The true conservative
the true democrat
the true independent
is the consummate moderate in all areas
except those of freedom and survival,
eschewing both fascism and socialism
marching to the beat of a
refined mind, a tempered heart
following the morality of ages,
the commandments of Sinai,
faithful to the ethics of our fathers,
of Abraham, Moses, Plato and Lincoln
The authentic conservative
does not have an agenda,
ignores political correctness,
feels the heart but follows the mind
The essential conservative
has lucidity of intelligence
a respect for ideas, for solutions
for values and for truths
The radical leftist, the inflamed Jihadist
both worship the heart, the knowing of
certainty, the passion of perfection.
It’s the mind of the conservative
that lover of freedom,
that directs ones path,
dictates ones decisions and not
the agenda of the crowd
the naivety of feel-goodness,
the one-slogan-fits-all,
the all-is-relative, the
fascism of the hyperbolic left
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama’s Peak is Past (March 19, 2008)
Obama’s pastor of 20 years, the fiery Reverend Wright, would have us damn America for the many sins he so energetically and repeatedly points out. He further claimed in 2006 that racist America, run by rich white folk, could never countenance a black president. Now that he has co-opted brown Obama, born of a white mother and Kenyan father, as his great black hope to rearrange America’s soul, he may have, by his increasingly contaminating and close relationship with Obama, both cursed Obama’s presidential chances and given Obama’s supporters pause. Pause to examine the presidential hopeful’s views and his many influences, a primary part of which derives, as Obama himself acknowledges, from Reverend Wright whose anti-White, anti-America, anti-Israel and pro-Farrakhan diatribes are now filling the TV screens across America (mainly Fox News as CNN, NBC and CBS are unsure, it seems, how these revelations fit in with their clearly ambivalent agendas).
The irony is that all those who could not be proud of America, as Michelle Obama has stated, all those like Reverend Wright who present America as hateful, racist, deserving of 9/11, and all those others who present a depressing, negative, paranoid and nasty version of America, by their support of Obama, with his opposing view of positive hopeful America, will indeed bring him down, will damage ultimately his chances by their virulently negative views so clearly in opposition to Obama’s optimism and belief in a great America.
For Obama to bridge the increasingly obvious divide between his source, his influences and that which he is “selling” in his campaign to America, he is playing more and more the politics of victimhood. This is a great shame as he seemed to be the one candidate capable of optimism, of looking forward, of focusing on the positive in America and enhancing it further for the good of all America.
Obama, when confronted with queries surrounding his relationship to Reverend Wright and the Reverend’s inflammatory remarks and strong support of Louis Farrakhan, that notorious provider of anti-Americanism and of anti-Jewish hate speech, has quickly condemned any statements that are anti-American or anti-Semitic. He has however, with worrying consistency, failed to absolutely condemn both Reverend Wright and Farrakhan, as though his relationship to and admiration of both reverse racists can withstand the controversy and protect his clearly deep sense of loyalty and brotherhood; as though the appalling remarks and virulent attitudes of both are not somehow representative of their character, as though these defining core values and political mantras have not been consistently and openly espoused by these hate mongers for the last 20 years and more.
When you condemn a man’s words and not the man himself, you make light of the seriousness of these words, you dilute its significance. Obama claims the impossibility of disowning Reverend Wright, even as he could not his own white grandmother for certain of her racial epithets. If Obama was of Italian ancestry would his all-inclusive relativity prevent him from disowning Mussolini? If Obama as a kid was taken to and initially belonged to the same church that David Duke frequented, would he similarly castigate Duke’s words whilst breaking bread with him?
Most dictators have had their pet charitable projects, have been good to some portions of their citizenry. Both Hezbollah and Hamas, designated by the USA as terrorist organizations, have effective and surely laudable social programs, albeit with strong political agendas. Obama explains, in mitigation, the good work by Reverend Wright in the church, his active social justice, as though Hitler’s sincere commitment to uplift the poor of Germany can wash away his genocide, his Mein Kampf, his evil. Now Wright is obviously no Hitler, however, one can’t help being reminded of the old adage, that if one sleeps with dogs one will undoubtedly arise with fleas.
Obama clearly, as they often say, wants to have his cake and to eat every bountiful portion thereof. He would have America believe in his all-encompassing ideology, his unlimited inclusiveness, his soporific hope and optimism for all of America. Yet the person he is married to, the church he is a member of, the intimate advisors he has cultivated in Wright and others, the people he seems to have respect and loyalty to, all do not share the worldview he is selling the electorate – they all seem clearly to have an abiding animosity to America, a deeply negative animus about its people and its policies.
Which is it? Who is Obama? Is it the origins, the source, the influences of his life or the newly minted fresh and powerfully convincing and inspiring Obama? When will we get detail and substance on his views, philosophy and plans, when will we be privy to what is more reflective of and essential to Obama – his wife’s profoundly negative views, his relationships with dangerously toxic “uncles” (read Reverend Wright), confidants, mentors and advisors or indeed the perfection he so brilliantly is now espousing.
The irony is that all those who could not be proud of America, as Michelle Obama has stated, all those like Reverend Wright who present America as hateful, racist, deserving of 9/11, and all those others who present a depressing, negative, paranoid and nasty version of America, by their support of Obama, with his opposing view of positive hopeful America, will indeed bring him down, will damage ultimately his chances by their virulently negative views so clearly in opposition to Obama’s optimism and belief in a great America.
For Obama to bridge the increasingly obvious divide between his source, his influences and that which he is “selling” in his campaign to America, he is playing more and more the politics of victimhood. This is a great shame as he seemed to be the one candidate capable of optimism, of looking forward, of focusing on the positive in America and enhancing it further for the good of all America.
Obama, when confronted with queries surrounding his relationship to Reverend Wright and the Reverend’s inflammatory remarks and strong support of Louis Farrakhan, that notorious provider of anti-Americanism and of anti-Jewish hate speech, has quickly condemned any statements that are anti-American or anti-Semitic. He has however, with worrying consistency, failed to absolutely condemn both Reverend Wright and Farrakhan, as though his relationship to and admiration of both reverse racists can withstand the controversy and protect his clearly deep sense of loyalty and brotherhood; as though the appalling remarks and virulent attitudes of both are not somehow representative of their character, as though these defining core values and political mantras have not been consistently and openly espoused by these hate mongers for the last 20 years and more.
When you condemn a man’s words and not the man himself, you make light of the seriousness of these words, you dilute its significance. Obama claims the impossibility of disowning Reverend Wright, even as he could not his own white grandmother for certain of her racial epithets. If Obama was of Italian ancestry would his all-inclusive relativity prevent him from disowning Mussolini? If Obama as a kid was taken to and initially belonged to the same church that David Duke frequented, would he similarly castigate Duke’s words whilst breaking bread with him?
Most dictators have had their pet charitable projects, have been good to some portions of their citizenry. Both Hezbollah and Hamas, designated by the USA as terrorist organizations, have effective and surely laudable social programs, albeit with strong political agendas. Obama explains, in mitigation, the good work by Reverend Wright in the church, his active social justice, as though Hitler’s sincere commitment to uplift the poor of Germany can wash away his genocide, his Mein Kampf, his evil. Now Wright is obviously no Hitler, however, one can’t help being reminded of the old adage, that if one sleeps with dogs one will undoubtedly arise with fleas.
Obama clearly, as they often say, wants to have his cake and to eat every bountiful portion thereof. He would have America believe in his all-encompassing ideology, his unlimited inclusiveness, his soporific hope and optimism for all of America. Yet the person he is married to, the church he is a member of, the intimate advisors he has cultivated in Wright and others, the people he seems to have respect and loyalty to, all do not share the worldview he is selling the electorate – they all seem clearly to have an abiding animosity to America, a deeply negative animus about its people and its policies.
Which is it? Who is Obama? Is it the origins, the source, the influences of his life or the newly minted fresh and powerfully convincing and inspiring Obama? When will we get detail and substance on his views, philosophy and plans, when will we be privy to what is more reflective of and essential to Obama – his wife’s profoundly negative views, his relationships with dangerously toxic “uncles” (read Reverend Wright), confidants, mentors and advisors or indeed the perfection he so brilliantly is now espousing.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
“The Bloody Conundrum of Gaza” The Economist (March 8, 2008)
The only real conundrum, understood well by both Palestinians and Israelis, yet totally ignored by the Western world with their disingenuous and blinding blinkers, with their agenda-driven hypocrisy remaining in place since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, is indeed the obvious reality that this lethal stalemate would cease the minute the rockets and suicide bombings stop. It’s really as simple as that, in spite of all the convoluted permutations both the Western and Arab worlds deign to project onto this conflict.
The Economist states that the “Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a lethal stalemate, and the Islamists of Hamas refuse to be destroyed.” Should Israel with its overwhelming military superiority be desirous of destroying Hamas and their Gaza Strip, it would in fact take a few bloody days and they would be done with. Yet it is their unrivaled and uncompromised ethical standards that prevents just such a bloody solution and keeps Israel by its own choice on the defensive, hoping for sanity and rationality from a West that is cowered by Oil Power and Jihadists and from an Arab world that is full of self-defeating scapegoating, full of well fed hate and uncompromising fundamentalism.
It was so in 1948 and it remains the same intransigence today. Israel’s existence is for the Arab world the issue – not its borders, not any other painful aspect of Israel’s unfortunate interrelationship with the Palestinian people who are themselves hostage to Hamas and the other myriad assorted terrorist groups. All other problems can be solved, all other compromises are eminently within grasp by all except those who have not and will not accept Israel’s right to exist since 1948.
The Hamas Charter as well as the PLO Charter, in spite of all the spin, still advocate for Israel’s destruction. And it is, to the contrary, not Hamas that refuses to be destroyed, but Israel. Israel has no desire, even though it has the firepower, to destroy Hamas – Israel targets only the terrorists and rocketeers. It is irresponsible of The Economist to suggest any genocidal policy of Israel, and at the same time to ignore Hamas’ stated genocidal intentions and their daily rocketing of innocent civilians. Stop the rockets and the stalemate will evaporate, a situation Hamas refuses to entertain and one which the West and the Arab world refuse to push them into.
There is continuous focus on casualties, disproportionate responses and terrified children crying in streets of improvised devastation. Political claims fly back and forth rife with accusations from all sides. The average Palestinian, the average Israeli remain pawns of regimes, of politicians and media poisoned with indifference for these citizens, rife with self-serving agendas and callous scapegoating.
If the missiles stop, so will the necessary, understandable, and eminently proportional responses.
The Economist further claims that the missile attacks (over 500 so far this year) and Israel’s focused responses are where “cause and effect had merged into a seamless continuum.” To be blind to the cause and report avidly on the effects, especially from Gaza, is to pay homage only to the expert Palestinian propaganda machine originally trained well by the KGB in its time and its long time stooge Arafat; propaganda which with Hamas’ ability to daily terrorize Israeli civilians seems to be the two singular areas in which Gaza excels. Once again the simple is ignored, the case as it were of the blind leading the lame. The cause is and was the terrorism emanating from Gaza, the rockets and suicide bombings.
Stop these and the continuum so incorrectly defined by The Economist will likewise evaporate.
See this article at: http://www2.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10808635
The Economist states that the “Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a lethal stalemate, and the Islamists of Hamas refuse to be destroyed.” Should Israel with its overwhelming military superiority be desirous of destroying Hamas and their Gaza Strip, it would in fact take a few bloody days and they would be done with. Yet it is their unrivaled and uncompromised ethical standards that prevents just such a bloody solution and keeps Israel by its own choice on the defensive, hoping for sanity and rationality from a West that is cowered by Oil Power and Jihadists and from an Arab world that is full of self-defeating scapegoating, full of well fed hate and uncompromising fundamentalism.
It was so in 1948 and it remains the same intransigence today. Israel’s existence is for the Arab world the issue – not its borders, not any other painful aspect of Israel’s unfortunate interrelationship with the Palestinian people who are themselves hostage to Hamas and the other myriad assorted terrorist groups. All other problems can be solved, all other compromises are eminently within grasp by all except those who have not and will not accept Israel’s right to exist since 1948.
The Hamas Charter as well as the PLO Charter, in spite of all the spin, still advocate for Israel’s destruction. And it is, to the contrary, not Hamas that refuses to be destroyed, but Israel. Israel has no desire, even though it has the firepower, to destroy Hamas – Israel targets only the terrorists and rocketeers. It is irresponsible of The Economist to suggest any genocidal policy of Israel, and at the same time to ignore Hamas’ stated genocidal intentions and their daily rocketing of innocent civilians. Stop the rockets and the stalemate will evaporate, a situation Hamas refuses to entertain and one which the West and the Arab world refuse to push them into.
There is continuous focus on casualties, disproportionate responses and terrified children crying in streets of improvised devastation. Political claims fly back and forth rife with accusations from all sides. The average Palestinian, the average Israeli remain pawns of regimes, of politicians and media poisoned with indifference for these citizens, rife with self-serving agendas and callous scapegoating.
If the missiles stop, so will the necessary, understandable, and eminently proportional responses.
The Economist further claims that the missile attacks (over 500 so far this year) and Israel’s focused responses are where “cause and effect had merged into a seamless continuum.” To be blind to the cause and report avidly on the effects, especially from Gaza, is to pay homage only to the expert Palestinian propaganda machine originally trained well by the KGB in its time and its long time stooge Arafat; propaganda which with Hamas’ ability to daily terrorize Israeli civilians seems to be the two singular areas in which Gaza excels. Once again the simple is ignored, the case as it were of the blind leading the lame. The cause is and was the terrorism emanating from Gaza, the rockets and suicide bombings.
Stop these and the continuum so incorrectly defined by The Economist will likewise evaporate.
See this article at: http://www2.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10808635
Monday, March 10, 2008
SIX MILLION (March 10, 2008)
Picture, if you would, the single mother
who births and then nurtures her children
to creative beings and lives of giving
Picture the single doctor, saving lives,
easing those lives of others, often for decades
Picture the single scientist who invents the Internet,
Penicillin, the cell phone or nuclear energy
Picture the Albert Einstein, the Marc Chagall, the George Gershwin,
Arthur Rubinstein, Franz Kafka, Martin Buber, Golda Meir,
Jonas Salk, Groucho Marx, Bob Dylan,
on and on, and then on some more,
then multiply that all by six million possibilities
What valuable people we lost forever in the Holocaust.
What good lives this world lost in that genocide,
and more in that war, on all sides
Imagine all the world could have had, all the world could have been
But you can't imagine; we can only see one at a time - and
that is everything to us, all the time.
who births and then nurtures her children
to creative beings and lives of giving
Picture the single doctor, saving lives,
easing those lives of others, often for decades
Picture the single scientist who invents the Internet,
Penicillin, the cell phone or nuclear energy
Picture the Albert Einstein, the Marc Chagall, the George Gershwin,
Arthur Rubinstein, Franz Kafka, Martin Buber, Golda Meir,
Jonas Salk, Groucho Marx, Bob Dylan,
on and on, and then on some more,
then multiply that all by six million possibilities
What valuable people we lost forever in the Holocaust.
What good lives this world lost in that genocide,
and more in that war, on all sides
Imagine all the world could have had, all the world could have been
But you can't imagine; we can only see one at a time - and
that is everything to us, all the time.
Friday, March 7, 2008
MILITANTS?
8 Killed…by Palestinian MILITANT
(pg 1, LA Times, Mar. 7, 08) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-jerusalem7mar07,1,103934,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
Militants?
Those are marchers in San Francisco shouting anti-Bush slogans
Those are protestors scuffling with police at the G8 Summits in Seattle and Rome.
Those are volunteers of The Minutemen patrolling our southern borders.
However they are certainly not the terrorist who chose a seminary
of unarmed religious youths in the middle of the holy city of Jerusalem
and then proceeded to massacre eight of these students,
apart from the dozen badly wounded, in a library containing mainly bibles,
Old Testament bibles, from whence the Koran ironically sprang.
In Gaza messianic crowds danced and celebrated,
handing out sweets in an orgy of revenge,
the smell of martyrdom already thick amongst the revelers.
Hamas calls the attack “heroic” (pg. 8, LA Times, March 7, 2008).
So the West, including The Los Angeles Times,
calls these coldblooded murderers of young innocents, “militants”,
while the Palestinians revere them as “heroic.”
Can there be any greater perversion of morality, of language,
than this dangerous reversion of truth, of common sense?
So our soldiers in Iraq are killers and yet these by contrast
are just angry, oppressed people desperate for expression.
They could not possibly emigrate to any of the dozens
of surrounding Arab countries and make a life and a mark there –
certainly by any standard these countries have many opportunities.
They could not possibly stay in Gaza and the West Bank
and help spend the billions of dollars of aid
from the US, Europe and the UN on better sewage systems,
on education, medical and judicial facilities,
all clearly in desperate need of an overhaul.
They could also not possibly help increase security,
decrease honor killings, rape, corruption, graft
and political killings amongst themselves.
They could not express disapproval to every newspaper in the world,
they could not protest outside the UN in New York or the Israel Embassy in London.
These brave men could not even choose for their Jihad
an Israeli Army base or police station.
No.
They chose a seminary of unarmed innocents in Jerusalem.
That is their unmatched heroism.
These are the heroes we are informed,
that must be our negotiating partners,
our trusted allies in peace.
According to world media, the ETA Basques are terrorists;
so are the IRA (Ireland), the Baader-Meinhof (Germany), the Red Brigades (Italy),
the Japanese Red Army (Japan), the Tamil Tigers (Sri Lanka), FARC (Colombia),
FLN, (Algeria), ELN (Bolivia), the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia) and the Shining Path (Peru)…all and every one of these multitudinous groups, terrorists.
Yet these killers from Gaza and the West Bank
are by contrast uniquely labeled by our empathic, understanding
and infinitely nonjudgmental press as militants.
These are the militants, however who could teach
all these terrorists a thing or two about depravity,
about blind fanaticism, about a bloodlust for innocents.
As long as our American soldiers are accused
by our politicians and our press – claims of torture,
rape and murder are everywhere evident;
and as long as these Jihadists are, by comparison
in our upside-down world, justified as militants;
we will fail to see and mark the enemy;
we will appease and endlessly negotiate,
in all our ambiguity and confusion, with the devil.
We cannot win the war if we refuse
to acknowledge who we must fight.
If we forgive and offer abject apologies
to those who seek our demise,
those who wish our destruction,
then indeed the enemy is within,
the enemy is ourselves.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.233/pub_detail.asp
(pg 1, LA Times, Mar. 7, 08) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-jerusalem7mar07,1,103934,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
Militants?
Those are marchers in San Francisco shouting anti-Bush slogans
Those are protestors scuffling with police at the G8 Summits in Seattle and Rome.
Those are volunteers of The Minutemen patrolling our southern borders.
However they are certainly not the terrorist who chose a seminary
of unarmed religious youths in the middle of the holy city of Jerusalem
and then proceeded to massacre eight of these students,
apart from the dozen badly wounded, in a library containing mainly bibles,
Old Testament bibles, from whence the Koran ironically sprang.
In Gaza messianic crowds danced and celebrated,
handing out sweets in an orgy of revenge,
the smell of martyrdom already thick amongst the revelers.
Hamas calls the attack “heroic” (pg. 8, LA Times, March 7, 2008).
So the West, including The Los Angeles Times,
calls these coldblooded murderers of young innocents, “militants”,
while the Palestinians revere them as “heroic.”
Can there be any greater perversion of morality, of language,
than this dangerous reversion of truth, of common sense?
So our soldiers in Iraq are killers and yet these by contrast
are just angry, oppressed people desperate for expression.
They could not possibly emigrate to any of the dozens
of surrounding Arab countries and make a life and a mark there –
certainly by any standard these countries have many opportunities.
They could not possibly stay in Gaza and the West Bank
and help spend the billions of dollars of aid
from the US, Europe and the UN on better sewage systems,
on education, medical and judicial facilities,
all clearly in desperate need of an overhaul.
They could also not possibly help increase security,
decrease honor killings, rape, corruption, graft
and political killings amongst themselves.
They could not express disapproval to every newspaper in the world,
they could not protest outside the UN in New York or the Israel Embassy in London.
These brave men could not even choose for their Jihad
an Israeli Army base or police station.
No.
They chose a seminary of unarmed innocents in Jerusalem.
That is their unmatched heroism.
These are the heroes we are informed,
that must be our negotiating partners,
our trusted allies in peace.
According to world media, the ETA Basques are terrorists;
so are the IRA (Ireland), the Baader-Meinhof (Germany), the Red Brigades (Italy),
the Japanese Red Army (Japan), the Tamil Tigers (Sri Lanka), FARC (Colombia),
FLN, (Algeria), ELN (Bolivia), the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia) and the Shining Path (Peru)…all and every one of these multitudinous groups, terrorists.
Yet these killers from Gaza and the West Bank
are by contrast uniquely labeled by our empathic, understanding
and infinitely nonjudgmental press as militants.
These are the militants, however who could teach
all these terrorists a thing or two about depravity,
about blind fanaticism, about a bloodlust for innocents.
As long as our American soldiers are accused
by our politicians and our press – claims of torture,
rape and murder are everywhere evident;
and as long as these Jihadists are, by comparison
in our upside-down world, justified as militants;
we will fail to see and mark the enemy;
we will appease and endlessly negotiate,
in all our ambiguity and confusion, with the devil.
We cannot win the war if we refuse
to acknowledge who we must fight.
If we forgive and offer abject apologies
to those who seek our demise,
those who wish our destruction,
then indeed the enemy is within,
the enemy is ourselves.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.233/pub_detail.asp
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Let’s Call Their Bluff (Imposition of a Universal Islamic Blasphemy Law) Mar. 5, 2008
The 57 Muslim nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) are attempting to impose an “Islamic Blasphemy Law” as the Universal Standard, a law which would promote the death penalty for those who blaspheme against the Prophet Muhammad.
Professor Dr. Ekmeleddin Insanoglu, the Turkish Secretary-General of the OIC (including supposed moderate Turkey), issued the above frightening statement on February 15, 2008, partly in response to the republication of those now infamous Danish cartoons.
Previously, on January 18, 2006 the enormously influential Sheik Yusaf al-Qaradawi had demanded that the United Nations act in accord with purely Islamic, Sharia-based laws and conceptions of blasphemy and punishment. Qaradawi is furthermore spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the European Fatwa Council. Noticeably, his anti-Jewish pro-terrorism fatwas include the re-conquering of Spain and the imposition of Sharia, by all necessary means, on all humanity,
I support and hereby call, together with the OIC, for the United Nation’s adoption of a law against blasphemy and strongly urge all to do likewise. Let us, however, use this golden opportunity to democratically broaden the scope of this law to give it more effect, more bite, more universality.
Let us require this broad all-inclusiveness to be adopted by the United Nations as well as the OIC and all related Muslim groups, councils and governing bodies that support this Blasphemy Law, this Universal Standard. Let us include specifically and irrevocably laws that disallow blasphemy against not only Muslim but also the Christian and Jewish G-ds as well as their prophets, their messengers, holy books and holy places. Let us include the Buddhists, Baha’i and all peoples and sects (some Muslim) who are the subject of terrorism and oppression, hate speech and aberrant education. Let us even include in the wide swath of these laws, Muslim women, those perennial second-class citizens, inhabitants of the invisible World of Burkas.
This is a great deal, a wonderful trade off. No Left-wing, multicultural, pro-Palestinian anti-American believer could not but support this all-inclusive fair and balanced legislation.
I would absolutely support giving up our right to Danish cartoons and discussions of Muhammad (not usually central to most Westerners’ lifestyle in any event) in return for the dismantling or reformation of the majority of the Madrassas, educational forums and media outlets in the Muslim world and beyond.
Imams and teachers, policies and agendas, books and media would naturally have to be replaced as they are all endemically permeated by anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-non-Wahhabist people and ideas. The dynamited Buddhist cliff carvings in Afghanistan, those lost wonders of the ancient world, could certainly be rehabilitated as an initial pilot project by these Imams.
Hundreds of thousand of these professional blasphemers would be without jobs, without an honorable means of support. It is only fair that we offer, as a corollary to this new and ground-breaking United Nations law, job retraining facilities for all these newly unemployed jihadists.
We can ensure Hamas gets to grow pure and spiritual tulips in the empty hothouses of Gaza for Amsterdam’s flower markets; we can send Ahmadinejad and his cohorts to Kyoto to practice the ancient art of the Japanese tea ceremony with its inspiring atmosphere of peace, tranquility and love for all mankind.
The more I think about it, the better I feel. Imagine the hundreds of billions of dollars we could save in reduced Homeland Security and U.S. military expenditure. With the help of the passionate OIC and their Wahhabist brethren we could legislate against hate speech everywhere, all the time, for everyone. And I won’t even miss my Danish cartoons.
—
Note 1: See Andrew Bostom’s Feb 23rd, 2008 article on the “Universal Islamic Blasphemy Law?” http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/universal_islamic_blasphemy_la.html
Note 2: See also Ibn Warraq as quoted in Bostom’s above, in a reference on pg 7: “During his recent debate with the cultural jihadist Tariq Ramadan, Ibn Warraq elucidated what is at stake should such Islamic supremacism prevail:
The great ideas of the West -- rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy -- are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.
...Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.”
Andrew Bostom's article:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/02/23/universal-islamic-%e2%80%9cblasphemy%e2%80%9d-law/
Published on Family Security Matters: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.348/pub_detail.asp
Professor Dr. Ekmeleddin Insanoglu, the Turkish Secretary-General of the OIC (including supposed moderate Turkey), issued the above frightening statement on February 15, 2008, partly in response to the republication of those now infamous Danish cartoons.
Previously, on January 18, 2006 the enormously influential Sheik Yusaf al-Qaradawi had demanded that the United Nations act in accord with purely Islamic, Sharia-based laws and conceptions of blasphemy and punishment. Qaradawi is furthermore spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the European Fatwa Council. Noticeably, his anti-Jewish pro-terrorism fatwas include the re-conquering of Spain and the imposition of Sharia, by all necessary means, on all humanity,
I support and hereby call, together with the OIC, for the United Nation’s adoption of a law against blasphemy and strongly urge all to do likewise. Let us, however, use this golden opportunity to democratically broaden the scope of this law to give it more effect, more bite, more universality.
Let us require this broad all-inclusiveness to be adopted by the United Nations as well as the OIC and all related Muslim groups, councils and governing bodies that support this Blasphemy Law, this Universal Standard. Let us include specifically and irrevocably laws that disallow blasphemy against not only Muslim but also the Christian and Jewish G-ds as well as their prophets, their messengers, holy books and holy places. Let us include the Buddhists, Baha’i and all peoples and sects (some Muslim) who are the subject of terrorism and oppression, hate speech and aberrant education. Let us even include in the wide swath of these laws, Muslim women, those perennial second-class citizens, inhabitants of the invisible World of Burkas.
This is a great deal, a wonderful trade off. No Left-wing, multicultural, pro-Palestinian anti-American believer could not but support this all-inclusive fair and balanced legislation.
I would absolutely support giving up our right to Danish cartoons and discussions of Muhammad (not usually central to most Westerners’ lifestyle in any event) in return for the dismantling or reformation of the majority of the Madrassas, educational forums and media outlets in the Muslim world and beyond.
Imams and teachers, policies and agendas, books and media would naturally have to be replaced as they are all endemically permeated by anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-non-Wahhabist people and ideas. The dynamited Buddhist cliff carvings in Afghanistan, those lost wonders of the ancient world, could certainly be rehabilitated as an initial pilot project by these Imams.
Hundreds of thousand of these professional blasphemers would be without jobs, without an honorable means of support. It is only fair that we offer, as a corollary to this new and ground-breaking United Nations law, job retraining facilities for all these newly unemployed jihadists.
We can ensure Hamas gets to grow pure and spiritual tulips in the empty hothouses of Gaza for Amsterdam’s flower markets; we can send Ahmadinejad and his cohorts to Kyoto to practice the ancient art of the Japanese tea ceremony with its inspiring atmosphere of peace, tranquility and love for all mankind.
The more I think about it, the better I feel. Imagine the hundreds of billions of dollars we could save in reduced Homeland Security and U.S. military expenditure. With the help of the passionate OIC and their Wahhabist brethren we could legislate against hate speech everywhere, all the time, for everyone. And I won’t even miss my Danish cartoons.
—
Note 1: See Andrew Bostom’s Feb 23rd, 2008 article on the “Universal Islamic Blasphemy Law?” http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/universal_islamic_blasphemy_la.html
Note 2: See also Ibn Warraq as quoted in Bostom’s above, in a reference on pg 7: “During his recent debate with the cultural jihadist Tariq Ramadan, Ibn Warraq elucidated what is at stake should such Islamic supremacism prevail:
The great ideas of the West -- rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy -- are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.
...Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.”
Andrew Bostom's article:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/02/23/universal-islamic-%e2%80%9cblasphemy%e2%80%9d-law/
Published on Family Security Matters: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.348/pub_detail.asp
Monday, March 3, 2008
America at the Crossroads (Mar. 3, 2008)
It seems all great empires mature and then dissipate over time, the average span being 200 years. The United States may be moving from success and bountiful wealth to self-indulgent egocentricity and blinding apathy.
The Huns evinced greater energy and focus than did the Romans, hence the latter’s demise.
It seems too much success, too much freedom can be a bad thing. We can get too spoiled and flaccid, losing our perspective and appreciation of the wondrous freedoms and institutions our democracy affords us.
And if we take our unique advantages for granted, if in our apathy we respect only third world cultures, religions and that which we are not, then in our idolatrous decadence, we open the door to infiltration by those who would do us harm, those who work to steal our jewels and destroy the rest. And there are endless faces pressed to our windows, jealous or angry at our smugness, our softness, our presumptuousness, awaiting our fall in grace from our ivory towers.
Perhaps a cheeky god, a wry humorous and far-seeing god, has sent al-Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalism to try our passions and test our empire in the fires of radicalism.
The British too were tested by the Nazis; fortunately they had Churchill to represent them in those dark times rather than the myriad Chamberlains everywhere hovering, as the latter still do today.
David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first Prime Minister) wrote to Churchill in 1961 of this historical threshold: “I saw you then not only as the symbol of your people and its greatness, but as the voice of the invincible and uncompromising conscience of the human race at a time of danger to the dignity of man, created in the image of God. It was not only the liberties and the honor of your own people that you saved.”
America likewise is now at the crossroads of civilization and it will rise to the occasion or fall by its strength, determination and preparedness to sacrifice its endless pleasures and comfortabilities to preserve its unsurpassed freedoms.
Jihadist terrorists worldwide mock our evident weaknesses, our open sentimentality and our ambivalence. They by contrast are full of clarity, commitment and a preparedness to sacrifice all for their misbegotten ideals. Unless we evince Churchill’s resolute and undeniable commitment to combat these dark forces and fight for our future, we will stand at the precipice, we stand to lose our empire.
In 1940 Winston Churchill declared: “We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing ground, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
And they never did.
The Huns evinced greater energy and focus than did the Romans, hence the latter’s demise.
It seems too much success, too much freedom can be a bad thing. We can get too spoiled and flaccid, losing our perspective and appreciation of the wondrous freedoms and institutions our democracy affords us.
And if we take our unique advantages for granted, if in our apathy we respect only third world cultures, religions and that which we are not, then in our idolatrous decadence, we open the door to infiltration by those who would do us harm, those who work to steal our jewels and destroy the rest. And there are endless faces pressed to our windows, jealous or angry at our smugness, our softness, our presumptuousness, awaiting our fall in grace from our ivory towers.
Perhaps a cheeky god, a wry humorous and far-seeing god, has sent al-Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalism to try our passions and test our empire in the fires of radicalism.
The British too were tested by the Nazis; fortunately they had Churchill to represent them in those dark times rather than the myriad Chamberlains everywhere hovering, as the latter still do today.
David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first Prime Minister) wrote to Churchill in 1961 of this historical threshold: “I saw you then not only as the symbol of your people and its greatness, but as the voice of the invincible and uncompromising conscience of the human race at a time of danger to the dignity of man, created in the image of God. It was not only the liberties and the honor of your own people that you saved.”
America likewise is now at the crossroads of civilization and it will rise to the occasion or fall by its strength, determination and preparedness to sacrifice its endless pleasures and comfortabilities to preserve its unsurpassed freedoms.
Jihadist terrorists worldwide mock our evident weaknesses, our open sentimentality and our ambivalence. They by contrast are full of clarity, commitment and a preparedness to sacrifice all for their misbegotten ideals. Unless we evince Churchill’s resolute and undeniable commitment to combat these dark forces and fight for our future, we will stand at the precipice, we stand to lose our empire.
In 1940 Winston Churchill declared: “We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing ground, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
And they never did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
