of Evil." These people reject the central Judeo-Christian value of the existence of objective good and evil and our obligation to make such judgments. Secularism has led to moral confusion, which in turn has led to moral paralysis.

If you could not call the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" or the Iranian, North Korean and Iraqi regimes an "evil axis," you have rendered the word "evil" useless. And indeed it is not used in sophisticated secular company -- except in reference to those who do use it (usually religious Christians and Jews).

Is abortion morally wrong? To the secular world, the answer is "It's between a woman and her physician." There is no clearer expression of moral relativism: Every woman determines whether abortion is moral. On the other hand, to the individual with Judeo-Christian values, it is not between anyone and anyone else. It is between society and God. Even among religious people who differ in their reading of God's will, it is still never merely "between a woman and her physician."

And to those who counter these arguments for God-based morality with the question, "Whose God?" the answer is the God who revealed His moral will in the Old Testament, which Jews and Christians -- and no other people -- regard as divine revelation.

The best-known verse in the Bible is "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). It is a reflection of the secular age in which we live that few people are aware that the verse concludes with the words, "I am God." Though entirely secularized in common parlance, the greatest of the ethical principles comes from God. Otherwise it is just another man-made suggestion, no more compelling than "Cross at the green, not in between."


The most confounding thing about the Left in past years has been it's inability, or unwillingness, to make even the simplest of moral distinctions. Recently, I was discussing the War On Terror with the guy who was best man in my wedding. This man is my lifelong best friend. Anway, I said to him that it was clear that Arab culture in general is highly flawed and needs to be changed. He balked at this idea, and said something to the effect that all cultures are flawed and who are we to judge. So, I asked, "Do you mean to tell me you don't think Western culture is, in general, superior to Arab culture?"

"Nope."

"Well, what about the treatment of women in the Arab world. In many Arab countries women aren't allowed to choose education, drive a car, decide for themselves when to leave the house, whom to marry, etc. Isn't that a form of slavery. Isn't that just wrong? Doesn't it need to be changed."

It's not wrong, it's just different."

Oh yeah, right.

Now, keep in mind, my friend lives in the Bay Area and he is pretty much the epitome of the Feminist Man. This is a guy who, if someone were to say something like, "Hey, look at that girl over there. She's a hot little number, isn't she?" would be offended, not on Christian grounds (though he is a Christian Pastor himself) but because I was objectifying a female.

So, this creeping moral relativism of the secularist society has infected even Christian Pastors at this point. I, obviously, do not have any problem with making moral judgements. The enslavement of women in the Arab world sickens me, and it needs to be done away with. I base that judgement on my Christian belief that God made us with free will so that we can choose Him, or choose evil. Additionally, I believe he made us to be creative beings so that we could creatively worship Him and glorify Him. Enslavement snuffs out creativity thus, taking away almost all meaning and choice from a person's life. A life without meaning or choice is, practically, a living death.

I have no problem calling such a state of affairs "evil". I am baffled that anyone does.

A Tough Creed Indeed
Arab Doctors Association Urges Doctors
To Blow Up Infidels
And Declares Tsunami Divine Punishment


From Memri, via Little Green Footballs:



The Arab Doctors’ Association Urges Doctors to Participate in Jihad and Blow Up ‘Infidels,’ Not Help the Wounded

“The Emergency Relief Committee of the Arab Doctors’ Association published, in one of the Egyptian papers, a communiqué showing a picture of an infant. Underneath, it said: ‘Iraq will never surrender. The occupation is destroying homes and hospitals. The bodies of the martyrs [lie] in the streets, and there is no one to bury them. The world observes these crimes in complete silence. Iraq’s citizens say that they [will attain] one of two good things: victory or martyrdom. [And you:] What is your contribution? What will you say to your sovereign? Solidarity alone is not enough!’

“The communiqué did not, of course, neglect to mention a bank account number for donations, at the Islamic Faysal Bank at its central branch in Cairo.

“This communiqué is not new to us. It has been published many times in the past, whether by the Arab Doctors’ Association or the Egyptian Doctors’ Union. I still recall these communiqués published in our Egyptian papers or in the Arab papers calling on Muslims to help their brothers in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and other places...

“At the time, we welcomed the initiative of the Arab Doctors’ Association, on the understanding that its aim was to support the Jihad warriors and those struggling for the sake of liberating their homeland from the hands of the occupiers who hold many [different] citizenships. [We understood that this support was to have been provided] through capabilities that only doctors have — that is, caring for the sick and saving the lives of the injured.

“But we were surprised later by the fact that the enthusiasm of the Arab Doctors’ Association in sending ‘volunteer’ doctors to those blood-drenched regions was not for carrying out this sublime mission that only doctors [could carry out], but rather, to urge [those volunteer doctors] to fight, [to participate] in the Jihad war, and to manufacture explosives and to blow up places in which there were a number of ‘infidels’ and scores of innocent civilians...”

...

Arab Doctors’ Sec.-Gen.: This Was a Divine Punishment For the Muslims’ Oppression by Infidels and the U.S.

“[Yet] there was no mention of any role played by the Egyptian Doctors’ Union, or by the Arab Doctors’ Association, in collecting donations, gathering the doctors waging the Jihad war and transferring them to the regions hit by the disaster and by epidemic, in order to participate in treating the injured and sick, as they did and are still doing in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Iraq.

“The Arab Doctors’ Association secretary-general, Dr. Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Al-Futuh, justified this by saying that this earthquake was divine punishment because of the Muslims’ oppression by the infidels, invaders and occupiers, headed by the U.S., and that therefore we have no interest in what had happened! Chairman of the Emergency Relief Committee of the Arab Doctors’ Association Dr. Ahmad Omar emphasized that aid to the Asia earthquake victims did not top the agenda of the committee — which was currently engaged in resisting the American invaders and occupiers in Iraq.”


These people live by a very tough creed don't they? Think about it, God punishes them because they are oppressed.

No excuses, you sniveling little followers of Allah. If you would allow the Kuffar to oppress you, then it is Allah's will that you be punished. Now, submit to my punishment.

Ah, good believer. That is good. You have done well in your submission.

Now, go kill the Infidels.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Soros Partners With The Mullahs


This is so insane, it is almost impossible to believe. From the New York Post, by Kenneth Timmerman:



LEFT-WING billionaire and Bush-hater George Soros was not content to spend millions to thwart a Bush victory in last November's presidential election. Now his Open Society Institute in New York is joining forces with pro-Tehran lobbying group to promote the interests and the viewpoint of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In tandem with the American-Iranian Council, an industry-supported group that favors opening trade and diplomatic ties with Iran, the Open Society Institute will host Iran's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday at the Open Society Institute's offices in New York.

The talk by Ambassador Javad Zarif is benignly titled, "The View from Tehran," and can be expected to present the regime's outlook on Iran, Iraq and the War on Terror.

But don't expect a spewing of raw anti-American hate. A propaganda blast e-mailed to me recently from an insider in Tehran shows that Tehran's clerics have understood how to wage the air wars in the best Himmlerian tradition — arguably, better than Soros himself.

On Jan. 3, Iranian government spokesman Abdollah Ramenzanzadeh told reporters that Tehran had "not yet decided on a third party" to mediate "negotiations" with the United States. In itself, that was an interesting statement. There are no ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran. However, whenever the regime has felt under pressure from a vigorous U.S. policy, it has dangled the prospect of such negotiations in an attempt to discredit and to weaken the American side.

The analysis being circulated by the Iranian foreign ministry goes on to suggest that Secretary of State Colin Powell has determined that "a future Iraqi government dominated by the Shi'a and influenced by Iran will not be a threat to the United States or its interests," and that "Washington and Tehran have reached an understanding on how Iraq needs to be stabilized."

Without any basis in fact, the analysis further states that the United States has concluded that "at its current state of development, the clerical regime's nuclear program does not constitute an immediate threat, and it can always contain Iran through the European Union."

While anyone who has finished their morning coffee would dismiss such statements as wishful-thinking, they represent the policy line preferred by Tehran clerics. And they believe that a sleepy press, coupled to willing allies such as Soros, will help them to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

What Tehran wants is abundantly clear. Iran's ruling clerics want to continue mucking around in Iraq and to complete their nuclear weapons development, without the United States intervening.

By sponsoring the Iranian ambassador and a lobbying group that has never hesitated to take issue with U.S. sanctions and U.S. pressure on the regime in Tehran, Soros is once again showing his true colors. He is anti-American, anti-freedom and pro-tyranny, for America and for America's friends overseas.


I am outraged.

:)

Hat Tip: Allah

Iraqi Poll Reveals
Election Likely To Be A Success


Thanks to No Pasaran for making me aware of this, from David Brooks at the NY Times:


The newspaper Sabah recently published a poll of 4,974 Iraqis living in and around Baghdad. Nearly 88 percent support military action against the terrorists. A survey by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies suggests that the insurgents' archfoe, the prime minister Ayad Allawi, is the most popular prospective leader in the land.

Resist The Occupation


Howard Fineman says we are watching the slow, torturous death of the Main Stream Media. He makes the point that it is, truly, the death of an American Political Party:


A political party is dying before our eyes — and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the "mainstream media," which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox's canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying journalistic standards. At the height of its power, the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party) helped validate the civil rights movement, end a war and oust a power-mad president. But all that is ancient history.


The Anchoeress offers her thoughts on the demise of the Mainstream Media, and offers a prediction on Academia:


... the MSM is not dying because of George Bush's Republican Party, or because of Roger Ailes. . The MSM is not dying because of Rush Limbaugh or talk radio. The MSM is not dying because of the Internet - although, admittedly, the blogs have wounded them. No, the MSM is dying specifically and wholly because of those "fraying journalistic standards," the ones which have been "fraying" since at least the Reagan presidency.Those "fraying journalistic standards" came to my attention during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings and caused me to turn rightward, and I wasn't alone. The MSM (and the Democrat party) are not dying because President Bush prefers not to allow a press that palpably detests him to filter his words, his message and his vision.

They are dying for two reasons:

1) They have for too long been unaccountable to anyone.

2) They lack diversity of thought and therefore have become a cautionary tale of what happens when you lack a "two-party" system - you collapse from your own ponderous weight, a weight built of excessive ego, confidence, cynicism and (you know I'm going to say it, because it always comes down to love or hate with me) too much freedom to unconditionally love and hate.

The same collapse of culture is going to happen very soon on college campuses, and for the same reason: where diversity of thought and openness to new ideas is suppressed, energy goes negative, then stagnant. What is stagnant begins to stink; it becomes unhealthy, then unusable.


I agree with Fineman that the MSM has become a political force almost like a political party. However, the MSM is more monolithich than a political party. Citizens have no opportunity to join MSM Party, so for years, all we could do was yell at the TV. Blogging is an opportunity to yell at the TV and to actually have the TV repsond. That's what happened with the Rathergate Affair, and with the reelection of President Bush.

The same goes, and will go for Academia. Blogs and websites such as Anti-Chomsky and David Horowitz' Front Page are getting the word out about the totalitarian abuses of Academia. I believe the Anchoress is right. An "insurrection" is afoot. "Militants" will soon began to "voice" their "resistance" to the "occupation" of their "territories" (read college campuses). They will demand their "right of return", and before you know it, the Academic "entity" will be overthrown.

It shall be fun to watch.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Factory Girl
A Song by
Whiskeytown


So, factory girl listened for the sound of her daddy's engine
Till the workbell sounds and she leaves town
Oh the summer's here are hot
All she seems to do is work and sleep
Wish that she were still with you

Now you don't know where she is
Lying in her mother's bed
Or, who she's sleeping with...

All the kids would laugh at her
Cause she seemed so sweet and pure
I took this shift because of her

Though i've never said a word
I once smiled and looked at her
'til the shift boss said, "get back to work."

Now you don't know where she is
Or whose bed she's sleeping in
What man she's sleeping with.


Read the following verse and then reconsider the meaning of the song:

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
John 3:8


An Arab Visits Israel


From an article by Nonie Darwish, via Front Page Magazine:



I recently appeared as a speaker at the second annual Jerusalem Summit held at Israel's King David Hotel. In doing so, I deliberately flaunted the rules that govern Arab behavior toward Israel. Israel's neighbors, the dictatorships that compose the Arab League, forbid their subjects to visit or do business with Israel and its citizens. I am an American raised in Gaza and Egypt; needless to say, I expected my visit to raise some eyebrows.

Before departing the U.S. for Israel, I fielded questions from some incredulous Arab-American friends, both Christian and Muslim, who asked, 'Are we actually allowed to visit Israel?' I explained that American citizens, regardless of origin, need no travel visa to enter Israel. My friends were stunned. Israel has been off-limits to Muslim and Christian Arabs in the Middle East ever since its creation. Even Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel, kept its ban firmly in place. And apparently some Arab-Americans continue to abide by travel restrictions imposed by far-off tyrants.

In fact, Israel is a traveler's delight. This tiny country welcomes tourists from around the globe. Israel combines the charms of East and West, and given the threat of Middle East terrorism, Israeli army and police forces provide tight security at all times. One feels well protected in Israel as a result.

You can tell a lot about a society by the status of its women. In Israel, many females are self-confident and highly educated. The government relies on such women to perform important duties in military and security operations.

My trip to Israel began on the beautiful Mediterranean coast, at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. Next, a half-hour taxi ride took me to east to Jerusalem, the ancient holy city. I took a moment to remember the Christian minorities in Arab countries -- people of faith forbidden to visit their Holy Land.

In Bethlehem, I visited the Church of the Nativity. I expected to see Christians milling about this holiest of sites, but the city population was predominantly Muslim. Entering the church, I noticed a tiny office off to the side. From where I stood,
I could see a picture of Yasser Arafat hanging inside.

A little history: The Christian population of Bethlehem started to leave after the
Oslo Agreement of 1993 and the creation of the PLO. When I saw Jesus Christ's birthplace full of Muslims, I had to wonder how many Christians and Jews are allowed in Mecca and Medina? (The answer: zero.) Yet, to this day, Israel respects all religions.

To access Bethlehem from Jerusalem and back, I passed through a checkpoint twice. Each time, the Arab taxi driver and I were treated by Israeli soldiers with professional courtesy.

I spoke with Israeli Arabs during my visit, and not one complained to me about any discrimination or expressed a wish to move elsewhere. In fact, several Muslims told me that their travels to neighboring countries in the Middle East made them appreciate Israel's freedoms. One recounted his experience visiting Egypt, where he was accused of being a Zionist on account of his Israeli passport. He wondered aloud, "Can you imagine how they would treat us if we were Jews?"

At a high point in my trip, an Israeli friend who took me to an Arab pastry shop. The place was alive with Muslim and Jewish customers who coexisted cheerfully in the store. In that sweet-smelling place, it seemed that peace was possible.

Israel has passed a test of amazing endurance, surviving and thriving in a sea of hatred, violence and terror. Its people remain optimistic, but they desperately need relief from the fear and violence that dominates daily life. I wish the Arab world could see Israel as I see it -- as a diverse society of people living in peace.

After my visit, I am even more committed to supporting
Israel.


I love Nonie Darwish. Visit her site Arabs For Israel, which is linked to on my blogroll.

War-Mongers Vs. Compassion Mongers


From a Mark Steyn column, via The Australian:


(American Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is) ... believed to have given $US1 million ($1.32 million) to disaster relief, as has Sandra Bullock. Michael Schumacher has given $US10 million.

For purposes of comparison, Herr Schumacher's donation is the same as that of oil-rich Kuwait. As for even oil-richer Iran, its Government has earmarked $US627,000 for disaster relief.

For purposes of further comparison, that's barely a twentieth of what was raised at the Sydney Opera House concert this weekend. Today's all-star cricket match between a World XI and an Asian XI at the MCG will do more for the beleaguered Muslims of Banda Aceh than Libya, Syria and Egypt combined.

In fairness to the Saudis, they've just upped their pledge to $US30 million. But for purposes of one final comparison, consider this: a single Saudi telethon in 2002 managed to raise $US56 million. That was for widows and orphans of Palestinian suicide bombers, those deceased as well as those yet to blow. It seems nothing gets the wealthy elite of Riyadh and Jeddah adding the zeroes to the cheques like self-detonating on an Israeli bus.

I gave up worrying "Why do they hate us?" on the evening of September 11, 2001. But, if I were that Osodden bin Loser guy watching the infidels truck in water, food, medical supplies and emergency clothing for villagers whose jihad-chic T-shirt collection was washed out to sea, I might ask myself a more pertinent question: "Why do they like us?"

The path of the tsunamis tracked the arc of the Muslim world, from Sumatra to Somalia; the most devastated country is the world's most populous Muslim nation, and the most devastated part of that country is the one province living under the strictures of sharia.

But, as usual, when disaster strikes it's the Great Satan and his various Little Satans who leap to respond. In the decade before September 11, the US military functioned, more or less exclusively, as a Muslim rapid reaction force – coming to the aid of Kuwaiti Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Somali Muslims and Albanian Muslims. Since then, with the help of its Anglo-Australian allies, it's liberated 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's not how the West's anti-war movements see it. I found myself behind a car the other day bearing the bumper sticker, "War Is Costly. Peace Is Priceless" – which is standard progressive generic autopilot boilerplate, that somehow waging war and doing good are mutually exclusive.

But you can't help noticing that when disaster strikes, it's the warmongers who are also the compassion-mongers. Of the top six donor nations to tsunami relief, four are members of George W. Bush's reviled "coalition of the willing".


Do you think the world will count the United States contributions to Tsunami Relief as "Foreign Aid"? Do you think they will count the money it costs to send an aircraft carrier, 90 helicopters and 13,000 troops to the region (in the midst of a war) as Humanitarian Relief.

You know, I just had an evil thought. Maybe, while we're there we ought to just "occupy" every single country and exploit their resources.

Hey, I like it.

The U.S. Military Lands In Sri Lanka


The American Military is being complimented on French TV, via Last Of The Famous International Playboys:



The expeditious and professional deployment of US troops on humanitarian assistance missions to areas devastated by the Boxing Day Tsunami has quite publicly embarrassed the French government — on live television, no less. Yet another reason to thank the US Armed Forces. To see what is sure to be one of the most exceptional moments broadcast on the French evening news all year long, make sure that you click here to watch this evening's news. (Latest version of Windows Media Player required. Before 2 PM Eastern time to-morrow, it'll be the first displayed. After that, click on the one labeled 10/01/2005 - JT 20h.)
For days now, the US military has been getting favorable coverage on the French nightly news due to its response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami. But tonight's broadcast was simply astounding. At 8 minutes into the broadcast, anchor David Pujadas begins a discussion of the disaster response and introduced a report on the American deployment:

First off, here is the powerful American machinery in action. For 24 hours now, there has been a landing ["débarquement"] taking place — there is no other word — while helicopters continue the distribution [of humanitarian aid].
The report begins with an improvised helipad and then shows US airmen distributing "survival packages" of food, clothes and demountable shelters. In addition to showing those in need that they have not been forgotten, these supplies will allow their recipients to live for another day, says the narrator.
Cut to shot of a Sri Lankan beach where amphibious vehicles are disembarking from landing craft — unmistakably reminiscent of the D-Day landings. Note that above Pujadas used the word "débarquement" ("there is no other word"), which is the word most often used to refer to the D-Day landings. Footage of thousands of US marines offloading equipment. None of them are armed, points out the narrator, as this is a reconstruction mission. An interview with Juan Quijada, a US marine whose rank is not given. "Just here to help them as best I can," he says. 13,000 soldiers, we're told, and so far 200 metric tons of supplies.

France 2 TV then goes on to compare the overwhelming success of the American debarquement, with the futility of France's attempts at helping:

We learn that 100 French firefighters as well as rescue and response workers have been sent to Meulaboh to establish a field hospital but that 8 days after their deployment and 15 days after the disaster, only 25% of their supplies have been delivered "because France has no helicopters [to deliver them]." (NB: during the Afghanistan war, France had to rent ALL of its helicopters from the Russian army.)
"The good will of the rescuers is not in question," says Pujadas. "This is well and truly a foul up." Yes, those were his words. Watch the damn video if you don't believe me.

I include this part of the article not to put down France (for once), because they are truly trying to help. Giving it their best shot. The point is, contrary to what some French people think, if it weren't for the evil American military nothing much would be being done.

Is Christianity Dying In Europe?


Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon
That no one will hear
No one comes near
Look at him working, darning his socks in the night
When there's nobody there, what does he care?

Eleanor Rigby died in the church and was buried
Along with her name
Nobody came
Father McKenzie wiping the dirt from his hands
As he walks from the grave
No one was saved

All the lonely people, where do they all come from?
All the lonely people, where do they all belong?
- Lennon/McCartney


Well, that was my impression of Paris when I was there. Paris was absolutely desolate. The achitecture is beautiful. The city has lovely little nooks and crannies. The women are sexy. It was impressive, but it seemed hollow and lost in nostalgia. I kept hearing musicians playing the song, "Those Were The Days My Friends" wherever I went.

Here are a couple article about the dying European Church.

First:


For years the countries of the European Union (EU) have been working on a new constitution to replace various agreements going back to the former European Economic Community (common market), established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Before the new text was finalized and submitted to the 25 member states for ratification on Oct. 28, 2004, some countries sought a modest amendment to the preamble of the 265-page document.

In addition to language acknowledging the “cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe,” representatives of Italy, Portugal, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Greece wanted recognition of the Christian roots of Europe.

They were blocked by former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing, on grounds that such a reference would “exclude” and “offend.”

France and Belgium were strongest in opposition, supported by Germany, Denmark, Britain, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia and Cyprus. Spain, originally in support, switched to opposition after the election of Socialist prime minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

One critic of the result was Poland’s president, Aleksander Kwasniewski. “I am an atheist and everybody knows it,” he said, “but there are no excuses for making references to ancient Greece and Rome, and the Enlightenment, without making references to the Christian values which are so important to the development of Europe.”

Allied with Kwasniewski was Italy’s minister for EU relations, Rocco Buttiglione. He said, “I wanted to add the Christian roots in the constitution in order to make it clear that this Europe is the Europe that has arisen out of Solidarnosc (Solidarity).” Solidarity was the popular movement in Poland, encouraged by Pope John Paul II, that contributed to the collapse of Communism and inspired other pro-freedom efforts in Eastern Europe.

Second:



For decades, the Church in France has been living on borrowed time, relying on a body of priests whose average age has steadily increased. That time has suddenly run out. Recent research suggests that French priests have become so old that half of them will die in the next eight years.

At Puy L’Eveque, Michel Cambon is Fr Bouzou’s nearest fellow priest. He is the only one who seems really angry about the crisis. As we walk among the dilapidated tombs in the churchyard with their fallen crosses and mournful statuary, the church bells clang balefully. Fr Cambon - who has more than 30 churches to look after - says his elderly congregation is dying out so rapidly that in 10 years there may be no church in Puy L’Eveque at all.

“People kept saying it would be all right,” says Fr Cambon, “but they’re about to be proved wrong. My fear is that the Roman Catholic Church will disappear altogether in France. That’s the path we’re on.”

Hat tip: LGF

Charles Back In Charge


Little Green Footballs Is Back!!!

Yay!

Charles Johnson's brilliant website had been smite at the neck and brought low by some enemies of freedom the couple days.

Charles says:

Back Like Me
Well, Little Green Footballs is back, and I still have one fingernail left!


My sentiments exactly. And, I love the reference to a forgotten Liberal non-fiction work of the 1960's. It was a good book with a great perspective, which seems to have since been lost by the Left.

I also agree with the thoughts of several of his readers:


#3

Pro-Bush Canuck 1/11/2005 08:32AM PST

Charles performs a critical function in a democratic society. Leftists wish to silence those with whom they disagree. That makes them fascists and the enemy in the most literal sense.


and

#4

shan 1/11/2005 08:33AM PST

I almost had a nervous breakdown the last 2 days! Glad to see ya back!



Yes, I am an addict. And yes, I do believe that the people who did this are fascists, and haters of Freedom. Just to be clear, let us delineate between "Leftists" and left-wingers. A "Leftist" is (loose definition here) an anti-American Marxist, whereas a left-winger is a liberal. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal. I still consider myself a liberal on many issues.

However, I am not willing to sell the United States down the river for my more liberal beliefs. And I don't think squashing anyone's right to free speech is a reasonable technique of political discourse.

I hope they catch the people who did this to LGF, and I hope they are brought to justice. A jail term of 6-12 months would seem appropriate to me.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Paper Dolls
A Song By
The Innocence Mission


I am lining up my heroes
Like big paper dolls
And I find
They need a wall behind them
To lean on
No, they won't stand up by themselves
At all
Oh, I guess it's time to grow up
Now

A Day Without Little Green Footballs


What the heck? No LGF all day long? What have those Jihadi's wrought?

How is it possible in this day and age to take a major website down for a whole day?

Great Moments In The History Of Pacifism
It's Time To Slaughter The Sacred Cow


Thanks to IsraPundit for posting this damning article about Mahatma Gahndi. Here are some excerpts:

If Europe would have taken Gandhi’s advice as below, we’d all be speaking German and be part of a perfect Aryan race.

There would be no people living with disabilities or birth defects; the Roma (gypsies) would have disappeared into oblivion and there would be no homosexuality allowed. Communism and free speech would be considered crimes and there would have been no freedom of religion.

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman and child to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

As far as Gandhi’s advice for Jews is concerned, if we’d have followed his practice of “passive resistance”, there would have been not even one Jew remaining in Europe:

"I am as certain...that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] adopt active non-violence. Human nature...unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him."

Gandhi also advised the Jews of Europe to commit mass suicide, as our forefathers were forced to do at Masada:

"Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"

Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."

It’s very lucky that Gandhi himself used passive resistance against the civilised British, because if he’d have used the same technique with the Nazis, there would be no people of Indian descent left in this world.

It's time for the world to grow up and realize that Gandhi was not a man of great vision. He was not an incarnation of God. I would not even call him a man of peace. The emotional devastation he was willing to lay on his wife gives the lie to his being a good man in private. For a person to deprive the one he supposedly loves of physical intimacy (and the emotional well-being that goes with it), because he believes he has some special relationship with the universe, is an abominable sin.

Gandhi was a snake oil salesman who won a P.R. battle against British imperialism. Thank God he did. He was the right schmuck at the right time. His people owe him thanks.

However, his legacy is a burden on the whole human race. Unfortunately, many naiive, but well-placed, people believe we can take Gandhian "principles" and apply them to all of reality. Gandhi's notion of applying his asinine philosophy to the fight against Hitler is not just laughable, it's arrogant to the point of megalomania. It shows he was willing to let the whole human race go down with the ship because of his own belief in his special relationship with his selfish pantheistic conception of the universe.

And to sum it up, let me pose this question:

When Gandhi says,"the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife,"

How exactly does his philosophy, in practice, differ from Hitler's?

Poll Shows Attitudes of British Muslims


From the Guardian, via American Future:


Four of five believe that the war on terror is a war on Islam: Notwithstanding Bush's and Blair's statements to the contrary, 80% believe that the war on terror is a war against Islam. In March 2004, 68% disagreed with Blair and Bush.

An overwhelming majority rejects violence: 86% believe it is unacceptable for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends and 69% believe it is right that they should inform on people who are involved or connected with terrorist activities.

Plenty of trouble can be caused by the one of seven Muslims that don't reject violence.

More than one-third have experienced anti-Muslim sentiment:

38% claim that they or their family had experienced had experienced hostility or abuse in the UK from non-Muslims because of their religion, up from 33% in March.

Four of five support restrictions on freedom of speech and three of fivre think that people who violate these restrictions should be prosecuted:

81% think there should be a new law to make incitement of religious hatred a criminal offence.

58% believe that people who insult or criticize Islam should face criminal prosecution.

Three of five support Islamic laws: 61% want Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law". A major part of civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.

Nearly nine of ten want Islam in the schools: 88% want to see schools and workplaces in Britain accommodating Muslim prayer times as part of their normal working day.

Only two of five say it's up to them to fit in: 40% say they need to do more to integrate into mainstream British culture.