America’s problem is, by common majority logic and reasoning, that of extremism. Not left or right, not Democratic or Republican, not religious or agnostic, but our extremists on both sides of every fence.
An elegant solution, curiously not previously suggested, is inspired by physics and the laws of magnetism. When one combines a negative pole with another negative pole, these cancel each other out with dramatic and explosive effect.
We should find a viable way to cull the extremes from our great American society, thereby moderating and balancing our communities most effectively for future generations.
Let’s find a way to synergistically join our extremists with their oft-referenced brethren in Iran. Those included could indeed be:
- all who feel they live in an intolerably fascist USA, where the Patriot Act has decimated our freedoms
- all those who support the Iranian regime, raise and give charity to those terrorist organizations within their fold and those who see Iran (and its compatriots in arms Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il) as the guiding light of universal democracies
- those who find all solutions in increased multi-culturalism
- those who want Shariah law for our land and those, conversely, who feel threatened in our land by every manifestation of the Ten Commandments or God’s name in the public arena
- those conspiring militants, those confused about why and how the Twin Towers tumbled, those who have had sex with aliens, find transmitters in their teeth and feel Israel runs our country even when our government seems incapable of doing it for themselves
- those anti-smoking, anti-traditional marriage liberals who feel the hijab, clitoridectomy, and sexual slavery in the Middle East is an inspiring lesson in gender relations, respect, and freedom
- Rosie O’Donnell, Paris Hilton, Michael Moore, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the ACLU, Louis Farrakhan and assorted others who see the devil in our society as it is currently constituted, and would turn it inside out at the first chance they get.
I, for one, would gratefully donate a good portion of my assets to convincingly support a one-way voluntary repatriation of these unhappy souls to Iran and Ahmadinejad, their savior on this transitory earth. Either our donated class of extremists would irrevocably change the mullahs and their followers for the better (as any change could not be for the worse) or our Iranian brethren would adjust our donation for all time (a change that likewise could not possibly be disadvantageous). Thus a negative and a negative might likely cancel each other out, a boon for both Iran and America, fermenting newly found friendships everywhere.
Think of the accolades we would receive as the donor country from the United Nations, having transferred the best and the brightest from our shores to the favorite country of the UN’s Security Council and their epiphanous Human Rights Council. We will then have further confirmation of our unrivaled generosity and of being a peace-loving country that exported not its bombs, but its universally beloved.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Saturday, February 4, 2006
Publication of Muhammad Caricatures (Feb. 4, 2006)
This is not a case of preference or taste, as it should be. It is now an issue of hypocrisy, coercion and intolerance; not by Denmark or their press, but by the vocal Muslim world. However tasteful your cartoons may or may not be, your right to discourse is inalienable and your fight to support same is admirable.
You courageously and uniquely saved the Danish-Jewish community from the Nazi ravages. Your love of honesty and truth likewise remains a beacon to all nations, one unfortunately not replicated by most supposedly free Western nations.
The critics in the Muslim world are generally guilty of absolute discrimination against Christians, Jews, their own women and moderates everywhere. So it’s presumably not such a stretch for them to extend their own internal fascism to Denmark’s newspapers. They will only be encouraged to modify their intransigence if Europe refrains from reducing its own freedoms.
You courageously and uniquely saved the Danish-Jewish community from the Nazi ravages. Your love of honesty and truth likewise remains a beacon to all nations, one unfortunately not replicated by most supposedly free Western nations.
The critics in the Muslim world are generally guilty of absolute discrimination against Christians, Jews, their own women and moderates everywhere. So it’s presumably not such a stretch for them to extend their own internal fascism to Denmark’s newspapers. They will only be encouraged to modify their intransigence if Europe refrains from reducing its own freedoms.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
When Are We Going To Get Serious? (July 30, 2005)
To profile or not – absurdities abound
The Israelis have refined profiling to such an extent as to successfully foil 95% of attempted suicide bombings. When the Germans or the Egyptians search passengers I assure you that Middle Eastern males get prime billing. It has not gone unnoticed by both Arabs and Europeans alike, that modern day suicide bombings and terrorism is the almost exclusive preserve of male Muslims of Middle Eastern extraction. This reality is not our wish or desire but a sad fact of our increasingly tenuous global world.
Yet in America, the Land of the Free, the Brave and the ACLU, we have recreated our own Alice in Wonderland smoke & mirrors. We would rather search, at our airports and trains, 10 children, old women and 6.5 foot blue-eyed Swedes to every 1 Middle Easterner. Yet the Russians and the Saudis, the Turks and the Lebanese, no strangers to terrorism, would do the reverse.
Why do we allow the ACLU to define our arithmetic? For what suicidal absurdity do we allow political correctness to prevail over practical necessity? What is the fantasy that addles our brain so much so that we imagine we can regain total security in the face of this implacable onslaught with no loss of freedom and no inconvenience? How come the delicate sensibilities of those who would be profiled (rationally, understandably) outweigh our desire for survival and the longevity of our freedoms?
I now note at our New York subways, selective searches can be refused, allowing would-be bombers to vacate those premises with sensitivities intact, only to try another station or location until luck or chance allows their entry. Are we merely play acting? Don’t we realize that it is only a matter of time until the first radioactive “dirty bomb” or other WMD is tested on the naïve majority?
The ACLU confuses itself with Abraham, imagining that by offering ourselves as a sacrificial lamb we could appease those believers and their God in their crusade against us, the infidels, the unbelievers. But they are not Abraham, but Chamberlain.
Ultimately, we will have to choose between the ACLU and their acolytes and our very survival, between our perceived freedom for the next ten minutes and our freedom for our children and our children’s children.
The choice is ours, not theirs.
The Israelis have refined profiling to such an extent as to successfully foil 95% of attempted suicide bombings. When the Germans or the Egyptians search passengers I assure you that Middle Eastern males get prime billing. It has not gone unnoticed by both Arabs and Europeans alike, that modern day suicide bombings and terrorism is the almost exclusive preserve of male Muslims of Middle Eastern extraction. This reality is not our wish or desire but a sad fact of our increasingly tenuous global world.
Yet in America, the Land of the Free, the Brave and the ACLU, we have recreated our own Alice in Wonderland smoke & mirrors. We would rather search, at our airports and trains, 10 children, old women and 6.5 foot blue-eyed Swedes to every 1 Middle Easterner. Yet the Russians and the Saudis, the Turks and the Lebanese, no strangers to terrorism, would do the reverse.
Why do we allow the ACLU to define our arithmetic? For what suicidal absurdity do we allow political correctness to prevail over practical necessity? What is the fantasy that addles our brain so much so that we imagine we can regain total security in the face of this implacable onslaught with no loss of freedom and no inconvenience? How come the delicate sensibilities of those who would be profiled (rationally, understandably) outweigh our desire for survival and the longevity of our freedoms?
I now note at our New York subways, selective searches can be refused, allowing would-be bombers to vacate those premises with sensitivities intact, only to try another station or location until luck or chance allows their entry. Are we merely play acting? Don’t we realize that it is only a matter of time until the first radioactive “dirty bomb” or other WMD is tested on the naïve majority?
The ACLU confuses itself with Abraham, imagining that by offering ourselves as a sacrificial lamb we could appease those believers and their God in their crusade against us, the infidels, the unbelievers. But they are not Abraham, but Chamberlain.
Ultimately, we will have to choose between the ACLU and their acolytes and our very survival, between our perceived freedom for the next ten minutes and our freedom for our children and our children’s children.
The choice is ours, not theirs.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Pussy-footing (July 16, 2005)
Re: July 15 interview by Ron Reagan & Monica Crowley of MSNBC with two American Muslim spokesmen
Best wishes.
I enjoyed your presentations, however, in this instance you “pussy-footed” around with deft but copious amounts of political correctness. You would not have been so delicate with Sharon or Barak. A great pity. Unless you treat all parties with the same skepticism you are merely going to be used as a propaganda platform.
a) Validly you questioned moderate Muslims’ fears to be “outed.” For your American guest to claim fearlessness and suggest the same goes in the Middle East is absurd as many political murders there attest.
b) For your guests to suggest that all the Arab governments decried London, New York, Madrid, etc. bombings is totally incorrect. Crowds in Gaza and elsewhere were celebrating after 9/11, all with full public visibility and support.
c) For your guests to claim that Jihad in the Arab world never supports killing the innocent is obnoxious considering the hundreds of old women and young children and babies and Arab Israelis alike blown apart in Israel by the suicide bombers. Why not call these lies for what they are?
I admire your general presentations. Please don’t pander to those who believe that deception of the infidel is a laudable goal in their Jihad of domination and destruction.
Best wishes.
I enjoyed your presentations, however, in this instance you “pussy-footed” around with deft but copious amounts of political correctness. You would not have been so delicate with Sharon or Barak. A great pity. Unless you treat all parties with the same skepticism you are merely going to be used as a propaganda platform.
a) Validly you questioned moderate Muslims’ fears to be “outed.” For your American guest to claim fearlessness and suggest the same goes in the Middle East is absurd as many political murders there attest.
b) For your guests to suggest that all the Arab governments decried London, New York, Madrid, etc. bombings is totally incorrect. Crowds in Gaza and elsewhere were celebrating after 9/11, all with full public visibility and support.
c) For your guests to claim that Jihad in the Arab world never supports killing the innocent is obnoxious considering the hundreds of old women and young children and babies and Arab Israelis alike blown apart in Israel by the suicide bombers. Why not call these lies for what they are?
I admire your general presentations. Please don’t pander to those who believe that deception of the infidel is a laudable goal in their Jihad of domination and destruction.
Thursday, July 7, 2005
London Bombings: A simple solution, and very politically incorrect (July 7, 2005)
England as well as the USA and other western democracies are all open societies. It is impossible to defend these free societies against this and other forms of terrorism. We can never check every train, bus, plane, restaurant, or public facility, worldwide, all the time.
Perhaps Bush had it right in the particular instance of “taking the war to the enemy.” Perhaps the Israelis were ‘spot-on’ in preemptive assassinations of terrorist leaderships. The fervor for suicide bombings amongst the cadres of the initiators would be considerably dampened (even eliminated) if these puppeteers of death were convinced of the fact that they would be next in line for elimination after the next terrorist event, wherever they may be hiding (usually amongst family, schools, or hospitals – their locations of choice).
I earnestly suggest we stop wasting time and money at our airports. I recommend we take a fraction of the tens of billions spent on amorphous homeland security and initiate a new project – call it “realistic cost-effective preemption.” We invite to participate ex-Marines and survivors of terrorist activities worldwide. There are many thousands of Lebanese, Russian and Jordanian citizens, Indians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Kurds – the list is long – who for many reasons may harbor hate for the terrorist groups, may have lost family or friends. Let us train them and pay them to be the most effective anti-terrorist killing machines possible, and the most well-paid. (A million dollars each would not dent the budget). Then let us send out 10,000 of these largely Arabic-speaking and Middle East-looking agents and focus them like a laser on the top leadership of Al Qaeda and their myriad associations around the world, to preemptively decimate the core of these groups that so intend to destroy our society as we know it.
We have really a simple choice: do we wait for the first nuclear catastrophe in one of our capitols, or do we preempt (in a relatively inexpensive, focused, practical and entirely politically incorrect manner) those committed to our annihilation. Perhaps the writing is finally on the wall.
Perhaps Bush had it right in the particular instance of “taking the war to the enemy.” Perhaps the Israelis were ‘spot-on’ in preemptive assassinations of terrorist leaderships. The fervor for suicide bombings amongst the cadres of the initiators would be considerably dampened (even eliminated) if these puppeteers of death were convinced of the fact that they would be next in line for elimination after the next terrorist event, wherever they may be hiding (usually amongst family, schools, or hospitals – their locations of choice).
I earnestly suggest we stop wasting time and money at our airports. I recommend we take a fraction of the tens of billions spent on amorphous homeland security and initiate a new project – call it “realistic cost-effective preemption.” We invite to participate ex-Marines and survivors of terrorist activities worldwide. There are many thousands of Lebanese, Russian and Jordanian citizens, Indians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Kurds – the list is long – who for many reasons may harbor hate for the terrorist groups, may have lost family or friends. Let us train them and pay them to be the most effective anti-terrorist killing machines possible, and the most well-paid. (A million dollars each would not dent the budget). Then let us send out 10,000 of these largely Arabic-speaking and Middle East-looking agents and focus them like a laser on the top leadership of Al Qaeda and their myriad associations around the world, to preemptively decimate the core of these groups that so intend to destroy our society as we know it.
We have really a simple choice: do we wait for the first nuclear catastrophe in one of our capitols, or do we preempt (in a relatively inexpensive, focused, practical and entirely politically incorrect manner) those committed to our annihilation. Perhaps the writing is finally on the wall.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Re: Sept. 20, 2004 Op-Ed by Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari
The abovementioned is a remarkable article, a rare acknowledgment— my compliments and sincerest congratulations.
Only when large swathes of the Middle East, when the majority of your brethren like you look fate and reality squarely in the eye, when truth becomes the essence of your vision rather than the misguided victim of the current agendas, only then can Arabs, Jews and Christians sit down, break bread and openly share disagreements whilst reasonably working towards common goals, acknowledging differences without motivating for mutual destruction.
Two points however. Firstly, are Jews cowards because they do not have a death wish? If so, I love this form of cowardice—as a Jew, I love life, for me & for you, for us all.
Secondly, I commend you for acknowledging that old canard, confirming as a forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You have indeed both courage and truth and I have no doubt, that our commonalities are greater than our differences.
I look forward to a day when we can all, as different nations and different religions, enjoy and share the Middle East—there really is enough for us all to share, for our children and our children’s’ children.
Only when large swathes of the Middle East, when the majority of your brethren like you look fate and reality squarely in the eye, when truth becomes the essence of your vision rather than the misguided victim of the current agendas, only then can Arabs, Jews and Christians sit down, break bread and openly share disagreements whilst reasonably working towards common goals, acknowledging differences without motivating for mutual destruction.
Two points however. Firstly, are Jews cowards because they do not have a death wish? If so, I love this form of cowardice—as a Jew, I love life, for me & for you, for us all.
Secondly, I commend you for acknowledging that old canard, confirming as a forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You have indeed both courage and truth and I have no doubt, that our commonalities are greater than our differences.
I look forward to a day when we can all, as different nations and different religions, enjoy and share the Middle East—there really is enough for us all to share, for our children and our children’s’ children.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Discussion on the veracity of a $0.60 cent/gallon increase in taxes (Oct. 16, 2003)
Dear Michael Medved,
I support this 1000%. It’s the most honest, direct and elegant solution. It will and can result in one fell swoop (or in graduations over time) in the following:
a. Reducing the unnecessarily large gap between our gas prices and those of Europe and the Far East.
b. Unnecessary and frivolous driving will reduce thereby reducing gridlock on our highways and reducing traffic, enormous time and gas waste, as well as car maintenance costs; thereby saving Americans billions at the same time, perhaps, the only and efficient way of combating the incessant Los Angeles parking lots.
c. The fairest of all taxes, as one pays only for use. Less pollution and more sales of gas efficient cars. Everyone pays, whether legal or not, rich or poor. Gas and cars pollute- why not charge for use of highways directly?
d. Monies can be used to reduce pollution directly caused by gas and car use-thus we get to be responsible for our own actions. Money can similarly help improve education.
e. I would also further recommend a two-tiered priority system for our prisons:
1. Minimum services/food/entertainment/lodging for inmates refusing to work
2. Maximum of the above for inmates who are productive and work, thus spending a portion of profits earned in partnership with factories/the world of commerce, and the prison system thus uses balance of profits or salaries to finance the prisons- thus moving toward self-sufficiency.
I would be tougher on hard drugs; legalize marijuana, but tax it to the hilt to ensure minimum use, maximum taxes for rehab and to finance the policing of hard drugs.
Best wishes and good luck!
I support this 1000%. It’s the most honest, direct and elegant solution. It will and can result in one fell swoop (or in graduations over time) in the following:
a. Reducing the unnecessarily large gap between our gas prices and those of Europe and the Far East.
b. Unnecessary and frivolous driving will reduce thereby reducing gridlock on our highways and reducing traffic, enormous time and gas waste, as well as car maintenance costs; thereby saving Americans billions at the same time, perhaps, the only and efficient way of combating the incessant Los Angeles parking lots.
c. The fairest of all taxes, as one pays only for use. Less pollution and more sales of gas efficient cars. Everyone pays, whether legal or not, rich or poor. Gas and cars pollute- why not charge for use of highways directly?
d. Monies can be used to reduce pollution directly caused by gas and car use-thus we get to be responsible for our own actions. Money can similarly help improve education.
e. I would also further recommend a two-tiered priority system for our prisons:
1. Minimum services/food/entertainment/lodging for inmates refusing to work
2. Maximum of the above for inmates who are productive and work, thus spending a portion of profits earned in partnership with factories/the world of commerce, and the prison system thus uses balance of profits or salaries to finance the prisons- thus moving toward self-sufficiency.
I would be tougher on hard drugs; legalize marijuana, but tax it to the hilt to ensure minimum use, maximum taxes for rehab and to finance the policing of hard drugs.
Best wishes and good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
