Archive for October, 2006

John Kerry is a moron.

He just needs to shut the hell up and go away.

…909am update San Gabriel Valley Tribune/Pasadena Star News reports on the Angelides campaign event at Pasadena City College where Kerry trashed the troops…”Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs – “If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” he said to a mixture of laughter and gasps.”***

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in


.” – John Kerry

This idiot just doesn’t know when to shut the hell up!
Angelides will now be associated with an anti-military boob, his election chances are even slimmer than they were before the moronic endorsement by Kerry.

Take it from me Kerry, a retired Army NCO that has two Associates degrees and am five classes shy of my Bachelors degree; you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

This is for you sir…


Connecticut: Ned Lamont

Maryland: Ben Cardin

Maryland: Ben Cardin

Missouri: Claire McCaskill

Missouri: Claire McCaskill

Michigan: Debbie Stabenow

Montana: Jon Tester

Ohio: Sherrod Brown

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey

Tennessee: Harold Ford

Tennessee: Harold Ford

New Jersey: Bob Menendez

Virginia: James Webb


(AZ-5): Harry Mitchell

(AZ-08): Gabrielle Giffords

(CO-07): Ed Perlmutter

(CT-04): Diane Farrell

(CT-05): Chris Murphy

(FL-16): Tim Mahoney

(GA-03): Jim Marshall

(GA-12): John Barrow

(IA-01): Bruce Braley

(IL-06): Tammy Duckworth

(IL-17): Phil Hare

(IN-08): Brad Ellsworth

(IN-09): Baron Hill

(NC-13): Brad Miller

(NH-02): Paul Hodes

(NM-01): Patricia Madrid

(NY-20): Kirsten Gillibrand

(NY-24): Michael Arcuri

(NY-29): Eric Massa

(OH-15): Mary Jo Kilroy

(OH-18): Zack Space

(PA-07): Joe Sestak

(PA-10): Chris Carney

(PA-08): Patrick Murphy

(PA-12): John Murtha

(VA-02): Phil Kellam

(WA-8): Darcy Burner

(WI-08): Steve Kagen

Another leftist defeatist tactic that once again cannot stand up to the facts of the matter. And once again, I will refute the BS claims the left and their MSM pals insist on making.

The US, ARVN, and allied Australian and South Korean forces suffered 4,324 killed, 16,063 wounded, and 598 missing due to the Tet Offensive.

The US has had 2,809 Service Members killed in Iraq since the start of the war, with another 20,887 wounded.

As for the US casualties in the Tet Offensive, 1,536 were KIA and another 7,764 were WIA.

For the year (1968) that Tet took place, 14,594 Service Members were KIA. 87,388 were WIA.

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges. There cannot be a viable comparison between the two when it comes to the amount of casualties that are suffered.

Every lost soul in this war is tragic. I have lost a close friend to this war and it hurts every day. But, I will not stand idly by and let him, or the other 2,808 be slandered by the left and the lies that they portray on a daily basis.

This war is being won by our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, and our Coasties.

This war can be lost by the political left and their defeatist cronies.

Silence on the Economy

Posted: 23 Oct 2006 in Politics

As is usually the case these past six years, the economy has not been the focus of the MSM at all.
As a matter of fact, the silence is deafening.

Prosperity Amid the Gloom

By George Will

WASHINGTON — Recently Bill Clinton, at the British Labour Party’s annual conference, delivered what the Times of London described as a “relaxed, almost rambling” and “easy anecdotal” speech to an enthralled audience of leftists eager for evidence of American disappointments. Never a connoisseur of understatement, Clinton said America is “now outsourcing college-education jobs to India.”

But Clinton-as-Cassandra should not persuade college students to abandon their quest for diplomas: The unemployment rate among college graduates is 2 percent.

Clinton is always a leading indicator of “progressive” fashions in rhetoric. And every election year — meaning every other year — brings an epidemic of dubious economic analysis, as members of the party out of power discern lead linings on silver clouds.

“Worst economy since Herbert Hoover,” said John Kerry in 2004, while that year’s growth (3.9 percent) was adding to America’s GDP the equivalent of the GDP of Taiwan (the 19th-largest economy). Nancy Pelosi vows that if Democrats capture Congress they will “jump-start our economy.” A “jump-start ” is administered to a stalled vehicle. But since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy’s growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today’s unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) — lower, in fact, than the average for the last 40 years (6.0). Some stall.

Economic hypochondria, a derangement associated with affluence, is a byproduct of the welfare state: An entitlement mentality gives Americans a low pain threshold — witness their recurring hysterias about nominal rather than real gasoline prices — and a sense of being entitled to economic dynamism without the frictions and “creative destruction” that must accompany dynamism. Economic hypochondria is also bred by news media that consider the phrase “good news” an oxymoron, even as the U.S. economy, which has performed better than any other major industrial economy since 2001, drives the Dow to record highs.

Amazing isn’t it?
I blame Bush!!

Today’s Stuff

Posted: 12 Oct 2006 in Politics

Nets, Particularly CBS and Couric, Treat 655,000 Iraqi Death Guestimate as Credible

Despite how the estimate of 665,000 Iraqi deaths caused by violence since the war began — a number forwarded in a new report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — represents quadruple the highest monthly rate as tracked by the UN and is 13 times larger than the total compiled by the Iraq Body Count group, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric set up a Wednesday story on the guesstimate by declaring as fact: “Now we’re learning that the war has been a lot more deadly than we knew.” David Martin proceeded to treat the number as perfectly reasonable as he put the blame on the U.S.: “A new and stunning measure of the havoc the American invasion unleashed in Iraq. A study published in the British journal Lancet estimates 655,000 Iraqis — 2.5 percent of the entire population — have died as a consequence of the war. To understand how large, consider this: The same percentage of the much larger American population would be 7.5 million dead.”

Has anyone bothered to do the math?
655,000 people in 3 years.
218, 333.33 people per year.
613.29 people per day.
25.55 people per hour.

How fookin’ rediculous is that number?
The islamo-fascists are lucky if they get 25 people in one attack.
Give me a break!

S.Korea Finds No Abnormal Radioactivity
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea said Thursday it had detected no abnormal radioactivity levels within its borders after a declared North Korea nuclear test blast this week.

Lee Moon-ki, the director general for nuclear energy at South Korea’s Science and Technology Ministry, said in an interview before an announcement by his ministry that his country had also detected no increases of radioactivity at the suspected test site in North Korea. He later retracted that statement, saying he misspoke.

N.Korea warns Japan against sanctions

SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea threatened Japan on Thursday with “strong countermeasures” if it goes ahead with tougher sanctions over Pyongyang’s reported nuclear test.

Japan and the United States are pushing for tough measures against the North, although diplomats say China opposes the more punitive parts of a draft resolution Washington wants the U.N. Security Council to adopt in a vote, possibly on Friday.

Did it happen, or was it just a large TNT detonation in the north? At any rate, the North Koreans need to be slam dunked on this one. That little despot is out of control. Apeasement didn’t work under the Clinton administration, I am certain that it will not work now.

Sanctions by the United States, Japan, South Korea and China would be a good starting point.

China Reluctant to Back Korea Sanctions

BEIJING (AP) – China appeared to shy away Thursday from backing U.S. efforts to impose a travel ban and financial sanctions on North Korea for its claimed nuclear test, saying any U.N. action should focus on bringing its communist neighbor back to talks.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said North Korea should understand it had made a mistake but “punishment should not be the purpose” of any U.N. response.

Did anyone really think that China would play along with the rest of the world?
Not me.

I have yet to read any of his books, but it is on my to do list.

He is an exceptional writer on Pajamas Media and at National Review Online.

I have enjoyed reading his comments and columns.

I have added links and the starting paragraphs to several of his PJM comments here.

After which, I’ll link to some other juicy tidbits…


The Will of the President

Victor Davis Hanson

When Winston Churchill was ushered in as Prime Minister after the invasion of France in May 1940, the consensus was that he alone had correctly seen the real Hitler, and that he alone would stand fast in the face of calls for negotiations for a peace offering the status quo, and that he would rally the nation for the horrors ahead—and they were plenty from Dunkirk and Tobruk to the fall of the Singapore and catastrophe in the Asia.

Five Years and Running
Victor Davis Hanson

More Whining From Osama

I watched bin Laden’s commemorative tape released shortly before the fifth anniversary of the attack today. All the usual stuff was there: mention of lost honor, the same pathological lying about taking credit for mass murder that he once denied, more gripes about Kosovo, Chechnya, etc.

Do any Americans finally see through these killers? On Monday they are mad about East Timor, on Tuesday Kosovo. Wednesday they wake up and shout about Israel, while on Thursday it’s American troops once in Saudi Arabia. Does anyone see a pattern here, especially when they talk of lost “honor” and “humiliation”? War-torn Rwandans are humiliated. There is no honor in Serbia. But what in God’s name is the complaint of radical Islam, when billions of windfall profits accrue to the Middle East, to countries like Iran or Syria or the Gulf States, who pump oil someone else found at $5 and sell it at $60, and can’t make or mend on their own any of the apparatus needed to profit?

Wars, Books, and Democrats
Victor Davis Hanson

Good and bad wars?

The death toll of allied and American soldiers in Afghanistan these last few months is nearing those of coalition losses in Iraq, and may well rise at a greater rate. For now, this has not affected too much the argument of the Left that Afghanistan is the “good” war, and Iraq the “bad”.

In the former we went after the base where the 9/11 attacks were planned, involved a coalition of NATO allies, and saw the emergence of some sort of consensual government follow the wreckage of the Taliban fairly quickly—and at only about 60 American combat death per year in the first three-years of postbellum occupation.

Depressing Times
Victor Davis Hanson

Oriana Fallaci, RIP, the Pope, and a Sad Age

Rarely has the death of a public intellectual affected me as much as the passing of Oriana Fallaci. I never met her, and only received a brief note once from her accompanying a copy of The Rage and the Pride. The story of her career is well known, but her death, at this pivotal time, was full of paradoxes and yet instruction as well.

Radical Islam is, among other things, a patriarchal movement, embedded particularly in the cult of the Middle-Eastern male, who occupies a privileged position in a society that can be fairly described as one of abject gender apartheid. Islamism is also at war with the religious infidel, not just the atheist—and, in its envy and victimhood, fueled by a renewal of the age-old hatred of the Christian.

But so far, with very few exceptions other than the lion, Christopher Hitchens, the courageous William Shawcross, and a few others, the Left has either been neutral or anti-American in this struggle. And few Christians in positions of influence and respect have publicly defended their faith and the civilization that birthed it.

Drawing the Line?
Victor Davis Hanson

It has been a parlor game of sorts to guess when—but even more so if—the Europeans (Britain included) will sigh, “Enough is enough,” and so get tough with both their own unassimilated angry Muslim minorities and the radical Islamic world at large. There will never be liberal values in the Middle East, no change, no future—as there would not have been in Hitler’s Germany, as there is not today in Cuba or North Korea—without the defeat of Islamic fascism, in its latest Islamic incarnation, as an ideological force.

Wars, then and now
Victor Davis Hanson

The Hate-America Industry

When bin Laden praised William Blum’s Rogue State, it soared to the top of Amazon’s sales charts. So too now has Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival—as soon as the semi-literate Hugo Chavez held it up at the United Nations. The Left sees it as McCarthy-like to even suggest that our own are the ideological godheads of the enemy. But it is true.

I am going through the rough draft of a new Al-Qaeda reader this morning, translated and edited by Raymond Ibrahim, soon to be released by Doubleday. What do Dr. Zawahri and bin Laden complain about from their caves in Pakistan? Why, of course, the American failure to sign Kyoto, our desecration of the environment, George Bush reading a goat story on the morning of 9/11, Halliburton, and—that critically-important concern of radical Islam— the lack of campaign finance reform in the United States. Much of their rants are simply jottings and notes taken from watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and killing time in hideouts by listening to talking heads on CNN.

We are all very lucky to live in the Civilization of the West
Victor Davis Hanson

Clintonian and Cartesian Angst

I just arrived back to California after a wonderful five-week teaching stint at Hillsdale College in Michigan—to blue skies, raisins safely in the roll, the farm in good shape thanks to the renter and my son, and constant televised clips from Bill Clinton’s embarrassing, but staged rant.

Why when leaving office did we hear little, if any, second guessing—much less criticism of their successors—from Gerry Ford, Ronald Reagan, or George Bush, Sr.—but lots of self-serving revisionism from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Ford and the elder Bush, after all, were both defeated at the polls and might have voiced hurt at their fates?

America and its Discontents
Victor Davis Hanson

Clintonian Neuroses

In the last post I suggested that Clinton needed a thorough psychiatric analysis—and then was apprised that a Pajamas Media contributor, Gagdad Bob, had offered a fine portrait of his narcissist tendencies. Clinton’s furious outburst illustrated a fundamental Democratic fear: even when events favor popular unease—an unpopular war, rising gas prices—contemporary Democrats are not sure that they can still capture 51% of the electorate.

Democratic Paranoia

And why, if not a deep unease with who they are, do Democrats wheel out an Ike Skelton, John Murtha, or Robert Byrd? Is it for no other reason than these supposedly middle-of-the-road crusty types offer a veneer for the ‘real’ Democratic party that drove out Joe Lieberman, and is best represented by Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer?

The War and Its Critics
Victor Davis Hanson


Most genres don’t require footnotes—the memoir, the essay, the journalistic dispatch. I’ve written histories that had too many footnotes—The Other Greeks had citations to ancient sources in the text, explanations with asterisks at the bottom of the page, and formal endnotes at the back of the book—and memoirs like Fields Without Dreams and Mexifornia with no citations.

But when you write history, and especially history of a contentious nature about Iraq, in which so much is at stake, it is incumbent to identify primary sources. The last three books about the supposed mess in Iraq—Cobra II, Fiasco, and now State of Denial—violate every canon of intellectual courtesy. Check who said what in Cobra II and you find the following: “Interview, former senior military officer”, “Interview, former senior officer”, “Interview, former Centcom planner,” Interview, Pentagon Officials,” “Interview, U.S. State Department Official,” or “notes of a participant.”

And now for more juicy tidbits…

This is from FOX News:

CBS News Allows Conservative Point of View and All Hell Breaks Loose
Thursday , October 05, 2006
By Bill O’Reilly

CBS News allows a conservative point of view and all hell breaks loose. That’s the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo”.

As part of its new evening news format with Katie Couric, CBS now has a “free speech” segment where folks deliver commentary. But when the comments come from the right, the reaction’s fascinating.

Brian Rohrbough’s 15-year-old son Daniel was killed in the Columbine massacre. Ever since, Mr. Rohrbough has been thinking about just why his son and 11 other children were murdered without reason. After seeing the same thing happened at the Amish school a few days ago, Brian Rohrbough said this on CBS News:


BRIAN ROHRBOUGH, FATHER: I am saddened and shaken by the shooting at an Amish school today and last week’s school murders. When my son Dan was murdered on the sidewalk at Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999, I hoped that would be the last school shooting.

Since that day, I tried to answer the question why did this happen? This country is in a moral free fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing Him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak without moral consequences. And life has no inherent value.

We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you, the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion.

Abortion has diminished the value of children. Suicide has become an acceptable action and has further emboldened these criminals. And we are seeing an epidemic increase in murder/suicide attacks on our children.

Sadly, our schools are not safe. In fact, we now witness that within our schools, our children have become a target of terrorists from within the United States.


A few things that need said

Posted: 3 Oct 2006 in Politics

I am posting links to a few things that I feel need to be addressed, or are good issues to be involved with.

Support Dunkin Donuts and Applebees

By Michelle Malkin

Open-borders extremists are starting a boycott of the donut franchises and the restaurant chain. Why? Because they won’t hire aliens whose bogus Social Security numbers don’t check out:

A local group fighting for immigrant rights is calling for a boycott of two nationally known companies. Dunkin Donuts and Applebee’s are accused of discriminating against immigrant workers whose names don’t match their social security numbers.

On the 10th anniversary of what immigration reform advocates call stringent changes to immigration laws, supports of the legalization of the undocumented are once again speaking out — only this time, they are hoping not only to mobilize their vote, but also use their buying power to force the kind of change they want.

“The social security administration says it plans to send out 8 million no match letters,” said Martino Unzuerta, Chicago Workers Collaborative.

The initial purpose of the social security administration’s ‘no match’ letter was to credit workers unclaimed social security earnings. The agency routinely sends out ‘no match’ letters to a company when employees’ names and social security numbers don’t match possibly because of a spelling error, omission of information or a unreported name change. But immigration activists say some employers are now aggressively using the letters to fire immigrant workers.

“The Bush administration wants to give the appearance that they are cracking down on undocumented immigration and workers are an easy escape goat,” said James Thindwa, Chicago Jobs with Justice.

Groups accuse several companies of the practice using ‘no match’ letters to immigrant workers who don’t have valid social security numbers. They want the public to boycott businesses, including Applebee’s and Dunkin Donuts. Neither company could be reached for comment.

What’s there to say? You can’t reason with people who cry “racism” as a response to businesses who abide by the law.

This is a good case for border enforcement and I will be happy to continue patronage of both of these fine franchises. The illegal alien issue is a sore point for me, especially since my wife came to America from Korea, legally, had to apply for removal of her conditional status on her green card after residing in the USA for two years, then had to wait another 3 years just to apply for citizenship. After many trips to L.A. and a lot of paperwork, time and money, she became a citizen. In my opinion, hers as well, if you want to be a part of America, we’re all for it; just do it legally. If you are here illegally. then you do not have the right to dictate to me, or any other American legal resident/citizen amy demands for clemency, or anything else. Get the hell out of my country!
Also from Michelle:

Women with spine

Wafa Sultan returns.

Brigitte Gabriel speaks at Heritage.

Listen and learn.

Wafa Sultan has a sack, er chutspa!

Wow, I am truly impressed. You go girl!

This one is about George Soros, what a maroon!

An “Extremely Evil Person”
By Cliff Kincaid | October 3, 2006

Speaking at a Washington symposium on the continuing threat posed by illegal drugs to American society, Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation declared billionaire George Soros to be an “extremely evil person” who wants to legalize dangerous mind-altering drugs. Sounding a battle cry as critical November elections approach, Fay told the assembled conservative activists that Soros, an atheist who is a major funder of the Democratic Party and liberal-left causes, is “our common enemy” and that he is determined to subvert traditional values and undermine America’s families.

This guy is out to lunch. His grip on reality must be drug impaired.


Riz Khan of Al-Jazeera International made a dramatic appearance in Washington, D.C. on September 6, assuring an influential group presided over by conservative activist Grover Norquist that America has nothing to fear from the new channel being launched by the Arab regime of Qatar.

Accuracy in Media disagrees.

If the United States wants to win the war against Islamic terrorism, Khan and his Arab backers should be told in no uncertain terms that an English-language affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s favorite TV channel is not welcome on U.S. cable and satellite systems.

The stakes are high: If Al-Jazeera International gets access to American households, it is probable, if not inevitable, that we will lose the war, not only in Iraq but worldwide. Such a channel could not only further tilt global media coverage against the U.S. position in the world, but could incite Arabs and Muslims inside the U.S. to engage in jihad and commit terrorist acts. That is exactly what the Arabic version has done in Iraq, and that is why it is banned by the new democratic government there.

Don’t be fooled by these Islamist propaganda artists. They are invading our air waves to passify the left even more than they already are. The funny thing about the left and Islam, should Islam become a force in America, their way of life would no longer be an option.
Ironic isn’t it?

by Matthew Vadum
Posted Oct 03, 2006

America’s barbaric terrorist enemies have a friend in the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), an ultra-leftist public-interest law firm that for four decades has protected the supposed constitutional rights of those who would destroy the United States. From its founding in the tumultuous 1960s, CCR has used what it calls “innovative impact litigation” to aggressively attack U.S. anti-Communist policy, the war on Islamist terror, and American businesses. CCR lawyers agree with Islamic Fascists’ critique of American society and ritualistically denounce the U.S. for its supposed hegemony and imperialism, denying that America has a right to defend itself and regulate its borders.

CCR inhabits a paranoid, nightmarish parallel universe. In it, America is a land of breadlines, racism and totalitarian tyranny. In today’s America, “political dissent and protest are under grave attack … This political repression is accompanied by economic hardship for millions, while racism and environmental devastation flourish along with the fattened bank accounts of the war profiteers who run our government,” wrote CCR’s legal director, William Goodman, in its 2005 annual report.

These morons need to be thrown in jail at the least, but definately belong on the N2BK list.

by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted Oct 02, 2006

Is the U.S. government giving up the interrogation technique that extracted vital intelligence from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

On Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor” on September 20, Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC News, reported that a tough interrogation technique called “waterboarding” had been used by the Central Intelligence Agency to break Mohammed, inducing him to surrender “very valuable” information.

Once again, America’s hands are tied in the war on terrorism Islamic fundamentalism.
Here’s more…

White House Won’t Touch Waterboarding

Whether or not the new legislation governing interrogation of prisoners outlaws waterboarding — the practice of simulating drowning that has worked in the interrogation of captured al Qaeda terrorists — the White House refuses to say.

But days before the measure was enacted by the Senate and signed into law, one of its premier sponsors was strongly suggesting waterboarding would now be banned in future interrogations. Appearing on CBS-TV’s Face the Nation September 24, Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) was asked by John Harris of the Washington Post about past claims about the legislation that “severe punishment, pain — should not be inflicted but serious pain can. What can that possibly mean in concrete terms?”

“In concrete terms,” replied McCain, “It could mean that waterboarding and other extreme measures such as extreme deprivation, sleep deprivation, hypothermia and others would not be allowed.”

“Waterboarding” was singled out in a report by ABC News’ top investigative reporter Brian Ross as an effective means of securing information from captured al Qaeda terrorists — among them Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the architects of 9/11.

The Left’s Seminaries
How times change.

By David French

It is tough not to admire the campus Left’s mental agility. Over the past few decades, we have seen the architects of the free-speech movement become the authors of speech codes, and those who formerly glorified dissent clamp down on campus with a mind-numbing level of intellectual conformity. Scientific inquiry is welcome, unless it results in tough questions about possible innate gender differences. Open debate is the hallmark of the academy, unless of course that debate intrudes into areas where policy should be settled and morality decided (like when dealing with race, class, gender, war, peace, and sexuality).

Given the remarkable ability to reinvent its position on the free-speech clause of the First Amendment (from protesters to censors), it was only a matter of time before the Left began to rethink the religion clauses as well, especially the establishment clause. “Separation of church and state” has been a battle cry of the hard Left for many decades, but what if the Left ran the state — or at least dominated an important state agency? Would the Left remain dedicated to this allegedly bedrock principle?

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

Deanonomics Is Pure Deanogoguery
Responding to the DNC chair’s dangerous economic manifesto.

By Thomas E. Nugent

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Howard Dean provided voters with a thumbnail sketch of the new economic direction Congress will take if the Democrats gain control on November 7. In what follows, I provide you with Dean’s outline — call it “Deanonomics” — while responding in kind to the anointed spokesman for the out-of-power party.

Excellent slap-down of the left’s poster child.

Have a good day all.

From Michelle Malkin’s site:

Here’s Redeker’s full piece (via Paul Belien, Extreme Center, and others; thanks also to Fausta, vigilantly blogging the story):

What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.

Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.

This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”

There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”

A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.

None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.

The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.

This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.

Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.

Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the frre World.

And here is a translation of German Professor Egon Flaig’s piece (thanks to Michelle Malkin reader David by way of Diotima – if there is a link for this, please send):

Islam wants to conquer the world by Egon Flaig

“For we want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again, who were lucky enough, to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam’s lap. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be”.

These are not the words of Al Qaeda, they were taken from the programme formulated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, in a speech. The Brotherhood today has millions of adherents and spread out far beyond Egypt. Its intellectuals are working in Europe and the United States; they count as “moderates” and are treated accordingly by the media. Re-conquest of “lost” territory according to plan is part of the agenda of states, that is political communities, fighting about territorial power. How can it be part of a religion’s programme? Is Islam a religion like any other?

Since the beginning of the classical period between the ninth and the eleventh century Islamic jurists have divided the world into two parts, namely the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”. This dichotomy is independent of where Muslims live in large numbers, or even form the majority, but depends on where Islam rules supreme – by applying Shariah – or where it does not rule. So, this dichotomy is not religious in nature, but political. Between these two parts of the world naturally exists a state of war, until the House of War is no more and Islam rules the world (Sura 8, 39 and 9, 41). Thus, according to classical teaching, for the Muslim community there is a duty to wage war against the disbelievers, until those either convert, or submit. This war is called jihad.

While Jesus’ missionary call meant to convert all peoples, but to leave their political order untouched, Islam’s aim is to submit all non-muslims politically, but to leave their religion untouched, if it is a religion of the book. God’s general call to jihad is based on surah 9, 29. It is true though, that minute factions of islam did not accept this interpretation. The Shiites accept it, but demand that a true imam must be leading the Muslim community (and has been waiting for such a one for more than 13 centuries), so that for the time being they only feel bound to defensive jihad, in the case of attacks on the Muslim community.

On the other hand, the other factions, e.g. the so-called Kharijites, have radicalised the content of Sura 9.29: for them, jihad is an individual duty of each able-bodied muslim, which counts as a sixth pillar next to the other five cardinal duties. In the consequence of such teachings: when everyone has to either take part in the collective war against the unbelievers, or, should the Muslim community be too weak for the time being, has to wage war alone or in small groups, then assassinations and terror attacks are right. What the Kharijites demand for offensive jihad, most proponents of orthodox Sunnah-teachings demand for defensive jihad: when Islam is being attacked, or islamic territory is being invaded by infidels, jihad becomes an individual duty, e.g. a fatwa of the Grand Mufti of Cairo’s Al-Azhar university – against Israel – leaves no doubt about that. Any enemy power that acts according to the Hague rules of warfare and strictly distinguishes combatants and non-combatants will be in great difficulty. The state of war lasts so long, until the House of War is destroyed, and the world is conquered. This is why Majid Khadduri calls Islam a “divine nomocracy on imperialist foundations”. Peace treaties, which Islamic rulers closed with non-Islamic rulers, were only considered as cease-fires; this is why as a rule, they were only closed for no more than ten years. Two schools of jurisprudence permit no more than three to four years of peace. The short deadlines made it possible for the militarily superior Muslims to constantly blackmail their adversaries; this way throughout the centuries huge amounts of money and humans went to the Muslim side. When the paradigm of power shifted, Muslim rulers had to change their practice.

Thus in 1535 Suleiman the Magnificent made a peace with the French king which was to last for the lifetime of the Sultan – a break with tradition. Christian theologians tried to define, in the face of a plurality of states, what could be deemed a “just war” and what could not be deemed such. To wage war just in the interest of faith for the most part was not considered just. For Muslim scholars on the other hand, the “house of islam” is a political unit, which does not permit internal war, therefore only war for the sugjugation of infidels was considered legitimate and even a duty, as the famous fourtheenth-century scholare Ibn Chaldun categorically states: “In Islam the jihad is prescribed by law, because it has a universal calling and is supposed to convert all of humanity to Islam, be it of their own free will, or by force”.

The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of islam and of Old Testament Judaism, which prescribed the killing of all males outside of Israel, and the killing of every living thing within Israel (Deuteronomy 20, 10-20). We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).

The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it.

The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye’or’s evaluation therefore is more than justified: “Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest”.Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.

The incredible speed, in which in 90 years an Arabian empire spanning from the south of France to India developed, with no single conqueror guiding the expansion, is unique. The world’s most succesful imperialism was admired by no less than Hegel: “Never has enthusiasm as such done bigger deeds”. If “enthusiasm” could do such a thing – what was its source? The answer is simple: martyrdom. Something happening in 963 in Constantinople may illustrate this: the emperor Nikephoros Phokas had just swept the Muslim invaders from Crete; now, he was planning a big war, to liberate eastern Anatolia and northern Syria from muslim rule. A council should help him: he pleaded with the bishops, to elevate soldiers dying in the war to the status of martyrs. Paradise would then have been assured for those soldiers. The patriarch stood up against the emperor: no church council could be empowered to anticipate God’s decision, only God could decide on eternal salvation.

A scene of historical significance. The emperor knew what was at stake. Again and again, the Byzantians had to witness the Muslim troops fighting with a ferocious courage that the Christians could not emulate. Fallen Muslims were considered martyrs of the faith and marched straight to paradise. The concept of a martyr is fundamentally different in the two religions. Christian martyrs imitate the passion of Jesus, passively submit to torture and death; Muslim martyrs are active fighters.

Decisive for the warriors’ acceptance of death was the firm promise of eternal salvation for those who die for the faith (surah 4, 74-76). Muslims should withstand a tenfold force (surah 8, 66-67); retreat was judged to be acceptable by later scholars if the enemy was at least double as strong, as Khadduri describes. As the decisive factor in any war is the fighting human being and his readiness to sacrifice himself, being on a par technically with the Arabs and Seljuks – in the long run, they had to succumb, if their morale was not of the same kind. Higher readiness to die is an enormous advantage in a fight- foolhardy operations can be waged and dashing manoeuvers to surprise and confuse the enemy; in that way, victory can be forced, that is technically and materially almost impossible, and battles are won, that would be lost under the usual circumstances.

Nikephoros knew about the military consequences of surah 4, 74-76; he was the first who tried to correct the conceptual military disadvantage of the Christian religion. But the bishops of the Eastern Church found themselves incapable of manipulating their theology in a way to create warlike martyrdom. This was it. The Byzantine emperors had to wage their heavy defensive wars against the permanent Saracen and Seljuk aggression without the help of religion, where they needed that help most.

Only the Western Church changed the theological-political situation: when Pope Urban II called the first crusade in 1095, he promised the Christian warriors forgiveness for their sins: fallen crusaders avoided divine judgement and were put on a par with martyrs in that respect, although they were denied that name.

The Pope as head of a monarchic church did just that, what the Council of Eastern bishops had not been able to do: he dispensed salvation. The papal church now could have the kind of “holy war” islam had been waging for centuries. What is the difference between Crusade and jihad? A Crusade could only be called by the Pope, and thus remained a rare occurence – compared to the countless, neverending and ubiquitarian jihads of the islamic world.

And the goals of the Crusades remain precisely defined; in November 1095, Urban II defined reason and aim of the crusade: “it is obvious, we must give help to our brothers in the east as soon as possible. The Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have invaded the realm of Romania (Constantinople) and by invading the lands of these Christians ever more deeply, they won seven battles, killed or captured a huge number of the Christians. If you don’t oppose them now, the faithful servants of God in the Orient will not withstand this storm much longer”. The first Crusades were meant to either help Christians in need, or to liberate the holy places in Palestine or to liberate Christians that had been subjugated by Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslim scholars always kept firm to their final goal, to conquer the “house of war” and subjugate all infidels.
Urban II was right. Had Constantinople fallen in 1100, the enormous military power of the Turk armies would have plagued Europe four hundred years earlier. Then the manifold European culture probably would never have been: no free urban constitutions, no constitutional debates, no cathedrals, no renaissance, no scientific boom, because in the Islamic world, free – Greek! – thinking was dying just at this time. Jacob Burckhardt’s evaluation – “A stroke of luck, that Europe as a whole could ward off Islam” – means, we owe about as much to the Crusades, as to the Greeks’ victory against the Persians.

But, have the Crusades not been abused? Certainly. Crusades “derailed” and were “abused”, like the one that led to the conquest of Christian Constantinople in 1204. But that happened much more often with jihads. When slaves became scarce, emirs did not merely wage wars against non-Muslim peoples, who had to be enslaved anyway, but more and more often against Islamized peoples, under the pretext, that they were no true Muslims. That happened mainly in Africa and against black Africans, e.g. when first in 1468 Songhay and then the Moroccans in 1552 invaded Mali, or when in the 18th century religious reformers waged their jihad against Muslimized Hausa cities, which led to the creation of the Sokoto-caliphate – containing the third largest number of slaves after Brazil and the American south. Africa to this day suffers from the consequences of this permanent jihad with its genocides and mass-enslavements

Well, and what was the political order that the Muslims waged their holy wars for with such vehemence and success? For Shariah. A political order, which for one strictly separates masters from the subjugated and secondly takes political and social order away from human influence for the most part. Let’s talk about the first aspect: According to the Shariah, the Muslims are masters, the followers of other “book religions” – Christians, Jews, Parsees, Buddhists, are subjugated, Dhimmi. These were not religious minorities, but huge majorities, especially in Syria, Anatolia or the Christians of North-Africa.

The subjugated were not allowed to carry weapons, they were unarmed, thus not ‘real men’. Christians and Jews had to wear special colours or pieces of clothing (this discrimination was the origin of the “Judenstern”) so as to be visibly “dhimmi”; they were not allowed to ride on horseback, only on mules, to remind them of their subjugation; they paid a special tribute (jizyah), that they had to pay personally, while being given a slap on the head. They had to let themselves be beaten by any Muslim, without being allowed to defend themselves; if a dhimmi retaliated, his hand would be cut off, or he would be executed. A dhimmi’s witness did not count against a Muslim, who only had to pay half the fine for any crime committed against a dhimmi, and could never ever get executed for any such crime. On the other side, the most cruel methods of execution were reserved for the dhimmi.

Even the discrimination against the Jews, installed by the Western Church in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, four hundred years after Islam, and which seems so barbarian to us, did not intend and did not lead to such a degree of humiliation and demeaning of people. A special horror was brought by the Turkish rule: from 1360 up to a fifth of Christian children were abducted into slavery. They were forcefully converted. The number of slaves through four centuries must have been millions; hundreds of thousands of choice boys among those were raised to be fanatical Muslims and elite fighters, the notorious Janissaries: a politic meant to systematically increase the Muslim population and slowly exterminate Christians. It was successful. “Dhimmitude” put non-muslims in a state of radical “otherness”. To call people in this state “second class citizens” is a euphemism.

In the same way national socialism divided humans into master-race and subhumans on racial grounds, so Shariah did it on religious grounds. As the first world-religion, Islam created an apartheid, where Christian or Parsee majorities were colonised and slowly Islamized. Islamic tolerance meant: tolerate the subjugated as humiliated and demeaned. All this is well known via studies about “dhimmitude”. But who wants to hear about the millions of victims?
Islam religiously “cleansed” huge territories: the second Caliph made the Hijaz, Arabia except Yemen “judenrein” and “christenrein”; the alternative was either to convert, or to be forced into emigration. Except for some Old Testament cases no religion ever before had done that. In the same way the Almohadis and Almoravids “cleansed” Spain after the breakdown of the Caliphate in 1031: tens of thousands of Jews and Christians had to either convert or flee to the Christian north of Spain, or the Levant. Certainly, English and French kings and the kings of Spain later on did the same – they applied the Muslim recipe in doing it. And the pogroms? Since the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) waves of persecution again and again hit the Orient and North Africa, where Jews and Christians were forcibly converted, kicked out or massacred. The destruction of churches went on and on right until the century before last. Slowly, the rosy picture of Muslim Spain created by European anti-imperialism in the 19th century loses its fake colours. A scrupulous study of documents shows a different picture below that. In 889 in Elvira and in 891 in Seville, there were massive pogroms against Christians. In Moroccan Fez in 1033, 6000 Jews were massacred. 1058 Christian Antioch was forcefully Muslimized with torture and threats of death.

The first large pogrom against Jews on European soil happened in 1066 in Muslim Granada, 1500 Jewish families were killed. In 1135 the Jewish quarter of Cordoba was burnt down, it might be good, not to know the number of people massacred then. In 1159 all the Christians in Tunis had to chose between conversion or death. At this time, the vital Christianity of North Africa was completely wiped out. The pogroms in Christian lands are nothing to be proud of in European history, but their scope lags behind the ones in the Muslim world. We urgently need a comparative study of religious oppression.

Let’s talk about integration of the Jews? Nowhere under the rule of Islam, not even in the Spanish Caliphate, were Jews citizens of their own cities, they always remained subjugated. In some German cities – Worms, Augsburg and others – during the high Middle Ages the Jews were citizens, albeit of special legal satus. They had the right to carry arms and were better off than poorer Christian people. Right until the 14th century, when their situation got worse, they were far better integrated than Jews in Muslim Spain could ever hope to be. Who thinks highly of political integration cannot but prefer Augsburg to Cordoba. All this has been well known in academic circles for fifteen years. But who wants to hear it?

To ignore the past means to re-live it. He who keeps on spreading the fairytale of muslim tolerance, stands in the way of those Muslim intellectuals, who seriously work towards a reformation of islam, which started out so promisingly in the 19th century. He steals away their chance to overcome a past, which threatens to become a horrible presence. If the reformers could achieve a radical de-politicization of islam, the muslims could become real citizens of their states. That would leave the highly spiritual religion, which fascinated not only Goethe. Hegel called Islam the “religion of sublime”. It could become that.

Couldn’t pass this up!

Posted: 2 Oct 2006 in Politics

New prophet slap nuts, er prophet Mohammad bobblehead toys!

Islam still sucks and so does Mohammad.

Go and buy a few for you muslim friends.
Let’s get the riots started!