Saturday, April 16, 2005



The Humming Chorus

Posted by Hello

Brady Wisdom


My 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.

Friday, April 15, 2005



The Pieta Of The Great War On Terror

Mother Saying Goodbye to Her Child
Murdered By Islamofascists
While At School
In Beslan, Russia

Posted by Hello

Kiss Me


Sixpence 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 Monsters


From 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 Continues
Someguy, Donald Sensing, Joseph D'Hippolito, and Pastorius
Debate "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 1

Post 2

Post 3

Post 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?"

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Lack Of Progess In The Arab World Is Israels' Fault


That 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 Pastorius
Debate "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 1

Post 2

Post 3

Behind Closed Doors
Europe Grovels At The Feet Of A Terrorist


What 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 Rome


Some 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.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

The Islamophobia Myth


From 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 Islam


From 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

Posted by Hello

Little Green Footballs Roundup


Dutch 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.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Grown Man Sobs and Begs To Sleep With Boy
Mother 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 Left


Michelle 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 Breed


From 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 Order
What 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.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Iranian President Wants To Make It Perfectly Clear
He Still Hates The Jews


From 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 Nuclear


From 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 against the American system. They are not just opponents of the party in power, they are opponents of the constitutional system that put them in power. They are anti-American.

No matter times he repeats the claim, DiscoverTheNetwork does not “collapse the distinction between center, liberal and left.” If Professor Jensen will go to the “Issues” module on DiscoverTheNetwork and click on “Progressivism” or “Liberalism,” he will find ample discussion of the left and its relation to liberalism. The individual and group profiles featured on DiscoverTheNetwork are careful to preserve these distinctions as well.

In denying that he is anti-American, Professor Jensen is just seeking to avoid the plain meaning of his positions. He has publicly wished for America’s defeat in Iraq. He has described the liberation of Iraq as an imperialist occupation. He has supported political forces that are at war with America and that regard America as the “Great Satan” – the fount of evil in the world. He has rejected the American system – not a particular policy but the entire constitutional system that creates American policies. That is what America is. To oppose what America is – in its very essence – is to be anti-American. At least that’s how we define it on DiscoverTheNetwork.org

And of course this is being kind to Professor Jensen. To describe America as a genocidal nation -- a nation that sets out to exterminate peoples -- is a form of political insanity. Professor Jensen inhabits an alternate reality conditioned by a preposterous fantasy that there is a perfect future waiting out there for people filled with hate against the imperfect country we all inhabit to create. But in order create this future perfection they must first destroy the imperfect present. Therefore they are willing to join forces with and encourage truly genocidal terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in their war against America and the West.



I'm frustrated that the interview ended there. Professor did not specifically say that America has been engaged in genocide recently. He said, "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." His statement has the ring of fairness to it.

However, I have heard many leftists, such as Noam Chomsky, make the case that we went to Iraq to perpetrate a genocide against the Iraqi people. Chomsky did claim such a thing prior to the war, and he has not publicly retracted, or apologized, for his statement.

To say that the Iraq War is a war of American imperialism is preposterous. If it is imperialism, how has it served America, in any way other than the removal of a threat to our security?Certainly, it is clear by the price of gasoline that we did not take over the Iraqi oil industry. Nor have we rounded up Iraqi citizens and forced them to make widgets for pennies an hour. So, in what way is the war imperialism.

I must say, given the fact that there are not space considerations in web publishing, I am disappointed that Horowitz, apparently did not give Jensen a chance to respond to the specifics of his critique. Up until that part of the debate, Horowitz and Jensen had merely been exchanging jabs regarding the defininition of terms. Specifics did not come up until the end, when Horowitz reeled off his list of accusations against Jensen.

It would have been helpful not only to hear Jensen respond, but to have heard Horowitz quote some of Jensens writings which caused him to make the accusations. For instance, I would love to hear Jensen defend the following, from an article he wrote called Critical Hope: Radical Citizenship in Reactionary Times:


I am against the illegitimate structure of authority called the corporation. I want to see different forms of economic organization emerge. I am hopeful about the possibilities but not optimistic that in my lifetime I will see the demise of capitalism, corporations, and wage slavery. Still, I will do certain things to work toward that.

The same can be said of the problem of U.S. aggression against innocent people in the rest of the world, particularly these days in Afghanistan, where the aggression is most intense. Given the bloody record of the United States in the past 50 years and the seemingly limitless capacity of U.S. officials to kill without conscience, I must confess I am not optimistic that such aggression will stop anytime soon, in large part because those corporate structures that drive the killing are still around. But I will do certain things to work against it.


You see? Horowitz is right in his critique of Jensen, but in order to bring such a man down, you need to make him defend his absurd statements. The truth is, if he had to defend such statements he would twist in the wind. How does one make a case that the war in Afghanistan was a war of Impialism? Afghanistan had no economy to exploit.

What Horowitz did in this debate was to defeat himself. To tell you the truth, Jensens statements in the debate sounded reasonable to me. I agree that our country was in part founded of the genocide of the indigenous people. I agree that it is legitamite to critique capatalism. In my opinion, untethered capatalism does allow abuse. Look at the case of Enron.

So, the effect of that interview was to convince me that Horowitz had probably been unfair to Jensen to some extent. How many readers, particularly readers who would tend to disagree with Horowitz, would have gone to the trouble that I did to dig up some of Jensens writing? Answer: Not many.

Horowitz did not serve his cause well.

Sunday, April 10, 2005



My God, My God
Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?


From
"Many Voices, One God:
The Jewish-Christian Dialogue"

by Susannah Heschel

Marc Chagall, as you may know, frequently painted crucifixion scenes. His most famous one is called, "White Crucifixion", which was painted in 1938. It uses the motif of Jesus on the cross as an icon of Jewish catastrophe. In the painting, Jesus is nailed to the cross wrapped in a Jewish prayer shawl. All around him there are small figures and scenes of destruction. For instance, Communist revolutionaries are attacking Jews. A synagogue is burning. Jews flee by foot and boat. There's a Torah scroll in flames. There's an old Jew weeping. A mother is clutching her baby.

Chagall's depiction differs in important ways from post-Holocaust Jewish writing. For example, there is the claim by Steven Katz, among others, that the Holocaust is a unique event in world history. It is unique in the sense of six million Jews versus the one Jew; unique in the sense of this one-time event that supercedes the Crucifixion.

Elie Wiesel has a famous book called, Night. In that book there is a scene at Auschwitz of three Jews hanging on the gallows. In the middle is a young child who is so light that his neck doesn't break, and so he dies very slowly in agony. There at that scene with everyone gathered, Wiesel writes, "There is an anonymous voice that asks, 'Where is God now?' And another voice answers, 'Where is he? He is here hanging on this gallows.'"



Posted by Hello

British MP Hosts Anti-Semite In House of Lords


British Member of Parliament, Lord Ahmed, recently hosted a book in the House of Lords. The book was written by the rabid anti-Semite, Israel Shamir. From Little Green Footballs:


Lord Ahmed, who has been a Labour life peer since 1998, is the first Muslim to have been so honoured. His presence in the House of Lords is symbolically important. His behaviour matters, both in the message it sends to his fellow Muslims and in what it represents to the rest of us.

In May, Lord Ahmed called — at considerable personal risk — for Islamic militants such as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri to be deported. The risk was real: a fatwa was immediately issued against him.

But his behaviour has not always been so admirable.

On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. "Israel Shamir" is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Joran Jermas.

The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, "Jews and the Empire". It included observations such as:

"All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated."

"Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking."

"In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East."
"The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se."

"Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide."

Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords?


Israel Shamir's speech is a litany of anti-Semitic stereotypes and slanders. Imainge what would happen if a member of the Congress of the United States dared to host a book launch on Capital Hill for a writer whosaid things like,

"Black people are lazy. They do not want to work. They just want to sit around soaking up welfare checks and beating their wives. All their kids are in gangs. The only thing they're good at is dancing and basketball."

Make no mistake about it, what Shamir said in his rant is the exact equivalent. But, in England, such talk seems to pass unnoticed, and even get cheered on by members of their mainstream media.