Simple As A PomegranateFlawless light in a darkening air
Alone...and shining there
Love will not elude you
Love is simple
I worship this tenacity
And the beautiful struggle we’re in
Love will not elude us
Love is simple
Be sure to know that
All in love
Is ours
And love, as a philosophy
Is simple
I am calm in oblivion
Calm, as I ever have been
Love will not elude me
Love is simple
Be sure to know that
All in love
Is ours...
Is ours...
That all in love
Is ours
And love, as philosophy
Is simple...
And ours...
- k.d. lang
The Protest Warriors Are My HeroesThey dare to challenge the "Peace" Protesters so, of course, the "Peace" protesters kick their asses, and cuss at them, and tear the signs from their hands, and knock women to the ground. You know, all the "peaceful" stuff you would expect.
Go watch the video.
There Were No WMDFrom
Atlas Shrugged:
Addendum to Report on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction- Charles Duelfer (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency)
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 War. The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined.
There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about the movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation. ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. Firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
Detainee de-briefs allowed ISG to confirm the use of the chemical agent VX during the Iran-Iraq war and the use of nerve gas agent in Karbala during the Shia uprising following the 1991 war.
So far there is little evidence that either foreign jihadists operating in Iraq or Iraq insurgent groups are attracting experts from the former regime's WMD programs. There are multiple reports of Iraqis with general chemical or biological expertise helping insurgents to produce chemical or biological agents. Unidentified members of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) allegedly smuggled an Iraq rocket scientist into Iran at the request of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
The Apogee Of Moral RelativismFrom
Little Green Footballs:
HEBRON, West Bank (Reuters) - A Palestinian driver ran over and killed an Israeli at an army checkpoint in the West Bank on Monday before soldiers shot him dead in the latest violence to strain a de facto cease-fire, witnesses said.
Pajama VentureCharles Johnson of Little Green Footballs
announced this morning the start of a new venture this morning:
I have been sneaking around over the last few months, trying to turn blogs into a business. We have enlisted some others with names familiar to you with the intention of working in two areas - aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service.
With respect to advertising, we do not wish to go into competition with Henry Copeland’s BlogAds, which we fully support. (Some of us even have them!) We are working on another model that will sell ads en masse, not blog-by-blog. We expect this model to go live within a few weeks.
As for the Blog News Service, a lot of work needs to be done and a lot of questions answered. An editorial board consisting of Glenn Reynolds, PowerLine, Lawrence Kudlow, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Cooper, Wretchard of the Belmont Club and Tim Blair, as well as the founders, is already in place with other bloggers in many countries having signed on as contributors.
Everyone is invited to participate, if you want to make money. And who doesn't?
Anyway, I just had to throw in my two cents, so here's the comment I left:
If anyone deserves to profit from this whole blogging phenomenon, it is you, Charles. I want to tell you how much I appreciate the fact that you have not caved in to the "scandal of the week" mentality that other bloggers are using as a way to get themselves media opportunites.
There are also bloggers who are clogging up the very top of their page with huge ads for credit cards and crap (and you all know who I am talking about).
At some point, the blog becomes secondary, doesn't it?
I believe bloggers ought to be able to make a living (after all we're not communists :), but I also believe that we need to protect the ideal of what blogging is; it is Democracy in action.
I, for one, promise to never sell my voice.
More On The "Book Tag"After having thought about it more, I decided that I
had to add
Franny and Zooey (J.D. Salinger) and
Beloved (Toni Morrison) to my list.
Any one of the books I mentioned have, at one time, been "my favorite book."
Another book I am tempted to mention is
The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy. It's never been "my favorite" but I do think it is profound.
This is pretty fun. The more I think about it, the more I want to think about it.
Other books that have, at one time been my favorite books include:
The Baseball Life Of Sandy Koufax (I was a kid, but the book shaped me)
Wilt: Just Like Any Other Black, Seven-Foot Millionaire Who Lives Next Door (Just a kid, but again yes, it shaped me)
The Grapes Of Wrath (I was thirteen when I read this. This book made me a liberal.)
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy by Tolkien.
Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzche. (As far as I am concerned, there are two ways of looking at the world. Either you see the world through the prism of
The Bible, or you see it through the prism of
Thus Spake Zarathrustra. It's as if the world were an optical illusion.)
Love and Will by Rollo May. (This book was the beginning of the healing that I needed after reading Nietzche.)
And one book I want to mention, while at the same time recognizing that it probably does not deserve to be canonized, is
Memnoch The Devil by Anne Rice. There are parts of that book which are truly classic. Basically,
Memnoch The Devil builds off Milton's
Paradise Lost (it also has a little similarity to the opening passage - about the angels and God - of
The Silmarillion. )Anne Rice wonderfully imagines the relationship between Satan and God. And I mean
wonderfully. The flaw of the book is it's denial of Original Sin. But, even that, taken in context, is not a flaw, because, of course, Satan would deny Original Sin as well.
There is a possibility that
Memnoch The Devil might actually be classic literature, but I am not the one to make such a call. This could just be my oddball opinion. I am an oddball, after all.
One of the truly fascinating (well, to me anyway) things about having participated in this meme is that I have to confront the fact that,
1) while I spend an inordinate amount of time reading,
and,
2) while I really believe that God created the world with The Word,
I do not really believe that the words written by people are very accurate. And some of the most "accurate" writers (Proust, Brodkey, Sartre) do not give much in the way of wisdom. It's as if one of the curses of the Fall was a disconnect between language and creation.
Poetry and Music, for all their lack of specificity, seem to be more accurate in describing life.
UPDATE:
Jaymarie wrote in with a good question. What do I mean by "accurate." Sorry, that was rather cryptic. By accurate, I mean that the writer describes their subject in great detail, or with great specificity as to the details.
I used two other words in a cryptic manner. So, I'll try to define them.
1) Rigor: not making mistakes with the details. This is different from accuracy, because in literature there exists a little thing called the poetic license. In other words, detail can be inaccurate to reality as long as long as it is not completely incongruous to reality. Rigor has more to do with the logic of the ideas presented and less to do with the specificity of the details. In other words rigor is logical accuracy of the details with which the book puts forth it's ideas.
2) Tightness: a book is tight if all it's details, rigorous or not, fit together like a puzzle. The book Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates, is one of the tightest books this side of Shakespeare, but it's argument (and it is an argument) is absolutely devoid of rigor.
I'll be you
TVD will write in and tell me I just restated something from Plato or Aristotle.
The Annex Mexico MovementFrom the
Astute Blogger:
Many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans (typified by the organizations MECHA and La Raza) BELIEVE that California - and Texas, if not the whole southwest of the USA - are "rightly" theirs, as if they were somehow "stolen" in the middle of the night by some underhanded act of American trickery. They "proudly" call the territory "Aztlan" as if it was an ancient Mexican nation or Hispano-Mestizo homeland.This is not true. As David Orland wrote:
As a matter of fact, the American Southwest was not, as MEChA claims, “stolen” from Mexico. Following the Mexican-American War, the government of Mexico legally ceded this territory to the United States (by the Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo, 1848). Nor has there ever been any place called “Aztlan” on American soil, much less a “Nation of Aztlan.”
Invented 30 years ago by radical Latino activists, the Nation of Atzlan has more in common with Atlantis than with Israel. [...]
MEChA plans for the American Southwest is to be a peaceful one — at least for the time being. By supporting continued high levels of Mexican immigration to the United States, MEChA hopes to achieve by sheer weight of numbers what the U.S. government long ago achieved by force of arms: the re-partition of the American Southwest. To this end, MEChA endorses a cocktail of pro-immigration policies. These include open borders, government benefits (including the right to vote and obtain drivers licenses) for non-citizens, amnesty for illegal aliens, dual citizenship, state recognition of Spanish as an official language, and racial set-asides in education and corporate hiring.
The membership of MECHA includes many prominent Democrat polticians, and the Democat Party panders for the "Aztlan"/Mexican-American vote by supporting policies which aid the accomplishemnt of the "reconquesta" goals.
SO: If you want California and the southwest to remain American and part of America, you'd better stop supporting Democrtas, and start supporting ONLY those politicians who want a HALT to illegal immigration, and who would ONLY a continuance of legal immigration which inlcudes ASSIMILIATION.
Which means it's time for the USA to adopt English as our official/legal language and demand that ALL government agencies and all election ballots ONLY BE AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH. We should DEMAND that Congress re-introduce - AND THAT BUSH SIGN INTO LAW "The English Language Unity Act of 2001" which if enacted, would require "nearly all federal official government business to be conducted in English, and all documents to be printed in English, while protecting individual constitutional rights. Exceptions would include documents to protect public health and safety, law enforcement, court translations and tourism."
If America continues its lax policies - allowing "Immigration without assimilation" then America is committing cultural suicide. We MUSTN'T let Mexicans do to us what Muslims are doing to Holland and France and Europe: conquer it by insidious invasion of their underclass and by the ensuing demographics.
I think we should fight fire with fire. If they want to give voice to the idea of taking over the Southwest through a population invasion, then I say we give voice to the idea of annexing Mexico.
The truth is, whenever Vincente Fox talks with George Bush, the most important item on his agenda is how he can go about exporting more of his citizens to the United States. That is the policy of a bankrupt government. A government whic is no longer capable of taking care of it's citizens.
Since Mexico has been proven to be incapable of governing itself, I think we should annex the whole country and make it part of the United States. This way, everybody will be happy. They get to be citizens our country, and we get to "exploit" their natural resources. You know, they've got a lot of oil. Maybe we won't have to invade anymore Middle Eastern countries.
;-)
I'd love to hear the comments of other bloggers on this idea.
Book TagPapiJoe over at the excellent
Marlowe's Shade, has tagged me with a Meme. I'm not feeling very comfortable with Memes these days
:)
but I'll participate, because this meme doesn't look as tiresome as the other one. Here goes:
You’re stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?I don't really understand the question because I've never read Farenheit 451. I'll answer the best I can. Let's see, a book I'd want to be? I know Papijoe said the Bible. That's a good answer, and I ought to try that. I'm afraid I don't follow
The Bible very well much of the time.
You know, when I think about it, I find that I don't have as much respect for the written word as I should. Generally, I think it's rare that authors touch the sublime. I'll just mention some stuff I have liked.
The opening passage of Henry Miller's
Sexus is filled with energy and is a loving, but brutal celebration of life.
Moby Dick is one of my favorite novels, and one of the strangest reads you'll ever find. It's also funny as hell, if you're willing to roll with it.
I very much enjoyed Douglas Coupland's
Life After God. What happens to people who live in a post-God culture? They long for God, of course. Douglas Coupland's writing sometimes lacks subtelty, and I wouldn't say he's the tightest storyteller or the most rigorous thinker, but he does touch the ineffable sometimes.
The Garden of Eden by Ernest Hemingway, in which the author turns the entire Hemingway mythos upside down. An amazing book, especially if you think you already understand Hemingway.
The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles. What happens when a couple walks away from every last vestige of Western Civilization?
A Distant Episode by Paul Bowles: Short stories. My favorites being
Tapiama,
The Circular Valley,
The Echo, and
The Delicate Prey. Paul Bowles elegantly captures the what happens at the border of Western Civilization and chaos.
Beloved by Toni Morrison. This book perfectly captures the atrocity of slavery, and yet somehow transcends the subject and becomes a universal story.
Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger. I never grow up, so this story of crossing the border from adolesence into adulthood remains ever relevant.
It seems to me all these books could, with just a bit of added context and a little bit of enforced brevity, be made part of the Bible itself.
And then there are three poets I love:
The Prelude by William Wordsworth
North American Sequence by Theodore Roethke
The Rock by Wallace Stevens
I always feel completely incapable of analyzing poetry. I hope it will suffice if I just say that all three of these men spent their time trying to capture the eternity which unfolds outward from certain transcendant moments here in life. Somehow they managed to do it.
Interesting to note that, with the exception of Shakespeare, all the writers I mention are Americans
Anyway, enough of books. What I really love is music. If I had to be a piece of art, I would be music.
-
The Vienna Concert by Keith Jarrett
Perhaps the most amazing piece of music I have ever heard, in terms of being improvisational and yet almost perfectly constructed, and even symphonic in essence, is Keith Jarrett's The Vienna Concert. It is solo piano, but Jarrett's technique makes it symphonic.
Track 1 (which is untitled) is the masterpiece. It is forty-five minutes long, and requires considerable emotional investment, so make sure you have time, and mindspace. You can't just pop it on the CD player and do the laundry. You need to participate in this music. The piece is in three parts.
In the first part a simple and beautiful melody blooms out of just a few notes. The melody, which is sweetly satisfying develops nicely, but always seems to elude resolution. The first part evolves into tension which builds over an alternating two-chord drone. The drone has an interior quality to it, as of anxiety building within oneself.
But this anxiety explodes outward and suddenly we find ourselves confronted with the roiling, careening modern world. Phantasms of sound jump out at you like furies. Anger and confusion are palpable. At some point the roiling drone of Jarrett's playing become pantonal, and the music exists solely on the level of sound for a suspended moment. Somehow, Jarrett creates an almost industrial sound with his piano. Then, suddenly a hint of tonality is reintroduced were and spreads across the dark sky in triumph.
The final part of the piece is a glorious processional of redemption. Even more than a redemption, it is a transfiguration.
-
In Memory of Benjamin Britten by Arvo Part
Another sublime piece of music. It is profoundly sad. Starting with just the pure tone of a bell, Part builds outward across the harmonic spectrum, once again increasing in tension, only to resolve in the pure tone of a bell. There is no redemption in this music, although Part is a devout Eastern Orthodox Christian, because this is the sound of a man mourning the loss of a loved one.
-
John and Mary by Jaco Pastorius
This piece is a celebration in music, and includes the voices and giggles of his young children as he teases them at the beginning of the track. Featuring steel drums, choir, island rhythms, strings arranged beautifully by Jaco, and the mans stellar bass playing, this track is a ceremony of innocence, a feast of glory.
I guess I could go on and on. And I would like to, but I should probably get to the other questions.
Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?Is Norah Jones a fictional character?
The last book you bought was:
Eurabia by Bat Ye'or
The last book you read was:
The Winds of War/War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk.
What are you currently reading?Eurabia and
The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard.
Five books you would take with you to a Desert Island:
1)
The Bible (The story we find ourselves in.)
2)
The Book of Common Prayer (1928 Edition) (I find it comforting.)
3)
Complete Works of Shakespeare (Do I need to say why?)
4)
The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien (Papijoe said he's reading this now. I started it once, and it seemed like the kind of book you could read and reread.) or
Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges
5)
Ball Four by Jim Bouton (somehow I think I might need this to keep in touch with my sanity)
Who will you be tagging with this meme?You know what? Just because I would love to know what makes the guy tick, I'm sending it to
Wretchard at the Belmont Club, on the offhand chance that he will answer.
Jaymarie at Pond Ripple.
And my good buddy
IraqWarWrong at The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog.
UPDATE II: I don't know why I didn't think of
TVD, at Philosodude, in first place. Sorry about that, bro. It's pretty clear he has digested much of the literary canon.
Oh yes, and I have added
The Anchoress to my list as well.
Chirac Says, "Let Them Eat Cake"This is a post from CUANAS, dated March 30, 2004. I just had to bring it up again.
I was cruising the internet, checking out stories, and I came across this.
Jacques Chirac, President of France, went to Tunisia and elucidated
the Chirac Doctrine on Human Rights.Chirac's talks with President Zine AlAbidine Ben Ali on the Middle East and the global war on terrorism were overshadowed by the case of Tunisian rights lawyer Radia Nasraoui, on hunger strike since October 15.
On the second and final day of Chirac's state visit, Nasraoui slammed statements by the French president glossing over Tunisia's rights record.
Referring to the hunger-striking lawyer, detained over her human rights advocacy and denunciation of torture, Chirac said on Wednesday: "We also have people in France who are staging hunger strikes, who have staged hunger strikes and who will doubtless stage hunger strikes in the future."
"The first human right is to eat, to be cared for, to receive an education and to have housing. From this point of view, we must remember that Tunisia is more advanced than many countries."
But Nasraoui reacted furiously on Thursday, telling AFP that "Mr Chirac told us in essence: eat up and shut up.
Chirac needs a refresher course on Democracy and The Rights of The People, for God's sake. Two centuries after the French people chauffered their queen to her rendevouz with the 72 virgins, Chirac goes to Tunisia and pulls a Marie Antoinette on them. There is something very sick about France, if they have a President who thinks "the first human right is to eat."
What about freedom of speech, religion, right to own property, the right to vote, etc?
As my man the
dissidentfrogman said,
"To eat, , to be cared for, to receive an education and to have housing", is not 'the first of the human rights', but the UberStatist's dream. "Please, do shut up. All you need is a food voucher and see, I'm the one who delivers. Here you go, stop complaining."
Florida Islamic Center Invites Neo-Nazi To SpeakFrom
Front Page Magazine:
On April 30, the Assidiq Islamic Educational Foundation (AIEF), an Islamic center in Boca Raton, is hosting an event commemorating the “prophet” Mohammed at the Boca Marriott Hotel. The featured speaker for the event is William Baker, a man whose anti-Jewish works and statements have won him accolades throughout the white supremacist movement. In 1984, Baker was Chairman of the Populist Party, a Neo-Nazi organization founded by Holocaust denier Willis Carto. Baker’s book, Theft of a Nation, sports a cover depicting a Jew carrying, on his back, a container holding the state of Israel, which Baker claims in his book the Jews stole from the Palestinians. Baker writes: “The entire country of Palestine has been ‘taken’ by political Zionists, and it would seem the entire world has believed, supported and participated in the ‘theft’ of an entire country from an entire nation.” Why would the AIEF choose to bring a notorious anti-Semite like Baker to an event in an area that houses a very large Jewish population? A glimpse at the center’s background and ideology may provide some answers.
On the Audio Library section of Assidiq’s website, along with an animated graphic of dripping blood (apparently taken from another site glorifying the barbaric custom of pounding oneself over the head with swords until blood flows), there are a series of (what used to be) downloadable lectures made by Sayed Mohammad Jawad Al-Qazwini. In one dated February 12, 2005, titled “The concept of war through an Islamic perspective,” Al-Qazwini said the following:
“And until today, people do not seem to be able to forget what happened on [September 11, 2001]. It’s very hurtful. But who suffered the most after that attack? Immediately, if you turned on a TV set, and they started mentioning the names of those who were involved in the attack, the Muslims and American Muslims started suffering right away...The American Muslims were suffering the most, and they’re still suffering. They’re not comfortable. And that is because of the lack of understanding of Islam in this country. Brothers and sisters, this is our country.”
He continues: “Thus rule number one, fight for the sake of Allah. Who must you fight? Those who start the war against you. Those who establish the war against you. Those who initiate the war against the Muslims. Then you are allowed to defend yourself...If you are attacked, you ought to defend...Permission has been given to those fighters whom have been forced, have seen injustice, have seen wrongdoing, have seen oppression and occupation. Then, they are given the permission to fight and to defend themselves and let them know that Allah will assist them to victory.”
Since Al-Qazwini believes that Muslims—inside and outside America—have been wronged following the 9/11 attacks, does he also believe that Muslims should fight “for the sake of Allah” against America, a country that Al-Qazwini claims for Muslims?
In the same speech, Al-Qazwini discusses the issue of martyrdom in Islam. He uses the terms “shahada” and “shaheed,” which are also the Arabic words used to describe suicide bombers in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
He states: “Shahada is equivalent to a very very important degree in Islam. The shaheed is not washed. The body of a shaheed is not washed. The shaheed is [pure/exempt from washing]. Thus he is placed in his grave immediately after he dies, because the shaheed is a purified figure. Not anybody that dies can be given the title of a shaheed. The shaheed is chosen by Allah, and the prophet is chosen by Allah. Those two people. Less not anybody can go and become a shaheed, brothers and sisters.”
With this information in mind, it’s no wonder that the Assidiq Islamic Educational Foundation issued a disclaimer on its website warning viewers that the center is not “liable for damages of any kind arising out of [one’s] use of [the center’s website]” just in case one would want to go off and start a jihad or become a shaheed.
One final bit of information discovered within Al-Qazwini’s February 2005 lecture may very well unveil the real answer as to why the Nazi sympathizer William Baker was invited to the center’s upcoming event. In his speech, Al-Qazwini matter-of-factly states, “Before Islam, there were the idol worshippers, the Christians and the Jews.”
On the flier announcing the April 30 AIEF event, which refers to Baker as an “outstanding figure,” the Mayor of Boca Raton and the Mayor of Coral Springs were listed as “Guests of Honor.” Following numerous complaints via phone and e-mail, both Mayors expressed their anger at their titles being used and have stated that they have no intention of partaking in the event. Summarily, the Mayors were deleted from the flier, but they are still listed as ‘Guests of Honor’ on Assidiq’s website.
... some of the previous guests at the center (including numerous members of Sayed Mohammad Jawad Al-Qazwini’s family):
Dr. Sayed Mustafa Al-Qazwini, the founder and Director of the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County
In a speech entitled “Challenges facing Muslims,” the Al-Qazwini, uncle of AIEF founder and lead Imam Sayed Mohammad Jawad Al-Qazwini, tries to explain away the Qur’anic verse, “O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends.” (Al Ma’idah, Surah 5:51)
Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, the leader of the Islamic Center of America in Detroit
In a speech he gave, dated March 12, 2004, he discussed how Jews react to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He stated: “The Jews want the world today -- those who made a big issue out of [the film, The Passion of the Christ] -- they want someone to come up and say ‘Jesus was not crucified by the Jews. [sarcastically] It was aliens, who came from outer space who abducted him, and they crucified him.’ You cannot deny historic facts. Even though that we Muslims believe that it wasn’t Jesus who was crucified...[The Jews] thought that Jesus was in the business competition with them. If people would follow him, nobody would go to them. They would go out of business. That’s why they decided to conspire against him.”
In an October 2004 speech to mark the beginning of Ramadhan, Al-Qazwini described how Judaism and Christianity are lower forms of humanity than Islam, Judaism being the lowest. He stated: “Generally, human being [sic] goes through his or her life through certain stages -- infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood -- as when you start your education, you go to an elementary school, then you move to high school, then you go to university, get your degree and find a job. This is how the entire humanity did. It was, in the beginning, preventive teachings. And then there was Judaism. And then, when the humanity advanced, there was Christianity. And now, when the humanity had advanced one more step, Islam came to be the universal, the university.”
In a news article that came out in The Boston Globe, dated October 23, 2000, it was reported that, during a lecture he was giving inside a university classroom, Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini had “expressed...hostility towards Jews.”
Provided all of the above statements, this hostility seems evident in much of the Al-Qazwini family. It exhibits a pattern of prejudice and bigotry aimed at those that are not of the Islamic faith, primarily those that are Jewish.
1
2
3
Hitler's Mountain HomeWhat should we think when we find such outrageous anti-Semitism in the Turkish media? Read the following and think about the sheer volume of hatred being spilled in article after article. From
Memri, via
Little Green Footballs:
"[…] Sami Celik, the owner of Emre Publications, who recently printed 31,000 copies told Aksam newspaper on February 27, 2005: 'Following our research and observations, we thought that Mein Kampf would be a book that would be sought after and read by the public. […] Mein Kampf was [indeed] affected by [recent] developments and its sale figures peaked.' [4]
As a matter of fact it has become a sort of handbook for the [electorate] base of MHP [the ultra-nationalist 'National Movement Party'] and 'Genc Parti' [the Youth Party]. Some claim that it is very popular among the students at police academies.
"In the same newspaper [Aksam] we read sociologist Prof. Mustafa Erkal who said: 'Reading Hitler is a reaction. Israel's policies and goals cause a reaction. Naturally, people get curious about Hitler's antisemitism and want to learn more about what he did and wanted to do.'
What our academician failed to say is the fact that in Turkey, as in the rest of the world, animosity toward the Jews, that disgusting form of racism called antisemitism, is fast growing and causing the increased interest for Mein Kampf.
Columnist Arslan Tekin of the nationalist-Islamic daily Yenicağ, wrote in an article titled 'Yes, Mein Kampf should be taught in schools:' "Everybody should read it, and should learn the reasons why Hitler came about." [5] 11 days later, Tekin wrote in his column in Yenicağ: [6] "Can a Hitler rise in America? It can happen… What was [true] for Germany before Hitler came to power is [now] exceedingly true for America. Big banks, big TV organs, big newspapers, all the tools that can trap the public opinion are in the hands of the Jews… Politics is run by them too.
"Hey Jews! The world cannot bear to have another Hitler [because of you]. Your disproportionate [presence]; your recklessness; your daring to burn the world for [even] one Jew, makes the American people and everyone in the world ask the question: 'what's happening here?' Do you know how the US is seen now? [It looks like] the biggest Jewish empire of the world. […]
"I, like everyone else, am seeing this situation… Hitler's Mein Kampf must be read especially by the Jews.
"A madman like Hitler does not just come about [without a reason]… The book which you define as 'nonsense' has set the world on fire. The Jews should think about the reasons [why]."
"Hitler Was a Man of Foresight"
Abdurrahim Karakoç, a columnist at the Islamic newspaper Vakit praised Hitler: [7]
"[…] It is impossible not to admire the foresight of Adolph Hitler, who is presented to public opinion as 'racist, sadistic, and monstrous.' Way back then, Hitler foresaw what would happen these [present] days. He cleansed off these swindler Jews, who believe in racism for a religion and take pleasure in bathing the world in blood, because he knew that they would become [this] big a curse for the world.
"[…] Hitler indeed was a man of foresight […] So Hitler did the job, yet Israel is presented to the world public opinion as the innocent victim.
In reaction to a Wall Street Journal article by Robert Pollock [8] [on the rising anti-Americanism in Turkey] columnist Serdar Kuru wrote in the nationalist Turkish daily Ortadoğu: [9]
"[Pollock's] article determines that Turkey is becoming a paranoid third world country. And the reason they think we are paranoid is the widespread belief among Turks that America is [nothing but a] toy in the hands of Jews who have designs of aggression against Turkey.
The author of the article seems to be annoyed at the exposure of the Jewish identities of the American Ambassador Edelman and later of [Douglas] Feith during his visit [to Turkey].
"[…] In reality it is clear who ordered this poor shooter [Robert Pollock, WSJ] to write this article […] Our problem is with the Zionist Jews who have grabbed every corner in America and the Evangelist Christians that they [the Jews] feed, who plan [together] to set on fire the whole world and our country. The ones who are disturbed by people, who oppose their plans, are the same ones who prepare these plans.
" The Wall Street Journal, where this article was published belongs to the Dow Jones Corporation. Peter R. Kahn, the head of Dow Jones is Jewish and is a member of CFR. This man's wife Karen House is the head of the Wall Street Journal. She too is Jewish and a member of CFR. Mrs. Karen is also the director of RAND, the think tank that prepared the world domination plans for the Bush team.
As you can see my friends, the reactions to the Turkish attitude towards American and Zionist expansionisms are not objective […] they are coming from the Zionists themselves.
"Is it our fault that behind every immorality, incitement, conspiracy and filth there is a Zionist ? Couldn't you send to Turkey people other than the Jew Edelman and the Jew Feith? […]"
In the leftist-liberal daily Radikal, Murat Necip Arman wrote: [10]
"The discussions we are having now are almost identical to the ones they had in Germany during the 1930's. At those days the press articles were not openly targeting the non-Germanic races yet, but were often arguing that they [the Jews] dominated the economy and that they were conducting [secret] activities that would ruin the fiber of the German society.[…]
"On New Year's Eve, in a TV channel which does not feel the need to hide its ties to a [Turkish] political party, it was recounted at great length that the Jews are a cursed people and that for this reason it was obligatory for the Muslims to eradicate them [the Jews]. […] it should not be forgotten that to openly say such a sentence constitutes a crime. […]
While this neo-antisemitism is recklessly manifested in almost all media organs, in the eyes of the masses Israel's aggression towards Palestinians provides justification for such a dangerous kind of racism.
"As I said, what we have here [in Turkey] presents similarities with Germany of the 1930's. I hope common sense prevails in Turkey and this dangerous trend does not lead to frightening results. […]
Upon the German Government's decision to ban the publication of the Turkish Islamic daily Vakit in Germany, a columnist at Vakit, Hüseyin Üzmez, wrote: [11]
"[…] It is true that persecution [of Jews] by Hitler is much exaggerated. We are sick and tired of [listening to] stories of the inhuman persecution and torture he committed against the Jews. It is said that Hitler himself was a Jew… that he committed cruelty only to force the Jews to migrate from Europe to Palestine … and that it was the Israeli Zionists who dictated these acts upon him, at the time they were founding Israel.
Two great powers (money and media) are in Jewish hands. The 'treacherous local collaborators' and some international organizations are also in their command.
"All humanity knows the fact that they [the Jews] are unequalled in [their] lobbying [skills]. With all this power and the tools, they can make or break anyone. […] Who can oppose them?
We saw the best example of this in what the German Interior Minister did to our newspaper Vakit. Against all the European human rights agreements, German police was putting pressure on our paper. We were in the midst of a judicial process. Our paper was illegally shut down […] Then the German Interior Minister interfered. He banned our paper. […] This was a [perfect] example of execution without a trial. […]
"[…] the German Interior Minister, who was so angry at us because we said 'Hitler had not killed six million Jews,' cannot be German. We are very curious to know whether he is a Jew?"
Columnist Yusuf Kaplan of the Islamic Yeni Şafak writes: [12]
"Jewish paranoia ( = fanaticism) is a phenomenon found in Jews that is an integral part of their character, blood and soul. Since paranoia is the form of Jewish existence and self- expression, they have never refrained from exposing it at every occasion, in the past and the present.
"[…] the Jewish paranoia can reach barbaric, cruel and inhuman dimensions […]
"Jewish paranoia has determined the color and the shape of our times. What keeps this paranoia alive is the power that the Jews possess [which enables them] to shape and direct the politics, economies and cultures of especially the western countries.
"[…] Jews also rule the Western universities and world media. […]
"Jewish desire to dominate everything in the Western countries, and the way they easily and arrogantly exploit organizations and individuals to serve Jewish interests, may end up causing a short circuit within the democratic institutions of the West.
Their nosy interference with everything, and their actions beyond the reach of their size, have already started to draw serious reactions in the Western countries. Because the Jewish paranoia is blown to extreme, forced and artificial dimensions, it can explode any day and take care of them [the Jews] and cost them dearly."
In his article titled 'Globalization Projects and Nationalists' Israfil Kumbasar of the nationalist-Islamic daily Yenicağ, summarizes a lecture by Mehmet Gül [13] at a recent [pan-Turkic] Turan Cultural Foundation's meeting: [14]
"[…] The only 'secret' power behind the globalization project are the Jews and the masons!...
"The 'Jewish Zionists whose goal is the 'total Jewish domination of the world' claim that a 'messiah' will come down from the sky and will build the 'World Kingdom'!...
"The same expectation is widely shared by the 'Christian Zionists' who accept all that the 'Old Testament' says!... The Christian Zionists believe that all humanity will become Christian with the coming of Jesus, the 'son of God'!...
"The Neo-Con representatives of Evangelism that amalgamates the 'Christian Zionism' and the 'Jewish Zionism' are ruling America now!...[…] they are looking for 'sacred allies' in the Islamic world, who will serve their purposes!...
"In recent years some communities with 'messianic views' are appearing within the Islamic world […] !...
"[…] We can understand the games played on the Muslim world if we learn that the 'Wahhabism' which originated in Saudi Arabia is plotted by the 'masons' to 'leave the Muslims behind.'
Bahaism, Kadianism […] and other 'messiah waiting' Muslim communities all help serve 'the new world order'!... […] it seems that these 'Zionist Muslims' will soon say that 'greater Israel' is the will of the great architect of the universe'!... The Muslim Turks who follow them will only see the realities when it is too late and our lands between the Euphrates and the Tigris will already be in Israeli hands.
"[…] 'Messianic belief' is a 'Zionist trap' for all humanity! […]"
Two days ago, I wrote a post on the Jihadi origins of the Armenian genocide, wherein I said the following:
I am truly worried that many in the Islamic world today would commit genocide against the Jews if they could. The question immediately arises, "Well, if they would, then why don't they?" I can only answer with another question, "How would they?" They would have to move against Israel. Arab countries have tried on several occasions to make war on Israel with humiliating results. So, apparently, traditional war is not going to work. What I am concerned with is nuclear war.
I recongnize that, when I say such things, I sound alarmist. But, look at the sheer number of articles translated in this dispatch from Memri. It would be frightening enough if just one article of this nature got into a mainstream paper.
I started CUANAS a little over three years ago when I began noticing such vile propaganda popping up in media around the world. It may be hard to believe, but I rarely thought about the subject of anti-Semitism prior to just a few years ago.
I am a father, a husband, a musician, and a businessman. When I think about it, out of the countless number of people I consider friends, only four are Jews. I work primarily with Christians, I play music primarily with Christians, and I hang out primarily with Christians. I write this only to make it clear that CUANAS is not an organization initiated or "controlled" by Jews. One member of CUANAS is Jewish, the rest are not.
That I spend my time writing articles on the subject of anti-Semitism is a surprise to me. What an odd thing for me to do. But, how could I not? Given history, and the menace of the propaganda above, it seems obvious to me that there is a danger of another Holocaust.
And yet the mainstream media rarely reports on this issue.
And who am I, you might ask? I am no one special.
Just remember, though, the world ignored the Nazi's rise to power as well. The press and politicians of the thirties fell all over themselves telling the people of Western Europe, and the United States, that we didn't have to worry about Hitler.
In fact, in 1938 Homes And Gardens Magazine featured an article on "
Hitler's Mountain Home," describing Hitler as a gentleman squire living in stylish surroundings in the Bavarian Alps.
I believe we are seeing the same kind of dynamic at work today. The world burns and the media tells us everything is ok. We need to understand that our leaders do not always like to face facts.
We are presented with two messages. The first is from me me, telling you that the Jihad is widespread and the Arab media means what it says, and the second is from the media, saying that the Jihad is being waged by a "tiny minority of extremists." We need to carefully consider history before deciding which message to believe.
Islamofascists Murder Female Politician In IraqFrom
Reuters:
GUNMEN have shot dead a member of Iraq's parliament outside her house in Baghdad, Iraqi police said.They identified the victim as Lame'a abed Khadawi, a member of caretaker Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's political party.
The attack occurred in front of her home in eastern Baghdad.
She is believed to be the first person in the 275-member National Assembly to be killed. The assembly was formed after elections on January 30 this year.
Insurgents and gunmen have targeted politicians in the past. The former head of the Iraqi Governing Council, the predecessor to the interim government, was assassinated in a car bombing in May last year. Earlier this month, Allawi survived an assassination attempt when his convoy was attacked by a car bomber.
Iraq's parliament had met for several hours earlier today to discuss its rules and regulations and other issues. It was also expected to vote on a proposed cabinet, the next step in the formation of a new government.
The parliament meets in the heavily-fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad and prominent MPs are often given police escorts around the capital to protect against the risk of assassination attempts.
Khadawi was one of about 90 women elected to the assembly in January. By law, a third of the candidates on party lists had to be women.
As I've said before, women's rights are the biggest and best reason for fighting the War on Terror. Women are, literally, treated as slaves in much of the Islamic world. We must put a stop to that state of affairs.
Christian United Against the New Anti-SemitismSalutesJews Against Anti-Christian Defamation:)
America Was Founded On Intolerance According to Al GoreFrom
Little Green Footballs:
“What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government,” Gore said of the GOP in a speech. “They seek nothing less than absolute power.” ...
“This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place,” Gore said as many in the audience stood and applauded. The speech was sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn’s political action committee.
To think this man was almost our President.
Israel: The High Tech, Multi-Cultural Middle-Eastern CountryA little well-deservedd rah-rah for Israel, from
Atlas Shrugged:
Muhammed is the most popular boys' name in Israel, but Americans might not know that, even if they are frequent readers and viewers of news reports from the Middle East.
Donna Rosenthal included that factoid in her book, "The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land," which she wrote, she says, to change the perceptions some people have about Israel.
"I was not Sephardic, like I thought I was," said Iller Abramob, 21, of Forest Hills. "The things I learned about Israelis and Jews really affected me a lot. I didn't know that Israelis invented the Pentium chip and firewalls for computers."
Rosenthal, a former journalism professor, spent five years writing her book, compiling interviews from Israelis from all walks of life. In it, she writes about Arab Christians who run a daring, Cosmopolitan-style Arabic magazine, and points out that Arab Israelis are the most affluent and best educated of all Israelis.
"I decided to write this book to let Israeli people speak in their own words and smash stereotypes," the author said. In the book, she said, "you hear from Christian Jews, Arab Jews, Muslim Jews. These are the voices you don't hear on television."
The book - published in the fall of 2003 and now in its fifth printing - reveals that most Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern descent, and that the nation is the Middle East's only country with a growing Christian population.
Rosenthal has been crisscrossing the U.S. lecturing college students about her book, which is filled with interviews with Israelis in their 20s and 30s and addresses issues ranging from homosexuality to Christmas.
Rosenthal said despite the fact that Israel receives more media coverage than China, India and all of Africa combined, Americans know very little about the country.
Just 18% of Jewish Americans have visited Israel, she notes.
Israelis Introduce Touch-Typing to Arab World by David Brinn
Most people take touch-typing on their keyboards for granted. But for Arabic-speaking students, a differently configured keyboard with Arabic characters has meant that traditional methods to teach touch-typing weren't applicable.
This has all changed since Israeli company Sight & Sound developed the world's first touch-typing course in Arabic. They've successfully tested the course in a pilot program in Israeli Arab schools and hope to market it soon to the rest of the Arab world.
What Is An "Honor Killing?"From
Little Green Footballs:
Amman - A Jordanian man shot dead his divorced sister after seeing her photo on his friend’s camera-equipped cellphone in the latest “honour” killing in the kingdom, hospital officials said Monday.
The unidentified man shot the 31-year-old mother twice in the head Sunday night and then turned himself in to police saying he committed the murder to “cleanse his family’s honour”.
The incident is the fifth example of a so-called honour killing in Jordan this year. Those found guilty usually face sentences of a maximum of one year in jail under Jordanian law.
Last month, a man stabbed his sister to death after finding out she had agreed an unofficial marriage with a man who subsequently disappeared.
At least 19 women lost their lives in honour killings in Jordan last year, according to the local press.
State-Sponsored Terrorism in MoroccoFrom the
Eurabian Times:
Terrorism and Islamism as tools of Moroccan politics
Whig has kindly translated another article from Libertad Digital:
...
Most of the arrested of the 11-M massacre are Moroccan subjects. But only this fact doesn’t say anything about the guiltiness of the Morocco Sultan and its despotic system of power (the Majzen). But between the murder of the opposition leader Ben Barka in Paris (1965) and the murder of Hicham Mandai in Malaga (2004), the Sultan and its Majzen have developed very close and turbid links with the Islamism and terrorism.
Shabiba al Islamiya (Islamic Youth) was known by the murder of the Hassan II leftist opponent, Omar Benjelún. The Shabiba was a movement inspired in the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. This was the first Fundamentalist Organization in the Maghreb: it was founded in 1969. Three years after was legalized by Hassan II.
In 1975 Morocco took terrorism groups to the Spanish Sahara, groups that put some bombs in El Aaiun and produced several victims. As Spain was not delivering Sahara “ Those actions had it result, the “Rodriguez” (Zapatero) of those times, called Carlos Arias Navarro, delivered the Sahara to Morocco in “Madrid Agreements” on November 1975.
That situation was frustrated by the unexpected resistance of Polisario Front helped by Algeria. The Islamism had a very efficient and discreet ally, the sultan of Morocco, when his growth started in Algeria (in 1991) and his choice was the terrorism way.
This is not a speculation: this is something confessed (after falling into disgrace) by the Morocco Home Office Minister, Driss Basri (very powerful vizier in the last twenty year of Hassan II era). The arms used by GIA (main terrorist group in Algeria) came from Morocco. Morocco was also was the shelter of those terrorists that escaped from Algerie after their massacres… and Morocco took advantage from the GIA terrorism goals.
One of the objectives was to weak Algerie who was the main support to Polisario Front in those days, and also to kill some of its leaders.
To face the internal and external problems, Hassan II asked Arab Saudi for help. This country financed the expensive Sahara wall (a 2.000 kilometre wall rounded of 4 millions of mines and kept by 120.000 soldiers) to get back their help to expand the religious influence of Wahabism in Morocco. Thus, the Wahabism (the Ben Laden ideology) started to expand it through the country.
In May 2003 a fanatic Islamists influenced by the Wahabism provoked several terrorist outrages in Marrakech, with tens of deads. One of the survivor terrorist confessed that the group was infiltrated by the Secret Service of Morocco.
The Spanish position has changed since 11-M. The government of Morocco didn’t collaborated strongly with the investigation of the facts (till now there is no answer from their side to the Spanish question to get the identity of those who received last calls made to Morocco by the 11-M terrorists).
Even with no proofs, it’s very disturbing that some of the components of the “Asturias plot” 11-M talk about some trips to Morocco in 2001, when the newspaper of the main Moroccan political party (the Istiqlal) recommended the support of Morocco to ETA as “punishment” to the Spanish support to the Polisario Front.
In December 2001* Rodriguez Zapatero, PSOE leader, had a secret interview with Mohamed VI, excluding to the Spanish ambassador (*Then the Aznar PP was in power).
Moratinos, the current Spanish Foreign Affaires Secretary said last July 2004, that if we don’t want have another 11-M, we should give in to the demands of Morocco in the Sahara subject. This declaration is especially interesting for two reasons: because Moratinos said that he had “information” after the 11-M, that the perpetrators were Islamists and because Lamari and the “friend” of Huarte, Benesmail, are members of the Algerian GIA.
(Bold in the translation.)
That's a pretty rough translation, but the point is that Morocco, along with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the Congo, is yet another Islamist state that periodically uses terrorism in place of traditional security forces. When governments employ such nefarious means, they need to be called on it. It's too easy to think everyone plays by the Geneva Convention. They don't.
George Bush holds hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz. From AFP
Keep Your Friends Close But Keep Your Enemies Closer?From
National Review:
Before boarding his flight to Crawford to meet with President Bush Monday, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah presided over the arrest of 40 Pakistani Christians on Friday. Their crime? The Pakistanis were caught praying in a private home in the capital Riyadh in violation of the state’s strictly enforced religious law that bans all non-Muslim worship.
As the State Department has determined, there is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia and everyone there, Muslim or not, must obey the rules of the extreme sharia of the kingdom’s established religion, the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. The Saudi state indoctrinates its nationals from an early age in the Wahhabi ideology of zero tolerance for the "other."
Government textbooks and publications teach that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. The state teaches a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treats the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avows that the Muslim’s duty is to eliminate the state of Israel.
Though the persecution of the Pakistani Christians is a dramatic example, they and the other non-Muslims among the quarter of the kingdom’s population who are foreign workers are not the only ones to suffer from the denial of religious freedom. Saudi Arabia’s nationals, by law Muslim, find that a broad range of their freedoms are limited because of the state’s monopoly on religious expresssion.
For example, Muslims who follow the Sufi and Shiite traditions are viewed as heretical dissidents and viciously condemned and discriminated against by the state. Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi ministry of Islamic affairs explicitly asserts in publications Freedom House has acquired, they "should be killed."
Muslims who object to even particular tenets of Wahhabism, such as advocates of greater religious tolerance, also are viewed as the "other" and condemned as "infidels." Under Saudi law, such "blasphemers" and "apostates" from Islam can be sentenced to death.
Political reformers, too, are crushed on religious grounds. Three Saudi professors have now languished for over a year in prison after proposing that the country adopt a written constitution. Among other charges, their terminology was denounced as un-Islamic or "Western." State publications condemn democracy itself as un-Islamic. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by "infidel" legislated law, rather than Wahhabi-style Islamic law.
A direct consequence of there being no religious freedom is that every Saudi woman is forced by the state to conform to Wahhabi religious edicts restricting dress, transportation, movement, due-process rights, and the ability to participate in civic life.
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks — and the discovery that two thirds of the hijackers were Saudis — Saudi state ideology has become a matter of U.S. national security. As bad as it is that Wahhabism is Saudi Arabia’s state religion, even worse is that it is the Saudi government’s aim to propagate it and have it replace traditional and moderate interpretations of Islam worldwide, including within the United States.
This Wahhabist prostelization is funded by Saudi Oil Money. From
The Foundation for The Defense of Democracies:
Stephen Schwartz, author of the Two Faces of Islam, says alarm about the growth of Islam in the United States is over who controls it.
"I would say billions of dollars have been spent in the United States to advance Wahhabism," he said.
"The Wahhabi sect, backed by Saudi Arabia, controls 70 to 80 percent of the mosques in the United States. That means they control the teaching, the preaching, the literature that's distributed, and they control the training of the imams."
Schwartz added, "They control all the Imams in the federal and state prisons, and they control the imams in the U.S. military. That is, they instruct, they indoctrinate and they certify the Islamic chaplains in the federal and state prison systems and in the military."
Exactly
how much money is involved?:
The Saudis have poured an astonishing sum of money into this effort. Reza F. Safa, author of Inside Islam, estimated that since 1973, the Saudi government has spent some $87 billion to promote Wahhabism in the United States and the Western Hemisphere.
Back to National Review:
Earlier this year, Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom released a report based on a year-long study of the radically intolerant Wahhabi ideology contained in documents spread, published, or otherwise generated by the government of Saudi Arabia and found in the United States.
In one example, a publication for the "Immigrant Muslim" bearing the words "Greetings from the Cultural Department" of the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C., gave detailed instructions on how to "hate" the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.
The opening fatwa of another a book distributed by the embassy that was published by the Saudi air force responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric’s reply emphatically rebukes the Muslim cleric: "He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his."
Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Saudi Arabia’s extremist Wahhabi ideology remain a distinct minority. This is evident from the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors. It was just such concerned Muslims who first brought these publications to the attention of Freedom House. They did so in the hope of "freeing their communities from ideological strangulation."
The Saudi state’s propagation of Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; it is a totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence. The fact that this ideology is being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government demands President Bush’s urgent attention in today’s conversations with Prince Abdullah.
With his remarkable State of the Union address that challenged Saudi Arabia to democratize, the president turned a new page in U.S. policy. Some in American policy circles argue that religious freedom, however, is too sensitive to raise. It's too important not to; the first topic on the president’s agenda should be the expansion of religious freedom in the kingdom — for Muslims, as well as the captive Christians.
The other day I wrote a
post on how little leverage it would seem it would seem America has in negotiating with the Saudi's. Let us all hope that someone in our government has a sophisticated plan on what to do about this Wahhabi menace, because the Saudi plan is based upon the longterm ideology of their conception of the eternal.
The book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse is about a man, Siddhartha, who left the ascetic life of a monk behind to live the life of an ordinary man in the working world. At one point he is seeking employment, and he is asked what he would bring to the table as an employee. He patiently explains that he knows how to "fast, to pray and to wait." The prospective employer is, of course, nonplussed. But the irony of the story is that it is exactly these qualities which allow the Buddha to become successful in the end.
This is exactly the strategy the Saudi Wahhabists are using on Western Civilization. While Western nations continue to feed our lust for short-term gratification on Saudi-supplied oil, the Saudi's use the proceeds from that oil to fund the spread of their totalitarian ideology to the Muslim immigrants of Western countries.
Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens who had lived Westernized lives here in America, only to reject the American Dream and return, instead, to the Saudi Dream of "Death to the Infidel." While we may look at the Wahhabi ideology and find it to have little attraction as compared to our American lifestyle, many Muslims living in our midst do place their faith in such ideas.
Stephen Schwatz' statement that 70 to 80 percent of American mosques are controlled by Wahhabists does not equate with the idea that 70-80% of Muslims agree with the Wahhabist philosophy, but it does mean that those who attend such mosques are willing to tolerate Wahhabi ideas.
This is a dangerous state of affairs. Imagine if 70-80% of Christians attended churches where Pastors called for the murder of abortionists. Would we not be concerned? Would this not be intolerable?
We must stop tolerating the intolerable. We must stop holding the hand of the Saudi Crown Prince, while he uses his other hand to bitch slap us.
UPDATE:
Someguy, at Mystery Achievement, has a post about the Saudi Chief Justices' call for Holy War against the U.S.
Billboard in Los Angeles
Should America Annex Mexico?Hat tip:
Michelle Malkin
Muslims Lead March Against TerrorFrom
Front Page Magazine:
More that 50 groups have now endorsed the March Against Terror. (See list Below). On Saturday, May 14, Washington DC will witness its first ever Muslim led March Against Terror. Among the list of speakers are several Congressmen and Senators.This upcoming rally is historic and represents a turning point in the war on terror. The war on terror is an ideological battle and no one is better suited to fight this battle than moderate Muslims. Will you join us on May 14th?Christians and Jews must join their fellow Muslims at the rally. The terrorists and extremists justify their evil by falsely arguing that they are responding to a world wide conspiracy by Christians and Jews to destroy Islam. Thus, it is absolutely essential that American Muslims, Christians and Jews join forces against the evil doers and paint an accurate picture. Will you join us on May 14th?We all have to do our part. By attending this rally, you can do your part in bringing peace and harmony to the world. Will you join us on May 14th?Please circulate this message to as many groups and people as possible. Help us make history and join us on May 14th.To endorse this rally, please send the name of your group to the Free Muslims Against Terrorism at president@freemuslims.org. Location of the rally: Freedom Plaza Neighborhood: Downtown Address: Pennsylvania Ave. between 13th & 14th Street, NW Metro: Federal Triangle Date & Time: Saturday, May 14th 2005 1-5 pm www.freemuslims.org 202-776-7190Please help us cover the cost of the rally by making an online contribution or by check:http://freemuslims.org/support/donate.php
Lesson Learned The Armenian Genocide Was a Turkish JihadFrom the
American Thinker:
I attended a banquet in New York City April 2, 2005, celebrating Professor Vahakn Dadrian’s distinguished career, most notably, his singular contributions to the study of the Armenian genocide. Dadrian recounted the harrowing details of this particular slaughter, its Islamic religious motifs unexpurgated. Six thousand four hundred Armenian children, young girls, and women from Yozgad, were decamped by their Turkish captors at a promontory some distance from the city. Then, To save shell and powder, the gendarmerie commander in charge of this large convoy had gathered 10,000-12,000 Turkish peasants and other villagers, and armed with “hatchets, meat cleavers, saddler’s knives, cudgels, axes, pickaxes, shovels”, the latter attacked and for some 4-5 hours mercilessly butchered the victims while crying “Oh God, Oh God” (Allah, Allah). In a moment of rare candor, this gendarmerie commander confided to the priest-author, whom he did not expect to survive the mass murder, that after each massacre episode, he spread his little prayer rug and performed the namaz, the ritual of worship, centered on prayer, with a great sense of redemption in the service of Almighty God.Within 24-hours of agreeing to a secret military and political pact with Imperial Germany on August 2, 1914, the Ittihadist (“Young Turk”) government ordered a general mobilization ... Within a month, the final, definitive stage of the process which reduced the Armenian population to utter helplessness, i.e., mass deportation, would begin. [7] During an August 6, 1910 speech in Saloniki, Mehmed Talat, pre-eminent leader of the Young Turks disdainfully rejected the notion of equality with “gavours” , arguing that it “…is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat [Shari'a] and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims…”.Indeed, an influential member of the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress, Sheik Abd-ul-Hack, a “progressive” Young Turk, made this revealing declaration writing in a Parisian Muslim review, (Le Mecherouttiete, edited by Sherif Pasha, Paris), in August, 1912:Yes! The Musulman religion is in open hostility to all your world of progress. Understand, you European observers, that a Christian, whatever his position may be, by the mere fact of his being a Christian is regarded by us as a blind man lost to all sense of human dignity... the man whose judgment is so perverted ... can only be the meanest expression of human degradation; to speak to him would be a humiliation ... The presence of such miscreants among us is the bane of our existence ... Though detesting you, we have condescended to study your political institutions and your military organization. Over and above the new weapons that Providence procures for us through your agency, you have yourselves rekindled, the inextinguishable faith of our heroic martyrs... During the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 Armenians between 1894-96. This was followed, under the Young Turk regime, by the Adana massacres of 25,000 Armenians in 1909, and the first formal genocide of the 20th century, when in 1915 alone, an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians were slaughtered. [26] The massacres of the 1890s had an “organic” connection to the Adana massacres of 1909, and more importantly, the events of 1915. A 1915 Ottoman Fatwa [31] believed to have been written by Sheikh Shawish (entitled, Aljihad, and translated into English, March 10, 1915) ... The calls to religiously motivated violence against non-Muslims, as sanctioned by Islam—jihad war—are unmistakably clear.If you believe in God, in his faith and apostle, hear the words of our sages as recorded by his holy prophet. “You believers take not the Jews and Christians as friends unto you, He who loves then shall be called one of them”. Therefore arise and purify yourselves of such deeds. Arise to the Holy War no matter what it costs so as to carry into execution this sacred deed.Is any of this sounding familiar?
The Armenian Genocide is a study in, "When they say it, they mean it." I often feature posts here entitled "Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies," wherein I make the point that we ought to be happy when our enemies tell us the truth about what they are preparing to do to us. The lesson I believe we need to learn from this account of the Armenian Genocide is that we ought to take the crazy proclamations of the Islamofascists very seriously, because I think they mean exactly what they say.
The main purpose of this blog is to fight against anti-Semitism. Considering all the problems in the world today, I'm sure it must seem outlandish that I focus so much energy on this problem. The reason I do it that I am truly worried that many in the Islamic world today would commit genocide against the Jews if they could.
The question immediately arises, "Well, if they would, then why don't they?" I can only answer with another question, "How would they?" They would have to move against Israel. Arab countries have tried on several occasions to make war on Israel with humiliating results. So, apparently, traditional war is not going to work.
What I am concerned with is nuclear war. And I think
I have good reason to be.
Here's a quote from former Iranian President Rafsanjani:
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world ..."
With the lesson of the Armenian Genocide fresh in our minds, I would ask, don't you think we should take the words of Rajsanjani seriously?
Bush Urges Saudis To Boost Oil Production?From
AP:
CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush prodded Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah on Monday to help curb skyrocketing oil prices, and the White House expressed hope that the kingdom's plans would ease U.S. gasoline prices that have shot above $2.20 a gallon.
"A high oil price will damage markets, and he knows that," Bush said of Abdullah, the de facto leader of the desert kingdom.
Asked whether pump prices would drop, Bush said that would depend on supply and demand.
"One thing is for certain: The price of crude is driving the price of gasoline," Bush said. "The price of crude is up because not only is our economy growing, but economies such as India and China's economies are growing."
Saudi Arabia has outlined a plan to increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by 2009 from the current 11 million limit. Saudi Arabia now pumps about 9.5 million barrels daily.
If necessary, Saudi Arabia says it will eventually develop a capacity of 15 million barrels a day.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the plan could be seen as positive news by financial markets.
"The problem in the oil market now is a perception that there is inadequate capacity," Hadley said. Reassurance that can be given to the market on available supply, he said, should "have a downward pressure on the price."
On another economic issue, the United States and Saudi Arabia are on the verge of a bilateral trade agreement that would allow the Gulf nation to join the World Trade Organization by the end of the year, Abdullah's foreign affairs adviser, Adel Al-Jubeir, told reporters.
Other issues, including terrorism, prospects for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, Syria's role in Lebanon, and democratic change in the Middle East, filled the leaders' meeting and discussion over lunch. They agreed to set up a high-level committee, headed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Saudi foreign minister, to deal with strategic issues.
Spreading democracy is a second-term goal that could affect Bush's legacy, yet high gas prices are a drag on his popularity.
Al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia is producing all the oil that its customers are requesting. He said the price is being driven up by a shortage of refining capacity.
"What we have done is explain to the U.S. what our production capabilities are," he told reporters about the meeting. "We also explained to the U.S. — and we have for months — what our plans are for adding to that capacity in the future years."
A U.S. push for democratic change across the Arab world faces a difficult test with Saudi Arabia, a longtime ally ruled by a monarchy. Last week, Saudi Arabia completed its first nationwide elections, an experiment in democracy designed to take the steam out of militant Islamic movements.
The council posts that were on the ballots, however, have little power, and women were not allowed to vote. Moreover, the United States has long-standing concerns about human and civil rights in Saudi Arabia.
A joint statement by the two leaders reflected tensions over the issue of democratic change. It said: "While the United States considers that nations will create institutions that reflect the history, culture and traditions of their societies, it does not seek to impose its own style of government on the government and people of Saudi Arabia."
Both nations also agreed to cooperate in fighting terrorists. U.S.-Saudi relations were strained after the 2001 terrorist attacks, in which 15 of the 19 airplane hijackers were Saudis. But American officials have been much more satisfied with anti-terror efforts the Saudis have undertaken since militants' May 2003 attacks in Riyadh.
The president was accused during last year's presidential campaign of being too cozy with Saudi officials. But he paid such criticism no public mind. On Monday, he offered Abdullah a warm embrace and a kiss on both cheeks and gripped his hand as they disappeared into an office building on the ranch where bluebonnets, the Texas state flower, were making their spring debut.
Call me cynical, but it would seem Bush doesn't have a whole lot of leverage in a meeting like this. Think about the dynamics at play here:
1) China and India are buying more oil every year, meaning there is more competition for Saudi oil.
2) Bush wants Saudi Arabia to democratize.
3) Saudi Arabia does not want to Democratize.
4) Bush wants Saudi Arabia to crack down on terrorists.
5) Saudi Arabia funds the spread Wahabbi Islam, which is the foundational philosophy of Jihadi terror. This would seem to indicate that Saudi Arabia has no real interest in cracking down on terrorists, other than those who target them directly. But, of course, those are not the ones who concern us.
6) Saudi Arabia's most dangerous enemy was Saddam Hussein. We got rid of him, so I don't know what we can do for them militarily, other than keep the shipping routes open, which, of course, is only in our best interest.
7) Saudi Arabia is making more money per barrel of oil than ever before.
Bush may seem inarticulate, but he has proven he's no dummy. So, I'm inclined to believe he has something up his sleeve. This meeting must have been about more than the dynamics I outlined.
What could it be?
Male Peace Activist Punches Female Bush Supporter
Fellow Activists Refuse to Finger Him For PoliceFromColumbia Tribune, via
Michelle Malkin:
Rita Preckshot went to a peace rally, and a fight broke out.
It started out as a typical Wednesday for Preckshot, a 49-year-old who stands about 5-foot-2 and has hearing aids in both ears. She was standing on her normal spot on Providence Road, holding her signs in support of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. For nearly four years now, this has been Preckshot’s life from about 4:15 to about 5:45 in the afternoon once a week.
She started her solo troop-support effort to counteract the peace protesters who stand a couple of blocks away at the intersection of Providence and Broadway. The peaceniks hold signs that say things such as "honk for peace" and "end the occupation."
They outnumber Preckshot every Wednesday, but she stands out there just the same, sometimes drawing another supporter or two to help her effort.
On this particular Wednesday - it was March 16 - her effort seemed to annoy a couple of the protesters. Not satisfied with their own peace protest, a pair of peaceniks grabbed their signs and made their way to Preckshot, who normally stands outside the Bloomers flower shop near Locust Street.
"Two of the guys from the corner walked down with a big sign that read ‘End the occupation,’ " she remembers. One of them started taking pictures of a Preckshot supporter across the street, she says. "At some point, the other guy starts coming toward me."
For a diminutive woman, Preckshot can handle herself. She’s a former police officer, and she isn’t easily intimidated. Still, a young man coming at her waving a sign in her face seemed a little aggressive, particularly from somebody supposedly advocating peace.
The man stepped closer. She backed off a step. He shoved a sign in her face, and she backed off once again.
"Don’t touch me!" she told him.
Then, she says, he pushed her.
"He started taunting me and reached out and pushed on my shoulder," Preckshot says. "Each time he pushed, it got a little harder. When I saw his hand come at me again, I grabbed it. I felt fearful."
As Preckshot pushed the man’s hand away, "he slugged me right in the face," she says.
Perhaps "Punch for peace" would have been a more appropriate sign.
The man, Paul Allaire, doesn’t live in Boone County. He lists Arcadia as his home, though he’s a frequent attendee at the Wednesday protests. He has been charged with third-degree misdemeanor assault for his alleged attack on Preckshot.
In that regard, Preckshot has no complaints.
What does confound her, however, is why her weekly adversaries weren’t more helpful when police came to the scene.
After the incident, Preckshot went to a nearby gas station to call the police, and they quickly arrived to take statements.
None of the peace activists, however, would give up Allaire.
Police later arrested Allaire when he attended a protest on the same corner the following week. But, the lesson here is that,
SURPRISE,
peace really means very little to these people.
Forty Christians Arrested In Saudi Arabia ...For PrayingFrom
Reuters:
Riyadh - Saudi Arabia has detained 40 Pakistani Christians for holding prayers at a house in the Muslim kingdom, where practicising any religion other than Islam is illegal, newspapers said on Saturday.
A group of men, women and children were attending the service in the capital Riyadh when police raided the house, Al Jazirah newspaper said.
It said authorities also found Christian tapes and books.
Another Saudi daily, Al Yaum, said the raid took place on Friday while a Pakistani preacher was delivering a sermon. It was not clear what measures might be taken against the group.
Saudi authorities were not immediately available to comment.
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
'Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world," Sheikh Feiz Muhammad told a packed public meeting in the Bankstown Town Hall last month. "Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
There was pressure on Muslim women to unveil, the sheikh said, and this was because "they want you to be available for their gross, disgusting, filthy abomination! They want you to be a sex symbol!" The woman who wore the hijab was hiding her beauty from the eyes of "lustful, hungry wolves", he said.
Sheikh Feiz Muhammad teaches at the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, NSW. His long, ranting speech, damning and ridiculing Western culture (if you allow your wife to watch the "devil" of daytime television, he advised men, you will come home from work and find she is being "negative" towards you) was greeted with frequent applause.
You just gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth. Now, we know how Sheikh Mohammed, and everyone in the room who applauded him, truly feels. And now we know that we don't want their opinions of women to gain any power or credibility in the free world.
You see how that works? Free speech is a good thing, because now we know Sheikh Mohammed is a fool. And now, it's time to deconstruct his foolish ideas. Actually, the author of this article from the Age, Pamela Bone, does a very good job. So, I'll give the floor to her:
There are, however, some "issues" here. Leave aside the use of a public venue to make a speech clearly derogatory towards the wider culture: at its worst the sheikh's speech can be seen as at least a justification for rape. A non-Muslim religious leader making public comments far milder than the above would be forced to resign.
If a Muslim leader's words are to be simply overlooked (perhaps nothing better can be expected?) is this itself not a kind of racism?
My first conclusion is that multiculturalism is valuable and worth protecting. We are, irrevocably, a multicultural society, and most people like it that way and want it to continue to work. There is also, despite some disgraceful attacks on mosques and on individuals, a lot of goodwill towards Muslims. There are many Muslim leaders who are preaching moderation, and who would likely be embarrassed by the sheikh's speech. We want a society in which people of all religions and cultures can get on together. But there also have to be some core values, and one of those values is the equality of women.
The second is that laws against religious vilification are a mistake. Yes, laws against racial hatred, because no one has any choice about their race. But unless we are to accept that human beings are incapable of overcoming their social conditioning, we do have a choice about what we believe. Beliefs are about ideas, and ideas must be open to debate, to criticism and even ridicule. We are entitled to find some beliefs of any religion absurd and to say that we do.
(Pastorius note:
In Australia they do have laws against religious vilification.)
The third conclusion is that Feiz Muhammad and Ahamed are simply wrong. There is no evidence that women in societies where they are forced to cover are less subject to violence, sexual or otherwise. There may be less reporting of rape (when the word of four honest Muslim men is required to prove the rape and if it is not proved the woman is then liable to be punished for adultery, it is rather less likely to be reported); but there is overwhelming evidence across the Muslim world of violence against women, in the form of honour killings, stonings, or beatings for minor infringements of religious codes.
The home, where Ahamed claims Muslim women are safe, is exactly where women in any society are most likely to be assaulted. But a British study of family violence (reported by Geraldine Brooks in her book about Islamic women, Nine Parts of Desire) found that women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their husbands than any other women in Britain.
What is really angering the fundamentalists is that Muslim women not only in the West but across the Muslim world are coming out, challenging male interpretations of their religion, demanding an end to their oppression.
Zarqawi Eludes CaptureBut His Computer Is ConfiscatedFrom
ABC News:
Apr. 25, 2005 - Jordanian rebel Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- Iraq's most wanted fugitive -- recently eluded capture by American troops, but left behind a treasure trove of information, a senior military official told ABC News.
On Feb. 20, the alleged terror mastermind was heading to a secret meeting in Ramadi, just west of Fallujah, where he used to base his operations, the official said.
Task Force 626 -- the covert American military unit charged with finding Zarqawi -- had troops in place to grab the fugitive, and mobile vehicle checkpoints had been established around the city's perimeter. Another U.S. official said predator drones were also in flight, tracking movements in and around the city.
A source who had been inside the Zarqawi network alerted the task force to the meeting. Officials deem the source "extremely credible."
The senior military official said that just before the meeting was scheduled, a car was pulled over as it approached a checkpoint.
"Zarqawi always has someone check the waters," said the official.
A pickup truck about a half-mile behind the car then quickly turned around and headed in the opposite direction. Officials now believe Zarqawi was in the fleeing truck. U.S. teams began a chase, but when the truck was pulled over several miles later, Zarqawi was not inside.
Zarqawi's Computer Discovered
What the task force did find in the vehicle confirmed suspicions that Zarqawi had just escaped. The official said Zarqawi's computer and 80,000 euros (about $104,000 U.S.) were discovered in the truck.
Finding the computer, said the official, "was a seminal event." It had "a very big hard drive," the official said, and recent pictures of Zarqawi. The official said Zarqawi's driver and a bodyguard were taken into custody.
The senior military official said that they have since learned Zarqawi jumped out of the vehicle when it passed beneath an overpass, presumably to avoid detection from the air, and hid there before running to a safe house in Ramadi.
Lt. Gen. John Vines -- the commander responsible for daily military operations in Iraq -- would not provide any detail about the apparent escape in a recent interview in Baghdad, but he did say the Zarqawi network has been damaged.
"We believe he is resilient," Vines said. "He is incredibly evil and we can't forget that. So he is dangerous still, but he is on the run."
The official told ABC News they have since figured out which house Zarqawi ran to after his escape, and the owner has been arrested. But, the official said, every time they capture one of his supporters, Zarqawi recruits someone new.
I like the way the "official" put it. "It had a very big hard drive." In other words, there is a lot of info there. Hee hee. It sounds like it isn't only Zarqawi who is on the run now. Everyone in his computer files is on the run as well.
Palestinian Israeli's Would Rather Live In IsraelThan Under The Palestinian AuthorityFrom
Melanie Phillips:
Everyone assumes that the Palestinians all want nothing more than to live under Palestinian rule. But in this article, Daniel Pipes has assembled telling evidence that, on the contrary, many Arabs who are already living in Israel, in Jerusalem and in the 'Galilee triangle', view the prospect with horror. They would prefer, they say, to live under Israeli rule:
'‘Abd ar-Razzaq ‘Abid of Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood pointed dubiously to "what's happening in Ramallah, Hebron, and the Gaza Strip" and asked if the residents there were well off. A doctor applying for Israeli papers explained: "The whole world seems to be talking about the future of the Arabs of Jerusalem, but no one has bothered asking us.
The international community and the Israeli Left seem to take it for granted that we want to live under Mr. Arafat's control. We don't. Most of us despise Mr. Arafat and the cronies around him, and we want to stay in Israel.At least here I can speak my mind freely without being dumped in prison, as well as having a chance to earn an honest day's wage".
'In the colorful words of one Jerusalem resident, "The hell of Israel is better than the paradise of Arafat. We know Israeli rule stinks, but sometimes we feel like Palestinian rule would be worse."
The director of the Bayt Hanina community council in northern Jerusalem, Husam Watad, found that the prospect of finding themselves living under Arafat's control had people "in a panic. More than 50 percent of east Jerusalem residents live below the poverty line, and you can imagine how the situation would look if residents did not receive [Israeli] National Insurance Institute payments."
In the view of Fadal Tahabub, a member of the Palestinian National Council, an estimated 70 percent of the 200,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem preferred to remain under Israeli sovereignty. A social worker living in Ras al-‘Amud, one of the areas possibly falling under PA control, said: "If a secret poll was conducted, I am sure an overwhelming majority of Jerusalem Arabs would say they would prefer to stay in Israel." '
This is because the Arabs of Israel know from first- hand experience the advantages of living under the rule of law, with freedom of expression, economic benefits and the safety and security that derive from living in a free society.
So why should their kinfolk in the territories feel any differently? If they were actually to be asked, would this not be the most powerful means of removing the corrupt tyranny that has kept them in servitude and spawned the cult of death that has taken their children from them and turned them into human explosives?
And so shouldn't Israel and America be demanding of the Palestinians above all that they develop the institutions of a free society as the precondition of negotiations for a state of their own?
Vanquish The Jews To Hasten The Return Of The Hidden ImamFrom
Memri:
The official Iranian news agency Fars, which is close to the conservative circles in Iran, recently published a statement by Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani, one of the Iranian regime's leading religious authorities, in which he advocates fighting the Jews in order to prepare the ground and to hasten the advent of the Hidden Imam, the Messiah according to Shiite belief.
It should be noted that the Fars news agency took the report off its web site several hours after its publication, and other Iranian media outlets close to the conservatives refrained from citing it.
The following is the text of Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani's censored statements, which appeared in identical language on two internet sites: Peykeiran, a site close to the anti-regime communist left; and Asylum-Norway, an internet site belonging to an organization that supports Iranian refugees in Norway: [1]
Prior to the Advent of the Hidden Imam, Arrogance and Colonialism Rule the World
"Fars news agency: Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani, discussing [Shi'ite] religious texts, said: 'One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam be met.'
According to the Fars news agency's report, Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani met with members of the Mahdaviyat Studies Institute. [2] He praised the institute's work and demanded that the religious seminaries in Qom also do more to research religious texts and hadith concerning the Hidden Imam...
"Nouri-Hamedani said that the texts concerning the end of days are rife with allusions and hidden meanings. He asked the researchers to devote their efforts to elucidating these texts. He noted: 'In the texts it is told that the Hidden Imam will remove the yoke of humiliation from mankind's neck. Therefore it is clear that prior to the advent of the Hidden Imam, Arrogance [a common epithet for Western powers, especially the U.S.A.] and colonialism rule the world.'
The Jews Have Hoarded All the Wealth in One Place, and All the World are Their Slaves
"According to this religious authority, 'at present the Jews' policies threaten us. One should explain in the clearest terms the danger the Jews pose to the [Iranian] people and to the Muslims. Ever since Islam's appearance, the group that expressed fierce opposition to Islam – and still acts in this fashion – were the Jews. They were involved in the Khaybar, Uhud, and Ahzab wars.' [3] He added:
'Already from the beginning the Jews wanted to hoard the world's goods in [their] greed and voracity. They always worked in important professions and now they have hoarded all of the wealth in one place. And all of the world, especially America and Europe, are their slaves.'"
Thousand Year Reich? Hidden Imam? What's the difference?
DhimmiActress Says 9/11 Was Our FaultA Dhimmi, according the Islam, is an infidel who is the granted the right to live in an Islamic society, in exchange for their submission. Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal (pictured above) is a Dhimmi. From
Little Green Footballs:
Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, star of a new flick about the aftermath of 9/11, believes the United States “is responsible in some way” for the devastating terror attacks.
Gyllenhaal, 27, made the comments at the Tribeca Film Festival, where her new movie “The Great New Wonderful” - which has a plot centered on the destruction of the World Trade Center - premiered Friday.
“I think what’s good about the movie is that it deals with 9/11 in such a subtle, open way that I think it allows it to be more complicated than just, ‘Oh, look at these poor New Yorkers and how hard it was for them,’” Gyllenhaal told the NY1 cable channel.
“Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it’s dealt allows that to sort of creep in,” she added.
Nice position she's put herself in.
The Will of AllahLaw In the Islamic WorldDymphna at the
Gates of Vienna gives us a lesson in Islamice law:
Shar'ia, Islamic law, is concerned with three ideas: punishment, prevention by example, and retaliation. Rehabilitation is no more a part of the judicial vocabulary than, say, the word "democracy," unless one considers fear of the consequences a type of rehabilitation.
Dymphna goes on to explain that there are three levels of crime delineated by Islamic law; Hadd, which is the most severe, followed by Tazir, and finally, a type called Qisas. Tazi are crimes against society, while Qisas are crimes against individuals. It's worth reading the whole thing, but I am going to excerpt only the part about Hadd crimes, which are considered to be crimes against Allah:
Hadd crimes ... are offenses against Allah and carry very specific -- but always corporal -- punishments. The first three -- murder, apostasy, and adultery -- are punishable by death. Defamation (i.e., false accusation of adultery or fornication), robbery, and alcohol consumption have lesser punishments prescribed for them.
There is a long history of conflict among Islamic scholars regarding specific types of punishments. When Tariq Ramadan came out recently with a call for a moratorium on corporal punishment he was roundly condemned by prominent Islamists for starting down the slippery slope that would lead to the end of Islam. Cutting off a thief's hand seems extreme by Western standards, but it doesn't compare to ramj, the sentence for adultery. Ramj means stoning, and Islamic law means it when it says "stoned to death."
The ritual is specific and ugly; even in this, women have it harder: law prescribes that should a condemned adulterer manage to get away, he or she may go free. Thus, a man is buried up to his waist; a woman's arms are tied and she is buried up to her chest.
In stoning to death, the stones should not be so large that the person dies upon being hit by one or two of them, neither should they be so small that they cannot be called a stone.
Stoning is usually carried out in public and in many instances families of the victims have been forced to watch the execution. Although it is codified that a person will be pardoned if s/he manages to escape, the victim is re-captured by the authorities and killed in a number of cases.
This medieval holdover -- much of Islam appears to be medieval -- should be done away with as soon as yesterday. Every time someone excuses Muslims' more atrocious behaviors on the basis of multicultural "understanding" they help murder someone else.In Islam justice by the book has everything to do with the book and nothing to do with justice.
When first seeing the photo of the woman at the top of the page, one is likely to wonder, "Why are they burying this woman up to her chest?" The only Western analogy which comes to mind is the playful beach ritual of burying one's friend in sand when you catch him or her having a snooze.
Dymphna tells us that because of the stipulation that those who escape are to be forgiven their crimes, men are buried to their waste, whereas, women are buried to their chests, including their arms.
This means men are allowed to use their hands and arms to dig themselves out, while women have to sit there and hope an animal comes along to dig them out, which obviously is not going to happen. Presumably, this extra stricture indicates that adultery in the case of a woman is even more offensive to God than in the case of a man.
Dymphna does not specifically mention the fact that stoning is also the punishment for apostasy, or leaving the faith. In other words, if one is a Muslim, one really has no choice but to remain a Muslim.
We would be wise to keep this in mind when members of our media tell us that Muslims don't want freedom in the way we want it, that they like the governments they live under. They don't really have any choice but to like their fascist government, because in Islam their is no separation between church and state. Therefore, to deny loyalty to the state is to be an apostate, and to doom oneself to stoning.
We must put an end to this state of affairs. Human beings should not have to live like this.
NGC64 Nebula in M33 Galaxy
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name,
and what is His Son's name,
if you know?
- Proverbs 30:4
Worse Yet To Come?From
The New Sisyphus:
We want to say a few words about yesterday’s incident in Iraq, in which a private helicopter with Americans and other foreigners was shot down and then, as is always inevitible, shown on Al-Jazeera. Isn’t it strange how one “news” channel always ends up with the exclusive footage of the Infidel Massacre of the Week? Al-Jazeera is nothing less than the Der Sturmer of our age. The fact that our Department issues press visas to their "reporters" literally revolts us.
The nature of our enemy could not be made any clearer. From Beslan, to Manhattan, to the field in which the helicopter’s passengers met their doom, one theme is constant: the absolute cowardly and craven nature of the Islamic Fascists themselves.
Say what you will about the old fashioned German variety; at least they knew how to fight and fight bravely. These new fascists cannot kill anything that isn’t rendered helpless or unaware first. And, when they are fought head to head they more often than not fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness. Or commit suicide, which, despite what you’ve read at Daily Kos is not a sign of bravery but yet the ultimate in cowardice.
Stewardresses. School children. Hostages. Injured survivors of a helicopter crash. All just more cowardly fun for our modern day Saladins.
We are at a loss to explain why there has not been, to date, any anger in the “American Street” about any of this. It’s almost as if we expect such barbaric and ruthless behavior from Muslims, and, thus, the terrible reality of it is just yet more reinforcement of a belief set that is literally beyond disgust.
Muslims parading their children and volunteering them for suicide operations. Palestinians tearing Israeli soldiers apart with their hands and dancing around with bloody entrails. Heads of families ordering sons to kill their own sisters with their bare hands.
How does any of this fail to make an impression?
Make no mistake about it: a new world war is brewing. And, as before, we in the liberal west are sleepwalking towards it, not really daring to state the terrible and unbearable truth.
There is no co-existence possible with the Islamic Fascists. It’s them or us.We choose us.
We only hope our fellow citizens have the fortitude to drop the blinders before another attack on the helpless and the unaware renders Sept 11 in importance what the first World Trade Center attack has become: a prelude and a warning of much worse to come.
The American Dream vs.The European DaydreamFromThe New York Times, via
No Pasaran:
The received wisdom about economic life in the Nordic countries is easily summed up: people here are incomparably affluent, with all their needs met by an efficient welfare state. They believe it themselves. Yet the reality — as [Oslo-dwelling American Bruce Bawer can attest (in the New York Times)], and as some recent studies confirm — is not quite what it appears.
Even as the Scandinavian establishment peddles this dubious line, it serves up a picture of the United States as a nation divided, inequitably, among robber barons and wage slaves, not to mention armies of the homeless and unemployed. It does this to keep people believing that their social welfare system, financed by lofty income taxes, provides far more in the way of economic protections and amenities than the American system.
…After I moved here six years ago, I quickly noticed that Norwegians live more frugally than Americans do. They hang on to old appliances and furniture that we would throw out. And they drive around in wrecks.
Be sure to a study by a Swedish research organization, Timbro, which compared the gross domestic products of the 15 European Union members (before the 2004 expansion) with those of the 50 American states and the District of Columbia. (Norway, not being a member of the union, was not included.) (Pastorius note: just to be clear, that's the 50 states of the United States separately, not together.)
After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.
The next European country on the list was Ireland, down at 41st place out of 66; Sweden was 14th from the bottom (after Alabama), followed by Oklahoma, and then Britain, France, Finland, Germany and Italy. The bottom three spots on the list went to Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Alternatively, the study found,
if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi. In short, while Scandinavians are constantly told how much better they have it than Americans, Timbro's statistics suggest otherwise. So did a paper by a Swedish economics writer, Johan Norberg [who contrasted "the American dream" with "the European daydream"].
…Meanwhile, the references to Norway as "the world's richest country" keep on coming. An April 2 article in Dagsavisen, a major Oslo daily, asked: How is it that "in the world's richest country we're tearing down social services that were built up when Norway was much poorer?"
Obviously, this is one misconception that won't be put to rest by a measly think-tank study or two.
What Are The Crazy Islamofascists Up To Now?A list of links from
The Jawa Report:
Pakistani PM claims Islam is "religion of peace and moderation which abhors extremism". Doesn't consider Pakistani law which puts to death blasphemers, missionaries, or homosexuals extreme.Moderate Muslim country of Malaysia sentencing people to jail for apostasy. See how moderate works in Islam? At least they weren't killed.Zacharias Moussaoui tries to plea guilty on capital charges related to 9/11, lawyers claim he's insane in the membrane. Of course he's insane. He's a f*cking suicidal terrorist! Duh!! (via Slublog)Spain begins trial of 9/11 telated terrorists. Each defendent could spend up to 40 years in jail for helping murder 3,000 people. Justice European style.Shoe-bomber conspirator gets 13 years in prison. Ditto
What Can We Do About Iranian Nukes?From Fox News, via
Regime Change Iran:
U.S. officials are still trying to find a diplomatic resolution over Iran's interest in creating nuclear facilities. But if diplomacy fails, the Bush administration is also looking at its military options.
FOX News spoke with two retired generals and a military expert, who outlined some of the options on the table for the Pentagon.
Covert Action: The Bush administration might send CIA agents or commandos to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“There were no smoking guns, no fingerprints,” said Walter Russell Mead, with the Council on Foreign Relations. “We wouldn’t be faced with that ugly, ugly choice of, we have a war or they get a weapon.”
Naval Blockade: U.S. warships would be sent into the Strait of Hormuz to stop the export of Iranian oil. This would pressure the mullahs to give up enriching uranium and allow intrusive inspections.
One downside is that Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, so a blockade could also put a stranglehold on the economies of many U.S. allies. Other potential problems are that it may not work fast enough and it would leave Iran’s existing nuclear facilities intact.
“So the question is not whether we could do it. We could. The question is, at what cost?” Mead said.
Surgical Strikes: U.S. forces could zero in on Iranian nuclear targets, hitting the country’s highest-risk sites — such as Bushier, Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and a dozen or more others — using cruise missiles launched from land or sea.
“We are moving some aircraft carrier groups into the Persian Gulf as we speak," said retired Army Major Gen. Paul Vallely. "They will be positioned to launch any aircraft from the Mediterranean Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.”
Next, F-117 stealth fighter jets could take out a radar system by firing missiles and anti-aircraft guns at Isfahan or surface-to-air missiles around the Bushier reactor. B-2 bombers carrying eight 5,000-pound laser-guided bunker busters would hit buried targets like the Natanz enrichment site or the deep tunnels in Isfahan.
Surgical strikes would also aim to hurt Iran's ability to counterattack while limiting civilian casualties, according to Vallely.
“We're not after the population,” he said. “We're not after blowing down bridges anymore. We're trying to disrupt command and control, their ability to use their forces on the ground, their forces in the air, as well as their naval forces. ... Bring them to their knees early. That's the key.”
All-Out Assault: A huge American military effort, involving hundreds of thousands of troops, would be needed to get “boots on the ground.” But the experts FOX News spoke with consider that to be the least likely scenario.
The U.S. military is already stretched thin with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq (Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with almost three times as many people). A ground war could kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and the cost could run well into the billions. And assembling a broad coalition would be even more difficult than it was for the Iraq war.
“For one thing, the British don’t sound very willing. And let’s face it, without the British, we don’t have a coalition,” Mead said.
Vallely said that while the United States has the ability to launch a major ground invasion, it wouldn’t have to.
“We can take a country down with just our air assets,” he said. “We don't have put boots on the ground all the time if we're after specific targets.”
Iranian Response: Iran has threatened bloody retaliation if attacked, so the Pentagon’s military planners are conducting war games to be prepared for any number of Iranian responses — from attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq to missile strikes on Israel.
“I do not believe that Iran will take on the United States in a major confrontation,” said retired Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney.
Without a direct military response from Iran, the possibility exists for an “asymmetrical response” — terror attacks on Americans throughout the world and in the United States.
“Could they use part of the Al Qaeda network to launch a terrorist attack on the United States?" McInerney speculated. "I believe they could. That's probably going to happen to us anyhow. The real question is, will it be a nightmare scenario? … Will it be nuclear?"
The fear of a nuclear response is exactly why the experts FOX News spoke with say the United States must do what it takes to stop Iran.
In 1981 Iraq was about to g online with it's Osirak nuclear reactor. This would have enabled Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Israel sent it's fighter jets in and destroyed the reactor before Hussein had a chance to fire it up.
Apparently, Iran has learned from Hussein's mistake, and so they have built multiple facitilities, some of which are deep underground. The analysts interviewed here speak of using 5000 pound "bunker busters" in order to get to the underground facilities. It is my understanding that no one is clear on whether this will work.
If it does not work there will be only two options left. One is for America to put troops on the ground in Iran, and remove the existing government from power. The second is to use bunker busting nuclear weapons.
Invading Iran would be a huge risk in that it could turn countries like Russia and China against us. It is believed that the use of buker busting nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would be quick and easy.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has reservations about the use of such weapons.
Here's an excerpt from a paper on the subject:
Supporters of nuclear "bunker busters" suggest that these weapons would allow the destruction of deeply buried targets without causing massive collateral damage. This fact sheet summarizes the results of recent scientific studies, laying out the technical realities of how effective a nuclear bunker buster might be and what sort of nuclear fallout would result.
Key facts:
Since weapons cannot penetrate very deeply into the ground, destroying deep, hardened targets requires powerful, high-yield nuclear warheads.
Even a small, low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapon will create enormous fallout. The explosion cannot be contained underground. The radioactive debris thrown into the air can drift for miles on the wind.
There are current conventional alternatives to the use of nuclear bunker busters.
Q: How far can a nuclear bunker buster penetrate? Is this deep enough to contain nuclear fallout?
A: Experiments show that a steel rod hitting the ground at high speed can penetrate at most about four times its length through concrete (e.g., a 10-foot bomb could theoretically go through about 40 feet). However, in order to protect its sensitive components, a nuclear warhead might have to hit the ground at significantly slower speeds, reducing its penetrating capability. The Pentagon's current nuclear bunker buster, the B61-11 bomb, can penetrate only about 20 feet of frozen soil. Because even a one-kiloton nuclear warhead (less than 1/10th the size of the Hiroshima bomb's yield) must be buried at least 200-300 feet to contain its radioactive fallout, there is no way to avoid serious fallout from a nuclear bunker buster.2
Q: Would this explosion cause radioactive fallout?
A: Yes. Shallow nuclear explosions produce especially severe radioactive fallout. The fireball breaks through the surface of the earth, carrying into the air large amounts of dirt and debris, which then fall back to the ground. Even a one-kiloton nuclear warhead that explodes 20 feet underground would eject about one million cubic feet of radioactive debris from a crater the size of ground zero at the World Trade Center.3 Even if we were able to keep civilian casualties and nuclear fallout to an extreme minimum, I think it would be a grave mistake for the United States to go this route. The use of nuclear weapons would turn all the nations of the Earth against us. Additionally, I fear that other nuclear nations such as Pakistan, North Korea, and China might believe our use of such weapons would give them license to use their far sloppier nuclear weapons.
We opened Pandora's nuclear box in 1945, and somehow we were able to quickly shut the lid and keep it shut for sixty years now. Do we really want to open it again now?
Europe Fiddles While Sudan BurnsFrom the
Eurabian Times:
From Reuters:The United States urged NATO Thursday to respond quickly to any request for help in the Darfur conflict, but France insisted the alliance could not be the "gendarme of the world."Now, we're not talking about dropping the 101st on Khartoum. And we're sure as shit not talking about sending the French Colonial Infantry. There's enough rape and murder in Sudan already.No, SecState Rice and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer are suggesting NATO have a logistics and planning role, helping the African Union deploy troops. C-130s and freaking maps. Whatever, says France:However French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier disagreed that there was a role for NATO in Darfur and stressed that Africans should retain the lead in peace efforts. "NATO does not have a calling to be the gendarme of the world," he told a news conference at the same meeting.NATO doesn't have a calling for much, then, does it?The French are taking the Chinese line on Taiwan, too. Probably nothing to do with a $3.2 billion trade deal with the Chinese.It is important to know three facts with with regard to the ongoing genocide in Sudan, and why nothing is being done about it:
1) The
United States Congress and
the Bush Administration have declared their conviction that their is a genocide going on in Sudan.
2)
France blocked an attempt to have the UN officially declare the Sudanese situation a genocide.
3)
France did that because they get oil from Sudan and they don't want to screw up the relationship.
The Creeping Culture of DeathIf you thought the Terri Schiavo case was a borderline case, on which reasonable people could disagree, well ok. I don't agree, but fair enough. Now, read this. From
Marlowe's Shade:
The more I look into the history of euthanasia and the right-to-die movement, the greater a sense of shame I experience at my profound ignorance of how the culture of death has progressed. See if the deja vu doesn't kick in reading this:ROBERT WENDLAND should die so that his family can "be allowed to live their lives," Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist and bioethicist, testified recently in the Stockton, CA, courtroom of Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt. The chosen method of death? Intentional dehydration and starvation.What has Wendland, 45, done to deserve such a fate? He went into a coma in September 1993 from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Sixteen months later, he awakened from the coma, paralyzed on one side and unable to walk, talk or swallow well enough to eat. He is physically and cognitively disabled and dependent on others for his care. He is not terminally ill. He is not hooked up to machines. He does require a feeding tube to sustain his life.The villain of the story, Dr Cranford probably needs no introduction, and it was also written by Wesley J. Smith, who was the lone voice in the wilderness of bioethics who championed Terri Schiavo's cause. The parallels to Terri's case are eerie:Rose Wendland, Robert's wife, claims Robert would not want to live in his current condition. She bases her claim primarily on her husband's statements made in the aftermath of her father's death, three months before Robert's injury, that he would not want to live if he could not "be a husband, father or a provider."But is it right to kill someone because he might have said he would not want to live in a dependent state? Is it right to kill someone because he can't work and be productive? Is it right to kill someone because he is disabled? Robert Wendland's mother, Florence Wendland, and half-sister, Rebekah Vinson, say no. They sued to prevent the dehydration.It is important to note that Wendland has slowly improved in the nearly two years since he awakened from his coma. For example, he:Has maneuvered an electric wheelchair down hospital corridors and can now maneuver a manual wheelchair with his unparalyzed leg or arm. Has written the letter "R" of his first name when asked, as well as some other letters of his name. Has used buttons to accurately answer yes and no questions some of the time. (Is your name Robert? Yes. Is your name Michael? No.) In this regard, one of his doctors asked Wendland if he wanted to die. He didn't answer the question.Go read the rest.
Yeshua MeshiachMeshiach means "anointed One", and God's promises to David leave no doubt about the fact that He will be David's Son (cf. 2Sam.7:1-16). But those who believe in the Second Advent without the First Advent inevitably have tripped over the "stone of stumbling" (Ps.118:22-23; Is.8:14; 28:16; cf. Matt.21:42-44), and have failed, among other things, to realize that they have not really understood who this Messiah is.
Jesus made this very clear when He asked the Pharisees in regard to Psalm 110 how David's Son could also be David's Lord (Matt.22:41-46). They were not able to answer and neither are those who are waiting for One they really do not know. But on that future day, when they do look upon "Him whom they have pierced" (Zech.12:10; Rev.1:7), there will be a mass conversion on the part of many whose hearts are now hardened against accepting Jesus as the Messiah He is, and "thus shall all Israel be saved" (Rom.11:25-27).
All who love Israel look forward to that glorious day. In the meantime,
it is important for all true Christians to remember that God loves and protects Israel "like the apple of His eye" (Zech.2:8). Therefore we need always to be careful to adopt an attitude of love and respect towards those who are Abraham’s seed according to the flesh (cf. Rom.3:1-2), even as we continue our spiritual advance as those who are Abraham’s seed by faith (Rom.4:1-17).
The Progress of Democratic Peace In Our TimeFrom
National Review:
Blessed be we, who live in exciting times. Not only are we participating in a global struggle against tyranny, but, if we look carefully enough, we can see the collapse of the conventional wisdom about the relationship between tyrannical rulers and their subjects. We're in the midst of a great paradigm shift, which, as any decent Hegelian will tell you, involves both a transformation of the world and of the way we understand it. In such rare times, both pundits and policymakers need to constantly challenge their own assumptions about the way the world works, because those assumptions age, along with the world they once described.Let's start with a thoughtful article in the April 19 Asia Times written by an Australian named Andrei Lankov. "For decades," he rightly points out, "the commonly accepted truth...was that the North Koreans do not rebel." And yet, on March 30, in the Kim il-sung stadium in Pyongyang, tens of thousands of North Korean soccer fans erupted in rage against the (Syrian) referee who had expelled a Korean defender in a World Cup qualifying match against Iran. The demonstrations pitted the spectators against the usual security forces of the police and army, and lasted for hours after the game (Iran won 2-0).Lankov notes that nothing of the sort had happened in the Hermit Kingdom within human memory: "for the first time in some 50 years a large group of North Koreans, acting openly and in the presence of foreign journalists and camera crews, dared to challenge the representatives of authority..." Lankov believes that the demonstrations bespeak a significant erosion of the regime's ability to repress its subjects. That erosion has sapped the will of the soldiers and police, who are now "often ready to look the other way, especially when there is an opportunity for a small bribe."Meanwhile, across the border in the People's Republic of China, there have been several demonstrations in recent months, ranging from peasant protests (shades of Mao!) in the hinterland (when Communist-party officials were caught stealing money that was supposed to go to dispossessed land owners) to worker's agitation in the big cities along the coast. Thomas Lifson, of American Thinker, suggests that the Chinese regime senses its own growing weakness. The regime has certainly intensified its repression of religious freedom, arresting the Catholic priest Zhao Kexun in Hebei Province, and continuing its mindless persecution of the Falun Gong. Luis Ramirez, the brilliant reporter of Voice of America, noted last fall that China was facing a most unexpected crisis: a shortage of qualified workers. And along with this manpower shortage, the brutal demographic consequences of the Communist-party's strict rule of "one child per couple" are beginning to take hold: The population is aging, the number of people retiring is higher than those entering the workforce, and retirement pension funds are drying up. Moreover, corruption is pandemic, and the recent National People's Congress provided the occasion for an anti-corruption campaign, with the usual showcase arrests and trials. But it is hard for a regime that claims sole authority to blame corruption on individual sinners.Now come the monster anti-Japan riots, ostensibly in response to Japanese behavior during the Second World War, and Japanese failure to publish textbooks that recount the rape of Nanking and other horrors during the Japanese occupation. No one can seriously believe that the oligarchs in Beijing were responding to popular demand; as the great Chinese émigré dissident He Qinglian reminds us, "the Chinese Government has virtually eliminated its citizens' right to publicly assemble, protest, or express any kind of political aspirations." So one must ask why the regime is encouraging these mass protests. Surely not, as some commentators think, because China is enraged at the very thought of a Japanese permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council (U.N. reform is not just around the corner). The answer is almost certainly domestic. The oligarchs know that the Chinese people are angry, and they are providing them with an outlet that serves the regime's purposes, as they have done several times in the recent past: May, 1999, after the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, April, 2001, after the collision with a U.S. reconnaissance plane with a Chinese fighter, and March, 2003, against the liberation of Iraq.The anti-Japan riots are of a piece with the foolish law, passed just last month, that officially approved the use of military force to annex Taiwan. That one was so outrageous that it antagonized the entire civilized world,(Pastorius note: Well,
not the entire civilized world.)
... and undoubtedly contributed to the Europeans' about-face on lifting military sanctions against China. No doubt the oligarchs worried that the Chinese people might notice that the regime's policies were a shambles, and that they might come to suspect that things could improve if only the people were free to choose their own leaders. Thus, one of the delicious paradoxes of our time: China threatens Taiwan with huge armies, but Taiwan threatens China with freedom, and may well win in the end.As Janet Klinghoffer put it, "China is facing the same innovation roadblock the Soviets did." The Soviet Union could never match Western technological innovations, because Soviet citizens were never given the freedom to do so. Klinghoffer quotes a U.S.-embassy report from Beijing that suggests the Chinese are facing the same bleak future: "Recently a Chinese scholar remarked...that the lack of intellectual freedom and the extraordinary waste of resources severely handicap Chinese science. Both problems are rooted in the Communist Party's monopoly on power and in the socialist system...Nobody believes in Marxism, said the scholar, it is just a slogan..."This is precisely the sort of thing we heard from Soviet citizens in the years leading up to the great implosion of the Soviet Empire. The Russians had brilliant mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, but the rigidity and corruption of the system prevented them from translating their brilliance into high-quality products. The same is going on in China, with the same political results: The people are angry, and want fundamental change.The same process is even further advanced in Iran, where near-constant demonstrations, protests, and even armed attacks against the institutions of the Islamic republic have raged. Indeed, in a curious mirror image, the Iranian regime called out the troops to prevent mass demonstrations in major Iranian cities at the very same time the North Koreans were putting down the soccer riot in Pyongyang. Both countries have found that major athletic events are dangerous to dictatorship, because they provide a legitimate excuse for the assembly of large numbers of people. But Iranians no longer require excuses to show their hatred of the mullahcracy. In the first week of April, there were huge demonstrations in Mahaban, after celebrations of the election of Jalal Talabani as president of Iraq. People shouted slogans against the Islamic republic and Supreme Leader Khamenei. The regime had to declare martial law. In recent days there have been demonstrations and acts of sabot age in Khuzestan Province (a major oil-producing region). The big refinery in Abadan was placed under exceptional military guard, and pipelines are constantly monitored. The city of Ahwaz has seen repeated clashes between the locals and security forces.The popular contempt for the regime is so blatant that the mullahs' usual pretense that all is well, has been openly discarded, and replaced with mounting repression. Like the North Koreans and Chinese, the Iranian leaders' greatest fear is that their own people will bring down the regime, and the mullahs have taken desperate action against the spread of ideas within the country. Bloggers have been arrested and tortured, along with editors and writers from the dead-tree press. Rajabali Mazroui, the head of the national union of journalists, was blocked at the airport when he was headed for a media conference in Denmark. His passport was confiscated and he can no longer travel. Mehdi Rahmanian, the managing editor of the Tehran daily newspaper Shargh has been charged with publishing falsehoods with the intent of corrupting public morality. Keyvian Samimi, the managing editor of the monthly magazine Nameh has been charged with insulting the government. And two student organizations, the Islamic Council of Medical Science of Bushehr, and an NGO called Aftab, have been disbanded.But the Iranians are responding. On April 18, employees at the Isfahan courthouse demonstrated against the sexist policies of the regime, calling for equal rights for women. This was not the sort of "student" demonstration so readily dismissed by Western cynics, for several judges joined the protesters. Even more remarkable was a speech in parliament by a representative named Akbar Alami, in which he said that the Islamic republic was no longer legitimate, that 80 million Iranians are now effectively enslaved by a few hundred corrupt thieves, and that the regime now stands for terrorism and the denial of human rights to the country's citizens.It has long been assumed that a repressive regime could survive as long as it had the will to crush any opposition, and that clever tyrants could deflect hatred of their regime by conjuring up an external enemy. There is still a tendency, particularly among intellectuals, to assume that these principles apply to contemporary dictatorships like those in China, Iran, and North Korea. Yet recent events suggest that these three countries, which are united by common interests and which help one another with advanced military technology, from missiles to WMDs, are losing control despite their fierce determination to cling to power and eventually fight and win a great war against the West. All three have nearby examples of new democracies, and their peoples are asking, with increasing intensity, why they are not permitted to govern themselves.Five hundred years ago Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government, and he warned that the most dangerous development for any tyrant was the contempt of his own people. That dramatic tipping point is now very close in China, Iran, and North Korea. All that is required to get there is a steady flow of the truth from outside their borders, guidance for those who undertake the struggle against the tyrants, and constant reminders — backed up with modest action — that we are with them.
Now, please.
Religion of Peace In Our TimeIslamofascists Call For the Murder Of Celebrity PreacherFrom
Little Green Footballs:
Celebrity Pentecostal preacher Runar Søgaard is under protection by Swedish police after receiving death threats. A high-profile sermon where Søgaard called the prophet Mohammed “a confused pedophile” has triggered fears of religious war.Søgaard, 37, enjoys celebrity status in Sweden after his marriage to recording star and Eurovision song contest winner Carola, even though they are now divorced.“Even if I see Runar while he has major police protection I will shoot him to death,” a radical Islamist told Swedish newspaper Expressen.Persons connected to the Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam claim to have received a fatwa, a decree from a Muslim religious leader, to kill Søgaard.Go to Little Green Footballs and
check out the comments from readers. They make a lot of great points that really put this into perspective.
Samples:
Heavens. What's with these Islamic fellers? What makes them so violent? They're starting to worry me... Capt. QueegWhy are islamists exempt from the euro hate laws? Its not ok to say somethjing bad about a religion or race, but it is ok to threaten their life? Goodbye Europe. Murqtaad
Peace In Our TimeA stellar post from Baron Bodissey at
Gates of Vienna:
What is this thing called "peace" that everyone seems so preoccupied with?
It is the opposite of "war", of course. So between 1991 and 2003 Saddam Hussein's subjects must have been experiencing "peace". And all through the 1950s the citizens of the Soviet Union lived in "peace".
In an April 17 post in The Word Unheard, USMC Vet referred to
…the [Left's] core belief that to acquiesce and avoid conflict at any cost is peace. This definition seems to be in accord with the "peace" that reigned in Saddam's Iraq, or that flourishes now in North Korea.
It was not always thus. For most of human history, "peace" meant being able to plant your crops or herd your sheep without being set upon by marauders and murdered, with your last thought the knowledge that your wife and children were about to be carried off into slavery. It meant building a prosperous community in which people could follow their livelihoods without molestation. It meant being able to travel the roads without being beaten and robbed by brigands. It was greatly prized, and it was very rare.
In Europe during the Dark Ages, peace was attained by being the strongest bully in the neighborhood, or by paying tribute to be protected by him. It was tenuous at best, subject to constant testing by arms, and did not allow room for building what we call civilization.
But the office of strongman became hereditary, and peace was gradually enlarged to enclose more and more groups under his protection. The bands of warring brigands became groups of warring feudal states.
(Pastorius note: What Baron of Gates of Vienna is saying here is true. NATO is an example of a large bloc of nations who are under the protection of a strongman, the United States. The difference though is the other NATO nations do not pay us a tribute. Instead, we pay the tribute, in the form of providing for their defense and, in turn, they insult us.)
Great deal for us, huh?)
As the English-speaking diaspora spread throughout the world, the concept of peace was refined, extended, and more fully realized. The development of a legal system to which all had recourse, the establishment of local officers and then police forces, the creation of responsible and accountable local government -- all these tended to enlarge the condition of peace.
Peace is not just when the war is over and the armies are demobilized. Peace is the condition of being secure in one's property and person, of being able to perform one's routine activities without fear of violence.
The last century and a half has allowed us to forget how rare and precious real peace is. The typical condition of mankind before the nineteenth century was to live in brutality and fear.
Men had to be armed and eternally vigilant to attain peace; slaves, serfs, and women could not hope for it without the protection of a rough man ready to do violence on their behalf.
There are still enclaves in America that lack peace -- the inner city where gangs rule, for example -- but the vast majority of citizens can live the vast majority of their lives in peace. A yeoman in fourteenth-century England would have been on his knees thanking God in unabashed amazement had he the opportunity to experience the peace which is our routine and unearned condition.
In the luxury of our current circumstances, the definition of "peace" that USMC Vet mentioned has evolved. To recap, "to acquiesce and avoid conflict at any cost is peace." When the bullies, thugs, and brigands emerge to confront us, we are not to take up our cudgels against them. Remain supine before your persecutor, allow his boot to remain firmly on your neck, and then you will have peace. Rely on reason, on discourse and argumentation, to dissuade the assassin from his task. Understand his point of view; look at the historical reasons for his behavior; acknowledge your culpability in creating the conditions that produced him -- why, you deserve what you're getting, you know. Give him everything he wants, and what follows will be called "peace".
When Saddam burned, gassed, shredded and mutilated his subjects by the hundreds of thousands, that was "peace". When the United States overthrew him, imposed the rule of law, and arranged elections, that was not "peace".
The crashing of airliners into the World Trade Center was not war. It was "peace". The peace that passes all understanding. Peace in our time.
You're a Jew, So You're Not Allowed to Have An OpinionAnti-Semitism In British AcademicaFrom
Melanie Phillips:
A reader who is currently at a British university has sent me this cri de coeur about the anti-Jewish witch-hunt going on in our seats of learning:'Certain members of the academic staff hold some quite franklyoffensive views. During a recent series of lectures about terrorism,the lecturer gave an admirably balanced assessment of most of theterrorist groups and their activities around the world. Then came the'Middle East Conflict'. He began by handing out photocopied pieces of his own published work that sought to claim that the myriad terrorist groups operating in Israel and Palestine were necessary to prevent 'Israeli genocide'. He then went on to inform us that during the course of his research he had met and interviewed numerous members of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that he counted some of these men as 'close personal friends' and had invited one of them to his native Holland.'I found this situation entirely unpalatable. suppose that the lecturer had declared his support for another of the terrorist groups he was lecturing about -- Combat 18 for example, or perhaps the numerous Aryan/White power groups in the US. Can we imagine that he would still be teaching, or for that matter that he would be anything more than a pariah?'A Jewish friend put this question to the department and was essentially told that first of all he couldn't really have an opinion because religion clouds the individual's judgement, and that secondly he was an undergraduate and therefore not able to understand academic objectivity.
Quite literally, the student was told that he was not allowed to have an opinion because he is a Jew. There is no other way to take that. Oh, I guess he can have an opinion on other issues, but not on anything related to Israel. Can you imagine imagine if you were not allowed to have an opinion on things you loved; such as your family, or your country?
Eternal Jerusalem
by Shoshana Meerkin
Why The Jews Rejected JesusOne Jews PerspectiveFrom
National Review:
National Review Online: David, you’ve got chutzpah. What were you and your publisher thinking publishing a book on the necessity of Jews rejecting Jesus so close to Easter?
David Klinghoffer: It’s not chutzpah. I’m just trying to answer the Big Question when it’s most on Christian minds. On Easter, Christians recall the death and resurrection of Jesus, his saving death, as they believe. The question is, Why don’t Jews understand that they also need the gift of unmerited grace that came with that death? The quickest answer is that Judaism has always understood that we received such a gift, but 1,300 years before Jesus died, at Mt. Sinai. The Christian offer of salvation through Christ’s death is an offer of a gift we already had in exchange for giving up the unique grammar of our relationship with God through the mitzvoth, or commandments. I also hope that my book will remind believing Christians of the most important thing we have in common: a belief that there is such a thing as religious truth in the first place. That idea is under attack from the secular left. In this sense, my book is a battle cry on behalf of both Jews and Christians.
NRO: How can the whole of Western Civilization rest on the rejection of Jesus?
Klinghoffer: Because the earliest Christian church was initially hobbled by insisting that new converts adhere to Jewish law — keep kosher, be circumcised, etc. For an adult man to be circumcised was a bummer, let me tell you. The decision was made, however — at a church council in Jerusalem in 49 — to jettison Jewish law as a requirement for new Christians. This was done at the apostle Paul’s insistence, and he explains in Acts that since the Jews were rejecting his presentation of Jesus as savior and messiah, the Christian message would now be taken to the gentiles. Dispensing with Jewish practices like circumcision made this possible.
Had the Jews not rejected Paul’s preaching about Jesus, the church likely would have held on to those laws. Had it done so, the church would have remained hobbled, and could hardly have become the world-bestriding institution it is today. Jewish Christianity would have remained a sect in Judaism, and probably would have died out along with other such sects in 70 when the Temple was destroyed by Rome and the Jews scattered. In that case, there would be no Christian civilization, and, among other things, no America as we know it — a country whose founding was deeply influenced by Christian faith. There is a possibility that we would all be Muslims. Had more Jews accepted Jesus, Mel Gibson today might be praying toward Mecca.
NRO: If Christians are so wrong, how can we be indispensable to God’s plan?
Klinghoffer: God’s plans unfold in unexpected ways. Christians are right, in Jewish eyes, in many respects — most notably in bringing the God of Israel to the attention of the world. They have done a much better job of that than we Jews are doing.
NRO: You are grateful for Christianity and at the same time reject it — how does that gel? Don’t you ever want to convince your Christian friends they’re wrong and need to reject Jesus?
Klinghoffer: It’s a paradox, but history is full of paradoxes. Far from wanting to convince Christian friends they’re wrong, I want to do my bit to strengthen their faith. That’s one of the beauties of debate: it forces you to look again at your beliefs, at their sources, and refine your thoughts about ultimate questions. My faith has been strengthened and sharpened immeasurably by debating with Christians and others who don’t see things as I do.
NRO: Our friend Father Neuhaus makes the case that you may have a numbers problem — that the majority of Roman Empire Jews may not have rejected Jesus. Would that change things?
Klinghoffer: Fr. Neuhaus seems to have skipped the page where I say my book could more accurately — but less concisely — have been titled, “Why Those Jews Who Rejected Jesus Did So.” No one knows how many Jews became Christians in the first centuries of the Christian era. Why they did so isn’t the question people are curious about.
NRO: What would you say to those who might argue you’re unnecessarily causing religious tension through your book? “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus” — I mean, do you have to remind us? Don’t you just drive us further apart, when, in the end, we do pray to the same God?
Klinghoffer: On the contrary, it’s not healthy for any relationship to sweep under the rug a question as big as this, a question that one side wonders about. The Christian-Jewish friendship is stronger than ever before, not least among conservative Christians and Jews. Further strengthening our friendship requires airing not only the issues on which we agree but also the ones on which we disagree.
NRO: In your book you air some dirty laundry — some pretty bad things Jews say about Christians. Is there any point in that, too? Aren’t you just going to give more ammo to Anti-Semites? And to Jews who are prone to hate Christians — or might be after reading your book?
Klinghoffer: Not about Christians — about Jesus. The anti-Semites already know these things, as a quick search of the Internet will reveal. I hesitated about disclosing some of this troubling material, but a) it wouldn’t have been an honest history of the Jewish-Christian debate without it; and b) in all fairness it pales in comparison to the things Christians have said and written about Judaism and Jews over the centuries. Just as recording the history of mean things Christians have said hasn’t made the present blossoming of a Jewish-Christian alliance impossible, I’m not worried about the impact of making known a few brief and cryptic Talmud passages.
NRO: You complain a lot about St. Paul, but, in the end, isn’t he a scapegoat of sorts for the fact you just don’t buy Jesus’ shtick?
Klinghoffer: I don’t complain about Paul, though I do show that it’s unlikely that he was what claimed to be — namely, a disciple of that era’s great rabbinic sage, Gamaliel. It seems doubtful that Paul could even understand Hebrew — his citations from the Bible are always from the problematic Greek translation, the Septuagint. He writes about Jewish spiritual life as an outsider, as someone who never experienced it. As I show, Jesus rejected the foundation of Jewish tradition — the Oral Torah, which explains the cryptic text of the Five Books of Moses, the Torah — but Paul rejected not only that but the structure built on top of that foundation, the Torah itself.
NRO: Besides maybe converting us, what would you like the Christian reader to get from your book?
Klinghoffer: I don’t want to convert you, Kathryn, and I know I couldn’t do so no matter how I tried. People believe what we believe for reasons that transcend argument. We believe because we have a certain kind of relationship with God, a certain spiritual experience. The arguments come later. What I want to do for the Christian reader is satisfy your curiosity. Jews, especially those who like me work and socialize with committed and conservative Christians, are asked why we don’t share their faith in Jesus. Or Christians wants to ask, but stop themselves. The question is meant sincerely and seriously. It deserves an answer.
NRO: …And the Jewish reader?
Klinghoffer: Michael Medved quipped that the only things all Jews can agree on is that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. He’s right and it’s sad because, as I said, Torah is about so much more than who was or wasn’t the Messiah. It offers the opportunity of experiencing God through the mitzvoth, the commandments. What’s also unfortunate is that while all Jews agree about Jesus, very few understand even that minimal belief — they don’t know what the Messiah means, or what’s at stake in the question of who that Messiah will be. My book tries to raise Jewish awareness about these questions.
Yesterday,
I posted the ideas of Pope Benedict XVI on why the Jews Rejected Jesus. The Pope based his ideas off the following verses from Roman 11:
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! 25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved,
as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”[g]Little food for thought there. Bread for the journey.
Don't Trust The GovernmentThe
Neo-Neocon explains what it was like in the late 60's and early 70's, and why it became almost impossible to trust the government:
As time and the war had gone on, the tale told to us by the media wasn't just about the war itself: it was about how the government had lied to the American people and deceived us, how it couldn't be trusted. That message grew more focused during the early 70s, during the spring 1971 Congressional hearings on the war (the ones that featured John Kerry), and with the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which came out two months later.
It was particularly convincing to hear disillusioned veterans such as Kerry speak out and demonstrate against the war--after all, they were the ones who been there and seen it firsthand. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the government had been deceptive about the war and the planning behind it. Then there was the invasion of Cambodia, perceived as an escalation of the war after Nixon had promised a reduction; and the killing of student protesters at Kent State by the National Guard, which made us feel as though war had been declared on us, too--on young people, on students. The message that the government could not be trusted was further reinforced by the Watergate scandal, commencing with the break-in in 1972 and ending later, after we had left Vietnam, in the ignominious 1974 resignation of Nixon.
If we couldn't trust the government--well, then, who could we trust? Many decided to trust the whistleblowers: the press, our new heroes. After all, they had published the Pentagon Papers. They had showed us photos of what had happened at Kent State. They had brought the horror of My Lai to our attention. They had been instrumental in the exposure of the Watergate scandal, which had disgraced (and later was to bring down) a President most of us already disliked anyway.
Beware of turning your anti-heroes into heroes, though. Because when they attain incredible prestige and power, they become corrupt as well.
The Neo-Neocon writes very well about those times. Although I was very young at the time, I remember the events of that era very, very well. I came out of the seventies with almost no ability to believe in anything.
A confluence of forces acted together to derail America from it's own course. In general, the WWII generation believed too strongly in America's inherent good, while the Hippie Generation believed too strong in it's media-created mandate to change the world. I suspect there was a lot of Leftist Eutopianism (read behind-the-scenes Communism) at work in fanning the flames of the Hippie protests.
An increasing polarization set in, and before we knew it, we were blind. None of us were seeing the truth anymore. And it took many years for America to find it's way again.
The New York Branch of Arab Bank Funded TerrorismSurprise, the Arab Bank was involved in funding terrorism. From
Little Green Footballs:
The New York branch of the Arab Bank was instrumental in financing Hamas, Al-Qaida and dozens of other terrorist groups, and some of those transactions were also handled by banks in the United States and Israel, according to a report in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.
Arab Bank funneled more than $20 million to and from terrorist groups and charities affiliated with terrorist groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who perpetrated attacks in Israel, the report said. The bank now may be subject to criminal charges for not disclosing to the US government suspicious transactions that resulted in the financing of terrorists.
Arab Bank already is the subject of a lawsuit by US and Israeli victims of terrorist attacks, who are seeking more than $1 billion in damages, and it is the subject of a criminal investigation by the US Justice Department. In February, the bank agreed to stop accepting deposits at its US branch.
Officials at the bank’s headquarters in Amman said they were not aware of the money transfers among the terrorist financiers and would have put a stop to them had they known.
Money Is The Root Of All Morality?The title is merely provocative. But, consider this; Tom, the Kafir Constitutionalist, proposed a brilliant theory as to why less economically advanced societies develop moral systems which allow them to abuse women:
Barter economies rely on a double-coincidence of wants. If I have butter, and you have eggs, we must both want the other's commodity in order for a transaction to occur. Might the misogyny of primitive cultures be due to their attempts to get around the problem of double coincidence of wants, by bartering the one thing every man wants: sex?
Primitive cultures treat their women like cattle, Islamic societies still barter girls for goods and services. By exchanging females, these societies have tried to work around the double-coincidence of wants in their own thoroughly savage way. Misogynistic primitive cultures may represent dead-ends in which societies adopted, instead of a commodity as a medium of exchange, the act of rape (I include arranged marriages between 12 year olds and middle aged men rape, of course).
This choice might explain the many differences between the West and societies developed along the morality of 7th century nomads.
Sounds like a good explanation to me. Money creates a more moral society? Economics are determinative? There seems to be a lot of truth to his argument, but it presents some intellectual challenges. I'll have to think about that. I don't think money is evil, but neither do I think that it is true that the more society values money, the more moral it becomes. Instead, possibly there is a point at which the system of economics has become sufficiently complex to give as much order to the society as it is capable of giving.
I'm sure Tom will have thoughts.
More On The Pope And The JewsFrom
National Review:
In the media coverage of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, a number of commentators have mentioned that the young Josef Ratzinger grew up in Nazi Germany. It was a motif of John Paul II’s biography that growing up under the Nazis and the Communists influenced his theology and outlook, encouraging him, for example, to place the dignity of the human person at the center of his theological agenda. So it is natural to ask of the new pope whether his experience under the Nazis affected his theological outlook.
... the ills of western Europe today have the same cause, and the same solution, as during World War II. It seems crazy to think that a man who heard the call to the priesthood during the heart of World War II did not see in his vocation at least the beginnings of an answer to the problems of his day.
A Wall Street Journal editorial Wednesday quotes Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, in which the future pope recounts how the Church seemed to him to be the antidote to the poisons corrupting Europe: "Despite many human failings, the Church was the alternative to the destructive ideology of the Nazis.
(Pastorius note: In the interest of full-disclosure, I am including the following sentence from Mr. Ratzinger's writing. I want to make it clear that I do not agree with it's assertion.)
In the inferno that had swallowed up the powerful, she had stood firm with a force coming to her from eternity. It had been demonstrated: The gates of hell will not prevail against her."
(Pastorius note: I believe that the Church's response to the Holocaust was pathetic. And when I say this, I do not mean the response of the Catholic Church alone. I mean the response of the entire Christian Church. We hardly responded at all. The response of the Christian Church to the Holocaust was so pathetic that it, perhaps, ought to be viewed as the second crucifixion of Christ.)
What was it about the Church that offered a young German boy such hope? I want to suggest that, ironically enough, it was in large part the Church’s teaching about sin.
In a radio address in 1940, Pius XII claimed that "the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin." This diagnosis has been repeated and emphasized by all the popes of the late 20th century, none more forcefully than John Paul II. The sense of sin, argued John Paul II in his 1984 apostolic exhortation Reconciliation and Penance, is related to the sense of God; likewise, the secular humanist attempt to develop a morality and way of life that makes no reference to God will also force man to lose his sense of sin.
The new pope was a teenager when Pius gave his radio address (he expressed his desire to enter the priesthood the following year). He was also a collaborator with John Paul II on Reconciliation and Penance. In an interview with the German journalist Peter Seewald, published in 2000 as God and the World, then Cardinal Ratzinger repeated this theme: "Being incapable of acknowledging guilt is the most dangerous form of spiritually arrested development one can imagine, because this in particular makes people incapable of improvement."
But then the future pope connected this by-now-familiar observation with his firsthand knowledge of the Nazi agenda. Psychologists remind us that it can be bad to feel overburdened with guilt, of course, "but it is worse to extinguish the capacity for recognizing guilt, because man then becomes inwardly hardened and sick…That was what was intended by Nazi education. They thought they were even able to commit murder, as Himmler expressed it, and still remain respectable — and thereby they were deliberately trampling on human conscience and mutilating man himself."
What Pius XII diagnosed as the sin of the 20th century — the loss of a sense of personal guilt and sin — Benedict XVI thinks helped make great evil seem so ordinary. This is the theological solution to Hannah Arendt’s puzzle about how such boring bureaucrats as Himmler and Eichmann could bring about the Holocaust. The Nazis taught, repeatedly and in numerous different ways, that there is no God, no sin, and no personal guilt. Relentless propaganda made it easy for people to avoid feeling guilty, and, since everyone was complicit, nobody was made to answer for his sins.
The understanding that we are sinners is one of the biggest contributions the Jews have given us. The Law of God as dictated by God, to Moses, is essential to our human capacity to do good.
If, as I believe, there are forces at work preparing a second Holocaust for the Jews, then the Christian Church needs to stand up against those forces. More than likely, such righteousness will require that we first acknowledge our past failures (for instance, not being willing to recognize and confront the malevolence of the Nazi's) and learn from them.
That's what this site is all about; Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism (CUANAS) is here to spread the truth that we failed our brothers in the faith and we need to support them now.
I'm glad that we find, in the new Pope, a man who understands this truth.
The Pope, The Jews, And The TruthFrom
National Review:
The election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI may be regarded by American Jewish leaders as an unwelcome omen for interfaith relations. It needs to be remembered, however, that our community's leadership doesn't necessarily represent the views of most Jews — and it certainly doesn't represent Judaism.
On Monday, as the cardinals were about to enter upon the awesome task of choosing a new pope, Ratzinger delivered a sermon that sounded a striking call to resist relativism and secularism. For all that the German cardinal has been called a clone of his predecessor, Ratzinger seems if anything to exceed John Paul II in the vehemence of his opposition to the idea that there is no singular truth about God. On the contrary, Ratzinger powerfully insists that there is such a truth and that his church is in possession of it.
His words, which will become famous, are worth contemplating: "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."
At the highest reaches of our Jewish communal-bureaucratic structure, this is not a popular theme. That's putting it mildly. It's one of the melancholy facts about Jewish life in modern America that the closest thing we have to a leading moral authority, representing us as Jews to the world, is not a rabbi or any spiritual exemplar. Rather, whenever you see a Jewish leader on CNN or Fox, commenting upon the "Jewish" position vis-à-vis events of the day, it is most likely to be someone from one of the anti-defamation organizations, most likely Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.
For all the undoubted value of its stated goal of fighting anti-Semitism, the ADL has committed itself to a program of relativism. As Foxman himself has said, "It is pure arrogance for any one religion to assume that they hold 'the truth.'" Presumably this would apply to Judaism too. For Ratzinger to assert the truth of his religion was therefore wrong, in the ADL's eyes, as it would be wrong to assert the truth of Judaism.
In Ratzinger's important sermon, which will likely be remembered (so presumably he intended it) as striking the keynote of his papacy, he cited a prophecy from Isaiah looking forward to "a year of favor unto the Lord and a day of vengeance for our God, to comfort mourners" (61:2). Apart from the allusion to the mourning going on among Catholic worldwide at the death of a beloved leader, one key phrase of the verse was clearly intended to be understood as fighting words. Isaiah promises "favor" for the Lord's servants, but "vengeance" for His enemies.
No verse in the Bible makes it clearer that God asks us to take sides. In the great controversy of our own day — the controversy surrounding the question of truth versus relativism — Ratzinger knows on what side he comes down. The most prominent American Jewish leader comes down on the other side.
Alas, the ADL's viewpoint is all too commonly encountered in our community, as I have been reminded from the very recent personal experience of publishing a book that argues for the truth of Judaism. Although my book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, a history of the Jewish-Christian debate about Jesus, can be seen as a critique of Christianity, I've found that in speaking to mixed groups of Jews and Christians, it is often the Jews who take umbrage at being told their religion is true while the Christians genially accept that it entirely appropriate for a Jew to argue in this way.
What's going on? Only that Christians, including traditional Catholics like Joseph Ratzinger, perhaps more than many Jews today, appreciate the deepest assumption that our two religions share: the assumption that there is a truth out there, a singular truth, to be found and embraced.
Pope Benedict XVI has his truth. Jews who believe in Judaism, as opposed to relativism, have ours. The pope and the Jews can't both be right — but that fact, that there can only be one truth, is a singularly important truth in itself, arguably more important than any of the doctrinal points on which Jews, Catholics, and other Christians differ. Let's hope the Jewish community can rise to meet the new pope, seeing in him the fellow believer in truth that he is, offering him our sincere congratulations and good wishes for a blessed and successful papacy.
The Political Crisis In American UniversitiesRecognized By The Mainstream MediaFrom
Front Page Magazine:
The political crisis in the universities has now become so obvious that in recent days even the mainstream media has started to take alarmed note of it. An official editorial in The New York Times blasted Columbia University for its inadequate report on pro-Palestinan propagandistic teaching and the intimidation of Jewish students in the Middle East studies program on that campus, while a major column on the front page of the “Outlook” section of the Sunday Washington Post declared that unless universities changed their political ways, they were about to sink into financial decline because of loss of public support.
You cannot have better venues than these for the formation of “respectable” opinion—i.e., what it now becomes permissible to say at a Georgetown or Upper West Side dinner party.
Read the rest.
Palestinian Child AbuseWeapon Hidden In Little Girl's UnderwearFifteen Year Old Loaded Up With BombsFrom
Atlas Shrugged:
Honest Reporting: This week, IDF soldiers searching for a wanted terrorist in a West Bank house discovered a girl hiding a gun in her underwear, YNet reports. The soldiers in the Balata refugee camp, a terrorist hotbed, found the gunman inside his home and ordered him to surrender his weapon. He refused, claiming he didn't have one. After questioning, they found the man's firearm was hidden in his younger sister's underwear. And earlier this week, a 15-year-old Palestinian boy was arrested near Nablus after being discovered wearing five pipe bombs strapped to his body. The boy aroused suspicions by wearing a heavy jacket on a hot day.
HonestReporting has repeatedly critiqued the media's negligence in failing to report the indoctrination of Palestinian youngsters toward violence, and the growing culture of hate against Israel and the United States.
As the momentum shifts toward a possible peace agreement in the Mideast, it is now more crucial than ever to ensure that children are educated toward building peace.
The New Pope On JihadAnother reason why Cardinal Ratzinger is the perfect Pope for the times we are in. From
Little Green Footballs:
In line with his call to Europeans to recover their own spiritual heritage, the new Pope opposes Turkey’s proposed entrance into the European Union: “Turkey,” he has declared, “has always represented a different continent, always in contrast with Europe.”
But his objection is not simply geographical — in fact, he opposes the geographical oversimplifications that underlie Turkey’s EU bid: “Europe,” he has explained, “was founded not on a geography, but on a common faith. We have to redefine what Europe is, and we cannot stop at positivism.”
A Europe newly defined as in some sense a Christian entity may outrage secularists, but a secular and relativist Europe has so far proved powerless against the Islamization of Europe — despite the fact that that Islamization threatens cherished Western notions of the equality of rights and dignity of all people. Europe, the new Pope has written, “appears to be at the start of its decline and fall.”
It may be too late, as Bat Ye’or believes, to arrest that decline and fall. However, the first thing a physician does when he treats a disease is identify the problem. No healing can proceed from a misdiagnosis. It is heartening to see that Pope Benedict XVI has already, in various speeches and writings before his accession to the papacy, dared to speak more clearly about the threat that Islam poses to Western civilization than his predecessor — for all his many and remarkable gifts — ever quite managed to do.
Late in 2003 the semi-official Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica departed from John Paul II’s policy toward Islam and published a scathing criticism of the mistreatment that Christians suffer in Islamic societies. It represented the first indication that any Catholic officials recognized the dimensions of the religious conflict that jihadists are waging against Christians and others around the world.
La Civiltà Cattolica pointed out that “for almost a thousand years Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger.” Now, through jihad terrorism and demographics Islam is threatening Europe’s survival yet again — and it looks as if now there is a Pope who has noticed.
As I said in the previous post, Pope Benedict XVI could be a hinge upon which history turns.
Pope Benedict XVI and The JewsMuch has been said in the past 24 about the New Pope and his relationship to the Jews. The media is making a big deal out of the fact that he was a member of the Hitler Youth. The truth is, all German children were enrolled in the Hitler Youth.
The Popes father was an ACTIVE ANTI-NAZI, which caused him to have to pack up and move on several occasions. The Popes whole family was anti-Nazi.
The media is bringing up this Hitler Youth stuff because the media does not like the fact that the Pope is a Christian. They would rather that he be a mushy New Age hypocrite like themselves.
Too bad for the media.
The Pope, Mr. Ratzinger is actually one of the best Christian friends the Jews have ever had. I am surprised to find how much
his ideas dovetail with my very own.
Here is an excerpt from a very long paper, entitled
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures In The Christian Bible, much of it written by The Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger himself:
Personally, Paul continued to be proud of his Jewish origin (Rm 11:1). Referring to the time preceding his conversion, he says: “I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (Ga 1:14). Having become an apostle of Christ, he says of his adversaries: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (2 Co 11:22). Still, he can relativise all these advantages by saying: “These I have come to regard as loss because of Christ” (Ph 3:7).
Nonetheless, he continues to think and reason like a Jew. His thought is visibly permeated by Jewish ideas. In his writings, as was mentioned above, we find not only continual references to the Old Testament, but many traces of Jewish traditions as well. Furthermore, Paul often uses rabbinic techniques of exegesis and argumentation (cf. I. D. 3, no. 14).
Paul's ties to Judaism are also seen in his moral teaching. In spite of his opposition to the pretentions of those who kept the Law, he himself includes a precept of the Law, Lv 19:18 (“You shall love your neighbour as yourself”) to sum up the whole of the moral life. 332 Summing up the Law in one precept is typically Jewish, as the well-known anecdote about Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai, Jesus' contemporaries, demonstrates. 333
The resistance mounted by the majority of Jews to the Christian preaching produced in Paul's heart “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” (Rm 9:2), clear evidence of his great affection for them. He said that he himself was willing to accept on their behalf the greatest and most inconceivable sacrifice, to be branded “accursed”, separated from Christ (9:3). His afflictions and suffering forced him to search for a solution: in three lengthy chapters (Rm 9-11), he goes to the heart of the problem, or rather the mystery, of Israel's place in God's plan, in the light of Christ and of the Scriptures, without giving up until he is able to conclude: “and so all Israel will be saved” (Rm 11:26).
These three chapters in the Letter to the Romans constitute the most profound reflection in the whole of the New Testament on Jews who do not believe in Jesus. Paul expressed there his most mature reflections.
The solution he proposed is based on the Scriptures which, in certain places, promised salvation only to a “remnant” of Israel. 334 In this phase of salvation history then, there is only a “remnant” of Israelites who believe in Christ Jesus, but this situation is not definitive. Paul observes that, from now on, the presence of the “remnant” proves that God has not “rejected his people” (11:1). This people continues to be “holy”, that is, in close relationship with God. It is holy because it comes from a holy root, the ancestors, and because their “first fruits” have been blessed (11:16).
Paul does not make it clear whether by “first fruits” he means Israel's ancestors, or the “remnant” sanctified by faith and baptism. He exploits the agricultural metaphor of the tree when he speaks of branches being cut off and grafted (11:17-24). It is understood that the cut off branches are Israelites who have refused to believe in Christ Jesus and that those grafted on are Gentile Christians. To these — as we have already noted — Paul preaches humility: “It is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you” (11:18).
To the branches that have been cut off, Paul opens up a positive perspective: “God has the power to graft them on again” (11:23); this would be easier than in the case of the Gentiles, since it is “their own olive tree” (11:24). In the final analysis, God's plan for Israel is entirely positive: “their stumbling means riches for the world”, “how much more will their full inclusion mean?” (11:12). They are assured of a covenant of mercy by God (11:27,31).I've been called a heretic for saying such things. Well, now I have the Pope to back me up. I absolutely agree with the Pope on this. Always have. My heart tells me this is true, and this is why I call the Jews, My Brothers in the Faith.
I believe the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope could very well be a hinge upon which history will turn. He is exactly the Pope needed to counter the problems our world is facing today.
Instant ReplayFrom
Little Green Footballs:
British MP George Galloway has been one of the most disgusting panderers to radical Islam on the British political scene.
The bitter election battle in the East End has spilled into violence, with extremist Muslims and anti-war protesters targeting George Galloway and Oona King.
Anti-war campaigner Mr Galloway was forced to take refuge from Islamic militants who denounced him as a “false prophet”. The former Labour MP said “the police saved my life” after supporters of radical group Hizb-Ut-Tahrir clashed with members of his Respect party last night.
Labour’s Ms King had her car tyres slashed and the vehicle was pelted with eggs by a gang of youths angry at her support for the Iraq war. Both incidents triggered fears for the safety of Mr Galloway and Ms King as they prepared for a stormy hustings meeting in Bethnal Green and Bow tonight. ...
Mr Galloway was electioneering on the Osier council estate in Bethnal Green last night when a gang of 30 Muslim fundamentalists, who claim voting is un-Islamic, surrounded him and his supporters.
The men said they were angry at Mr Galloway’s attempt to woo Muslim voters. They said they were “setting up the gallows” for him and warned any Muslim who voted for his anti-war Respect party that they faced a “sentence of death”.
After a fight broke out between the two groups, police were called and Mr Galloway was forced to hide in his car in an alley until the violence calmed down. Two men were later arrested.
One resident said: “I heard shouting and looked out into the street to see a large group of Asian men. Many of them were fighting. There were punches and kicks thrown, then a large number of police arrived and broke up the riot.”
Speaking to the Standard minutes after the attack, Mr Galloway said it was clear the men were worried that he could become MP for an area with a large Muslim population.
“I was meeting people who live in the flats. Hizb-ut-Tahrir suddenly filled the room and blocked the door. I tried speaking calmly. They then said I was parading as a false prophet and served a sentence of death on me. They were claiming I was representing myself as a false deity and for this apostasy I would be sentenced to the gallows,” he said.
“They said they were setting up the gallows for me. Thank God my daughter was not with me. She was in the car outside. Otherwise there would have been nobody to call the police. The police saved my life.” The former MP is challenging Labour’s Oona King in the seat on 5 May, but Hizb-ut-Tahrir has declared that it will fight his bid.
Mr Galloway, who is due to share a platform with the leader of Hizb-ut-Tahrir on Saturday at a debate on Muslims and politics, said he was being targeted because he offered a democratic solution to Muslims. Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not illegal but it has been banned from university campuses for stirring trouble between Jewish and Muslim students. It supports Palestinian suicide bombers.
This is exactly the way the Nazi's came to power in Germany. Hitler organized a gang of, literally, jackbooted thugs, who went into beerhalls, the meeting places of the various political parties. The thugs would then proceed to beat the attendees, and threaten the politicians and party loyalists, that if they didn't switch loyalties they would be murdered.
Europe knows it's history and yet it fails to see that it's histoy is repeating, almost as if in instant replay.
Pastor Beheaded For Evangelizing to MuslimsFrom My Pet Jawa:
Muslims are very tolerant of Christians---as long as Christians keep their traps shut that is. Pop quiz: what is the penalty for trying to convert a Muslim under sharia law? Christian Today:
A Baptist pastor and evangelist was found beheaded in Jalalpur, a village in the district of Khulna, south-western Bangladesh on 8th March and the murder was confirmed recently, according to AsiaNews.it.
The 35-year-old pastor from the Bangladesh Free Baptist Church, Dulal Sarkar, was believed to have been killed by Muslim extremists who had threatened his family because he discussed his faith with some Muslim villagers.
According to AsiaNews.it, Pastor Sarkar, who served as a guard and general caretaker for the local church, had attempted to evangelise Muslim villagers and brought them to his church to talk with the senior pastor.
The murder occurred on 8th March on his way home after he talked to some Muslim villagers. He was reported to have been attacked by group of armed men. Sources say that it was a group of ten local Muslim extremists who later "separated his head from his body", AsiaNews.it wrote.
Immediately after the murder, Pastor Sarkar’s wife filed a police report. Currently, seven out of the ten suspects are still free, according to AsiaNews.it. Local Christians believed that they are connected with the Jamaat-e-Islami political party and even tried to bribe the police to get the three detained members out of jail.
Pastor Sarkar’s wife has also now been threatened by the extremists and forced to move from house to house in an effort to protect herself and her children.
If I were a more responsible Christian I would report on these stories whenever they happen. Because they happen often.
Palestinian 10th Grade Curriculum Teaches Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Tract As TruthFrom
Front Page Magazine:
If Abbas is really committed to peace with the Israelis, if he is being truthful when he speaks of peace and progress in international diplomatic circles, he will push forward on the process of re-education now. He is already late, any later will be too late. But does he dare?
Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky has just sent an emergency letter to Israel's President Ariel Sharon and to United States President George Bush.
This is his issue:
The official 10th grade Palestinian school curriculum teaches The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion.
One must ask: Why teach The Protocols if not to expose the work as a conspiracy theory of Antisemites? In any other context, what is the educational purpose behind teaching The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion to impressionable 10th graders given today's social and political climate?
In order to perpetuate the myth. We all know the answer. The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion has not been removed from the Palestinian school curriculum, the book has not been removed from school library shelves, only, ONLY, in order to perpetuate the myth.
The Palestinians continue to teach The Protocols because they are not yet committed to the reforms. And Mahmoud Abbas, as president, is the man responsible for re-educating or not re-educating his people, for implementing reforms or for letting them linger, ignored if not forgotten.
Why Do American Jews Revile George Bush?From the New York Sun, via Atlas Shrugged:
What is it with American Jews? Not that anyone expects them to become Republicans or to rejoice that George W. Bush is in the White House. But why do so many of them revile him so? I happened to be in America this past week, along with Ariel Sharon. That is, I wasn't actually with Mr. Sharon, who was at President Bush's Texas ranch. But while Israel's prime minister was as usual getting the warmest possible reception from the president, the American Jews I found myself talking to were as hostile to Mr. Bush as ever.
Most of them simply couldn't abide the man. Indeed, they seemed less able to abide him now than they could when he was elected in 2000 or re-elected in 2004.
"But why is that?" I said to one of them after another - all political liberals, many of them academics, all Jewishly knowledgeable and committed people. "You don't have to love Bush in order to see what he's done for Israel. He's the first American president to adopt the Israeli position that meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians cannot be held as long as Palestinian terror persists. He's the first president to agree with Israel that Palestinian democratization must be an integral part of the peace process and to prove he meant it by shunning Yasser Arafat. He's the first president to side with Israel on the question of its future borders by stating clearly that all areas of the West Bank in which Jewish settlers are heavily concentrated should be incorporated into Israel.
"And needless to say," I went on, "Bush has also been the first president to order the military dismantling of an Arab dictatorship that was a strategic threat to Israel. The toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, though this was not its primary intention, has contributed more to Israel's physical security than any other presidential act since the Nixon administration's arms airlift during the 1973 war."
The fact is that, in regard to Israel, Mr. Bush has been the kind of president that one would once have considered an impossibility. Given America's global interests, and its economic and political stake in the Arab Middle East, it has always been axiomatic that the best Jews could hope for from an American government was a balanced approach toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. The optimum was a president who, like Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan, had enough sympathy for Israel to keep from tilting toward the Arabs rather than a president like Dwight Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter who didn't. A president who was openly and unabashedly pro Israel was quite simply unimaginable. And yet, as I kept repeating to my Jewish interlocutors last week, this is exactly what George W. Bush has been.
"But he's imposed a radical right-wing Christian agenda on America!" they retorted. "He's wrecked the economy to give tax breaks to the rich!" "He's out to destroy Social Security!" "He has the worst record on the environment ever!"
"Let's say for the sake of the argument that you're right about every one of those things," I tried answering. "There's still Israel. Doesn't his stand on it mean anything to you?" "I don't believe it's real!" "He's just backing Sharon - and I don't trust Sharon either!" "Just wait and see: When the disengagement from Gaza is over, he'll show his true colors!"
There was no arguing with them. The president just can't do anything right, not even when he backs Israel to the hilt.
Where does this animus come from? It's clearly more than a matter of American Jews, economically paradoxical Democratic predilections, as summed up by Irving Kristol's famous quip that Jews earn like WASPs and vote like Puerto Ricans. Jews didn't vote for Nixon or Reagan either, but they never despised them. Nor is it just, even if Jews don't wear cowboy boots, George W. Bush's Texas accent - Lyndon Johnson had a heavier one.
It's not merely the president's small-town folksiness, either; Bill Clinton came from Little Rock and could sound like an Ozark hick when he wanted to. It's not even just Mr. Bush's religious beliefs. Jimmy Carter, after all, was a born-again Christian, too, and though American Jews were never in love with him, neither did he ever give them nightmares.
So, what is it then? Funny how, in my first post this morning, we read that Israel control American foreign policy and yet the Jews hate the man who is supposedly carrying out Israel's wishes.
Ah, the labyrinth of hatred. There's no navigating it's illogic.
Interview MemeTom the Kafir Constitutionalist
"tagged" me with an Interview Meme. I'll tell you, I'm very wary of Memes these day, but what the heck. The idea is I'm given a list of 20 things I could be and I'm supposed to pick five and say what I would do, if I could be these things. Here goes,
If I could be a musician, and I am, I would be a drummer, and a pseudo-guitar player who only knows enough to write songs (not play lead), oh yes, and I am that as well. What I am not, and what I'd like to be is a soprano sax player. No Kenny G jokes, please. Try Wayne Shorter. He's the man on Soprano. I also like Joshua Redman, and this dude, who used to play with the Buddy Rich Big Band, named Steve Marcus.
If I could be a gardener, and I used to be, until I totally screwed up my back (I have a herniated disc, from which I am every so slowly recovering), I would plant a garden which was a combination of an overgrown English Garden, and a tropical paradise (to celebrate my wife's Pacific Islander roots). Oh my gosh, wait, I already did that. :)
If I were a writer, I would start a blog called CUANAS. Wait, I did that too. I would also write a story in script form. Wait, I'm doing that too. Hmm. I'm detecting a pattern here.
If I were an athlete, I guess I'd get back surgery. If I were an athlete I'd be LeBron James. Can you imagine?
:)
If I were a linguist, I would spend my entire life making Noam Chomsky feel like the idiot he is.
Hope this was at least a bit entertaining.Now the idea is that I'm supposed to "tag" two friends. So, I pick
Jaymarie, because I know she's gonna have something bizarre to say. And I pick my good friend
IraqWarWrong at the Iraq War Was Wrong Blog. I pick him because he is a consumately normal individual.
Here's the list of "If I could bees:
If I could be a scientist...If I could be a farmer...If I could be a musician... If I could be a doctor... If I could be a painter... If I could be a gardener... If I could be a missionary...If I could be a chef... If I could be an architect... If I could be a linguist... If I could be a psychologist...If I could be a librarian... If I could be an athlete...If I could be a lawyer... If I could be an innkeeper...If I could be a professor... If I could be a writer... If I could be a llama-rider... If I could be the oddybobo's man servant. . .If I could be a moonbat...If I could be a failed actor gone political
Columbia University Holds Special Event To Honor Anti-Semitic PoetFrom
Little Green Footballs:
Columbia University’s Middle East Institute, fresh from being exonerated of antisemitism by a shamefully whitewashed investigation, recently held a special event—to honor antisemitic poet Amiri Baraka:
Sponsored by several groups (the Radius of Arab American Writers, the National Union of Writers, NY, and Alwan for the Arts), the April 14, 2005 event featured tributes to Baraka. Its proceeds will go to support a conference of Arab American writers at Hunter College.
Baraka, born LeRoi Jones, is known for his writings on jazz, but more for his Marxism and anti-Semitism. As the poet laureate of New Jersey Baraka created a firestorm with his poem “Somebody Blew Up America,” a diatribe accusing Israelis of having been warned of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. When Baraka rebuffed calls for his resignation, New Jersey lawmakers responded by abolishing the position of poet laureate.
Baraka’s anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism reach far back into the 1960s, as does his violent animosity to whites, American society, and the West as a whole.
Why did the Columbia Middle East Institute lend its support to such an individual? And why did it send out the invitation (via e-mail) on the very day of the event? Coming hard on the heels of the recent controversy over harassment and intimidation of Jewish students, the Middle East Institute might have seen fit to consider more closely who it was promoting.
This move by the Columia University's Middle East Institue is a gob of spit in the eye of their accusers. And it shows not only their audacity and arrogance, but their, apparently, absolute belief that they can get away with any offense.
Here's a link to Mr. Baraka's "poetry." And here's an excerpt:
Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers To stay home that day Why did Sharon stay away ?
What Kind Of Solution?From
Powerline:
Professor Efraim Karsh is the prominent British historian of the Middle East at the University of London. In a column for the New Republic, Karsh turns his sights on "Juan Cole's bad blog." Cole is the University of Michigan history professor who has made a name for himself with a blog devoted to the Middle East. Karsh's critique of Cole exposes the heart of much of what passes for criticism of the alleged "neo-con" influence on Bush administration foreign policy:
Cole may express offense at the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion], but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings. How else can one describe his depiction of U.S. foreign policy as controlled by a ruthless Zionist cabal implanted at the highest echelons of the Bush administration and employing "sneaky methods of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of intelligence" to promote its goals? And what of Cole's claim that the pro-Israel lobby aipac, in alliance with the Christian Right, represents a sinister force controlling congressional decisions on policy toward Israel? "The Founding Fathers of the United States deeply feared that a foreign government might gain this level of control over a branch of the United States government, and their fears have been vindicated," Cole laments.
The chairman and CEO of this imaginary Zionist cabal is Israeli premier and Likud leader Ariel Sharon, whom Cole despises--so much so that he cannot bring himself to refer to Sharon without resorting to the vilest invectives. He is the butcher of Beirut, a mafia don, war criminal, land grabber, starver of children, and so on. "Couldn't he shut his enormous pie hole[?]" Cole wonders of Sharon. "Apparently [Bush] has fallen for a line from the neo-cons in his administration that they can deliver the Jewish vote to him in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon's ass," he writes in another post. And all this comes from a historian priding himself on his dispassionate and evenhanded approach.
Cole is of course not the first nor the last to argue that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked by the Jewish state (one recalls Pat Buchanan's description of Congress as Israel's "amen corner"). But, while most anti-Israel (indeed, anti-Jewish) critics tend to hide behind the more neutral term "neocons," Cole does not shy from labeling prominent Jewish members of the Bush administration (or, for that matter, anyone not overtly hateful of Sharon) as "Likudniks."
Conscious of the racist overtones of his criticism, Cole attempts to present it as purely businesslike. "Some have attempted to argue that the very term `Neoconservative' is a code word for derogatory attitudes toward Jews," he writes. "This argument is mere special pleading and a playing of the race card, however, insofar as only a tiny percentage of American Jews are Neoconservatives, and only a tiny percentage of Neoconservatives are Jews." True enough. But then why the substitution of the term Likudniks for neocons? And why is it that the Likudniks who most obsess Cole all have names like Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Adelman, Ledeen, Gaffney, Wurmser, Pipes, Rubin, or Kristol?
When I learned about the Holocaust (it was a gradual process which took place over years because, to be frank, I wasn't very interested), one of the things that I learned about was the creeping dehumanization of Jews which the Nazi's effected through the spread of lies. I remember, when I was in High School, a friend of mine was attempting to teach me about this propaganda onslaught, which he illustrated by calling up the White Aryan Resistance Hotline and handing the phone to me. What I heard was a taped message which assured me that the Jews were controlling the United States government through Zionist Organizations, and nefarious back room politics.
"Well," I thought to myself. "Those stupid white supremacists sure are nuts."
Flash forward to today, and such talk is part of the national discourse. But, that it is, is not the most horrifying aspect of this shift. No, what is truly horrifying is how few people seem to recognize such talk for the lunacy that it is.
It would seem to me that history ought to be our guide when we are confronted by this Jewish conspiracy nonesense. When was the last time that such ideas caught fire in the media of the world? Who spread the ideas? What was their purpose? What was the result of the propaganda campaign?
The answer is that in the 1920's the Nazi's enacted a campaign of propaganda against the Jews. In the 1930's the European media took the reins and ran with the Nazi libels. The purpose of the campaign was to light the fire of a murderous hatred towards Jews which would enable Hitler to gain the cooperation of the governments of Europe to help him in rounding up the Jews, and murdering every last one of them.
I believe we should all take this history as a lesson. When we hear talk of how Israel, somehow, manages to control United States policy, we ought to keep in mind where such an idea fits in the context of history. And we ought to wonder where it will will lead us.
History has shown that while the human race advances in the works of it's hands, we do not advance morally. It should not surprise us that there may be forces at work once again who would like to murder every last Jew. It should not surprise us, but I admit that it does more than surprise me. It shocks me.
When we look at the current political climate, we can see two developments which ought to give us pause:
1) In the Arab world calls for "Death to the Jews," are quite common in national media.
2) In the Europe Media, and the world of American Academia, there are many who are working towards a "one-state solution," wherein the Jews of Israel would be forced to live as one with the larger Palestinian population who are clearly bent on murdering them.
It should not be hard to understand what lies at the crossroads of those two notions. Could the "One State Solution" be our generations' "Final Solution?"
"Woman's Rights" Has No Legitimacy In IslamIn followup to
a post I did a couple of days ago regarding the idea that women's rights really ought to be a huge factor in why we fight the War on Terror,
here is some info
via Little Green Footballs:
"Woman's Rights" Has No Legitimacy in Islam
by Yamin Zakaria
Post 9/11, the firepower of the West was going to be a liberating force for the women in Afghanistan. However, the honourable women of Afghanistan did not strip their veils for the miniskirt. In frustration, the media attempted to kick-start the process of ‘liberation’ by parading a semi-nude US-based Afghani woman in a human cattle market, i.e. a beauty contest. Further inducement would follow in the form of a Hollywood blockbuster where the all American hero would seduce an ‘oppressed’ Muslim woman out of the veil into an adulterous relationship, symbolising her ‘liberation’!
What is the underlying principle here? If stripping your clothes off to appeal to the male gender is a symbol of liberation, then surely the lap dancers, strippers, porn actresses and the likes must epitomise the concept of a liberated woman. Accordingly, if the US forces managed to replace the Mosques in Kabul with strip joints, lap dancers and brothels entertaining their soldiers that would have symbolised ‘liberation’ of the Afghan women.
Such arguments tend to indicate that woman’s rights are always tied to her ability to appear in scanty revealing clothes as opposed to her education or other achievements in life. This is usually followed by the ludicrous argument of denial that the women appear in revealing clothes because it feels good and nothing to do with the agitation of the male instincts. So, high-heel shoes must be more comfortable than flat shoes, scanty clothes in freezing temperature must be better than baggy warm clothes, tight clothes more comfortable than loose clothes! It does seem ironic that ‘emancipated’ women spend most of their energies trying to titillate to the opposite sex in their clothes, makeup and diet; - thus emancipation it seems has only increased their dependency on the male gender!
Now that we know a woman is described as ‘progressive’ and ‘liberated’ for replacing the veil with the mini-skirt then why draw a line with absolute nudity. The female emancipation barometer seems to be measured by how much she is willingly to strip off but the going beyond the bra and bikini is considered indecent. So, how did one conclude that is where the border of decency and indecency lies? After all, we were all born naked and we will also leave this world naked. Thus, the most pertinent question is; - why the minimum dress code enforced by the secular societies any more correct than the limits imposed by the Islamic Sharia?
Had Islam and Muslim men been the real oppressors of women, the feminist movement would have arisen from within the Islamic societies. Indeed, the origin of such movements perhaps reflects where the real oppression of women existed and still exists!
Wow, he almost sounded like he had a point until the end there.
Truth is, I kind of agree with the logic of his argument. Yeah, why is it that emancipated women often express themselves by acting like sluts in the name of pleasing men?
The answer? BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Most of us would not want our daughters to become strippers or porn stars, but in America you can be any kind of woman you want to be. You can be a business exec, a porn star, a stay at home mom, and even a pious Islamic woman in a burkha.
Imagine that, freedom of choice
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your EnemiesThe Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram held a conference the other day, which was attended by writers and politicians prominent in the Arab world. Among them was Khaled Mash'al, who is head of the Hamas Political Bureau. Mr. Mash'al gave a speech which you find translated here by the Middle East Media Research Institute. From
Memri, via Little Green Footballs. Right out of the box Mr. Mash'al tells us that the recent calm on the terrorism front has simply been a trick. And then he lets us know what his future plans are:
"We have made an achievement in the Palestinian arena... We wanted to avoid the internal Palestinian implosion that Sharon wanted. He [Sharon] wished for dissent [among us] so that he [could] pressure Abu Mazen to confront the resistance... [With our consent] we avoided it.
... we strived to achieve, through the temporary initiative of Tahdiah, a chance to fulfill the Palestinian peoples' direct interests, such as releasing prisoners...
"… Hamas controls its military wing... and despite that fact that it is one of the largest factions of the resistance, it is highly capable of keeping its men disciplined. Tahdiah means Tahdiah [and when you talk of] escalation, there is escalation. There is a commitment and it is honored... In the eyes of Hamas, Tahdiah is a trick within the resistance plans, [but] in the eyes of the [Palestinian] Authority, Tahdiah is a step on the way out of the resistance plan... but we still give it a chance... we can be patient and suffer, but not from the perspective of those who want to be free of the Intifada..."
Hamas is not in power and it operates according to the public's state of mind. If the public would shun the resistance, Hamas could not uphold it. We respect the public, for if not, why would we have accepted this Tahdiah now?...
"... We do not deny that when Hamas acts decisively, it often hurts the security and policy [of the PLO]. [We] make mistakes and we do not deny them. However, there are issues in which the Palestinians are not done justice, for example, the [the criticism of Hamas regarding] the timing of operations.
I Told Abu Mazen: "Beware, Less They Poison You as They Did Arafat"
"... As we draw near the end of the summer and the end of 2005, the following atmosphere will be created: The [diplomatic] settlement will be 'refrozen,' and one cannot deny the possibility that Sharon will blame Abu Mazen for being the obstacle for peace, just as Abu Ammar [Arafat] was considered one. Abu Mazen heard this from me, laughed, and said that 'this is a predictable and unsurprising scenario.' I replied: Beware, less they poison you as they did Arafat...
"... I cannot be satisfied with the 1967 borders alone and see them as a permanent solution... A Palestinian might say: 'Who gave you the right to forego the rights of Palestinians?' So Abu Mazen himself says, in his talks: 'I cannot forego the right of return.' It will be his political suicide, for there are 5-6 million whose problem must be solved. However, Hamas has no objection to accept the 1967 borders as an interim solution.
"... Is there ambiguity about Hamas's position regarding the future of the Palestinian state? [Does Hamas want] a democratic state or a bi-national one? We want a democratic state... in the religious aspect, we will not impose anything on the people, and we do not want fanaticism or extremism. As for a bi-national state, I understand the concept, but the meaning of a bi-national state is that you, the weaker side, ask for equal rights. I can ask for this for one hundred years, and we already have experience with the 1948 Palestinians [Israeli-Arab citizens]. A bi-bational [state] is not a practical solution and in the end [Palestinians will be annexed] to an occupation state..."
When Israel Withdraws From Gaza, There Will Be a Period of Rioting Over the Loot
"... There is concern that a conflict will break out over the loot [in the settlements that Israel will withdraw from in Gaza]. The main fear isn't from the public at large, but from the PA personnel – those who are supposed to be the guardians [of the assets] are themselves the thieves. All those who took land [without a permit] and built shacks on them on the beaches of Gaza are men from the [Palestinian] Authority and the [Palestinian] security forces.
Therefore, there is an agreement among all Palestinian bodies that the Fatah or the PA will have no sole right on these lands. I fear that if Israel withdraws from Gaza, and it must, there will be a period of rioting or problems resulting from a conflict over the loot and control [and the question] of who will fill the void... Hamas will not be part of this conflict, but it will not let the decision in Gaza be a monopoly of one body. It will insist on being a partner with others..."
You just gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth.
Pining Away For The Good Old DaysOf An Absolute Lockdown On RealityBoy,
this guy's really doing some thinking:
The in-your-face right-wing partisanship that marks Fox News Channel's news broadcasts is having two dangerous effects.
The first is that the popularity of the approach -- Fox is clobbering its direct competition (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.) -- leads other cable broadcasters to mimic it, which in turn debases the quality of the news available to that segment of the TV audience.
The second, far more dangerous, effect is that it threatens to destroy public confidence in all news.
The latter, I admit, is more fear than prediction, but let me tell you what produces that fear. Fox News Channel -- though the people who run the operation are at great pains to insist otherwise -- is deliberately partisan. It is as though right-wing talk radio has metastasized into cable and assumed a new virulence.
The main difference is that radio's Rush Limbaugh, for instance, doesn't pretend even-handedness. As he has said, he doesn't seek to be balanced but to balance the rest of the media, which he sees as generally dominated by left-of-center attitudes.
Part of the FNC approach, on the other hand, is to promote itself as "fair and balanced." I suppose it does so with a wink and a nod to its far-right audience, who must know it isn't balanced. Certainly those near the center of the political spectrum know it.
So why would I consider Fox such a generalized threat? Because I think the plan is not so much to convince the public that its particular view is correct but rather to sell the notion that what FNC presents is just another set of biases, no worse (and for some, a good deal better) than the biases that routinely drive the presentation of the news on ABC, CBS or NBC -- and, by extension, the major newspapers.
For the Foxidation process to work, it isn't necessary to convince Americans that the verbal ruffians who give FNC its crackle have a corner on the truth -- only that all of us in the news business are grinding our partisan axes all the time and that none of us deserves to be taken seriously as seekers of truth.
This is huge. As a friend remarked recently, time was when if you found it in the New York Times, that settled the bar bet and the other guy paid off. But if the Times and The Post or any other mainstream news outlet -- including the major networks -- come to be seen as the left-of-center counterparts of Fox News Channel, why would anyone accept them as authoritative sources of truth?
What is at risk is not a reputation for infallibility; everyone knows that even the best newspapers and most careful broadcasters make mistakes. But it has been generally accepted that the mainstream media at least try to get it right -- even when they too grudgingly acknowledge their errors after the fact.
What worries me is that journalism could become a battlefield of warring biases: I'll sock it to your guy, your party or your position on a public issue, and you'll sock it to mine. And we'll both believe we've done a good day's work.
I'm worried that what is happening in that sandbox may wind up polluting the entire schoolyard. And no one, including the big kids of traditional journalism, seems sure what to do about it.
Don't worry too much buckaroo, your side still has all the other networks, the movie studios, the mainstream newspapers, most of the major periodicals, and all of academia.
Note to Karl Rove: Remember to get started on building the Fox News University.
Hat tip:
LGF
Iraqi Lawmaker Says Saddam Should Be ExecutedFrom
AP:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's most powerful Shiite bloc wants Saddam Hussein put to death if he is convicted of war crimes by a special tribunal, and the interim president should resign if he refuses to sign the execution order, an alliance spokesman told The Associated Press on Monday.
Ali al-Dabagh, a lawmaker from the clergy-led United Iraq Alliance, which received the most votes in Jan. 30 national elections, said everyone in his party believes Saddam should be sentenced to death if convicted of war crimes against Iraqis.
"We feel he is a criminal. He is the No. 1 criminal in the world. He is a murderer," al-Dabagh said in an interview with The Associated Press. "He deserves a trial, and he should be subjected to the law and the court. Whatever the decision, everyone should follow it, even if the president says he cannot sign it."
The alliance controls 140 seats in Iraq's 275-member National Assembly.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on Monday, incoming Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said signing a death warrant for Saddam would go against his beliefs as a human rights advocate and opponent of capital punishment.
He said he may abstain from signing any such document and leave the decision to his two deputies.
"I can go to holiday and let the two others decide. I personally signed a call for ending execution throughout the world. And I'm respecting my signature," Talabani told the BBC.
"This is one of my problems ... No one is listening to me, to be frank with you. My two partners in the presidency, the government, the House, all of them are for sentencing Saddam Hussein to death before the court will decide. So, I think I will be alone in this field."
Al-Dabagh, a member of the Shiite majority long oppressed under Saddam's rule, said Saddam's execution was not negotiable.
"This is something that cannot be discussed at all. If the court says he's a criminal, we will follow it," al-Dabagh said. "He (Talabani) is now the president, and he should follow the law. If he doesn't want to sign it, then he should resign the presidency."
Democracy is messy, isn't it? Even the President can't just do whatever he pleases.
Talabani might want to take this into consideration: If he were working under Saddam Hussein, and he decided that he didn't want to follow Saddam's orders, Saddam would not have hesitated to personally shoot him in the head, right in front of his cohorts.
Saddam did such things to his underlings, AND HIS OWN FAMILY MEMBERS, on numerous occasions.
I respect Talabani's struggle with his conscience. However, Saddam really is near the top of histories list of those deserving the death penalty.
Congratulations to The Anchoress... for being on the
"favorite blogs" list of many of the biggest names in the blogosphere. The Anchoress is a sublime writer, and a tireless truthteller.
Randomly Generated Essays Are The Logical Extension of PostmodernismTom, The Kafir Constitutionalist, has
an invaluable post today which highlights the decadence of Postmodern Academia:
In my last two posts, I played around with randomly generated essays. We've all seen the recent case of the Scigen conference, in which two grad students submitted a nonsense paper to a lax scientific conference. Randomly generated essays gained prominence when Dr. Alan Sokal submitted the randomly generated "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to the journal Social Text in 1996. Full of ex cathedro assertions, bald-faced lies, and subjectivist voodoo, Sokal meant his creation to be immediately seen for the illogical and unscientific fraud it was. It was not. The paper, in essence denying the existence of an objective reality, meaning, and reason, was accepted into an emminent publication of modern cultural philosophy.
I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?
While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious. What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities, or (when challenged) admits their existence but downplays their practical relevance.
At its best, a journal like Social Text raises important questions that no scientist should ignore -- questions, for example, about how corporate and government funding influence scientific work. Unfortunately, epistemic relativism does little to further the discussion of these matters.
In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world; its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths -- the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language.
Social Text's acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory -- meaning postmodernist literary theory -- carried to its logical extreme. No wonder they didn't bother to consult a physicist. If all is discourse and ``text,'' then knowledge of the real world is superfluous; even physics becomes just another branch of Cultural Studies.
If, moreover, all is rhetoric and ``language games,'' then internal logical consistency is superfluous too: a patina of theoretical sophistication serves equally well. Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors and puns substitute for evidence and logic. My own article is, if anything, an extremely modest example of this well-established genre.
The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that ``the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project.'' They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.
Read his whole explanation. Dr. Sokal is fighting the subjectivist hordes who are trying to eliminate all traces of reason from the sciences. He is a hero, to be admired. Dr. Sokal has an entire site dedicated to this affair, go read it. While the Scigen students did their prank mostly for amusement, both incidents are helpful in pointing out the dangers of politicizing science, and the specific danger of attempting to apply to science the illogic Zen mysticism of "post modernism."
I went back to school and worked on my Masters when I was in my thirties. Having gained the experience and confidence of age, I was not intimidated by my Professors and so, would press them hard on a point which I either did not understand, or with which I did not agree.
On several occasions I was shocked to find that certain Professor, men and women with Doctorates, believed the tenets of Postmodernism as a faith. To these Professors there was no objective truth to be known. Literally none. All was social construct.
Ultimately we don't know the truth of everything, but we do know truths, and people of Faith (such as myself) believe we have a Bible which speaks the Truth. It is, however, our interpretation of Truth which can go awry. In such cases, it is helpful analyze whether the context of one's life has altered one's perception of Truth to the point where one is no longer seeing it, but instead, seeing something else entirely.
But, the reality is, our analytic approach aspires to fixing our gaze more clearly on The Truth. If that is not the point of analysis, then we might as well not waste our time.
Islamic Advocacy Group Invites Neo-Nazi To SpeakFrom
Boca Raton News, via Powerline:
A new Islamic advocacy group in Boca Raton is under scrutiny for its ties to William W. Baker, a former chairman of the neo-Nazi political party of presidential candidate David Duke who was run out of town last year when he attempted to speak at Florida Atlantic University.
Local Jewish and civic leaders said Friday they were alarmed that the Assadiq Islamic Education Foundation, whose headquarters are listed at 831 E. Palmetto Park Road in Boca, had invited Baker back to Boca as featured speaker at an April 30 banquet at the Boca Marriott. Invited by Muslim students to speak at Florida Atlantic University in April 2004, Baker’s first visit to the city was cancelled amid popular protest.
“I’d like to give [the Assadiq Foundation] the benefit of the doubt and say they got snookered, but this is the second attempt at getting Baker into Boca Raton, so they have to be aware of his reputation,” said Bill Gralnick, southeast regional director of the American Jewish Committee.
Leaders of the Anti-Defamation League also protested last year’s visit by Baker, on whom they have a long anti-Semitic file. Now head of Christians and Muslims for Peace (CAMP), Baker chaired the neo-Nazi Populist Party and organized its national convention in 1984.
“For me, it’s alarm bells,” Gralnick said. “Baker is in league with Islamicist elements that are probing the defenses of American Jewish communities. He makes money off them by being their white Anglo-Saxon mouthpiece who says bad things about Jews.”
Sayed Mohammad Jawad Al-Qazwini, listed on the Assadiq Web site as the group’s Imam and founder, did not answer media inquiries Friday.
On the Assadiq Web site, a page titled “Audio library” features a graphic of dripping blood and a series of recorded talks by Al-Qazwini. The titles of his talks, which could not be accessed, range from “The Perpetual Endeavor to Protect Islam” and “The Ingredients to an Eternal Revolution” to “Traits of an Ideal Leader for an Eternal Uprising.”
Until recently, a notice for the April 30 banquet headlined by Baker also listed the mayors of Boca Raton and Coral Springs as “guests of honor” on the Web site.
But that reference was removed Friday after Coral Springs Mayor Rhon Ernest-Jones and Boca Mayor Steven L. Abrams, a Jew, received several e-mails from constituents berating them for their participation in the event.
Abrams called the group Thursday to say he was never contacted about the event. In response, he received a telephone message in broken English claiming that none of the event’s 2,000 printed invitations included his name when they were mailed out.
“From what I can tell, this group appeared in January or February,” Abrams said Friday. “I know that the banquet’s featured speaker, William Baker, sought to speak at FAU last year. He’s certainly entitled to his views, but I don’t want anything to do with him.”
Baker’s Populist Party is perhaps best known for its 1988 presidential nominee, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
Willis Carto, head of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby, founded the Populist Party in 1955. The father of American neo-Nazism, Carto also founded the Costa Mesa-based Institute for Historical Review, a group whose avowed purpose is Holocaust denial.
While Baker has claimed he never supported the views of Carto, he did advocate returning to segregation laws at the party’s 1984 convention.
Critics have said Baker also articulated anti-Semitic views in a 1982 book on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, “Theft of a Nation.”
Longtime critics claim that many of Baker’s professional credentials are made up. He claims even today to have a doctorate and to have been nominated for a Noble Peace Prize in 1997.
Baker, a resident of Laguna Hills, Calif., was once a regular guest speaker at the Rev. Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove. He was later ousted from the mega-church when his neo-Nazi credentials were exposed.
A Stunning Realization
A Stunning RealizationWomen Are The Best Soldiers We HaveIn The War On IslamofascismFrom
The New Sisyphus:
As Shelby Steele has so eloquently written about, one horrific side effect of the otherwise righteous movement for civil rights and black emancipation in the late 1950’s to the late 1960’s was conditioning the wider population to view victimization as a claim to moral authority and, through that authority, political power. The result has been an ever-expanding culture of victimization, where every small interest pressure group fights to prove and establish facts that lay claim to its special victimization, its unique suffering, as a means to power.
The biggest threat Western Civilization faces right now is the threat from Islamic Fascism, or fundamentalism if you will. The threat is both external—in the form of radical Islamic states like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan and terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda—and internal—in the form of immigrant Islamic populations in the West. While the external threat is pretty easily identifiable (except, perhaps, to the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party and the entire editorial staff of The New York Times), the internal threat is a much trickier beast to track down.
This is so for a variety of reasons, but two really stand out. The first, at least so far as the United States is concerned, is that we are a nation of immigrants who also happen to hold freedom of religion as one of our highest values. This being the case, the average American is loath to think of immigrants as a threat or the practice of a religion as a threat. Certainly this dynamic goes a long way to explaining the President’s and his Administration’s reluctance to call out domestic Muslim groups as potential enemies. We just simply are unable, most of us, to think of religious immigrants as anything other than more of what we’ve experienced now for more than 225 years: hard-working, pious family-oriented people who want to make a better life for themselves and worship in peace.
The second reason works from the first: Islamic pressure groups, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have adopted the liberal/left language of victimization in order to gain political power. Thus, CAIR spends all of its time searching for Muslims who’ve been called names in small-town 7-11s or inflating completely minor incidents after 9/11 into a mythical “anti-Muslim” backlash. And, most importantly, they and like-minded groups seek to demonize any criticism of Islam or Muslims as “Islamophobia."
As amazing as it might sound to Americans, who seem, almost alone in the world, to really care about freedom of speech, "Islamophobia" is now a crime in both Canada and the United Kingdom.
This is the type of legislative power true victimhood status brings, which is why a Muslim auto worker beat up in a bar is worth his weight in gold to the grandees of CAIR and other similar groups.
What are conservatives to do in the face of such tactics? The way we see it, there are two alternatives: the first is to take the fight to the larger victimization culture and turn the social tide away from pressure-group politics, while the second is to adapt to the dominant culture and beat the Islamists at their own game.
Ideally, the first appeals to us much more. As Steele has patiently explained and documented to anyone who will listen, the culture of victimization and the power of guilt has led group after group—not least Black Americans—to a never-ending series of defeats that one can see personified in the now-completely pathetic and powerless figure of master victimhood strategist Jesse Jackson. This culture harms our politics greatly and should be confronted and defeated whenever possible.
However, as a practical matter we realize that the power of victimhood is not going anywhere anytime soon. It will be a hard enough battle in America; in New Zealand, Canada and the U.K. the battle is already lost.
Therefore, it seems to us, the only viable and realistic option is to turn the tables and use the power of victimhood to our full advantage against the Islamists. And we can do that by engaging and winning over to the anti-Islamist struggle the biggest, most powerful minority victim group of all time:Women.
As we have pointed out before, one of the advantages we in the anti-Islamist camp possess is that the Islamists, like the National Socialists before them, are so in love with their ideology that they are loathe to hide it.
Instead, they shout it from the rooftops for all to hear: the goal is an Islamic world-state in which clerics of Islam will rule, Islamic law will be the only law recognized, people of other faiths will convert or pay heavy taxes in tribute and where a woman’s every move, every public and private act, will be the target of the most intrusive body of laws and regulations ever imposed on human beings.
For example, just today the indispensable Tim Blair forwarded a report of a speech by an Australian Muslim leader in which he said: “Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world. Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
Given the Islamist agenda, we anti-Islamists have a natural ally not only in approximately 51% of our own populations, but, incredibly, also in 51% of the enemy’s population.
As recent elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention pro-democracy protests in the Islamic Republic, have recently proved, the Islamists have a huge, gaping weak spot, and it has double X chromosomes. Statements like the above cannot help but contrast the diffent deal being offered women by liberal democracy and Islamism.
Our strategy, then, should be this: to form a popular front resistance movement to Islamism with liberal and left forces founded upon our shared conviction that women should, and in fact do, possess legal, social and cultural equality with men and, further, that this value is central to modern Western Civilization. Not only would this popular front serve to lessen the domestic opposition to the War on Terror, it would also serve as effective propaganda beamed right into the veiled sitting rooms of women all over the Islamic world.
How would this be done? Obviously, the Bush Administration would have to take the lead in such an endeavor, to be supported by conservatives and anti-Islamists everywhere. Every time a woman is executed or stoned, or stopped from being educated, or held prisoner in dark age costumes that stop the very touch of the sun upon her skin, we should be there, shouting about it to high-heaven.
And everywhere U.S. forces are escorting girls to school, protecting the legal rights of women and advancing the cause of civic and legal equality, we should be beaming the images to all corners of the globe.
This is how we win the battle of ideas. This is how we advance the cause of freedom and expose Islamism for the unpopular, hate-filled ideology that it is. Nature has given us our weapon, and modern political culture has made it sharp. Let us use it!
The New Sisyphus is absolutely correct on this. In fact, while many of us have attempted to make the case that women are abused horribly in many Islamic countries, and that that is a major justification for regime change, we have tended to overlook the overarching reality that
this is truly the best reason to eliminate Islamofascism.Why is it that we wouldn't see this more clearly from the beginning?
I think the reason is twofold:
1) We are particularly inured to, and even enamored with, the culture of victimhood when it comes to race. This is because of our history. America feels guilty about what we have done in the name of race, as we should. Therefore, as most practioners of Islam are dark-skinned, we are wary of characterizing them as evil.
2) Truth is, even though we put on a great show on the issue of the equality of women, the evidence is that we don't really quite believe in it. If we did, we would feel as guilty about the fact that women didn't gain suffrage until 1921, as we do about the fact that black people had to sit at the back of the bus in the 1950's. Hell, black men had the right to vote 60 years before any woman did, and yet I never hear anyone lamenting that sin.
And it really is a sin, isn't it?
Truthfully, this is a stunning realization for me. I thought I, and all of us, were more enlightened that this.
Hmm.
Onward.
The Humming Chorus
Brady WisdomMy wife and I were cleaning out my office tonight and I ran across this little piece of wisdom which I had written for my daughter when she was around five years old. The point was to spoof the wisdom of Mike Brady, from The Brady Bunch, a show my daughter absolutely loves:
When you lie to someone, you tell them they can't rely on you to be you. And if you aren't you, then who are you? Do you belie a you that tries to be relied upon? When people can't rely upon you, then they are less likely to ally with you, and more liely to do a u-turn when they see you being the you that lies.
That oughta give my daughter a good start.
Will Hamas Make The Trains Run On Time?From
National Review:
Back in July, the Justice Department held a bells-‘n-whistles press conference to announce a major case: a 42-count indictment, charging seven men and an ostensible charity with underwriting Hamas to the tune of nearly $60 million. Hamas, a ruthless terrorist organization dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and responsible for numerous gruesome attacks that have claimed the lives of hundreds of victims — including Americans — has been formally designated as a terrorist organization under various U.S. laws for many years. In announcing the indictment, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft could not have been more straightforward: “To those who exploit good hearts to secretly fund violence and murder, this prosecution sends a clear message: There is no distinction between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance terrorist attacks. The United States will ensure that both terrorists and their financiers meet the same, certain justice.”
Evidently, Scott McClellan did not get the memo.
At his press briefing Wednesday, President Bush’s spokesman was asked about the very real possibility that Hamas could come to dominate what will pass for the “legislature” of the Palestinian Authority (PA). There followed this stunning exchange:
Question: In the event that Hamas, a terrorist organization not yet disarmed by the PA, wins a majority in the legislative PA, will the Bush administration still send $350 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to the PA, or not?
McCLELLAN: It's — the one thing that you see when people have elections that are free and fair is that they tend to choose people who are committed to improving their livelihood, not people who are committed to terrorist acts. And I think if you look back at the previous Palestinian elections, the people that were elected, while they might have been members of Hamas, they were business professionals.
Wow, business professional and members of an organization whose charter says
this:
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
That is an organization which should never be "worked" with. Would it have been rational to compromise with Hitler?
As to McLellan's assertion that Democracy breeds government which are committed to improving the lives of ordinary citizens and not to terror; that is laughable. McLellan may not have paid attention in high school History class. Hitler was elected. So was Arafat. Both were terrorists.
I have been promoting a debate for the past few days which is taking place over at the blog
Mystery Achievement. Tom, the
Kafir Constitutionalist, had some very important points to make on the distinction between Democracy and the Constitutional Republic:
America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy is a government in which the will of the people is unbounded. A constitutional republic is a government in which the will of the people is bounded by the equal freedom of each individual. A constitution, a document whose sole purpose is limiting the power of a government, is incompatible with a democracy: to the degree one believes his government a democracy, he will reject the Constitution.
Furthermore, to the degree one attempts to export "democracy," and not a constitutional republic, he will be ineffective in preventing tyranny. Actually, the spread of democracy creates a more hospitable environment to tyranny, for whatever fad in political violence momentarily adopted by the majority will be expressed against the minority.
A democracy is a government which will express the habits of a nation: we have all heard the example of the expected results of an election in Vietnam. It allows an ad-lib shift from secular oppression to religious oppression. A democracy is inherently compatible with socialism, fascism, and theocracy. It is precisely because a democracy is no guarantee of freedom, that the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy be made clear: a constitutional republic ordered on equal freedom prohibits the will of the people from adopting socialism and fascism regardless of its justification.
Now, ask yourself whether the intent of American foreign policy has been the exportation of government limited to protecting individual rights by means of a constitution, versus democracy. The former is the only defense against a religious or a secular tyranny, while the latter is an invitation to both.
Look at the difference between the Japanese Constitution and the Iraqi Interim Constitution. The Japanese made their own constitution, and the Americans basically said, "this is unacceptable. You snivelling imperialists tried to give us a hash of your old government. We will write a constitution for you, because you are acting like f*cking children." Although this itself was a brave step, the statist measures the Americans wrote into the constitution indicate the degradation of the principles of constitutionalism.
In drafting the Iraqi constitution, we were too concerned with looking like evil occupiers, to point out the hideous mistakes of enshrining sharia law as the source of law, and socialism, into a constitution. Instead of telling the Iraqis, "if you put a clause in there nationalizing an industry, we will simply have to nuke you to the f*cking ground. Go at it again, and do it RIGHT," our policy was one of "democratization," and respect for their concepts. Those concepts can only be expressed when the idea of a constitution has been divorced from its just purpose, and becomes a mere scrap of paper wrapped around a democracy.
It is not democracy that America created. Democracy has been around since time immemorial. It is a Constitution that America created. Unless this is recognized, Americans can hope neither to prevent the Islamic world from sliding comfortably into socialism, nor our own nation.
The Pieta Of The Great War On TerrorMother Saying Goodbye to Her Child
Murdered By Islamofascists
While At School
In Beslan, Russia
Kiss MeSixpence None The Richer:
Kiss me out of the bearded barley
Nightly, beside the green, green grass
Swing, swing, swing the spinning step
You wear those shoes and I will wear that dress.
Oh, kiss me beneath the milky twilight
Lead me out on the moonlit floor
Lift your open hand
Strike up the band and make the fireflies dance
Silver moon's sparkling
So kiss me
Kiss me down by the broken tree house
Swing em upon its hanging tire
Bring, bring, bring your flowered hat
We'll take the trail marked on your father's map
Is France Ready To Ditch The EU?From
Belmont Club:
Let's start from the source least likely to run the headline: the Guardian reviews newspaper reports which suggest that French voters may reject the proffered European Constitution, scheduled for ratification on May 29.The French are becoming increasingly disenchanted with Europe and are ready to turn their backs on the EU, according to the latest opinion polls in the French newspapers Le Figaro and Le Parisien. Their polls, published yesterday and last Thursday respectively, show that more than half of French voters say they will vote no to the European constitution when the country goes to the polls on May 29.Then let's go to the 'why' part of the disenchantment.Why are the French "feeling sick of Europe", asked Eric le Boucher in Le Monde. "They regret the enlargement of the EU. They detest the idea that their public services are open to foreign competition. They complain about the liberal slant of the union." And they are peeved that the prosperity enjoyed by Britain, Scandinavia and eastern Europe has not been seen at home, he said. In France, the benefits of the EU are unclear, Le Boucher noted - "economic growth has stalled, unemployment is rising inexorably" - and pessimism reigns.Historians in the far future will struggle to understand the convoluted inner logic of the Le Monde observation. "They regret the enlargement of the EU" which is that which they wanted. "They detest the idea that their public services are open to foreign competition" and yet they detest the benefits of the policy they most ardently oppose: "and they are peeved that the prosperity enjoyed by Britain, Scandinavia and eastern Europe has not been seen at home". But let us take it as datum and plainly say that the French are disgusted with the consequences of their own desires.The Astute Blogger asks whether the French are, by a funny twist of fate, set to destroy their own creation: that having created their own Frankenstein monster, they are now in danger of being strangled by it. (hat tip: DA). The burden of trying to pursue two contradictory goals may prove too much. On the one hand, the French are committed to preserving the welfare state while on the other hand were creating the very conditions that undermine it. According to the International Herald Tribune:At a meeting in Brussels, EU leaders took a strong turn toward entrenching Europe's high-tax social model by backing away from a radical deregulation of the Continent's services sector. They wanted to assuage fears among voters in France and Germany that cheaper workers from the free-market economies of Eastern Europe would steal their jobs. ...It will mean a significant rewriting of the European Commission's services directive that was meant to allow businesses that provide services - from consultants to accountants to builders - to compete freely in all countries across the union. The services directive had been blamed for the dramatic drop in French public support for the new constitutional treaty after two opinion polls showed a majority of French voters could reject it in May's referendum.The price of forging ahead with a European Union in which France was allowed to play by special rules amounted to creating a "separate but equal" regime on the grounds that Europe 'needed France' in order to remain Europe, a regime in which some are more European than others.As
the Astute Blogger notes, the consequences of France pulling out of the EU could be disastrous:
Deutsche Bank warned yesterday that a likely French 'No' to the European constitution could begin a wave of currency speculation across Eastern Europe, setting off a chain of economic disruption. Norbert Walter, the bank's chief economist, said rejection of the treaty in France's referendum on May 29 could halt the eastward expansion of the euro-zone.
The Turkish lira is also vulnerable."There could be a wave of currency attacks in the new member states. These countries would then have to raise interest rates. We could see enormous exchange rate swings," he told FT Deutschland.
"The problem is that the EU has no strategy for dealing with a rejection of the treaty. People may well question whether the eurozone should have any new members at all," he said. The warning follows eight consecutive opinion polls showing the 'No' side are ahead. An Ipsos survey for Le Figaro yesterday gave a six-point lead to opponents of the treaty prompting a front-page headline: "The No takes root".
In my opinion, France and Germany conceived the EU as hedge against American "hegemony." I believe that they thought they could rule the EU and thereby become the equal, if not the master of American power. Now, it seems, France does not want to share the spoils of Socialism with her lesser neighbors. What a cruel irony if France's overblown sense of itself, the very thing which brought them to conceive of the EU in the first place, became the reason they brought the EU down.
Realism Breeds MonstersFrom
National Review:
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power.
Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
We are currently actively breeding monsters in Pakistan, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and the Congo, and Sudan.
Realistically, we can't go to war with all these nations at once. The first four I mentioned all currently have WMD's in their arsenal. The latter two are currently enacting genocides, yet we are doing virtually nothing.
However, I do think
we are close to doing something about Iran:
(Condoleeza) Rice said efforts by Britain, Germany and France to wean Tehran off its suspected nuclear arms programmes were "the right course" but added, "obviously at some point in time the UN Security Council is an option." Asked how long Washington would wait before deciding to seek tougher UN action, Rice said, "I don't want to put a timeline on it, but I think we probably want to make an assessment this summer and see where we are and see how far we've gone."
The
Astute Blogger comments:
I PREDICT THAT WE EITHER GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAN OR THEY HAVE A DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION BY AUTUMN. WHY?
IF THE MULLAHS CAVE-IN TO THE USA/EU/UN THEN THEIR TYRANNIZED POPULACE WILL SEE THEM AS WEAK AND RISE UP, AND THE MULLAHS WILL HAVE A DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION ON THEIR HANDS. IF THE MULLAHS DON'T GIVE IN, THEN WE WILL PREEMPTIVELY ATTACK THEM (THE WAY CLINTON ATTACKED SADDAM IN "OPERATION DESERT FOX" - ONLY TEN TIMES HARDER). THIS WILL LEAD TO A DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION, TOO.
I agree with The Astute Blogger. I think Iran will be done very soon. If Bush chooses to go the way of "Realism" with Iran, then we will have given birth to a monster greater than any previously bred.
Mystery Achievement Debate ContinuesSomeguy, Donald Sensing, Joseph D'Hippolito, and PastoriusDebate "Islam vs. Islamism - A False Distinction?There is an interesting debate going on over the last three posts at Mystery Achievement.
Here they are in chronological order:
Post 1Post 2Post 3Post 4
What's It Like To Be Black?From
Associated Press:
NEW ORLEANS - If you're black and belly up to a bar on Bourbon Street, be forewarned: You run a 50-50 chance of either being charged more or being forced to order a minimum number of drinks.
Those are the findings of a study done for the city in the wake of the death of a black college student who died in a scuffle with white bouncers outside a bar on the famous French Quarter thoroughfare.
The study, conducted by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, paired black and white men of similar body type, dress and manner, and sent them into bars within minutes of each other.
Of the 28 bars visited, 40 percent charged the black customers more for drinks. A white man, for example, bought a Long Island iced tea for $7.50, while the black man was charged $9, according to James Perry, executive director of the private, nonprofit housing center.
Alright, a little personal stuff here. I know the findings of this study are true from my own experience. I am not black, but I have been a member of an unwelcome minority group during the course of my lifetime.
I was a poor, long-haired rock n' roller during the 1980's. Yes, that's right. I, Pastorius used to be very poor, and I am also guilty of having rocked. In fact, I was so poor, I, quite literally, lived in a crack house in a gang-ridden neighborhood. It was so dilapidated that, in the morning, you could see sunlight beaming in through cracks in the walls. It had only one room Well, with a bathroom which, mercifully, had a door.
A few days after I moved in, the little kid next door walked up to me and said, "Hey Mr., you want to see a picture of my friend?" And he pulled out a polaroid of a guy in cornrows, and a white t-shirt, who was pointing a gun at the camera. I asked the kid who the man was, and he said it was the guy who lived there before me.
Nice life that kid was having, huh?
People would come to my house all night long asking for the guy in the picture, with deserate looks on their faces. Obviously, I wasn't him, nor did I look like anyone he might know. They were very disappointed.
I'm telling you this story so that you will understand that I have had experiences many middle-class white people never have.
I grew up with middle-class to wealthy friends. I got very good grades in school, and went off to college where I aced the entire curriculum. But then, when I was done with the whole college thing, I threw myself wholly into music. I worked as little as possible, so that I had time to write songs, and play, and promote my band. Consequently, I had very little money. The shack I lived in only cost $275 per month, but it was in LA, so I was near the "scene."
So, in other words, I lived two lives simultaneously. I was very poor and lived in a horrible neighborhood and, at the same time, I had all my friends and family back in the middle-class hood.
So, go with me now, back to the days of the 80's when the clean-cut look was in. When people wore bright colors, and satin jackets, and bright white tennis shoes. Back in those days, I looked pretty much like the guy on the cover of this album.
In other words, I was completely at odds with my culture. Believe me, I wasn't welcome in banks. I wasn't welcome in book stores. And I wasn't welcome in restaurants. I would get pulled over by the police several times a week for no reason. But after shaking me down for info, and running my license for outstanding warrants, they would let me go.
My personality was the same as it is now. I've always been outgoing and articulate, and really, completely unlike a troublemaker, so the cops would eventually realize they had made a mistake.
But, the point is, I know what it's like to live under a cloud of suspicion 24 hours a day. I know what it's like to see a cop in my rear view mirror and think, "Oh no, here we go again." I know what it's like to walk into a bank and have the teller demand three forms of ID, before they will cash a $20 check. I know what it's like to walk into a store and be followed around by security while I look at clothes.
I have heard black folks tell such stories on radio and TV, and the white hosts will say they don't believe it. Nope, sorry my friends, it is true. This story from New Orleans doesn't surprise me in the slightest, because I've lived it. There's a whole world out there most of us white people don't get to see.
Now, imagine you're black and that you can't do anything about it. At least I could cut my hair and put on an IZOD shirt. Hell, I'm instantly accepted into country clubs. In fact, later on in life, I did spend quite a bit of time in country clubs. But, if you're black, you know it ain't gonna change.
Even getting rich doesn't really change it. Miles Davis, the jazz musician, sold many millions of albums during the course of his lifetime. He sold out many large venues. He had major cash in the bank. He drove a Lamborghini. But, he would get pulled over by police who believed that he must have stolen that car. Just as with my experience, they would let him go eventually, but he would have to sit there and wait.
Now, I'm not saying the cops are racist, although some law enforcement officers are racist. What I'm saying is, if you are black, you do live under a cloud of suspicion. Imagine what that would be like.
My experience was that it made me distrust my fellow man. I felt fearful, agitated and angry much of the time. I never knew what might happen. Maybe one of these store owners might decide that I had stolen something. Maybe one of these policmen might decide to frame me. You never really know. But basically, you feel at the mercy of those who clearly do not like you.
That's not a fun life to live, espcecially if, as I said, there's nothing you can do to change it. If you know that's your lot in life, resentment follows easily. There's a temptation to try to get back at these people who so unfairly dislike you. But, how to do it? It seems that some "get back" at their oppressors by becoming something very much like what their oppressors think them to be.
I can say, for my part, that on a few occasions I became angry, and made a scene, and generally behaved in exactly the way that would cause people to not want me in their store.
Why did I choose to live that way? It was something I had to do. It was my path. But, at least I got to choose it. If you're black, you don't have a choice in the matter. You just wave to store security, when you're in The Gap, and you ask them, "How does this shirt look on me?"
Lack Of Progess In The Arab World Is Israels' FaultThat headline seems so preposterous. But, according to Caroline Glick and Powerline, both the U.S. and Israel are acknowledging agreement with this asinine notion by virtue of their own policies. From
Powerline:
The UN Development Project has released its 2004 report on Arab development. It finds that a good portion of the blame for the Arab world's lack of progress lies in the creation of Israel 57 years ago, and in the support by the U.S. for Israel's existence since then (our presence in Iraq hasn't helped either). That's right -- 300 million Arabs live under oppression because 5 million Israeli Jews live in freedom, supported by the U.S.
Israel and the U.S. already have officially rejected this crackpot theory. However, Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post points out that "both Israel and the US are basing their policies towards the Palestinians specifically, and the Arab world generally, on an internalization of the UNDP's ridiculous claims." First, they assume that the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the cause of the Arab conflict with Israel. Second, they assume that the Palestinians are weak and the Israelis are strong, and that the way to solve the conflict is to strengthen the Palestinians and weaken Israel. This latter assumption "leads both Israeli and American foreign policy elites to advocate Israeli surrender of land and rights to the Palestinians and to support Palestinian acquisition of arms, money and sovereignty."
Glick dispatches these assumptions. She shows how the Arab states conspired to keep the Palestinians in squalor thus fueling the rejectionism that would promote their perpetual conflict with Israel. She also shows how the strength of the Arab states, based in large part on the economic power they wield thanks to their oil reserves, has enabled them to play this deadly game for decades.
Mystery Achievement Someguy, Donald Sensing, Joseph D'Hippolito, and PastoriusDebate "Islam vs. Islamism - A False Distinction?"There is an interesting debate going on over the last three posts at Mystery Achievement. Here they are in chronological order:
Post 1Post 2Post 3
Behind Closed DoorsEurope Grovels At The Feet Of A TerroristWhat happens when a senior official of the EU meets with the leader of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization whose
charter calls for the death of "Jews?":
... transcripts, seized from the Palestinian Authority Preventive Security compound in Gaza during Israel's 2002 Defensive Shield operation and released through Israel's Center for Special Studies, document a discreet meeting between Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated by Israel in March 2004, and Alistair Crooke, the security adviser for Miguel Moratinos, then EU special envoy for promoting the peace process in the Middle East. The documents, authenticated by security experts, are written in Arabic by Palestinian officials on PA stationary. According to the confidential transcripts, Crooke explained to Hamas leaders he requested the meeting, in part, because he was worried a speech to be delivered by U.S. President George W. Bush regarding American policy toward the Middle East might reflect negatively on the EU.
"We are currently in an extremely grave situation," said Crooke, according to the documents. "Europe doesn't know what President Bush is going to say in his speech to the Middle East. So far there are about 27 drafts of that speech, and there are disagreements in the American administration over that issue."Now, is it just me, or does it sound like this guy is afraid and groveling at the feet of the leader of a Nazi-like terrorist organization, "Please, please, Mr. Yassin, please understand that we don't agree with that evil American George Bush."
What's so "grave" about the EU not knowing the contents of Bush's speech? Think about it. So, Bush gives a speech and the EU decides they don't agree with it. Why can't they state their disagreement after the speech is made public? Why the rush to disagreement? What are they afraid of?
Crooke urged Hamas to keep the meeting private so that, the envoy explained, Israel and the U.S. could not take advantage of the conversation, according to the transcripts.He told Yassin and the other top Hamas leaders present: "The main problem is the Israeli occupation," explaining he understood it was impossible for Hamas to lower the level of violence unless Israel and the Palestinians were engaged in a political process.Yassin responded he was satisfied with Crooke's "understanding" that the source of violence in the Middle East is Israel's "occupation," which Yassin said refers to the entire state of Israel, founded in 1948, not just the West Bank, which Israel obtained following the 1967 Six Day War. "The Israeli army conquered the land in 1948 and followed in our footsteps in 1967," said Yassin. Yassin told Crooke he was dissatisfied with an EU decision to place Hamas on an official list of terror organizations, suggesting the Europeans should support Hamas "the way you supported the [Muslim] fighters in Afghanistan."Get a load of the treachery. It sounds as if Crooke believes that the Muslim support for the Taliban insurgency against America was a good thing.
Now, here's where the really interesting Euroweasel stuff sets in:
At the 2002 meeting, Yassin informed Crooke of his goal to replace Israel with a "true state" encompassing the entire territory of "Palestine," based on Arab and Islamic tradition and distanced from the corruption that Yassin said originates in Israel and the West. Without addressing Yassin's comments, Crooke continued by stating the EU objected to Israeli settlement activity. "There must be a total halt of the settlement [activity]," said Crooke.You see that? Yassin says he wants to eliminate Israel, and Crooke just ignores it and goes on to talk about settlements. The question is, does Crooke agree that Israel ought to be eliminated, or is he afraid to clearly state disagreement? And if this is the EU's sole official meeting with Hamas (which I doubt) then how does Europe expect Hamas to know that they do not support their desire to destroy Israel?
But wait, there's more Euroweasel stuff coming:
Yassin then blamed Israel for the September 11 terror attacks. "Time will tell that Israel knew [in advance] what happened in America, and that it was global Zionism that paralyzed the American security so that war could be declared on the Islamic world and [on] Hamas. Approximately 100-120 American Zionist agents [knew about it] and did not report it. I do not rule out the possibility that they attempted to induce Hamas [operatives] and other Islamic operatives [to do it]. " Crooke, who according to the documents again didn't respond to Yassin's charges ...In some respects it is understandable that Crooke wouldn't respond to that seizure of insanity on the part of Yassin. How is one to respond when a person, for whom one has so much respect, suddenly reveals he's a lunatic?
Let's think about this. How would the diabolical Jews have managed to motivate Islamic terrorists to fly planes into buildings? Obviously, Islamic terrorists have a very low opinion of Jews (they want them dead), so we know they wouldn't meet with them to discuss strategy. So, what did the Jews do, use the mind control machine they keep locked away in a secret chamber in the offices of Mossad?
Well Europe, that guy is your friend. You ought to be proud of yourselves.
What's On The Agenda Of Prominent Islamists Of Europe?The Conquest of RomeSome very highly-place Islamists in Europe and the Arab World believe that there will be an Islamic conquest of Rome. From
Front Page Magazine:
Following Pope John Paul II's visit to the Middle East in 2000 and 2001, some prominent Muslim leaders openly discussed the future dominance of Islam in Europe, including conquesting the Vatican.
While the identity of the next pope is decided, one of the pressing issues he will have to deal with is the growing Muslim community in Europe, part of which have Islamist inclinations. As the New York Times reported this week, the next pope will be facing "increasing secularism in Europe, contrasting with the religious revival in the Islamic world… and the rising number of Muslim immigrants in Europe."
Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Arifi, Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, discussed the coming Muslim conquest of the Vatican. Citing a Hadith in an article posted on the Kalemat website in 2002, he stated: "… We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims … will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…"
Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and head of The European Council for Fatwa and Research and the founder of European based International Council of Muslim Scholars (Imams) posted a fatwa on the website www.islamonline.net, in 2002 about the "signs of the victory of Islam" in Europe.
Also citing a well-known Hadith, Al-Qaradhawi wrote: "… The Prophet Muhammad was asked: 'What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?' He answered: 'The city of Hirqil [i.e. the Byzantine emperor Heraclius] will be conquered first' - that is, Constantinople… Romiyya is the city called today 'Rome,' the capital of Italy … and we hope and believe [that it too will be conquered]."
Al-Qaradhawi elaborated on what this Islamic ruling means in the current period of history, "This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice … I maintain that the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology…"
On his weekly Al-Jazeera religious program in 1999, Al-Qaradhawi made similar statements: "All right, Constantinople was conquered, and the second part of the prophecy remains, that is, the conquest of Rome. This means that Islam will return to Europe. Islam entered Europe twice and left it… Perhaps the next conquest … will be by means of preaching and ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword… Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages …"
Other Muslim religious figures to discuss the coming Islamic conquest of the Vatican include: the Palestinian Authority's Deputy Minister of Awqaf, Sheikh Yousef Juma'a Salameh; Saudi Sheikh Naser Muhammad Al-Naser; and Sudanese Sheikh Muhammad Abd Al-Karim.
It's good to get this all out of the table. They want Europe. Meanwhile, Europe believes that they can have massive immigration, and gradually assimilate tens of millions of Muslims into their population.
How's that working out, Europe? Understand that the leaders of the Muslim community do not intend to have it work out the way you would like.
Men like Qaradawi have friends in high places in Europe. For instance, Ken Livingstones (Mayor of London) is a supporter of Qaradawi. As
Melanie Phillips notes:
Last summer, Livingstone hosted in London Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Islamic jurist who has supported homicide terrorism by the Palestinians and expressed poisonous and even murderous prejudice against Jews, gays, and women (a set of attitudes more befitting the 1930s).
Qaradawi was in London to preside over the annual meeting of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and a conference on the hijab, both at Livingstone’s invitation.
Livingstone’s warm public endorsement of Qaradawi managed to unite against himself an extraordinary coalition of protest by those who felt directly threatened by the Islamist’s views. This coalition remarkably included Jews, gays, Hindus, bi-and-transsexuals, Sikhs, women’s rights organisations, progressive-minded Muslims, and students, who produced a thick dossier charting Qaradawi’s terrifying attitudes.
Livingstone hit the roof at this, and no wonder. For among those now ranged against him – and accusing him, no less, of condoning the most violent and virulent prejudice, the crime of crimes – were the very constituencies of the victim-culture on which he had constructed his entire political platform. The rainbow coalition of minorities had now turned against their erstwhile patron.
Without these minorities, Livingstone has no power base. That is surely why he threw the otherwise baffling extravaganza for Chris Smith, to mend his fences with the all-important gay rights lobby.
But the Qaradawi affair had thrown up another very disturbing feature. For Livingstone produced his own utterly bizarre counter-dossier defending his right to host Qaradawi, whom he described admiringly as “one of the most authoritative Muslim scholars in the world.”
In this, he carefully distanced himself from Qaradawi’s views – while managing, offensively, to equate them with those held by Catholics and Jews — while claiming that Qaradawi was neither a supporter of terrorism nor a social reactionary, but instead “one of the Muslim scholars who has done most to combat socially regressive interpretations of Islam on issues like women’s rights and relations with other religions.”
Oh really? What does Qaradawi believe on these issues:
He supports democracy, provided it is driven by the laws of Sharia.
He approves of female circumcision. He supports the “light” beating of wives by their husbands.
He has lent his name to discussions about the most appropriate method for executing homosexuals.
He sits on the Shariah [Islamic Law] Board of al-Taqwa Bank which was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, and its assets frozen, by the U.S. government.
He is rabidly Judeophobic. His sermons regularly call for Jews to be killed, along with “crusaders” and “infidels.”
Like I said, we just need to get this all out on the table. Now Europe, does that sound like the kind of society you would like? Where would the Louvre fit in such a society? What about the French Riviera? Florence, Italy? The Tate Museum? The Vatican?
What will happen to the traditions of the Enlightenment?
What will your history be worth, if your land is ruled by people who believe in killing homosexuals, beating wives, killing infidels? I won't even make the obvious crack about killing Jews. Oops, I guess I did it anyway.
I love much of what Europe has brought to the world. I would hate to see it disappear.
The Islamophobia MythFrom
No Pasaran:
If there is any obvious “social construct” which appears so obvious and visible, it is the construction and inflation of a handful of events into a myth which is politically useful to the left. Essayist and Guardian contributer Kenan Malik doesn’t even buy it.From Malik’s essay The Islamophobia Myth:
«Exaggerating anti-Muslim prejudice is also useful for mainstream politicians, and especially for a government that has faced such a political battering over the war on Iraq and its anti-terror laws. Being sensitive to Islamophobia allows them to reclaim some of the moral high ground. It also allows Labour politicians to pitch for the Muslim vote.
Muslims may feel 'betrayed' by the war on Iraq, trade minister Mike O'Brien wrote recently in The Muslim Weekly. But 'the Labour government are trying to deliver an agenda that has shown consideration and respect for Muslims.'
According to O'Brien 'Iqbal Sacranie, the General Secretary of the Muslim Council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the Government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, in the middle of his speech to the Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour Government would ban religious discrimination.»
«Pretending that Muslims have never had it so bad might bolster community leaders and gain votes for politicians, but it does the rest of us, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, no favours at all. The more that the threat of Islamophobia is exaggerated, the more that ordinary Muslims come to accept that theirs is a community under constant attack. It helps create a siege mentality, stoking up anger and resentment, and making Muslim communities more inward looking and more open to religious extremism.»
Isn't it nice to know that Tony Blair, our greatest ally in the War On Terror, is willing to capitulate to Islamists by putting huge constraints on Free Speech in the UK, simply to win a few votes?
A Campaign Of Defamation Against IslamFrom
Melanie Phillips:
As the campaign to prevent John Bolton from becoming the US ambassador to the UN intensifies, on the grounds that it is intolerable to appoint someone to that position who actually tells the truth about the UN, a further example has occurred of that organisation's moral and political bankruptcy.
A resolution proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and passed by the UN Commission on Human Rights (sic) has condemned the 'campaign of defamation' against Muslims following 9/11.
Ignoring the fact that 9/11 and the wider jihad against the west have been perpetrated in the name of Islam, that its perpetrators have not been excommunicated from the faith but, on the contrary, Islamic religious and political leaders have backed their aims and, in the case of Israel at least, openly supported their tactics (remember the standing ovation given by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to Mahathir Mohamed when he urged holy war against the Jews), it singles out Islam as the victim of a 'culture of hatred, disharmony and discrimination' in the war against terrorism, totally ignoring the religions of the world targeted by terrorists and their state sympathisers for murderous attack in the name of Islam.
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury knows all about the culture of ‘hatred, disharmony and discrimination’. The Jerusalem Post has reported that, as the Muslim editor of the Bangladeshi newspaper The Weekly Blitz, he had the enormous courage to condemn the power of radical Islam in his country and to provide his readers with unbiased news about the Middle East (we could do with him here in Britain).
16 months ago he was arrested as he prepared to address the Hebrew Writers' Conference in Tel Aviv on "The Role of Media in Creating a Culture of Peace" and thrown into jail. The Post reported:‘Shortly after his arrest, police raided his home and business, seizing computers, files and other material. A mob then sacked the premises with impunity. His family was threatened, even attacked. His brother twice fled the capital. Mobs gathered in front of their home, and police blamed it all on the Choudhurys' "alliance with the Jews."
The government said Choudhury was "spying for the interests of Israel against the interests of Bangladesh," then orchestrated a vilification campaign. They called Choudhury's undelivered speech their strongest evidence of his perfidy and said he broke Bangladeshi law by trying to visit Israel. Choudhury remains behind bars in deteriorating health, without due process, and facing a capital offense. Blackballed from employment, his family is on the verge of financial ruin.’
In an extraordinary article printed by the Post, Choudhury wrote:
‘Today, I stand before you perhaps as a living contradiction: a Zionist, a defender of Israel, and a devout, practising Muslim living in a Muslim country. Like you I believe in the justice of the Zionist dream. I also acknowledge this historical reality: that the world has endeavored to crush that dream and, yes, even destroy the viability of the Jewish people. At the same time I live in an environment where people believe just as passionately in an opposing view that sees Israel as illegitimate and the Jewish people as evil incarnate.
‘A true culture of peace is far more than the cessation of hostilities. It includes justice and tolerance for all people. It allows each person to have pride in one's own faith, while respecting the pride that courses through the veins of those who follow other paths to God. In Israel, you have any number of viewpoints being aired in any number of forums. You have Likud; you have Labor. You have Shas; you have Shinui. You have Peace Now; you have the Temple Mount Faithful. You have The Jerusalem Post; you have Haaretz…
‘The Islamic missionaries who have taken root in Bangladesh recently have, of course, a very different agenda than their Christian counterparts. Funded by shadowy sources in the Middle East and Africa, they operate under charitable-sounding names like Islamic Hospital, Free Ambulance Service, and Kindergarten Madrassa. But charitable they are not.
Whispered allegations – for louder objections place you at considerable risk – that Islamic kindergarten madrassas train children for guerrilla war found support when many of their graduates went on to real battlegrounds in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some even volunteered to fight alongside the PLO and other terrorist organizations here. Repatriated Soldiers from Palestine, an organization in Bangladesh, cares for "soldiers" wounded in the fighting here, then recruits a fresh batch of terrorists to take their place.
You might think such revelations would placing these organizations in a bad light. Yet, if anything, to my chagrin, it improves their standing in the eyes of many Bangladeshi citizens.'
That popularity has taken them to more affluent neighborhoods, away from the poorer areas that were once their exclusive location. Children of prominent Bangladeshis now attend the madrassas, where they learn Bangla (our vernacular), Arabic, Urdu, English and, in some places, French, as well as other advertised subjects. But they also learn the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare. Old hates are taught as faith, and they learn to revere Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the shahids. Innocent Muslim children are lured toward "jihad," taught to hate Christians and Jews and encouraged to kill them and destroy their property as a religious duty.
It so distresses me that we are allowing these children, the future leaders of Bangladesh, to be brainwashed with hatred and extremism. These institutions are surely breeding thousands of Bin Ladens and Arafats for the future.'
I have listened to this filth since childhood. When I grew up, I turned my eyes to the Bible and many other books, had Christian and Jewish friends, and now am convinced that what the mullahs taught was not merely false, but also evil. That is clear not only to me but to many others in my country.
For there to be any chance of lasting peace, this must change. How can we have peace when most Muslims still believe Israel was behind the September 11 attacks on the US? How can we have peace when Muslims see their own leaders refusing even to recognize Israel's right to exist? How can we have peace when we neither hear nor read anything to the contrary?'
This remarkable and immensely brave man currently awaits trial in Cell No.15 of the Dhaka Central Jail in Bangladesh. Just as it did with the Soviet dissidents, the free world must now bring every kind of public and private pressure to bear upon the government of Bangladesh to free him.
But don’t look for support from the UN, for which any such protest will dountless be merely further proof of ‘stereotyping’ and ‘discrimination’.
Palestinian Authority Police
Little Green Footballs RoundupDutch Muslim Politician
drops his mask and let's it be known that his real intention is to Islamicize the West.
Palestinian "Political Party" Hamas has formed a "
Vice and Virtue Commando" force to institute extremely barbaric honor killings in the streets of the Palestinian territories.
German politicians have decided that
it was Germans who suffered a Holocaust.
Glenn Reynolds Is The Most Photographed Barn In AmericaI don't get Glenn Reynolds. I don't get Instapundit. He's not a blogger. He's a linker. He's Drudge Report, with no reporting and no headlines. So, he's got a big audience. So what? Why does that mean he's worth reading.
This phenomena, this Instaworship, reminds me of this excerpt, from Don DeLillo's
White Noise:
Several days later Murray asked me about a tourist attraction known as the most photographed barn in America. We drove twenty-two miles into the country around Farmington. There were meadows and apple orchards. White fences trailed through the rolling fields. Soon the signs started appearing. THE MOST PHOTOGRAPHED BARN IN AMERICA.
We counted five signs before we reached the site. There were forty cars and a tour bus in the makeshift lot. We walked along a cowpath to the slightly elevated spot set aside for viewing and photographing. All the people had cameras; some had tripods, telephoto lenses, filter kits. A man in a booth sold postcards and slides--pictures of the barn taken from the elevated spot.
We stood near a grove of trees and watched the photographers. Murray maintained a prolonged silence, occasionally scrawling some notes in a little book.
"No one sees the barn," he said finally.
A long silence followed.
"Once you've seen the signs about the barn, it becomes impossible to see the barn."
He fell silent once more. People with cameras left the elevated site, replaced at once by others.
There was an extended silence. The man in the booth sold postcards and slides. "Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see. The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future. We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. This literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism."
Another silence ensued.
He did not speak for a while. We listened to the incessant clicking of shutter release buttons, the rustling crank of levers that advanced the film.
"What was the barn like before it was photographed?" he said. "What did it look like, how was it different from other barns, how was it similar to other barns? We can't answer these questions because we've read the signs, seen the people snapping the pictures. We can't get outside the aura. We're part of the aura. We're here, we're now." He seemed immensely pleased by this.
The whole idea behind blogging is to get your info from myriad sources. The idea is to decentralize the gathering and delivery of information. The idea is to break down the monolith. But, instead we are erecting new ones.
Just like people. We're given the unlimited, but instead we turn to idols.
The only reason people pay attention to Glenn Reynolds is because lots of people pay attention to Glenn Reynolds, and that's just a function of him having been an early artifact. The more people stare at him, the less they see him, and the less they realize that he's just a barn.
Grown Man Sobs and Begs To Sleep With BoyMother Says, "OK"From
MSN:
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The mother of a boy who received millions from Michael Jackson in a lawsuit more than a decade ago told jurors Monday that Jackson pleaded with her to allow her son to sleep with him during visits to his Neverland ranch and on trips to Las Vegas, Florida and Europe.
The woman said that in 1993 she was treated by Jackson to trips and lavish gifts of jewelry after she agreed to let the boy sleep in Jackson’s room. However, she never testified to seeing her son molested.
The woman said that after being flown to Las Vegas on resort mogul Steve Wynn’s jet and treated to a weekend at the Mirage hotel, Jackson left to take her son to a performance of Cirque du Soleil but returned early and knocked on her door in a distressed state.
“He was sobbing, shaking, trembling. He said, ’You don’t trust me. We’re a family. Why won’t you allow him to be in my bedroom?” the woman testified.
She said Jackson also told her there was “nothing going on” and again asked if she didn’t trust him.
She said she finally relented and the next day Jackson gave her a gold Cartier bracelet.
Note to all parents: Sobbing grown men who beg to sleep with your child might be up to no good.
I guess she can just consider it a Life Lesson.
The Pro-Assassination LeftMichelle Malkin has an important post up this morning. It contains photos, and I couldn't lay it out as well, so
click here
The Monsters We BreedFrom
Melanie Phillips:
Another sign of the moral sickness of the universities. It appears that three Jewish members of the National Union of Students' executive have felt forced to resign over the union's failure to address the anti-Jewish hatred in its midst. In an emotional statement, Luciana Berger, co-convener of the union's Anti-Racism/Anti-Fascism Campaign, no less, accuses the NUS of standing passively by while Jewish students run the gamut of hatred:
'This year, I have suffered baseless accusations of NUS being pro-Jewish and therefore biased because I tackled antisemitism where it stood. There was no defence of Jewish students by NEC members who heard those claims. This year, a comment was made in a Student Union meeting saying that burning down a synagogue is a rational act; when asked to comment NEC members could not even bring themselves to condemn that statement.
This is the generation being educated to take the reins of power in 15-20 years. A Synagogue bombing is thought to be a rational act. No one would stand against such an idea? What will happen in a country that is ruled by such a generation?
It Is Out Of OrderWhat Do They Expect?From
Melanie Phillips:
In an incident whose symbolism can scarcely be over-stated, a black Jewish Labour MP was pelted with eggs by Muslims as she attended a remembrance ceremony in London's East End to commemorate the deaths of 164 people, almost all of whom were Jews, in the last V2 missile attack of the war 60 years ago. Eggs thrown at the MP Oona King missed their target but hit two elderly Jews. The viciousness behind the attack was encapsulated in remarks by two Muslim youths, as reported in the Telegraph: 'Ibn Alkhattab, 21, said: "It will be all about the war. There is enormous anger. No one will vote for her."His friend added: "She represented these people and then voted for the war. We all hate her. She comes here with her Jewish friends who are killing our people and then they come to our back yards. It is out of order. What do they expect?" '
What else indeed, but the violent hatred born of the most vile prejudice and paranoia that dishonours the Jewish war dead and attacks a member of Parliament for supporting a war that has liberated Muslims from tyranny.
The Pope At A Cocktail Party?In a
post which takes a critical view of the legacy Pope John Paul II, the New Sisyphus points out the unbalanced media coverage of the life and death of the Pontiff:
The Left critique of the Pope has been on display for days now, as even the most casual glance at the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post verifies. Alone among the world’s great religions, the Western Left has been demanding that the Catholic Church—and not, say, Islam—accommodate its social and political preferences, and lamenting the fact that, basically, the Pope was never really the kind of guy people in Manhattan could relate to at a cocktail party. It’s all really as tiresome as it is pathetic and predictable; the depths to which the MSM is now plumbing is truly a world-historic moment and one we don’t think we’ll be seeing again anytime soon.
Iranian President Wants To Make It Perfectly ClearHe Still Hates The JewsFrom
Captain's Quarters:
In one of the more ludicrous diplomatic stories to emerge from the funeral of Pope John Paul II, Iranian president Mohammed Khatami now denies touching Israeli president Moshe Katsav at the services:
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami strongly denied shaking hands and chatting with Israeli President Moshe Katsav at Pope John Paul II's funeral, state-run media reported Saturday. ...
“These allegations are false like other allegations made by Israeli media and I have not had any meeting with any one from Zionist (Israeli) regime,” the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Khatami as saying.
Katsav, who was born in the same Iranian region as Khatami, claims that he shook Khatami's hand and spoke about their home town in Farsi, both men's birth tongue. Katsav says the two men shook hands and wished each other peace.
Now, for obvious reasons, Khatami wants to assure Iranians that he remains as anti-Semitic as always and wouldn't dream of treating Katsav in a civilized manner. Far better for Khatami to claim that he acted in the purest interests of hatred.
I guess the lessons of John Paul II have been completely lost on Khatami and the Iranians. It makes one wonder why they bothered to attend the funeral.
El Baradei Explains Why We Must Not Allow Iran To Go NuclearFrom
The Astute Blogger:
OSLO ("Reuters") -
The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said in an interview that al Qaeda and other extremist groups had sought to obtain a nuclear weapon, Norwegian television reported on Saturday.
"They were actively looking into acquiring a nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in an interview in Vienna with Norway's commercial TV 2 channel.
[...] ElBaradei as saying that proof had been found in Afghanistan, where U.S.-led-troops toppled the Taliban government in 2001 after it refused to hand over al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
"I would be surprised if they did not try to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. That would be the most horrible scenario because these extremist groups -- if they have the weapon, they will use it," ElBaradei said.
He said there was a "race against time" to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and plug gaps in the security of atomic weapons and materials. "The more nuclear weapons that exist, the more threat we are facing. And the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more danger we are facing," ElBaradei said. "We can't afford one single lapse in the system of security of nuclear material or nuclear weapons," he said.
The Astute Blogger notes:
El Baradei is NO FRIEND TO BUSH, THE USA, or THE GWOT. So his WARNING CANNOT be written off by Lefties as bellicose political maneuvering, and it's all the more reason we must URGENTLY CRACKDOWN ON THE NUCLEAR TYRANTS IN IRAN AND NORTH KOREA - they are the LEAST RELIABLE nuclear nations on earth. They could easily sell or give a nuke to neojihadists.
True, and I would ask why El Baradei, if he believes that we can't afford "one single lapse," is not being more urgent about Iran. Iran has been playing a game with the United Nations for months now. They agree with to certain limits, and then change their mind. They say they will freeze the enriching of Uranium, and then they say they will never stop the enrichment process.
Meanwhile, El Baradei remains calm, and ever diplomatic. Always working his process of negotiations, even while
Iran makes it's intentions clear.
The Problem With "Miracles"From
Associated Press:
VATICAN CITY - An American Jew cured of a brain tumor after attending Mass with Pope John Paul II. A Mexican boy stricken with leukemia who recovered after a papal kiss. Even a cardinal who regained his ability to speak after John Paul touched his throat.
Italian newspapers have been rife with reports of alleged miracles attributed to Pope John Paul II, fueling speculation he may soon be put on the path to sainthood.
Vatican rules, though, are clear: For a miracle to be considered in the saint-making process, it has to have occurred after John Paul's death. So far, all the reports stem from inexplicable cures that occurred while John Paul was very much alive.
But that hasn't stopped the frenzy surrounding popular calls for John Paul to be put on the fast-track to sainthood, spurred by the spontaneous chants of "Santo, Santo" that erupted during his funeral Friday.
Clearly, a cult of personality is being built up around John Paul II. It's Elvis-like, or Diana-like, in it's delusionary quality. Oh wait, is that the Pope on my sandwich? Is that Pope John Paul II I see suspended in the sky above the Vatican? Look, he's waving to me.
This is the sad surreality of people under great stress at having lost a loved one. Many widows turn their husbands into men of towering moral stature after they die. It is a way to cope with loss and the lost opportunities of forgiveness and reconciliation. But, it is not healthy. Illusions, when they become this empyrean, steal the life out of that which stands very present before us.
The problem with all this elevation of John Paul II is it mocks and belittles the true accomplishments of a great man. A man who was a man, tethered to the ground, and not a saint with feathered wings, and a translucent halo. A man who struggled with all the same doubts and fears as the rest of us, but who saw past them to a greater world. And most imporantly, a man who brought a little more of that other world into this world.
What is a greater miracle, a man cured of a brain tumor, or the freedom of hundreds of millions of former Soviet subjects? Let us hope that we have the sense to understand that many hundreds of millions of truly free people matters more than one forever unprovable miracle.
Rip Van Rangel?Michelle Malkin
noted this morning that Charles Rangell showed off his lack of knowledge of the Bible the other night on Hardball, by exclaiming that Jesus said the rich "are going straight to hell." I had to know the context of such a statement. I thought maybe he was taking potetic liberties or something. So, I looked it up to see. Well, it turns out, he's just, well, uh, I don't know what to call him. Get a load of
these statements:
MATTHEWS: I mean, Charlie, Jesus didn‘t hang around with the swells, the rich people.
RANGEL: Well, he said the rich are going straight to hell.
MATTHEWS: Well, he did not.
MATTHEWS: He said it is harder to get through a needle‘s...
RANGEL: No. But the deal with St. Matthews and all these people are trying to get into heaven. And he said, hey, when I was hungry, you didn‘t feed me. I was thirsty. I was naked.
I was sick. You didn‘t do all these—he‘s talking about food stamps, Social Security.
MATTHEWS: Right.Right. Jesus has a program for food stamps. He probably has a position on job creation as well, right? I thought we weren't supposed to be making policy by asking What Would Jesus Do?
The truth is, the early Christians, as portrayed in the book of Acts, did live a communal life in which they shared all their money and goods. But, there was no prescriptive statement made that such a life was the correct one.
In fact, one of Christ's statements was that the poor will always be with us. And this is the truth. No manner of welfare program will ever do away with poverty completely. I would hazard to guess that, past a certain point, government programs to help the poor are hit with the law of diminshing returns. In other words you can help those poor who want to be helped, but you can't help those who don't. Past that you're throwing money away.
My opinion is, to help the poor is, primarily, an individual moral decision, requiring self-sacrifice. On a societal level, such a decision must be made based upon rules of practicality, or else we are not being good stewards of the American system which has so enriched the world.
This seems only naturla to me. Charles Rangel apparently thinks America should say, "Damn the laws of economics," and shower an endless stream of money on the poor.
Oh, and then Rangel explains that the Democrats are on Jesus side, and the Republicans are, well, you know:
RANGEL: He‘s (Jesus is) talking about taking care of those who haven‘t got. So, when it comes to moral value, my Republican friends can decide which side the pope was on.And, of course, the Pope was always right about everything.
:)
Anyway, there's more. What? Did you think we were finished? Oh no, Mr. Rangel put on a whole show of pyrotechnic idiocy. Check this out:
If the world leaders could have the compassion for human beings and the concerns, not just for this generation, but generations to come, there would be no war. And I don‘t think there would be poverty either.That sounds like a speech that a contestant for Miss America might make, doesn't it?
What policy does Mr. Rangel think could enact that we could so fundamentally change the moral nature of humanity? War is not simply a matter of policy. War originates in the human heart. Charles Rangel is a utopian. And we know what kind of monsters utopianism bred in the 20th century. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot; all three were utopians, and all three were mass murderers.
Utopians ultimately turn to mass murder to eliminate those who will not go along with their programs. After all, as Rangel has already made clear, one side is absolutely morally good, and the other side is evil. Why not kill all the evil people who disagree with your utopian vision? Charles Rangel seems to not know that the Soviet Union collapsed as a result of the inherent weakness of Communism.
Charles Rangel wake up. It's the 21st century. The Berlin wall fell a little over 15 years ago.
Did David Horowitz Defeat Himself?Discover The Network is a website conceived by David Horowitz the editor at Front Page Magazine. The purpose of the site is to draw attention to members of the Press, Media, and Academia who espouse far-Left and anti-American ideology. The purpose is not to shut them up, but instead to call them out. Today at Front Page, David Horowitz debates Professor Robert Jensen, a man Horowitz has labeled an "anti-American Radical" on the merits of Discover the Network. Here's an
excerpt:
Professor Jensen: ... he (David Horowitz) and I would describe the political spectrum in different ways. But he makes no attempt to defend the way in which his web site collapses the distinction between center, liberal and left. I consider the term “left” to mark a consistent critique of illegitimate structures of authority and concentrations of power. Centrists and liberals, who typically endorse capitalism and state power, have a very different politics than leftists.
Mr. Horowitz seems confused about the difference between labeling a position anti-gay and anti-American. If someone says, ”I think gay people are sick,” it seems honest to call that anti-gay. It is an expression of contempt for gay people. If I say, “I think the U.S. attack on Iraq was illegal” or if I point to features of corporate capitalism and state power that I think harm people, I am critiquing a policy, systems, or institutions. I am not condemning America but am trying to help create a more just world. If democracy is a meaningful term, then no one policy, system, or institution is above critique. So, I agree that it is accurate to call me anti-war or anti-capitalist, but not anti-American.
Churchill and Chomsky can easily defend their own views, but it is clear from the historical record that the United States is based on an act of genocide against indigenous people. It seems minimally honest to recognize the genocidal history of the United States. Is the United States a threat to the survival of the planet? Given the reckless and barbaric fashion in which U.S. leaders (Republican and Democrat alike) have exercised that power -- especially since the end of World War II -- calling the United States a threat seems justified to me. As the United States pursues a new generation of nuclear weapons and presses to militarize space, trying to highlight that threat seems an obligation of citizenship.
Horowitz: Jensen apparently doesn’t want to understand the meaning of the words I have written. I didn’t write that he was unhappy with being described as a leftist. He is unhappy at being described as an “Anti-American Radical,” which is a very precise description of his point view. He regards America as imperialist, racist, oppressive, and genocidal throughout its history -- a reactionary power, whose social and economic structures need to be deconstructed, destroyed and replaced by a socialist state.
He regards America not as a democracy in which the people are sovereign but as a hierarchy in which a ruling class deceives and manipulates a pliant public to carry on its predatory agendas. That’s why he regards his critique as a critique of power and not critique of the American people and their choices. That is why he regards a war that was sanctioned by a vote of the people (2004), by both parties in Congress (2002) and by UN resolution 1441, as “illegal” and illegitimate. People who do not accept the legitimacy of the democratic process are self-declared outlaws who have committed themselves to war agains 
