Human Shields Stand Up For Democracy?
May It Never Be
From Michelle Malkin
A good question from reader Joseph O'Neill:
Why don't we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren't they protecting Iraq now?
Ted Kennedy Says,
Let The Drowning Drown"
Iowahawk Guest Commentary by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Like all Americans, I had high hopes for the future of the Oldsmobile and its passengers, as we struggle against the onrushing water and its poorly-designed shoulder belts. But as claustrophobia sets in we must begin to sober up and face the truth: hope is no longer an option.
It is time for us to recognize that our continued presence in this volatile region is a hinderance to the Oldsmobile and its people. Rather than helping the situation we are further weighing down the Oldsmobile, causing it to sink faster and faster into the quagmire of Chappaquidick Bay, creating a dangerous situation for both ourselves as well as its passengers who are desperately seeking an air pocket in which to start a better life.
That is why I believe we have reached the point where we must take a deep breath and immediately depart the Oldsmobile. We must seek through the watery darkness and release the belt latch of madness that has kept us here, and reach out for a sane and honorable window crank.
Obviously there will be passengers in the Oldsmobile who do not want us to leave, and will likely try to grasp and grab at our feet as we depart. While we wish them success, it is critical that these passengers quickly learn independence and self-determination. The most effective way to teach them is through example, and with a vigorous kick-off. Let us hope they will cherish our shoes as a lasting legacy of our commitment to liberty.
And, after we return to the safety of the American shore and phone our lawyer, we must begin to ask the hard questions. How did we get here? The sad answer is that we were sold a lie by Gene Quinlan of Hyannisport Oldsmobile-Buick-GMC. We were told that this Oldsmobile had the Delta 88 Royale option package with 6-way electric seats. We were told that they were sold out of the new ‘69 Toronado. We were given a choice of a burgundy vinyl roof, but never given an exit strategy. We were told, repeatedly, that the Oldsmobile was waterproof and had an automatic pilot system. In short, Gene Quinlan sold us a lie.
There will be ample time for us to reflect on the mistakes and lies of the Oldsmobile misadventure, and hold those who were responsible to account. But that is for another day. Now we must focus our energy on getting out before it is too late.
Come home, America. Come home.
That is satire of historic magnitude. Iowahawk has just earned himself a place in the history books. Congratulations, Iowahawk.
Interview With George Bush
From the Washington Times
President Bush considers Ronald Reagan his ideological "mentor," Abraham Lincoln the greatest president and Franklin D. Roosevelt a source of endless fascination, he said in a TV interview that will be aired tomorrow.
In a wide-ranging discussion with C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb, Mr. Bush also said he and his father, former President George Bush, rarely compare presidential notes.
"We really haven't gotten to the stage yet where we're sharing common experiences in the White House, although there's kind of knowingness about our positions," he told Mr. Lamb on Thursday. "He did the same thing I did."
Mr. Bush said his presidential library will be built in Texas, although he has not yet settled on a site.
"We'll be doing that soon," he said in the Map Room of the White House. "We want to make sure we understand fully the legal obligations so that when we start approaching universities or cities or whoever we approach, that everybody understands the ground rules."
He added: "I want to be very thoughtful about who we approach, and give everybody a chance that's interested to come up with their best shot at attracting it."
The president said he is also determined to make the library vibrant.
"It's not just a collector of interesting artifacts," he said. "Hopefully good thought will come out of there, because the library will cause there to be a dialogue. It will advance higher education or secondary education in some way."
Mr. Bush said he does not have an official presidential historian who shadows him throughout the White House, although he wishes that were possible.
"Unfortunately, there are a lot of security matters, particularly given the nature of the war we're in," he said. "I don't think the government would have felt comfortable allowing an observer to record."
But he said transcripts of his press interviews will be made public some day, as will records of his phone conversations.
"When I call a foreign leader, there's an understanding that somebody is listening to the conversation," he said. "That will be made available for the records."
Throughout the 23-minute interview, Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of Mr. Reagan.
"You know, I think if I had to have a mentor, a public figure that reminded me on a regular basis about the power of freedom and liberty, it would have been Ronald Reagan," he said. "He was a stalwart when it came to proclaiming as clearly as possible the need for people to be free."
Yet Mr. Bush acknowledged his own struggle against global terrorism is unlike Mr. Reagan's victory in the Cold War.
"It's a very different kind of war," he said. "It's a different kind of confrontation than President Reagan would be confronted with."
For example, the war against terrorism sometimes requires alliances with nations that do not share America's basic values.
"We have to work with all kinds of countries," he said. "So that's the realistic part of my job, how do we work with a country that may not honor women's rights like they should."
Asked whether he sees ghosts of past presidents in the White House, Mr. Bush joked that he "quit drinking in '86." Turning serious, he spoke of President Lincoln, whose portrait hangs in the Oval Office.
"I've tried to empathize, at times, with Lincoln, to imagine what it would be like to be the president of the United States when the country was at war with itself," he said. "I think he's the country's greatest president."
Mr. Bush added: "He had such a clear vision about keeping this country united, in spite of the incredibly divisive times in which we lived. He seemed to have a good spirit about him."
Mr. Bush, who received a degree in American history from Yale, said he "was fascinated by the Roosevelt era -- Franklin Roosevelt -- probably because I had a teacher that was so good in the Roosevelt era." The president said he had been reading books about George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, which have reminded him of how difficult it was to establish democracy in America.
"Here we are in Iraq, trying to help them get democracy started, and yet it's expected to be done nearly overnight," he said. "And so it helps me keep a perspective of what's real and what's possible, and some of the struggles we went through."
Fly Your Flags Tomorrow
In Celebration Of Democracy In Iraq
I am proud today, because Iraq is holding the first real election in it's history. The world has George Bush and Tony Blair to thank for this (and aditionally, Howard, Aznar, Berlusconi, and the other leaders of the coalition nations). It goes without saying that the world should also thank all the soldiers who have given their time and, in many cases, their lives, to make this great event happen. These men have bravely stood up and done the right thing through a chorus of naysaying and downright slander against their persons. I have tremendous admiration for them.
We don't know how the elections will turn out. Will Iraq elect leaders who will build on the democratic priniciples of it's new constitution, or will they elect leaders who will yield to the temptation to move Iraq back in the direction of totalitarianism? We can only hope and pray it will be the former.
Here's a piece by Larry Kurdlow, via Powerline
, which states everything as I hope it to be and become:
Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi both know that free-election democracy is the death knell of terrorism. They also know that the potential impact of free Iraqi elections on the rest of the region -- including Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia -- is incalculable. The Iraqi elections will reverberate throughout the entire Muslim world, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and the whole South Asian tsunami zone.
Sophisticated policy observers know full well that rather than plotting a worldwide military invasion, Bush is constructing a statement of principles; that he is setting new standards and diplomatic benchmarks that will govern our foreign policy for decades to come.
Polling and reports on the ground in Iraq indicate there will be a blowout turnout for Sunday’s election. The Iraqi election results for a new government and constitution-writing parliament will produce a pluralistic coalition that will end fears of a mullah-based theocracy or any return of Saddamite Baathism.
Bush’s inaugural vision will be proven right. His speech will be vindicated, and along with it will come a foreign-policy triumph of moral idealism, human rights, and freedom over the cynical “realist” view that after all we have seen in the past 25 years we can still do business with dictators and despots in the name of stability.
John Hinderaker, of Powerline, comments:
President Bush is not content to be the best President since Reagan; he wants to be the greatest President since Lincoln. I still think he has a shot. The next few months will tell a great deal.
Yes, we shall see.
No one really knows about my humble blog here, but there are a few "influential" people who stop by occasionally. So, I'm just going to put this out there. Please everyone, fly your flags tomorrow in celebration of the Democracy that our soldiers have fought and died to create in Iraq.
The Streets Of San Francisco
, with thanks to LGF:
Palestinian spokesman: No matter what kind of lies that you say, we know the Jews own the media, the Jews own Hollywood, the Jews own everything! The CEOs of all the major companies. Look at the House of Representatives! Look at the Congress! They’re all Jews; their Zionism have agendas, and their agendas are to take over the world.
They have America fighting their army. They instigate all this BULLSHIT that has millions and millions of Muslims and Arabs killed. That’s all it is. And they sit there and they lie — talk about they are victims of terrorism? They are not terrorism. If you look up terrorism, it should be Israel. They are the biggest terrorists.
On the one hand you cry every day about your Holocaust, you cry about Hitler, and you do the same things if not worse to what Hitler did. You guys are modern-day Nazis. You are modern-day Hitler-followers. That’s all you are! You cry about Hitler. You get millions and millions of dollars from the German companies, from countries, you guys still receive compensation.
What about Palestinians? What about all the land that you confiscated? You think that you’re going to get it without a cost? There’s a price to occupation. That bus is a price to occupation. Every time that a martyr goes out and does a mission, it’s a price of occupation. And you will pay, and you have just seen the beginning of it.
Click here to see photos and video of the goings-on.
The Works Of European Hands
My friend Someguy (and he is), over at Mystery Achievment, directs us to an excerpt of the notes from the Wannsee Conference
, where the Nazi's calmly and methodically layed out their plan on how to do away with the Jews:
In the course of the final solution and under approriate direction, the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in a suitable manner. In large labor columns and separated by sexes, Jews capable of working will be dispatched to these regions to build roads, and in the process a large number of them will undoubtedly drop out by way of natural attrition.
Those who ultimately should possibly get by will have to be given suitable treatment because they unquestionably represent the most resistant segments and therefore constitute a natural elite that, if allowed to go free, would turn into a germ cell of renewed Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)[...]
In occupied and unoccupied France, the collection of Jews for evacuation will in all probability proceed without major difficulties.
I don't know what's more horrifying--the plans themselves, or the calm, clinical, and deliberate tone of the document itself.
And then goes on to note:
... during the opening segment of "Striscia La Notiza" last night, the host, Ezio Greggio opened by saying (I'm paraphrasing a bit), "Regarding this day, we want to say that we at "Striscia" condemn all forms racism." What I do remember with great clarity is that there was no mention of the Holocaust of of Jews.
As I have said before, the most distrubing trend by far in public discourse about the Holocaust is not the steady growth of outright denials by Islamofascists and academic cranks--as bad as that is. It is the trend to deny the Holocaust by way of conveniently "forgetting" the particular facts that made the Holocaust what it was: an attempt to exterminate every last Jew in Europe.
Whether in the example of the host of a comedy show seen by millions of Italians every night, or in the cases involving the BBC documented by Melanie Phillips (which I linked to here), these actions--which amount to a passive form of lying--both cover up the very real and growing threats to Jews today, and allow grievance groups to misuse and abuse the Holocaust to serve as an excuse for their own genocidal programs against Jews.
The casual dismissal of the reality of the Holocaust's specific targeting of Jews is revelatory. There is something wrong in the conscience's of people who have such trouble understanding the gravity of the Holocaust, and indeed, have trouble finding it's relative weight on the scales of historical justice.
In a subtle, small way, this "forgetting", as Someguy so ironically names it, is reminiscent of the way Germany seemed to have forgotten altogether that the Jews were even human beings.
Get it together, Europe, before you find yourself, once again, coming to, in a pool of blood and slime. The works of your hands.
Palestinians Elect Hamas
Is The World Also Electing Hamas?
From Reuter's, via Little Green Footballs
GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas swept seven out of 10 councils in first-ever Gaza Strip local elections seen as a test of strength between the Islamic militant group and new President Mahmoud Abbas, final results showed on Friday.
The Islamists, sworn to destroying Israel, had boycotted a Jan. 9 presidential election won by Abbas on a platform of ending violence to allow talks with the Jewish state on Palestinian statehood.
“Hamas’s victory proves Islam is the solution,” blared a slogan from loudspeakers as thousands of supporters celebrated in the streets beneath fluttering green Hamas flags.
It's important to understand that Hamas very openly calls for the destruction of Israel
. And their charter is filled with anti-Semitic rhetoric straight out of the racist tract The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion
Yep, and that's the organization the Palestinians want to represent them.
There are forces at work setting the stage for the destruction of Israel. I would imagine that the Palestinians believe that they have drawn very close. Iran funds Hezbollah
, who is bent on destroying the state of Israel
. Iran is building nuclear weapons. The Palestinians have now elected a council stacked with Islamists who openly declare their desire to destroy the Jews.
And meanwhile, the Europeans are becoming ever more compliant. From Melanie Phillips
On Tuesday evening I had the misfortune to take part in a high-profile and packed debate in London in the ‘Intelligence Squared’ series. The motion was ‘Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews’. The motion was proposed by three Jews: Avi Shlaim, the ‘revisionist’ Israeli historian; Jacqueline Rose, a professor of English; and Amira Hass, a journalist for Ha’aretz in the disputed territories. Opposing it were three Jews: myself, Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli Labour foreign minister, and Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University.
My side lost by 355 to 320. It is hard to convey the sickening nature of this event, and not just because we lost. The sub-text of the motion was that the Jews are responsible for their own destruction; the real danger they are in comes not from Islamic terrorism, nor the attempt to ethnically cleanse the Jews from Israel, nor the rise in anti-Jewish feeling in Britain and Europe, but from the Jews themselves because the Israelis have turned into monsters. Thus the attacks on them, far from being deplored, are implicitly endorsed; and, to carry this thinking to its logical conclusion, the way to defend the Jews is to remove the source of the contagion — in other words, to destroy the state of Israel.
This grotesque libel, which doubly victimises the Jews — first by ignoring and even inciting the real terror they face, and second by blaming them for it — is of course now a commonplace in Britain. What made this debate all the more troubling was that this shocking motion was proposed by three Jews. The Jews who were opposing it were therefore placed in the appalling position of having to defend the Jewish people from a calumny about Jews which was issuing from the mouths of other Jews.
This sport of Jew-baiting has now become the vogue among the British media, which uses Jews to unleash the most blatant untruths and vicious lies and libels about Israel so that the media can disavow any anti-Jewish prejudice, on the grounds that Jews cannot be anti-Jew. Alas, would that this were so. Without claiming to understand the motives of the three Jewish persecutors of Israel who strutted their repellent stuff on Tuesday night, the history of the Jewish people has always been punctuated by Jews with a troubled relationship with their own ethnic identity who have gone along with or even become the prime instigators — see Marx or Freud, for example —of diabolical calumnies against their own people.
They take the existential threat to Israel and twist it into its opposite, so that Israel is presented instead as posing an existential threat to the Palestinians. They dwell obsessively, maliciously and disproportionately upon the ‘crimes ‘ of Israel — which are for the most part actually examples of Israel’s attempt to defend itself — while ignoring totally the real crimes, the massacres and aggression and tyrannies, which are perpetrated against the peoples of Arab countries, including the Palestinians, by Arab states.
This scapegoating of the Jews, this moral inversion which blames them for their own destruction, is a calumny which has repeated itself over and over again throughout the long history of the oldest hatred.
I came away from that debate feeling the kind of emotion one feels — in a totally different context — when forced to listen to or even watch the details of paedophile assaults on children. It is a physical numbness, a feeling of the very darkest despair; a feeling that a very great evil has been unleashed which reveals the depths of pathological malice to which human beings can descend — to turn on their own at a time when they are already under murderous attack. It seems like a repudiation not just of their Jewishness but their humanity.
And all this wrapped up in the highest level of sanctimoniousness, humbug and sheer, laughable, intellectual dishonesty and vacuousness. Thus Professor Avi Shlaim — whose ‘scholarship’ has been comprehensively shredded by Ephraim Karsh and others —brazenly re-interpreted the motion to allow him to defame Israel by claiming that ‘Zionism today’ was one and the same thing as the policies of Ariel Sharon in the disputed territories. Not only did he grossly distort the history and present circumstances of Israel’s presence in those territories, but his approach begged the question of what in heaven’s name— if Sharonism was ‘Zionism today’ —the myriad political parties in Israel opposed to Sharonism were. Were these not Zionists too?
The fact was that by proposing this motion, Shlaim has associated himself with a statement which — despite his denials — singles out the Jews as having no right to their own country, and singles out Israel as the one country in the world whose existence is illegitimate. Zionism is today, as it has always been, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and Israel is its territorial expression.
If you click here you can read the text of Shlaim’s address, which he has circulated, and if you click here you can read an approximate text of my own remarks.
With all the condemnation of Zionism which is going around today, let me repeat, Zionism is, simply, the idea that the Jews should have their own homeland. What could be wrong with that? Especially considering the history of what has happened to them?
So, I said Europe is are becoming more compliant to this new anti-Semitism. Yes, they are. They have also revealed themselves to be complicit.
UNITED NATIONS - A United Nations agency transferred thousands of dollars to a Palestinian Arab charity affiliated with terrorism long after Israel warned of the terror connection, though the U.N. publicly claimed payments to the organization had stopped.
The money transfers in the fall of 2003 are interesting because it was made clear to the head of the UNDP office in Jerusalem, Timothy Rothermel, by the IDF four months earlier that the charity organizations were fronts for Hamas.
How clear does it have to be?
Jihad Watch Comes Out Against Freedom
You will see me, quite often, link to an article I found on the website Jihad Watch. However, I do not link to them on my blogroll. Here's why
The adventure in Iraq, which in its First Stage (the war to locate and destroy major weaponry and arms stores, and to overthrow one of the most sinister dictators around) was justified, in its Second Stage (bringing "democracy" defined merely as a counting of heads, which in turn will inevitably lead to --- what, exactly?) of the "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project is a colossal misallocation of men, materiel, money, and may do severe and long-lasting damage to morale of both the citizen-army (Reserves and National Guard), the regular army, and the citizens themselves, at the very moment when the utmost resolve is called for, because as there is no end to the Jihad, there can be no end to defenses against the Jihad, in all of its expressions, using all of its varied armory.
Hugh Fitzgeral, at Jihad Watch, seems to think of the Arab people as tinker toys that we can reconfigure into shapes which please us, and then leave the new shape to just sit there. His reasoning seems, at bottom, utilitarian and possibly racist to me. It certainly lacks an understanding of the fact that freedom is required for geopolitical security. It also seems to lack a belief in the principle that all men are created with a yearning for freedom deep in their heart.
I am very disappointed in Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald for publishing this nonesense.
On the other hand, they work very hard at cataloguing the ongoing Jihad against the West, so they are worth checking out as a resource. Just don't buy into their bullshit. Sorry for my French.
Great Moments In The
History Of Socialism
"There are no bigger donkeys than these workers.... Look at our "craftsmen"; Sad that world history should be be made with such people".
--- Karl Marx
The Enemies We Invent
Here is the transcript of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo
" from last nights O'Reilly Factor TV show:
"Sunday's vote is a defining moment for America. If the Iraqi people step up and embrace the chance to vanquish terror, the world will be much safer. If they do not, the war on terror will get worse and worldwide terror will dramatically increase in power.
Enter Senator Edward Kennedy, who demands a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq. While the Senator is right in saying things are not going well in the war, his solution is to systematically pull American troops out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.
The question is whether Kennedy is willing to accept a terrorist state in Iraq if the forces of evil win. It is a simple question, Senator, and Talking Points awaits your answer.
The election on Sunday is vital to our safety--if Syria, Iraq, and Iran are allowed to support and protect terrorists, there will be a world war in the future that will dwarf anything this planet has ever seen."
There are many in this world who have convinced themselves that there is no terrorist threat, that we could go back to the way things used to be, when we prosecuted terrorist by law, rather than by war. There is a huge gulf between such a view, and the view that O'Reilly expresses here.
O'Reilly uses apocalyptic terminology here to make his case. I think he is right to do so. I wonder, though, how we have gotten to a place where there is such a gulf in the opinions of seemingly reasonable people.
On the one side, we have people who believe we face an enemy who would literally nuke us, and on the other side there is the voice of those who would say we have invented the enemy.
You can't get much further apart than that.
I remember at the outset of the war, a friend of mine, who works as an IT guy at one of the major banks, said to me that we were going to war so Bush could make his friends at Halliburton rich. I asked him if he thought that Bush would lead would really risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and spend 100's of billions of dollars just so his cronies at Halliburton could make a few billion dollars of profit, if that.
"Well," I said. "That would make him among the most evil people in history, right up there with Hitler and Stalin. Maybe worse, because Hitler and Stalin did what they did on ideological grounds. They believed in a cause, however crazy. But you're saying Bush is doing it just for the money?"
I knew then that we were entering an era of complete insanity. But, I didn't understand how insane it would get.
Both sides have an enemy almost without precedent in the depth of his evil. One side is jousting with his enemy, while the other is tilting at windmills.
Thanks to the Anchoress
for making me aware of this, from the London Times
Voting fever takes hold of a people finally free to choose
From Richard Beeston in Baghdad
FOR decades, voting in Iraq meant taking part in a national exercise of state-enforced adulation, as 99 per cent of the electorate would dutifully turn out to tick the box beside the name Saddam Hussein.
Yesterday the contrast could not have been starker, as the campaign for Sunday’s elections picked up pace and voters were presented with a dizzying selection of dozens of candidates and parties.
Notwithstanding insurgent terror aimed at wrecking the polls, there is finally a palpable sense in Baghdad, and other Iraqi cities, that the country is entering a new era.
At the Babylon Hotel tribal sheikhs in long gowns and Arab headdress gathered to hear politicians extol the virtues of Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister, who was being touted as the only man with the strength and will to solve Iraq’s numerous problems.
Across town Kurdish voters were treated to large slices of chocolate cake, folk dancing and poetry readings praising democracy and reminding them of their duty to their nation.
Elsewhere street urchins were discovering that democracy can pay. They have been hired en masse to put up posters and billboards on every wall space available and probably paid a little extra to tear down the slogans of rival politicians.
Some of the campaigning methods are fairly crude.
One boy said that the police had given him a stack of posters of the Prime Minister and ordered him to put them up around his neighbourhood. The Iraqi Electoral Commission has received complaints that some parties have warned voters that they would “go to Hell” unless they supported their candidates. Others have used photographs of influential religious leaders, such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in their campaign posters even though the Shia cleric is not running in the elections.
While voters may be confused by the experiment in democracy, they cannot complain about a lack of choice. There is a Communist Party, with the message of a “free country and a happy people”, a monarchist movement pledging the restoration of the Hashemite dynasty, and even a party under the banner of Abdul Karim al-Qassim, the former brigadier-general who seized power in a military coup.
Voters from the Sunni population, many of whom may boycott the vote, will find themselves well represented should they visit the polling stations. Ghazi al-Yawer, the President, Adnan Pachachi, Iraq’s elder statesman, and even the Islamic Iraq Party, which has officially pulled out of the vote, will present party lists on polling day.
Political pundits agree that three of the coalition lists will dominate Sunday’s polls. The United Iraqi Alliance, a loose collection of more than 100 parties supported by Ayatollah al-Sistani, is expected to win as much as 40 per cent of the vote, drawing on the support of the majority Shia population in central and southern Iraq and Sadr City, in Baghdad. Not only do Shias believe that they will finally win power after centuries as second-class citizens, they have also been told that voting is a religious duty.
In spite of the strong religious backing, the party has been at pains to emphasise that it supports secular politics and rejects any notion of an Iranian-style theocracy. To make the point that it is not bound to Islamic doctrine, it put up posters of a beautiful girl with long, flowing black hair that looked more like an advertisement for shampoo.
One thing not in doubt is that the elections will go ahead and that there will be a result sometime next month. “I think that despite everything, many Iraqis will vote on Sunday,” Fadel Alfatlwi, the head of the Iraqi Institute for Peace and an independent candidate, said. “With the occupation and all the horrible things that have happened, people dream that they will be wealthy and happy. That dream starts with the election.”
Nothing makes me happier than the thought of that beautiful girl gracing the posters of the Shia political party. Sauron is tumbling off his tower and a new era is dawning for the Iraqi's.
Will We Abandon God?
Jewish University Students
Ordered To Stop Using The Word Zionist
From Little Green Footballs
Omri Ceren reports that members of the University of Southern California Muslim Student Union have been posting openly antisemitic messages on the university’s listserv, denying the Holocaust: USC Muslim Student Union Slips Into Open Anti-Semitism.
holocust schmolocost..... that whole thing drives me nuts. there arent that many holicost surviviers. most of those guys havent experienced anything — except possibly excess. its a tool the zionists use... but to be honest wonder how effective it is these days.
Just thought id contribute its fun reading about the holohoax. it probably happened but 6mil is a lot i think the figure was much smaller and yes i think its possible to fabricate such a story. the jews are masters at this and congrats to them for being able to do so. not only do they claim sole bearers to the “anti-semetic” crimes, but they are able to live of reparations forever. smart idea dont you think?
The school administration is clearly aware of this savage hatred, and they’ve taken measures to act against it.
They asked Jewish leaders not to call themselves “Zionists” because it might offend the delicate feelings of the MSU.
The Muslim Student Union is, of course, a university-sanctioned organization whose elected representatives represent USC Muslims to the University and to the community. How could such an environment emerge? On UC Irvine’s campus, the administration has told campus Jewish leaders that they are not to refer to themselves as Zionists because that will “undermine dialogue” with Muslims on campus.
The other day, in my post, Europe Prepares A New Holocaust", I posed the question, "How would you feel if you were a Jew and you heard such things in today's news?"
LGF Reader Selpaw, who's father, apparently, was a Jew who lived through the Holocaust in Europe, comments:
One of the first steps to extermination was the effort to dehumanize Jews in a myriad of evil inhuman ways. Asking Jews to not call themselves Zionists at the expense of those who truly hate us is a play back of the same crime inflicted upon Jews since time in memorial! The only difference is that was then and this is 2005.
Day in and day out this horror grows worse. Wonder how many Jews leading up to the Shoah said the same? How haunting is that thought? And in return for the silence at the other end the world in one way or another met it's sick twisted objective.
Nothing changes, no one learns. Why the world sat by in the time leading up to the Shoah until the liberation is the real key to why no one will come to our defense now. Collectively the world aided and abetted the Nazi's while Nazi's were slaughtering our families. They did this in part by turning a blind eye. The world was silent. The objective was met. However, they could not kill us all off so that objective is every bit as 'worthy' today as it was then. Mark my words.
... the world is still silent while at the same time spreading this noxious hate at every turn.
Leaders give watered down condemnations while many who are condemning ignite the sparks themselves. In a just world this would not happen again 'however' this is not in any way a just world.
For those that lived beyond the Shoah seeing this in your face anti- Semitism once again rear its vicious head was painful to comprehend. Thinking back, it was not only the past which tormented my beloved father until his death but what is happening today! I remember his tears while emotionally asking "why in the hell this can happen again?" In a way I am glad he is gone to not witness how much worse the choke hold of Anti-Semitism is strangling us all.
Zachar Tsadick L'vracha
To my non-Jewish readers I ask, do you hear the profound sense of loneliness and resignation in his statement? That's largely our fault.
We can not sit back and let this happen again. Scroll down this page and read. Find three things that stick out to you (maybe the fact that the Russian Parliament currently is proposing legislation banning all Jewish groups for instance), and tell everybody you meet what is happening in our world today.
Jesus said that if we feed the hungry and give water to the thirsty, then it is as if we fed him. The converse is true as well. If we abandon our Jewish brothers in their hour of need, we have abandoned God on his lonely night of fear, and prayer, in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The New Mein Kampf
Why We Should Publish
And Publicize Al Qaeda Writings
Wretchard, at Belmont Club, links to, and comments on
, a New Sisyphus article about Zarqawi's recent proclamation:
The underground diplomats at the New Sisyphus make an eloquent case for listening to those who want to kill us, something which the Munich generation neglected to do to Adolph Hitler.
One of the most common observations about World War II was that if only Western leaders had heeded what the National Socialist Worker's Party and its leader Adolf Hitler were saying, they would have known of the grave danger facing the world. After all, it's not as if the Nazi Party or its frenzied Fuhrer tried to hide what they were about. On the contrary, in speech after speech, newspaper after newspaper and book after book, Hitler and other senior Nazis laid out in some detail their plans for European domination, the destruction of parliamentary democracy and the elimination of the Jewish people.
But when we ourselves have supplied the rationale for our own condemnation then listening to the indictments of the enemy is a waste of time. To the question 'why does Bin Laden hate us', there are those who unhelpfully suggest that we ask Bin Laden. Besides being unacceptable it is also unnecessary because some already know why we should be hated. There is no need to listen further. The New Sisyphus observes that while there are two competing explanations for Islamic extremism, only one explanation is provided by the Islamic extremists themselves.
The first group, the "Muslim Rage School," believes that the source of Islamic Terrorism is the wide-spread anger in the Muslim world directed at the West and at Israel. For partisans of this school, US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, US support for despotic Middle Eastern regimes, Western economic outperformance of the Muslim world and anger towards US responses to the 9/11 Attacks, all add up to one thing: a seething mass of justifiable rage that presents itself, though a minority of those affected, as radical Islamic Terrorism. ... As a rule, this school's policy preference for defeating Islamic Terrorism is to reduce the generators of the anger. Thus, the US must bring and end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, atone for past actions against the Muslim world, and generally radically change its long-standing foreign policy towards the Middle East. Only then will there be peace. ...
The second school of thought, the Clash of Civilizations School, argues that the source of Islamic Terrorism is the Muslim world's seething hatred of the fundamental values of the West, and, since the U.S. is the standard-bearer for the West at the moment, especially those of the United States. Adherents of this school, like Victor Hanson and most neo-conservative thinkers, argue that the value system of modern Islam produces a culture that is violently at odds with Western values and, because of this, it wages asymmetric war against the West when and where it can.
What is surprising is that Abu Musab Zarqawi categorically belongs to the second school, which holds that America is to be destroyed for what it is. In an audiotape released on January 23, 2005, Zarqawi puts forth a view which he has repeated many times in the past, but which, like Mein Kampf, some are determined never to hear. In the audio Zarqawi cursed democracy because it promoted such un-Islamic behavior as freedom of religion, rule of the people, freedom of expression, separation of religion and state, forming political parties and majority rule. Freedom of speech was particularly evil because it allowed "even cursing God. This means that there is nothing sacred in democracy."
While these are not the only reasons for extremist Islamic hatred, clearly if the fundamental characteristics of American society are sufficient to mark it for destruction, then nothing will deflect the hatred of the enemy. But Joe Katzman at Winds of Change argues that to some extent, the facts don't matter, because the public debate over the War on Terror within the West is in many respects as twisted as Zarqawi's. The debate, Katzman says, is dominated by activists who are incapable of seeing anything outside the prism of their own fantasies.
Al Qaeda may not be the only ones out there with a fantasy ideology ... If you see activism as the default mode of politics, goes this thesis, you shouldn't be surprised when it leads to anti-intellectualism, tolerance of extremists, retreat into fantasy, and a self-defeating kind of partisanship designed to make people feel better about themselves rather than produce meaningful change. ... There's a strongly religious quality to a lot of supposedly secular activism, in part due to the baby boomers' cultivated sense of grandiosity.
Charlie over at Rip n' Read, had an interesting post and comment
on the controversy over whether to publish Bin Laden's writings:
Some say that we should limit the exposure of this dispicable human being, others say it is important to know what he said because then we will know what he is going to do. Here are some sides of the discussion over the last two days. Reuters via CNN reports that Doubleday will publish the OBL papers.
Shannen Coffin gets steamed about the potential publication here.
AQ Reader - John Miller
Doubleday is not "hyping" the Al Qaeda Reader. Far from it. The news of the signing was leaked prematurely--presumably by a disgruntled competitor, and we are responding as best we can to the resulting media storm. If Mr. Coffin had bothered to call someone here before writing his article, he would know that. I also don't know where he gets the idea that we are motivated by the liberal "peace through understanding" delusion. I'm quite sure that none of our public statements can be interpreted that way, and it is pure projection on his part. Witness the fact that we've been attacked from the left as pushing a "conservative" agenda with this book. Both kneejerk reactions are equally wrong.
THE CORNER KAMPF OVER MEIN KAMPF [Steven Hayward]Appropo the debate about the parallels between perceptions of an AQ reader and MK (I realize I'm not a neutral party), herewith some relevant passages from From Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott, The Appeasers: The Decline of Democracy from Hitler's Rise to Chamberlain's Downfall (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1963):
In 1933, shortly after Hitler's ascension to office, John Wheeler-Bennett said in the House of Commons: "Hitler, I am convinced, does not want war. He is susceptible to reason in matters of foreign policy. He is greatly anxious to make Germany once more self-respecting and is himself anxious to be respectable. He may be described as the most moderate member of his party."
During question time in the House, he admitted that he had not read Mein Kampf. Gilbert & Gott comment: "Had he done so, he might still have asserted that Hitler's foreign policy would be pacific, at least for some years."
Journalist Vernon Bartlett, Gilbert & Gott note, wrote that the evidence that Hitler wanted war was "very slight." Mien Kampf included expansionist passages, but it was "unfair" to quote from it, since it was written after the failure of a revolution, ten years earlier. It was wrong to expect from a young, embittered revolutionary "the reflections . . . that might be jotted down by a respectable politician with a distinguished university career behind him and a whiskey and soda by his side."
"Hitler must be treated as a mature statesman, not as a frustrated revolutionary. It was wrong to forbid German rearmament. A disarmed nation would never feel secure, and would resent being treated like a spoiled child.
"How could Germany be expected not to worry about her security when her neighbors, so much better armed and equipped, talk all the time about theirs."
Notice all the people trying to explain away Hitler's insanity. When facing great evil is staring you in the face, it is very hard to even believe what you are seeing, much less to look at it ann analyze it for what it really is.
Charlie Quidninc comments of Rip n' Read comments:
I think the publication should go forward. I've read and forwarded to many people the original writings of Bin Laden, in the form of his Declaration of War Against Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. I am often disappointed by some who say it is just the flowery language of the Middle East, and not be taken literally. I can't disagree more with that sentiment, and I bet the families of the 9/11 murdered would tend to agree with me. Read it and learn, is my idea.
Remembering the Wannsee Conference
And the Liberation of Auschwitz
This article is posted by participants of the January 27, 2005, BlogBurst, to remember the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, sixty years ago, on January 27, 1945.
On January 20th, we marked the anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee Conference. In the course of that Conference, the Nazi hierarchy formalized the plan to annihilate the Jewish people. Understanding the horrors of Auschwitz requires that one be aware of the premeditated mass-murder that was presented at Wannsee.
Highlighting these events now has become particularly important, even as the press reports that '45% of Britons have never heard of Auschwitz'.
The meeting at Wannsee established the mechanism for "the final solution" -- shipment of Jews to eastern labor and death camps -- as the official policy of the Third Reich. Ever efficient and unashamed, the Nazi kept a record of the meeting, which were discovered in 1947 in the files of the German Foreign Office.
The conference addressed every aspect of Nazi genocide in chillingly ordinary logic and language, e.g., " Europe will be combed through from West to East," "forcing the Jews out of the various spheres of life of the German people." Ever efficient, the participants foresaw that, "[i]n the course of the final solution and under appropriate direction, the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in a suitable manner. In large labor columns and separated by sexes, Jews capable of working will be dispatched to these regions to build roads, and in the process a large number of them will undoubtedly drop out by way of natural attrition."
The minutes reflect an intention to dispose of "roughly eleven million Jews." This figure was derived after a horrifyingly detailed discussion of those with only partial Jewish ancestry, sparing some only a quarter Jewish, and magnanimously exempting others from evacuation only if "sterilized in order to prevent any progeny . . . Sterilization will be voluntary, but it is the precondition for remaining in the Reich."
Many conference participants survived the war to be convicted at Nuremberg. The conference, and the bureaucratic sounding murderous minutes, provide a prototypical example of Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil.
The Holocaust, symbolized by Auschwitz, the worst of the death camps, occurred in the wake of consistent, systematic, unrelenting anti-Jewish propaganda campaign. As a result, the elimination of the Jews from German society was accepted as axiomatic, leaving open only two questions: when and how.
As Germany expanded its domination and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, parts of the USSR, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Italy and others countries, the way was open for Hitler to realize his well-publicized plan of destroying the Jewish people.
After experimentation, the use of Zyklon B on unsuspecting victim was adopted by the Nazis as the means of choice, and Auschwitz was selected as the main factory of death (more accurately, one should refer to the “Auschwitz-Birkenau complex”). The green light for mass annihilation was given at the Wannsee Conference, January 20, 1942, and the mass gassings took place in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of 1944, when the Nazis retreated before the advancing Red Army. Jews were transported to Auschwitz from all over Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe and most were slaughtered in Auschwitz upon arrival, sometimes as many as 12,000 in one day. Some victims were selected for slave labour or “medical” experimentation. All were subject to brutal treatment.
In all, between three and four million people, mostly Jews, but also Poles and Red Army POWs, were slaughtered in Auschwitz alone (though some authors put the number at 1.3 million). Other death camps were located at Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec (Belzek), Majdanek and Treblinka.
Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army on 27 January 1945, sixty years ago, after most of the prisoners were forced into a Death March westwards. The Red Army found in Auschwitz about 7,600 survivors, but not all could be saved.
For a long time, the Allies were well aware of the mass murder, but deliberately refused to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Ironically, during the Polish uprising, the Allies had no hesitation in flying aid to Warsaw, sometimes flying right over Auschwitz.
There are troubling parallels between the systematic vilification of Jews before the Holocaust and the current vilification of the Jewish people and Israel. Suffice it to note the annual flood of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; or the public opinion polls taken in Europe, which single out Israel as a danger to world peace; or the divestment campaigns being waged in the US against Israel; or the attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. The complicity of the Allies in WW II is mirrored by the support the PLO has been receiving from Europe, China and Russia to this very day.
If remembering Auschwitz should teach us anything, it is that we must all support Israel and the Jewish people against the vilification and the complicity we are witnessing, knowing where it inevitably leads.
I want to add that supporting the PLO is not the same as supporting the Palestinian people. People are people, and all humans deserve to be treated humanely. But, the Palestinian Liberation Organization is intent on destroying the state of Israel and driving all the Jews from the land.
That is racist and evil. And that is why I support this blog burst.
Thanks to Joseph Norland for arranging this, and thanks to all the participants:
A Photo Journey
Alicio i Underlandet
Alpaca Burger Forum
American On Line
And rightly so
Army Wives Serve with Pride
At Level Ground
Blog Willy No
Chimera's Ponderings and Wanderings
Christian Action For Israel
Clarity and Resolve
Crossing the Rubicon2
Crusader War College
CUANAS (Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism)
Dare to Inquire: Weblog of a Wondering Jew
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Dreams Into Lightning
Dust My Broom
Elder of Ziyon
Elegance Against Ignorance
Enter Stage Right
Friends of Micronesia
History Rules. But this will do for now.
I Dream, Therefore I Am
Israel Net Daily Blog
It Is What It Is
It's Almost Supernatural
Jerusalem, G-D'S Eternal City
Josef?s Public Journal
Letter from Israel
Life in the Ghetto
Life More Abundant
Middle East Facts
Mugged by Reality
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
National News Register
Netiher here not there
News for Members of the Tribe
News Junkie Canada
No Oil For Pacifists
Ogre's Politics and Views
Okie on the LAM - in LA
Outside the Blogway
Pardon My English
Paul and Carls daily diatribe
Peace For Our Time
Pretensions of Competency
Rabbi Jason A. Miller's Blog
Ramblings of a Roman Wanderer
Ravings of a Mad Tech
Res Publica 2004
Rite Turn Only
Serenity Through Hope Ministries
Setting the World to Rights
Simulev - Swedish anti-Israel bias!
Sky Watching My World
Something... and Half of Something
Somewhere on A1A
Sounding the Trumpet
Step-by-Step: Making Aliyah
Tampa Bay Primer
Tex The Pontificator
The Bad Hair Blog
The Blog from the Core
The Blue Maple Leaf
The Chainik Hocker
The Commons at Paulie World
The Donegal Express
The Hidden Nook
The House Of Wheels
The Key Monk
The Lion of Judah
The Moderate Voice
The Original Musings
The Owner's Manual
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
The Raphi's Zionist Site
The Secret Life of Shoes
The Speakers Action Group
The Steiner Aid
The Truth about Israel
The Wide Awakes
This Vehicle Makes Wide Right Turns
To Protect Our Heritage PAC
While yet within the heart
Yeah, Right, Whatever
Yesha Speaks Out
Zibibbo is Good
Just Like Heaven
A song by The Cure
"Show me how you do that trick
The one that makes me scream" she said"
The one that makes me laugh" she said
And threw her arms around my neck"
Show me how you do it
And I promise you
I promise thatI'll run away with you
I'll run away with you"
Spinning on that dizzy edge
I kissed her face and kissed her head
And dreamed of all the different ways
I hadTo make her glow
"Why are you so far away?" she said
"Why won't you ever know that I'm in love with you
That I'm in love with you"
You - Soft and only
You - Lost and lonely
You Strangest angel
Dancing in the deepest oceans
Assisting in the world til
You're just like a dream
Daylight licked me into shape
I must have been asleep for days
And moving lips to breathe her name
I opened up my eyes
And found myself alone alone
Alone above a raging sea
That stole the only girl
And drowned her deep inside of me
The New Anti-Semitism
Why We Need To Fight It
With All Our Strength
There was a long article on "The New Anti-Semitism" recently, in the left-wing Jewish magazine Tikkun
. As the name of this blog, CUANAS, is an acronym for Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism, I will excerpt parts of it, and post it on a day to day basis. Here's part one:
Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl is forced to say he is a Jew who comes from a Zionist family before he is decapitated on video by Pakistani Muslim terrorists, his head held aloft as a warning to Jews everywhere. Signs at peace rallies scream: "Death to Jews" and posters in college dorms read "Jews=Nazis." The official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority declares that the Holocaust is a myth which the Jews have exploited to get sympathy. Jordanian children learn that the Torah is "perverted" and that Jews have only "their own evil practices" to blame for the Holocaust. Egyptian television viewers watch forty serialized installments of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Academics spearhead a campaign to shun Israeli professors simply on the basis of their nationality. An anti-Israel rally on an American campus shows a photo of an eviscerated baby with the tag: "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites." A Jewish student wearing a yarmulke at Yale University is attacked by a Palestinian in his dormitory. Neo-Nazi violence against Jewish people and institutions escalates throughout Europe. Millions of Muslims, indoctrinated by state-sponsored propaganda, believe that Israel is responsible for September 11.
Anti-Semitism has been called "the longest hatred" and, judging from events like these, it has retained its extraordinary durability. In recent years, it has morphed and globalized into an ugly mix of neo-Nazi violence; Islamist religious and racial Jew-hating; Palestinian terrorism; ultra-Left anti-Zionism; and the demonization of Israel throughout the world, particularly in the Arab and Muslim nations and in Palestine.
The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, by Phyllis Chesler, is a vital contribution to understanding the resurgence of this virulent new strain of anti-Semitism in our time, which Chesler aptly describes as "more threatening and dangerous to Jews than anything that has occurred since World War II."
Chesler thoroughly documents not only the potent rise of neo-Nazi hatred against Jews in Germany, Austria, Russia, Poland, France, and other European countries, but also the religious and racial anti-Semitism that is daily fare in Arab and Muslim nations. The most vicious propaganda in the media since Hitler described Jews as a race of vermin to be exterminated is now widely disseminated in the Middle East, including Palestine. Depictions of Jews as rats, lice, snakes, demons, parasites, hook-nosed liars who made up the Holocaust, evil Nazis, and treacherous conspirators who plot to take over the world, are injecting whole populations with anti-Semitic toxins on a scale that is historically unprecedented.
The crucial contribution of Chesler's book is her detailed presentation of the confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism—the complex hybrid of bigotry that is emerging today. "The anti-racist anti-Zionist," says Chesler, "has a lot in common with the old-fashioned racist anti-Semite." Israel has become "the Jew of the world—scorned, scapegoated, demonized, and attacked." The core of her argument is that Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and violence against Jews in the Arab and Muslim nations, as well as in Europe, Asia, and the United States, are "symbiotically" nourished by a dogmatic form of anti-Zionism promulgated by students, intellectuals, academics, and progressives. The Palestinian Intifada is suffused with this new anti-Semitism and its supporters around the world are infected with it. In short, the new anti-Semitism is "the last acceptable prejudice" on both the Left and the Right.
The confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is present, according to Chesler, when Jews in the Diaspora are held responsible for Israeli policy and targeted for verbal and physical attack. When it is held that all groups are entitled to nationalist aspirations except for Jews; that Israel doesn't deserve to exist while the racism or oppressiveness of any other nation doesn't call for its wholesale elimination. When acts of violence against Israeli civilians and Jews throughout the Diaspora are justified as political strategy. And when Israel is held to a higher standard than any other country and demonized in the family of nations (for example, when the UN recurrently condemns the Occupation while out-and-out genocides escape criticism).
Increasingly, Holocaust-denial or worse—blaming the Jews for the Holocaust—is a strong feature of the anti-Zionist onslaught in the Arab and Muslim world, as is the invidious equation of Zionism and Nazism. And most disheartening of all, the confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is present in the Palestinian uprising, which is riddled with organized Jew-hatred pumped into the population on a daily basis in schools, mosques, and on the streets.
... While reading it (the book), I experienced two incidents that vividly illustrate two prominent aspects of the new anti-Semitism: Holocaust hostility and anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. The first occurred the day I learned that my elderly father had just had a massive heart attack and was lying in a hospital in Queens. Speaking to the I.C.U. nurse, I wanted to let her know that my father would need to be sedated, since being hospitalized caused him to relive his Holocaust trauma. I got as far as "You need to know that my father is a Holocaust survivor …" before she interrupted me, screaming: "So what? Don't talk to me about being a victim and don't expect that you people are going to get any special treatment here."
The next day, addressing a group of graduate students about grief, fear, and despair in an age of global threat, I cited Israel/Palestine as an area in which repeated cycles of traumatic grief turned to rageful acts of vengeance that undermined the prospects of peace. A woman approached me at the end of my talk, a palpable hatred radiating from her eyes, and launched into an anti-Israel rant. "The Holocaust justifies absolutely nothing," she spat out (though I hadn't mentioned the Holocaust). "The Jews are not entitled to anger or grief. Only the Palestinians are justified in their anger." Her vaguely threatening last words were: "I hope you get what you deserve for what you're saying." I wondered how a call for mutual compassion could arouse such hate.
Both the nurse and the student were enraged by the idea of Jews as Holocaust victims. While the nurse's hostility was a frontal assault, the student's rage erupted in a pseudo-rational political argument, couched in an anti-Zionist "position." I was struck, in both cases, by what Chesler calls the new "permissibility" for remarks of this kind. Increasingly, Jews in the popular imagination have jumped the divide, from post-Holocaust Victims to Jewish/Zionist Villains. And that jump has everything to do with Israel.
I mentioned the fact that Tikkun is a "left-wing Jewish magazine" because I believe that people who come to this site might often think of me as a right-wing conservative Christian Zionist. While it is true that I am a Christian, and I am a Zionist (Zionism to me, means the Jews have a right to the homeland which was granted to them by the UN in 1948), it is not true that I have been a Conservative right-winger during my life time.
I am very much bothered by the fact that the Democratic Party has become the home of those who would villanize Israel and the Jews. Such hatred used to find it's home on the extreme (Pat Buchanan) right. But, it has migrated left and, at the same time, it has become marginalized on the right. When is the last time you've seen Buchanan given any credence by the Republican Party.
I say that I am "bothered" by this state of affairs, because I am a kind of "social liberal" who is more likely to agree with, what used to be, the Democratic Party on issues such as gay marriage, "faith-based initiatives", free speech and the FCC, etc. Those are big, big issues to me. I am not represented by the voice of those who would call homosexuality "deviant". I am not represented by those who would tear down the wall, which I think is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, between Church and State, by instituting the governmental funding of "faith-based inititiatives". And I am not represented by those "Conservatives" at the FCC who believe that perhaps the FCC should be regulating speech in non-choice communications mediums such as cable and satellite TV, or the internet. In fact, I am so unrepresented, and I think those three issues are so important, that I am frightened by the lack of representation.
But, I am more frightened by those who would deny the reality of international state-sponsored terrorism, and by those who would instead lay the responsibility for the problems of the world on the tiny state of Israel.
As the Democratic Party has become the party of Michael Moore , and of those who would tolerate anti-Semitism, I find I have no one to represent my beliefs. I have come to a place where a "Conservative" like George Bush represents me best, because he is focused on the issues which I consider to be the most important of our time. It is with reluctance that I say that I guess gays, and free speech, and the separation of Church and State, will just have to wait.
I go into all this because I would imagine that I am not the only person who feels like this. It is hard to change your paradigm. It is frightening and painful. But, here's how I comfort myself. America has a very long tradition of liberalism on church-state issues, and on free speech. For well over 200 years, the momentum of American history has been in the direction of the advancement of civil rights. Therefore, I conclude that I can afford to wait on such issues, because the most important issue is that America needs to exist as a strong bulwark against the forces of insanity which would tolerate and/or promote anti-Semitism and Islamofascism as reasonable.
If such forces are permitted to gain strength in our world, issues of free-speech, church-state separation, and the rights of homosexuals will be the least of our worries. History has shown that Rome can turn into a medieval nightmare over time. We need to heed that lesson and make sure that Rome stays strong, so that the forces of ignorance and chaos are not given a chance to gain power.