Saturday, September 02, 2006

Fur Alina

Music by Arvo Part

You sit in a darkened room looking into a garden. There is no moon.

A single disembodied note sounds, and in the ambient light you see a piano. There is a repeated triad that you think is the opening of Moonlight Sonata, but it's not. It is a simple right-handed exercise, lovely in its repetition, a practiced, careful rhythm.

From a shadow in the drapes, a violin begins a pair of notes, one simple bow stroke, down and up, listening, enjoying its resonance, perfecting its tone. As if they were unaware of each other, piano and violin continue with parts accidentally overlaid.

Long slow notes by the violin are a wistful melody, the finger exercise a cautious metronome.

This is crushingly intimate music.

We have stumbled into a sacred moment. When the left hand strikes a lower key, it is as if a third musician has entered the room and with a simple, ominous single note, has taken the percussive role from the right hand. But the right continues and our attention is drawn again to its simple melody. There is that repeating triad. The cycle begins again.

This is Fur Alina. It is so lovely, so innocent and so unspoilt, we can only cry upon first hearing. It is unimaginable.

We Love Life
They Love Death

Really, what can you say to that. From Victor Davis Hanson:

Hezbollah’s black-clad legions goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism. Meanwhile, consider Hezbollah’s “spiritual” head, Hassan Nasrallah — the current celebrity of an unhinged Western media that tried to reinvent the man’s own self-confessed defeat as a victory. Long before he hid in the Iranian embassy Nasrallah was on record boasting: “The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.”

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumps that Hitlerian nihilism by reassuring the poor, maltreated Germans that there was no real Holocaust. Perhaps he is concerned that greater credit might still go to Hitler for Round One than to the mullahs for their hoped-for Round Two, in which the promise is to “wipe” Israel off the map.

The only surprise about the edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf that has become a best seller in Middle Eastern bookstores is its emboldened title translated as “Jihadi” — as in “My Jihad” — confirming in ironic fashion the “moderate” Islamic claim that Jihad just means “struggle,” as in an “inner struggle” — as in a Kampf perhaps.

Meanwhile, we in the West who worry about all this are told to fret instead about being “Islamophobes.” Indeed, a debate rages over the very use of “Islamic fascism” to describe the creed of terrorist killers — as if those authoritarians who call for a return of the ancient caliphate, who wish to impose 7th-century sharia law, promise death to the Western “crusader” and “Jew,” and long to retreat into a mythical alternate universe of religious purity and harsh discipline, untainted by a “decadent” liberal West, are not fascists.

Next, in the manner that Hitler was to be understood as victimized by the Versailles Treaty, so too we hear the litany of perceived grievances against the Islamic fascists — George Bush, the West Bank, Gaza, or now Lebanon. But does anyone remember that bin Laden quip, four years before 9/11, when Mr. Bush was still governor of Texas: “Mentioning the name of Clinton or the American government provokes disgust and revulsion.”

Go read the rest.

Civil War

What the heck is going on down in the land down under us?

This AP story builds upon the increasingly violent antics and agitation of losing leftist presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, of the "Democratic" Revolution Party (not enough Democratic, too much Revolution). Evidently, he has completely rejected the very concept of democracy: Leftists always love democracy... when they win. When they lose, it's a bourgeois running-dog imperialist plot against the people:

Vicente Fox was forced to forego the last state-of-the-nation address of his presidency Friday after leftist lawmakers stormed the stage of Congress to protest disputed July 2 elections.
It was the first time in modern Mexican history a president hasn't given the annual address to Congress....

"Whoever attacks our laws and institutions also attacks our history and Mexico," he said [in a written version of the speech that was blocked], a thinly veiled reference to leftist presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The opposition lawmakers took over the stage in Congress, waving Mexican flags and holding placards calling Fox a traitor to democracy. They ignored demands that they return to their seats, shouting "Vote by Vote" - a rallying cry for López Obrador's bid for a full recount in the election.

So we have a close presidential election -- Calderón won by about 244,000 votes out of 41 million, or 0.6% -- and the leftist sore loser won't concede, instead calling out his supporters to riot in the streets. Again, the name is unfamiliar, but you should at least recognize the odor.

Only López Obrador goes even farther than simply trying to sue his way into the presidency, as Gore did; López Obrador has more guts: he clearly plans the violent overthrow of the Mexican government (perhaps with help from his close friend, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías in Venezuela), then to install himself as the new "people's president," assuming Al Sharpton is finished with the title. More than likely, People's President for Life -- just like Chávez.

If he's serious, if he doesn't plan to back down, then there will be civil war in Mexico ...

Protesters occupying Mexico City's center said they were ready to do whatever it takes to support Lopez Obrador. Fernando Calles, a 26-year-old university professor, said he was ready to fight for the former Mexico City mayor "until the death, until the final consequences."

"We lived 500 years of repression, and now we represent the new face of Mexico," he said.
The tight election left the nation deeply divided, with Lopez Obrador - who portrayed himself as a champion of the poor - alleging that fraud accounted for an official count showing him 0.6 percent behind Calderon.

Rival Reuters has a few more facts:

López Obrador's supporters have paralyzed central Mexico City with protest camps and he has vowed to make Mexico ungovernable if Calderón's victory is confirmed....

López Obrador railed on Friday against what he says are Mexico's corrupt institutions, such as the courts.

"To hell with their institutions," he told a rally of supporters in Mexico City's central Zocalo square. But he called on them not to march to the Congress building, where violent clashes had been feared.

This affects America hugely: if Mexico degenerates into a civil war, the first thing that will happen is hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of hysterical Mexicans will pour across our border, where we have no hope of stopping them at the moment... particularly since they will claim "refugee" status -- and not without a good case.

But the next problem is that the Bush administration and Congress will have a very difficult decision to make: do we just stand idly by and watch a Communist dictatorship take over our southern neighbor and ally? Or do we take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them -- maybe.

If you think we have a threatening "southern exposure" now, with a relative conservative like Vicente Fox (former high executive at Coca-Cola) as president, just imagine how bad it would be with Communist-leaning Andrés Manuel López Obrador... especially having seized power by force of arms.

Recall that López Obrador is extremely close to Venezuelan People's President for Life Hugo Chávez -- who has a tight working relationship with Iran, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. A Mexico run by López Obrador is a continuously open invitation for Moslem terrorists to flood into our country... probably hiding amongst the mass wave of legitimate refugees fleeing the forced-labor camps that López Obrador will start building.

But on the other hand, do we really want to intervene in Mexico yet again? I would rather we did, if the alternative is to allow López Obrador to seize control by civil war or coup d'état. But it might be a hard sell to Congress right about now, just before the elections.

Friday, September 01, 2006

We Will

As horrifying and evil as the September 11th attacks on America were, there was an almost equally horrifying attack waged in Chechneya two years ago today.

Chechneyan Muslims (with connection to Al Qaeda) stormed an elementary school in Beslan, Chechneya, taking over 1,100 teachers and students hostage. During the ensuing standoff with police, the Jihadis raped young girls, shot teachers, strung the entire school with explosives, and forced children to drink urine.

In the end, the Jihadis went Apocalypse Now on the school, murdering 319 people, 186 of whom were children.

To Remember

The Washington Post, the media outlet that, along with the New York Times, did the most to promote the idea that members of the Bush Administration had outed a CIA officer, now tries to put the whole affair to bed:

It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

To Receive
For Human Relations
From LA County

The man featured in the video below is about to receive the “John Allen Buggs Award” for Human Relations from the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations. Here's a link to read the story.

Can Stop
A Nuclear Iran

From All Things Beautiful:

Well there's a title you don't read every day! What's the connection? Simple, tell China, that Wal-Mart will shift merchandise production to competing low-cost manufacturing countries, if it doesn't support a UNSC resolution, stopping Iran from going nuclear. After all, a nuclear Holocaust is also bad for business in China.

Make no mistake, Wal-Mart has that kind of purchasing power: Over 10% of all Chinese exports to the U.S. are bought by Wal-Mart, that's well over $20 billion.

"More than 70 per cent of the products sold at Wal-Mart are made in China. If Wal-Mart were a separate nation, it would rank as China’s fifth-largest export market, ahead of Germany and Britain."

The good news is, the threat would remain just that, for China would yield, we'd continue saving $100 billion each year and the Mullahcracy would have to abandon their expansionist ambitions, which they are planning to extort through nuclear blackmail. There was a time, when 'corporate' diplomacy supported the greater good.

Actually, I don't think this would work as well as All Things Beautiful thinks it would work. It would be rather easy for China to simply call the bluff. A business is dependent on its suppliers to stay in business, just as much as the supplier is dependent on the buyer.

China delivers for Wal-Mart. China delivers because it is efficient. Many of the other "competing low-cost manufacturing countries" are less successful precisely because their track record on deliver is not as good as that of China.

However, this is not to dismiss the idea outright. Certainly, it is the foundation of a very good idea. During the course of WWII America was fully mobilized in its war efforts. This means there was maximum open cooperation between all components of government and the business world. If government asked a manufacturing plant to retool to make bombs, for instance, they say, "How big an explosion do you want?"

We are not fully mobilized as a nation at this time. If this war gets worse, as I fully expect it will, then there is the likelihood that we will once again go into full-mobilization mode. At that point, the government could sit down with a company like Wal-Mart and strategize on how to best beat our enemies.

For the government to make such a request at this point would be considered an overstepping of authority. And, until the government had such authority, Wal-Mart will have no reason to take such a risk.

Bush Urges Nation
To Be Quiet
For A Minute
While He
Tries To Think

I saw this piece, from the satirical "newspaper" the Onion, over at The Anchoress this morning:

In a nationally televised address Monday, President Bush urged all citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or political affiliation, “to quiet down for just one minute” so he could have “a chance to think.”“Every American has an inalienable right to free speech and self-expression,” Bush said. “Nonetheless, I call upon the American people to hold off on it for, say, 60 seconds. Just long enough for me to get this all sorted out in my head.”

“Please,” Bush added.

While the president said achieving a unilateral peace and quiet “would not be easy,” he hoped that citizens would respect his wish and work toward a temporary cease-talk so that he could can hear his own thoughts “for once.”

“Make no mistake: It will take patience and sacrifice,” Bush said. “But such drastic measures could lead to a better tomorrow for all of us, especially for your commander in chief.”
Bush then closed his speech by exhaling sharply, tightly closing his eyes, and massaging his temples. “I just—Christ, I just need a goddamn minute, you know?” he said.[…]

Bush’s plea was backed by leading Republicans, who urged their constituents to comply with the president’s request to “be quiet for seriously, like, two seconds.”

“In these trying times for our president, we must show respect for his office, even if it means turning our car radios down, shushing our children, and turning off all fans,” Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said. “Heck, the man just needs one measly minute.”

Capitol Hill Democrats, however, have criticized Bush’s call for silence, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) calling it “yet another example of Bush’s inability to connect with everyday Americans, many of whom rarely, if ever, receive a moment to themselves.”
“Where’s their moment to think?” Pelosi said.

While Bush deemed the attempts at quiet “helpful and encouraging,” he called for “literally one more second” of complete silence, saying he was “very close to getting it together and almost had it” before being interrupted by the sound of a car alarm moments ago.

Read the whole thing.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

One More
Cup Of

Bob Dylan


A British TV production company has produced, and Channel Four Network is set to air, a "docudrama" about the assassination of George Bush:

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

(Pastorius: Of course, because it couldn't be the Muslims, I mean, "youths," I mean "Asians.")

Peter Dale, head of More4, which is due to air the film on October 9, said the drama was a “thought-provoking critique” of contemporary US society.

He said: “It’s an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.

“It’s a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic. I’m sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is. It’s not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.”

The film will premier at the Toronto Film Festival in September and was written and directed by Gabriel Range.

Roger Simon comments:

I haven't seen the film, of course, but at first glance this seems a kind of upmarket political porn. I would ask Messrs. Dale and Range (the filmmaker) how they would feel about viewing a "sophisticated" docudrama of themselves being assassinated in 2007? Horrifed, perhaps? Maybe scared out of their knickers that someone would be encouraged to follow the film's example? In the UK, where such things are subject to much more stringent legislation, they might even be advised to sue the filmmakers. Bush has no such luck in this country.

It seems to me this more evidence that the Left has truly lost their minds.

A Targeted
In The Holy Land

From Elder of Ziyon:

Extrajudicial Killing of PRC leader

Early this morning, Ra'ed Mohammad El-Nahhal was killed. El-Nahhal was a leader in the "Naser Salah El-Deen Brigades," which is the armed wing of the Popular Resistance Committees.

While he was driving his car at the time, it was not a Zionist helicopter or drone that sent a missile down his throat, but some other PalArab pumped several bullets into his head.

Which means that the unfortunate El-Nahhal will not get a huge funeral with people waving terror flags; Reuters will not be sending any cameramen to photograph his remains; there will be no car swarm; his family will not get thousands of dollars from Iran or Saudi Arabia; no posters of El-Nahhal will be printed up and plastered all over "refugee camps"; he will have no streets or stadiums named after him; no international human rights organizations will scream about "extrajudicial killings" in their self-congratulatory press releases, no one will protest his killers. People who want to Google him will only find mention at the PCHR site and a Zionist blog.

Like this one.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Islam And

From Robert Spencer:

Islamic law forbids forced conversion, but as Andrew Bostom documented in a FrontPage article yesterday, this is a law that throughout Islamic history has all too often been honored in the breach. Nor is this yet another case of a “twisting” or “hijacking” of Islam; in fact, Islamic law regarding the presentation of Islam to non-Muslims manifests a quite different understanding of what constitutes freedom from coercion and freedom of conscience from that which prevails among non-Muslims.

Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them – the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

There is therefore an inescapable threat in this “invitation” to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? By non-Muslim standards, yes, but not according to the view of this Islamic tradition. From the standpoint of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence such a conversion would have resulted from “no compulsion.”

Forced Conversions
On A
Geo-Political Scale

From Robert Spencer:

Muhammad reinforced these instructions on many occasions during his prophetic career. Late in his career, he wrote to Heraclius, the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople:
Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e., surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e., your nation). (Bukhari, 4.52.191).

Heraclius did not accept Islam, and soon the Byzantines would know well that the warriors of jihad indeed granted no safety to those who rejected their “invitation.”

Muhammad did not get a satisfactory answer either from Chosroes, ruler of the Persians. After reading the letter of the Prophet of Islam, Chosroes contemptuously tore it to pieces. When news of this reached Muhammad, he called upon Allah to tear the Persian emperor and his followers to pieces (Bukhari, 5.59.708). He told the Muslims that they would conquer both empires: “When Khosrau [Chosroes] perishes, there will be no (more) Khosrau after him, and when Caesar perishes, there will be no more Caesar after him. By Him in Whose hands Muhammad’s life is, you will spend the treasures of both of them in Allah’s Cause” (Bukhari 4.53.349).

Muhammad did not limit his veiled threat only to rulers. Another hadith records that on one occasion he emerged from a mosque and told his men, “Let us go to the Jews.” Upon arriving at a nearby Arabian Jewish community, Muhammad told them: “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle” (Bukhari, 4.53.392). In other words, if you accept Islam, you may keep your land and property, but if not, Muhammad and the Muslims would confiscate it.

Indeed, few in the West know what’s going on regarding the example of Muhammad and the stance of traditional Islam on conversion. The human rights organizations should have the courage to recognize and denounce this conversion-or-else directive, and to recognize the plight of those who even today suffer from its scourge.

Moreover, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad operating according to Muhammad’s instructions, this now has geopolitical implications. In his letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad invited him to accept Islam, and then echoed the Prophet of Islam in delivering a threat to Bush through Mike Wallace: “We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate.”

Ahmadinejad’s threat, as well as the ordeal of Centanni and Wiig, epitomizes the threat that the global jihad represents to the freedom of conscience.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Why We Are Fighting

An essay from Dennis Prager:

Last year at UCLA, I debated a professor who argued that Israel and the Palestinians were moral equivalents. He is not alone (especially on college campuses) in his lack of understanding of the immoral nature of the Islamic enemies of America and Israel.

Thus it is important to remind people once again about the moral world inhabited by the people we are fighting, whom President George W. Bush calls the Islamic Fascists.

Societal examples:

-- The Islamic Republic of Sudan, in its attempt to force Arab/Muslim rule on the largely non-Arab and non-Muslim population of southern Sudan, has led to the killing of well above 1 million Christians and animists and black (i.e., non-Arab) Muslims, in addition to the widespread enslavement, rape and torture of those people.

-- No major international Arab or Muslim organization has condemned the Sudanese government's mass murders that border on genocide.

-- The leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel. As the 6 million Jews of Israel do not plan a mass exodus from their ancient and modern homeland, such annihilation would in fact mean another Holocaust.

-- The holy center of Islam, the Muslim country where the holiest Muslim sites are situated, is Saudi Arabia. That country bans the practice of any religion other than Islam, amputates hands of thieves, does not allow women to drive a car, mandates what women wear outside of their homes and is the only country in the world to feature a weapon on its national flag. Women were treated considerably better and had more civil rights in ancient Rome, not to mention ancient Israel, than women living in the holiest cities of Islam today.

-- Virtually every Islam-based country decrees the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to another religion.

In other words, every country that calls itself "Islamic" is morally inferior to just about every country in North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, almost every Asian country and many African countries.

No Muslim country treats non-Muslims and their religions anywhere nearly as decently as any Western non-Muslim country (including Israel) treats Muslims. That is why tens of millions of Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim societies and virtually no non-Muslim immigrates to any Muslim society. In every Muslim country, non-Muslims are either systematically persecuted at worst or treated as inferiors at best.

Individual examples (in just the last five months):

-- "A German court sentenced a Turkish man to more than nine years in jail yesterday for the 'honour killing' of his sister. . . . The murder of Hatun Surucu, 23, who was shot several times at a bus stop in a Berlin suburb last year, shocked Germany. . . . Forced to marry a cousin in Turkey as a young girl, Ms. Surucu later broke with her Turkish-Kurdish family in Berlin and was living independently with her 5-year-old son, to the intense disapproval of her relatives. . . . Public outrage at the murder was exacerbated when some teenage boys at a school with many pupils from immigrant families . . . reportedly openly applauded the killing, condemning the victim for having lived 'like a German.'" (The Guardian, UK, April 14, 2006)

-- "Men using machetes attacked worshipers in three Coptic [Christian] churches in the port city of Alexandria [Egypt] on Friday morning, killing an 80-year-old man and wounding at least six other people, the police there said." (International Herald Tribune, April 15, 2006)

-- "An Egyptian state-controlled newspaper praised Monday's suicide attack in Tel Aviv, which killed nine people and wounded dozens, calling it an act of sacrifice and martyrdom." (Jerusalem Post, April 18, 2006)

-- In Britain, Abdula Ahmed Ali, 25, and his wife Cossor, 23, were arrested in connection with the plot to blow up airplanes flying across the Atlantic. According to Scotland Yard, the Muslim couple planned to take their 6-month-old baby on the suicide mission, using their baby's bottle to hide a liquid bomb. (Daily Telegraph, UK, Aug. 14, 2006)

-- "We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the [Israelis]." -- words of a Canadian UN observer written days before he was killed by Israeli bombs (Ottawa Citizen, July 27, 2006)

-- "Canadian authorities rounded up a group of 17 Muslim men and boys suspected of plotting to bomb major buildings in the Toronto area . . . " (CNN, June 5, 2006)

-- In Australia, "[Islamist] propaganda has convinced many residents their suburbs are being overrun by Islamic extremists. . . .The Saturday Daily Telegraph revealed an escalation of anti-Semitic behaviour. . . . Jewish university students were targeted and forced to hide their traditional skullcaps beneath baseball caps to avoid abuse, while attacks on synagogues have increased." (Daily Telegraph, Australia, Aug. 26, 2006)

-- "A third suspect detained in a failed attempt to blow up two German trains is a Syrian national . . . German and Lebanese authorities are each holding one of two young Lebanese men accused of carrying the suitcase bombs onto trains in Cologne station on July 31. . . . Officials say they could have caused many casualties and set the trains on fire." (Newsday, Aug. 26, 2006) Does all this suggest that we are fighting a billion Muslims? Of course not.

Does all this suggest that all or even most Muslims are bad people? Of course not.

It does suggest, however, that the dominant forces within Islam are bad at this time; that Muslims who see this evil in their midst have not mobilized any counterforce either out of fear for their lives or for some other reason; and that decent men and women around the world -- Hindu, Christian, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist and Muslim -- are threatened by this powerful, death-loving force.

Muslims who do not acknowledge the threat to civilization from within the Muslim world at least have two excuses -- fear for their lives or group solidarity. What excuses do non-Muslims have who deny this threat?

Monday, August 28, 2006

Lotus Flower

Never Forget What?

Here is an excerpt from an excellent essay by Jason Pappas at Liberty and Culture:

The evil of Nazi Germany is universally condemned for the extreme depravity that it embodies. In our culture, minimization of this evil is reason enough for ostracism. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime punishable by incarceration.

There is no longer a threat of Nazism in Europe thanks to the annihilation of Germany by the Allied forces. Neo-Nazis are a fringe group quickly damned by the vast majority of decent people. Neo-Nazis are so rare in America that they are a freak show, trotted out for periodic display by television magazine shows.

It’s safe to damn Nazism. Elliot Spitzer, who is running for governor of New York, mentions in a TV ad how he is fighting Neo-Nazism here in New York. He has it under control. Mel Gibson, while drunk, says some stupid things and there is an immediate outcry. We nipped that one in the bud.

Günter Grass finally admitted he was in the Waffen-SS and without any hesitation we have Ferguson, Hitchens, and others on the case. Quite frankly, he’s not the person who worries me today.

Nevertheless I do understand: we should never forget. ... (But) have we learned anything?

As we vociferously condemn Mel Gibson and the pre-teen Neo-Nazi twins, a leader of a major Islamic nation denies the Holocaust and announces his desire to annihilate the Jewish state. While the damnation of German Nazis and neo-Nazis is emphatic and swift, damnation of Islamic Nazis is tentative, hesitant, and laced with doubt. We see little focus by the mainstream media on this Islamic Nazi. No, I take that back. We find an ill-prepared Mike Wallace unable to ask the tough questions when he interviewed the thug-in-chief. This is not the way he’d interview Mel Gibson.

As Joel C. Rosenberg, says in the above article: “Iran is the new Germany. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Adolf Hitler. Radical Shiite Islamic jihadists are the new Nazi storm troopers. The pursuit of the Twelfth Imam is the pursuit of the new Third Reich. CBS News had both the opportunity and responsibility to help the world truly understand this regime and the danger it poses. It failed miserably, and we are all poorer for it.”

Go read the rest.

CAIR Trots
On CSpan

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is known to many as a radical Islamic front group. From what I know, the characterization seems fair. The website anti-CAIR was sued by CAIR for calling tagging them with such monikers, but when the case went to court, it got settled, and anti-CAIR still exists, and they still say the same things about CAIR.

That pretty much tells you what you need to know, huh?

Anyway, check this out:

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, appeared on C-SPAN today hosting Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. In his speech, Awad highly recommended a book by antisemitic ex-Congressman Paul Findley, praising Findley as “a pioneer in promoting America’s interests in the Middle East.”

The book that Nihad Awad described as “an eye-opener,” They Dare to Speak Out, is oddly not for sale at Amazon. (Correction: it is at Amazon.)

So, being the curious type, I searched Google—and discovered that Findley’s book is highly regarded not just by CAIR.

The Google search reveals a squirming nest of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, radical Marxist/leftists, and radical Islamists: ‘paul findley’ ‘they dare to speak out’.

They’re all here: Stormfront, Counterpunch,, Ernst Zundel, Vanguard News Network, Soundvision, and MPACUK, just to name a few. They all seem to think Findley’s book is a work of genius.

Just like CAIR’s Nihad Awad.

Go here to see video of CAIR's CSpan presentation.

We Have
A Choice
How To
Face Death

I was discussing the "conversion" of the Fox News Journalists with a friend who is an ex-Muslim convert to Christianity, living in Dar al-Islam. We are both happy that the journalists are alive and well. We hope that they will soon be home with friends and family, and we hope they will never again have to undergo such an ordeal.

However, both my friend and I are in agreement that we hope that were we ever to be asked to make such a "conversion", that we would answer in the negative.

My friend's way of putting it was rather rhapsodic. And, I asked him if I could share it here. He answered in the affirmative, so here it is:

I think everyone is in either spiritual or physical (or both) danger (from the threat of Islam). The way I see it is, our strength is in our action backed by prayer, while their (Muslim) strength is in their action backed by the sword.

I believe that the sword will go blunt and the screams will fade but the power of prayer will remain mighty forever.

What I see around me is very depressing, but the prayer keeps me going. I hope I come out of this alive but if I don't I pray to have the strength to say,

"I will not convert, because I believe that Christ is my savior, the Son of the Living God, the One who gave the law to Moses, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

One thing's very interesting though, no matter how depressed I am throughout the day, at the end, I am always filled with hope. Tomorrow is always a hope-filled new day. That keeps me going. Hope, strength and happiness is what I pray for so that if, ever, my enemies see me, they see me as a person who found peace in Christ and hopefully acknowledge that fact.

Music by Brian Eno

This is a beautiful video.

In The

Most know the story of the two Fox News reporters who were kidnapped by Palestinians the other day in Gaza. Prior to releasing them the Palestinians forced them to convert to Islam at gunpoint. The two reporters were videotaped announcing their new-found "faith." These conversions have been played on news reports across the world.

Brit Hume had this to say on the subject last night:

Hume: Yes, and what an appealing faith these thugs must believe Islam is, that conversions have to be effected at the point of a gun. And what of the argument that all of the ills and troubles that beset the Palestinian people, that lead them to terrorism, are the cause of what they endlessly refer to as the illegal Israeli occupation.

Consider the latest rounds of trouble in Gaza and Lebanon, two places from which Israel has withdrawn.

It has been noted that not for one day after the Israeli pullout from Gaza did the rocket attacks that came from Gaza ever stop.

We’re not dealing here with something that is susceptible to a political resolution of the kind of which the State Department and many a president has dreamed.

We’re dealing here with a lawless enemy whose goal far transcends any side-by-side, two-state solution. That isn’t going to do it. We’re dealing with a terrorist, gangland-style enemy, which I think it’s fair to conclude, and this episode only further illustrates it, must be defeated.

Islam is a unique religion in that it believes it can kidnap converts. It also believes it can buy converts. I have met people from Ethiopia who have told me that they saw this happening in their home country.

I think this incident with the journalists may wake some people up. The incredible infantilism of thinking that you can beat a person into converting has got to be instructive of the very real sickness we are up against.

Reliapundit talks about the fact that conversion by threat of force violates a verse in the Koran:

... the koran forbids coerced conversions - at least in one quote:

Islam expressly forbids forced or coerced conversion, as demonstrated by this quote from the Quran: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2: 256).

So, if Muslims hold the koran sacred, then why aren't any Muslims anywhere protesting this sacreligious act or even speaking out against it, and demanding the perps get punished?

But, the truth is, there are other verses in the Koran which call for Muslims to wage Jihad against the Infidel in order to ensure that the entire world become Dar al-Islam. These verses tells us that the Infidel who is conquered by Jihad has three choices, conversion, dhimmitude, or death.

These verses were written later in Mohammed's life, which means they abrogate the earlier verse which speaks against compulsion.

Truth is, many Muslims live by the no compulsion creed, but, if they were to choose to protest they are easily be shut up Imams and holy men who simply point out the later verses.

That's why you won't hear of any large organized Muslim protest against these "conversions," just as you also won't find any large organized Muslim protest against any Jihadi activity.

Muslims can't protest against this behavior, because it's stipulated in the Koran.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

America Is Waiting

Brian Eno and David Byrne

(Life Out Of Balance)

Prophecies Section