About Me

Name: JDComments
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Racial Profiling Used to Stir Up Left

 The Left has taken the Six Imams incident and turned it into it’s latest crusade against racial profiling [see post ], but as is so often true , in reality they are using misleading labels to create a false impression and distort reality for their political gain.

What is racial profiling? Simply put, it is the singling out of people because of their race or genetic makeup, something over which they have no control, and which neither represents nor indicate their actions or thoughts. It is choosing somebody based on who their parents were, not on what they themselves have decided to do. Examples are the police stopping a man because he is black, or Nazis sending a woman to the gas chamber because her mother was Jewish. Racial profiling is morally wrong because it is factually wrong, drawing conclusions based on traits that do not warrant them. It is therefore a heinous, horrible mistake, and should not be tolerated.

Now let us consider the Imams case, where those Muslims chose to verbalize and act out their beliefs in what some consider an aggressive, maybe even antagonistic manner. Were they picked out and harassed because of racial profiling? I do not believe anyone has claimed it was their skin color [which I am not even sure of] that was the problem, nor was it their ethnic or national origins which seem to be the contentious issue.

The problem, plain and simple, is the faith which they have chosen to follow, and in this case, flaunt. and the inflammatory language they used regarding the United States. In other words, they were singled out for further investigation because of things they had voluntary and knowingly chosen to do which in our society have come to be associated with dangerous actions. In fact, they were ideologically profiled, something that has nothing to do with racial profiling, and those who have suffered from the latter should be offended by the association.

Ideological profiling is what we do when we assess the words of someone and decide they are wrong or harmful. It is what most of us do in regards to the Ku Klux Klan, and in fact Trent Lott’s ignominious downfall was actually a case of ideological profiling, since he did nothing wrong but indicate he might hold offensive views. Funny, I don’t remember anyone accusing the Democrats of racial profiling when they castigated him.

Ideological profiling justifies the surveillance of mobsters in pursuit of proving their guilt. The police know their ideology [ a criminal, outlaw mindset] and so act on this to try and gather the proof that they are committing crimes. No one seems to find fault with this logic either.

The point is that once a person chooses to act or think in a given way people are perfectly valid in drawing their conclusions about what this means, and in the case of the Imams, because Islam has become so clearly identified with Terrorism it would be hard for someone not to become nervous as a result of their actions, and the airline would have been remiss not to investigate further. As this case clearly shows, ideological profiling is people judging you based on what you say and think, and acting on what that implies or indicates. It is holding you responsible for your choices.

Some would then say this is a violation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech, but that is not correct either. The Imams were not forbidden from praying, nor speaking, but like someone who yells “fire” in a crowded theatre, once their expression was felt to be a danger action was taken [and all things considered, all that was done was that they were delayed, hardly what I would consider a major constitutional infringement].

Why the Liberals have chosen to inflame the affair by incorrectly labeling it racial profiling, with all the historical baggage that word implies for Americans, is something we can only wonder about. But based on my ideological profile of them, it was not an innocent mistake, but a conscious decision to use an historical weapon in their arsenal to undermine national security, a weapon with absolutely no pertinence to this case.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As Couric Sinks, So Does Liberal Group Think

CBS must be wondering what they were thinking as the newest ratings show Katie Couric behind Bob Shieffer's numbers of a year ago. I don't know what he was paid, but I suspect it was considerably less than the 15 million Couric is receiving. I wonder if there are Lemon Laws for News anchors which would allow the network to get their money back? I hope not.

As I consider this, I find myself smiling and not because I have anything personal against Katie, who to my mind is just another Liberal mouthpiece who masquerades as the voice of objectivity [though the charade is becoming less and less sincere for all of them] while cheering on their Leftist causes. Rather, I actually look upon this as a victory for the American people in refuting the Liberal beliefs that I believe led to Couric's hiring.
 
It is obvious that CBS believed that a woman, especially the only woman anchor, would draw all those other females out there like a feminine magnet. After all, isn't that the  way it should work? This is the same thinking that justifies quotas,  or the need for a woman Supreme Court Justice, since a man just cannot represent or understand a feminine point of view , forget the fact that a Ginsberg  is less representative of a Conservative woman's beliefs than a Scalia is.

The point is that Liberals like to reduce individuals to groups, and then deal with them en masse, ignoring the fact that we are all unique. It is so much easier to treat all blacks as the same,with the same needs and desires and attributes, than it is to consider them separately which can get very sloppy. In fact, the only way you can justify the large Government programs that are the lifeblood of the Left is if the polity can be broken up into large, manageable actuarial blocks with supposed common interests and traits, for only then can the claim be made that a program can be effective. If the reality of our individuality is acknowledged, no program could possibly meet the demands of so many disparate voices. Only something like the market economy, which allows each of us our expression while creating an outcome positive for us all can be successful.  No, the left has to maintain is delusion that we are all basically the same, or things get much too complex for their solutions or way of thinking.

Thus when I see Couric floundering and gasping for air, I applaud the American people, especially the women, for refusing to play by the Liberal rules and flock to a woman only because they might share common genitalia. Once again the Left has shown they  underestimate and misunderstand us , and this might very well be a trial run for 2008 when they will probably either expect the black or female vote to flock to them because of the race or gender of their candidate. Hopefully the results will be the same as they are for Couric.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Multiculturalism Finally Under Attack

 Yesterday Tony Blair basically announced that immigrants to his country either assimilate or leave [see post ]. Today the the Telegraph applauded him in an editorial which one cannot imagine being written in the United States MSM.  Gramps has a harrowing post on his site in which Dick Lamm,  the former Governor Of Colorado spelled out a plan to internally destroy the US which was a blueprint for a multiculturalist agenda.Finally it seems that people are waking up to the danger posed by muticulturalism, and are begining to attack this fundamental belief of the Liberal establishment.

To understand the true danger it poses, first we must understand why it is so important to a Liberal mindset. Remember the Left is always trying to create a "frictionless" world to remove the threat of violence. By announcing we are all basically the "same" [or in Rosie O'Donnell's version, we shouldn't fear the terrorists because they are just "Mothers and Fathers" like us] aren't they just seeking to defuse the patriotism, nationalism and prejudice that are the cause of wars? If we just understand that other guy we will see he's not so bad. And of  course a wonderful side effect of this is that by the same token, the US and Western culture is nothing special, another core belief of the Left. See how nice everything comes together.

The problems this utopian fantasy create are nefarious. Firstly, in attempting to understand the other guy what the Left really does is project our beliefs onto them in a truly hypocritical transference mechanism and so those Islamic Terrorists who kill innocents in cold blood in pursuance of an ideology we cannot fathom suddenly morph into Mr. Hamid Smith, your next door neighbor and all around good guy. Thus we sap our will which is so important in waging war, and find ourselves doing what the Liberals hoped- abdicating our responsibility to defend ourselves and our children because,hey , why fight  guys who are only trying to do what we would do in the same circumstances. The problem is obvious to anybody with half a brain, and thus the Left misses it- the other guy is nothing  like us, and if we don't defend ourselves murderous lunatics are going to kill us.

Aside from sapping our survival instinct,  even those who do want to fight are blinded by multiculturalist blather into not truly understanding the enemy, something I addressed in a previous  post . Warfare is based on knowing your enemy. Multiculturalism is willful blindness which is inexcusable and crippling us in battle.

Internally, multiculturalism fragments society, and as Thomas Sowell has written, diversity is not wonderful at all in creating a nation, but rather a hindrance to it's cohesion and successful existence. The US is a wonder because it took all those immigrants and turned them into Americans, with American values, in spite of tolerating other beliefs and traditions not because of them. Ideally these should be subsumed over time as all of us become citizens of this country. Multiculturalism would reinforce these separatists tendencies, and create the sectarian friction which we see so many other places in the world.  A melting pot should meld all its ingredients into a homogenous whole. This is not the metaphor of multiculturalism, which can't go far enough in keeping separate the components of a society. The results can be seen in the former Yugoslavia, or in today's Iraq.

I have often wondered why an immigrant comes here and yet refuses to assimilate. If things are so wonderful you choose not to forget Lithuania or El Salvador, well then stay there. The only reason you are coming here is to get our money,and that is unacceptable. As much as Liberals repeat over and over again that without illegal aliens certain of our jobs would not get done, I believe a citizen is more than a job; he is someone who values our traditions, language, beliefs and values, and seeks to make them his own.  As much as I don't want to sound like a xenophobic Pat Buchanan, this is one area I agree with him. Our country is too precious to allow it to be stolen insidiously by those who don't appreciate or respect it.

And so the recent developments which indicate that multiculturalism is losing its luster bring a smile to my lips. I know it is going to be a long battle and people like O'Donnell and her ilk are going to fight us tooth and nail, but at least I can see some progress, and that's a start.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Lose Because We Refuse to Win

Shelby Steele in the WSJ finally says what so many have only thought- war is won when the other side is defeated and subjugated by the imposition of the will of the victor. A truism for all of history, the US has since WWII refused to accept this, and the results have been disastrous. Iraq is the latest example of this will to self doubt and defeat.

Steele's article is extremely interesting, and I highly recommend it. His basic premise is that we cannot win in Iraq because we have attempted to define victory by a series of ambivalent and unattainable goals which ignore the fact that they replace the solidity of an historical military win with the gossamer of a triumph which we hope can be attained with minimal casualties and a US presence which begins to debate exiting before firing the first shot, and defines its benchmarks in terms of troop drawdowns. As he so insightfully points out, the Liberals have relativized this most pragmatic of human activities to the point that Pelosi can say

"You can define victory any way you want." And war, she said, was only "a situation to be resolved."

Using that definition, anything that happens can also be considered a loss, and so today we watch as the administration paints their picture , while the MSM and Liberals draw their's and never the two shall meet. Relativism insures one man's idea of victory is another man's definition of defeat. We are lost in the swamp of ambiguity that Liberals have brought to so many things.

Steele defines true military victory as the establishment of hegemony over the defeated power, so that in Iraq, for instance, after overthrowing Saddam the US would have taken power and responsibility for defeating the insurgents and pacifying the nation, while establishing a government, much as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. Of course, instead we rushed to handoff power to the Iraqis, and now we find ourselves at the mercy of a novice government and military who are not prepared to do what has to be done. In essence, we turned a certain victory into a possible defeat because of our refusal to take the control and responsibility that was called for, something we have done ever since WWII.

Why this is so is the big question, and for Steele it is a reflection of our reluctance to play the part history has given us as the world's only superpower, something which implies a need to police the world and fight wars that are not only in your national interest, but in the world's interest. We are so uncomfortable with this that we are torn between fulfilling our duties and retreating to Fortress America. The result of this schizophrenia is that we go to war, but refuse to follow-up by exercising the oversight and power which some would call colonialistic, but which Steele feels is necessary to prevent the kind of havoc we saw in Vietnam and now Iraq. We are not doing anybody any favors by cringing from the term "imperialistic" and refusing to step up and take control; instead our attempts at being seen as "humanitarian" and "multicultural" led to Pol Pots's reign of terror, and God knows what will happen if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely.

Steele's observations are I believe right on target. However, he never asks why before 1945 we didn't seem to suffer from this bipolar disorder, while now no amount of medicine seems to alleviate the symptoms. To me the obvious answer is the creation of the UN, a body which institutionalized Liberal disdain about colonies and imperial power, while empowering every entity which could afford to sew up a flag, with the result that suddenly we found ourselves afraid to step on anyone's toes, or be called, heaven forbid, imperialistic. So in the effort to be "politically correct" we allow the world to descend into chaos instead, and in lieu of creating stable governments which would ensure world peace, we allow the inmates to run the asylum, and spreading lunacy is the result.

The idea of rules of etiquette for warfare and constraints placed on the exercise of power and control is a wonderful fantasy which would perhaps work if both sides agreed to play by this game of "can you top this". Imagine if one side refused to use landmines and the other decided to go one better and not use guns. Pretty soon we would all be holding hands and singing hymns. Unfortunately when the other side still abides by the quaint notion that war is killing the other guys anyway you can, this game ends rather abruptly for the noble but stupid player. If we don't play by the same rules we don't stand a chance, plain and simple. As for our chances of suddenly developing the backbone necessary to really win this war, well let's just say some spectators are already heading for the exits thinking this contest just about over. After all, isn't that what the ISG suggested?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (2) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi , Conyers:"End Racial Profiling of Muslims"

Here is a great article from the National Ledger detailing how Nancy Pelosi and  John Conyers are co-sponsoring a bill to prevent the racial profiling of Muslims, and since this is presented in the context of the Six Imams Incident, implies that their activities did not warrant the actions taken, even though many passengers were concerned and security experts have said that the behavior was suspicious and justified the steps taken.
 
The article also points out that the government had nothing to do with the airline situation, and this brings up the question of whether Pelosi and the Liberals are going to try and outlaw the ability of private companies to take protective measures under the pretense of "civil rights". The Left's unilateral disarmament  of this country's defenses continues, and we are all being left in the enemies' crosshairs.

Besides their  broadside attack against the Patriot Act, I really found interesting the little profile of Conyers that the reporter provides. From his website maintained in Arabic to his apparent support of the Marxist-Leninist, pro-North Korean front group International A.N.S.W.E.R  and his guest of honor appearance at  a dinner sponsored by a charity tied to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, Mr.Conyers  seems to be so far out of the American mainstream he should be on a different continent [literally], and is someone we should be watching closely. Unless exposed to the light, the type of insidious danger he poses could harm us in multiple ways.

For anyone still doubtful the Democratic victory could be a mortal blow to our country, this story should put to rest any lingering hope that the Left either understands or cares about what we face.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hasn't Anyone Here Read the Art of War?

I can remember back in the 1980's when The Art of War by Sun Tzu was all the rage as people applied it to everything from business to courtship rituals, which is why I find it so ironic that today no seems to have read it.  At least not those in our government who are supposed to be overseeing the war.

If you've never read it, the book is not very long and told as a series of sayings which distill the essence of battle. Without going into detail,  the major points are that first you must know your enemy, and then you must keep him from knowing what you are doing. Sounds simple and yet the US seems not only to be willfully ignoring it, but purposely doing the opposite. SInce Sun Tzu has been hailed as a master of battle for hundreds of years, maybe we should consider what we are doing wrong.

FIrst, the "know your enemy " part. What can I say other than most people still have a hard time saying we are at war with IslamoFascists, let alone the truth , that we are actually engaged with Islam, not just some fringe sect distorting its "peaceful" beliefs. Sun Tzu would not know what to make of a people who are afraid to offend an enemy trying to kill them. If knowledge is power, we refuse to have a clue about who or what we are fighting, and that cannot lead to anything good.

Even more heinous is our attempt to wage  war by committee, subject to democratic "transparency". Thus we have groups recommending timetables, and Congressman demanding withdrawals, and  the MSM revealing the intricate details of our most secret intelligence programs. For Sun Tzu intelligence gathering was the sine qua non, the indispensable aspect of all wars which precedes actual battle, and can even make it irrelevant. Our attempts at intelligence gathering are treated like criminal conduct, scrutinized and held up to the light for all the world to evaluate and pass judgment on. It is a mockery which deprives us of one of our most valuable weapons. Sun Tzu is turning over in his grave.

As for the actual conduct of battle, he described all war as "deception". Stonewall Jackson said it was "to mystify, mislead and surprise" the enemy. Our politicians , statesmen and journalists on the other hand prefer the " I  never heard a secret I could keep " style of clandestine operations, combined with a "more the merrier" command structure, resulting in everyone and his brother having a say in decisions, which are then broadcast just in case the enemy hasn't bothered to turn on his intelligence gathering apparatus that day. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know exactly how this war is being waged down to the assignment of individual units? If victory is won by surprising the enemy , we're lucky they haven't planted the crescent moon of Islam on top of the White House yet. Napoleon said he would rather have one mediocre general leading an army than two great ones.  What do you think he would say about the Dems getting ready to subject the entire war effort to intimate committee scrutiny? My God we are stupid!

Now I have no hope that we are going to change things around and suddenly become smart about all this. Unfortunately too many imbeciles have a vested interest in keeeping things the way they are, safe in their belief that we are so powerful that we don't have to play by the rules that have applied since man first picked up a rock and hit the guy next to him.  I just pray that even with the handicap of having these kind of people as our leaders , flagrantly flaunting the wisdom of centuries, we can defeat the enemy that confronts us. But truthfully, the odds are not good.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

History Report from the Year 2506

Looking at the world today , and how it is trending, I wonder how historians in the future will view us. In an attempt to imagine this, I have written  what I fear a college history paper might look like 500 years in the future

Report on the Fall of the American Empire

500 years ago the world’s only superpower was defeated in a relatively short time by the forces of Islam . Why this happened is still considered somewhat of a mystery. The United States had just recently defeated the forces of atheistic Communism without a direct battle, overwhelming their enemy with their technology, wealth and superior military. It appeared they were destined for world hegemony, something which they seemed strangely reluctant to assume.

Then a group of Muslims which had also defeated the drunken forces of the Soviets in Afghanistan began a series of harassing attacks against the US. Consisting of nothing more than minor bombings, surprisingly the United States responded not with force but almost with shame, either essentially ignoring the transgressions, or seeking to mollify the attackers. Emboldened, the ragtag army of Allah began to believe they were destined to create a new caliphate, and on 9/11/2001 carried out a bold attack on different targets using the US’s own airplanes as missiles. While they succeeded in destroying some buildings, perhaps their most symbolic attack against the Empire’s Capitol was thwarted by the airplane’s passengers.

However, this finally seemed to be the wakeup call they needed, and in a few years the Empire overthrew the governments of two Middle Eastern countries which had ruled 50 million people. The ease of these military victories, and the threatening and aggressive gestures of the Empire caused many Muslims to believe their world was about to radically change. Several countries became allies of the Empire, and others worried that they were the next targets. For the first time a true democracy was attempted in the Middle East, freeing those oppressed by a vicious dictator for decades. The world seemed to be on the verge of a momentous transformation. The Islamic warriors who had initiated the 9/11 attack were hiding in caves, and the movement was being decimated. All that was left were disorganized cells, with access to rudimentary weapons and the covert support of some fundamental and authoritarian regimes. Their major resistance consisted of random bombings of innocent people. Their desperation was evident in intercepted communiqués.

Then things began to change. The Empire’s allies were scared off by some minor attacks and major threats. The years of Muslim immigration had supplied an internal force to weaken these countries and over time they turned against the Empire as they felt it was more important to have a peaceful countryside than freedom. This was not unexpected, considering their behavior during what is called World War II.

Left almost by itself, the strongest power in the history of the world then seemed to self destruct. Internal appeasers called “Liberals”, whose leaders we now believe may have been embedded by Islamic forces, began questioning the war in the Middle East, while through their propaganda arms they were able to demoralize the citizens and convince them that they were actually losing . In addition, legalistic and procedural tactics were used to emasculate the Empire’s defenses, hollowing out the intelligence methods which had been so successful in preventing a follow-up to 9/11, and succeeding in convincing the population that it was more important to be conciliatory to Muslims than to protect themselves. The Muslims were even able to get one of their own elected to the government body which oversaw the war in a bold and unprecedented act which they never thought would succeed.

After the Empire was finally forced from the Middle East in 2008 not by enemy forces but by their own quislings, the Islamic forces had a huge increase in recruitment, and the Persian Empire , which moved into the vacuum left, becoming the master of the world’s oil and the commensurate wealth, began financing more attacks on the Empire, while developing its own nuclear bomb, something that it was well known to be doing, but which was accepted, something we today cannot understand but which our scientists believe had something to do with lead in the water of the West.

When the first nuclear bomb was donated in the Empire, the Liberals quickly demanded negotiations with the jihadists, who demanded immediate and total surrender, which the Liberals felt was more than reasonable and began advocating. While the patriotic movement known as Conservatives fought this, eventually the Empire capitulated, and except for pockets of resistance in what became known as Red states [again for reasons we do not know], the conquest by Islam was complete.

Praise Allah!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leftist Stupidity On Pearl Harbor Day

The leftist Guardian newspaper in Great Britain, in an article on the ISG, makes the following remark:

The Baker panel recognises, as does Bush, that the central plank in US policy in Iraq over the next two years has to be a dramatic reduction in US casualties. At the present rate, in only a few days more Americans will have died in Iraq than on 9/11; if you add the US death toll in Afghanistan, that point has already been reached. Bush's war on terror has killed more Americans than Bin Laden's terror.

Now this is just a more blatant form of the false milestones that our media is constantly throwing in our faces, and I at least give this writer credit for not sugarcoating the same thought our more furtive newsman only imply.  But on this celebration of Pearl Harbor Day,  I have this question for him [and I actually emailed it , but am not holding my breath waiting for a reply]: Does this mean that the US should have ended hostilities with the Axis when our war casualties approached those of Pearl Harbor's [2388]? If so, and we had, I wonder how this reporter would have liked working under a Nazi regime, for he surely would be. 

Liberals in the West have become so fixated on individual lives that they have lost  hold of the concept that some things are worth dying for, indeed  demand the ultimate sacrifice. Our children's future is one of these, and while every life lost is mourned, if we cannot accept that in this world, against these kind of enemies, we are going to die to save what we value,  then we might as well shut off the lights now and begin prostrating ourselves in the direction of Mecca.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Attempt to Excuse Muslims

Daniel Pipes has written a piece which attempts to lay out a strategy for defeating terrorists. If my reading of it is correct , it concludes that the "Islamists" have perverted Islam into a Utopian philosophy which is utilizing terror, and to defeat it we must , well, defeat it by all means possible, while the "good" Muslims purify themselves of these miscreants and their fanaticism. I obviously have simplified his ideas, but not all that much. Please take the time to read it.

While I respect Mr. Pipes, I find this article, to put it mildly, a fluff job, another attempt to excuse Muslims while blaming a few bad apples, and yet in reading it, it is difficult not to draw the exact opposite conclusion.  His only real defense of his contention is that Muslims were not blowing themselves up a generation ago, hence the religion is not to blame, only some vague "political ideas". Well if that is valid reasoning, then North Korea can't be all that bad since 75 years ago they weren't threatening the world either. Just because tactics or aspirations change doesn't mean that aberrant behavior is involved. A generation ago suicide bombings hadn't been introduced into the world by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka as an offensive weapon.  Now that it has, Muslims have adopted it quickly and efficiently, maybe the only thing that we can say they've done successfully in the last thirty years. I guess they just had to find their talents.

As for the lack of aggression by Islam in the recent past, Mr. Pipes is extremely short sighted. Ask the Serbs about Muslims, or the Greeks, and I think you will get an earful about their historical war on Christianity. Fourteen hundred years of trying to subjugate the world can not be ignored or forgotten because  for the past few decades they have been "peaceful' [again, ask the Israelis about that. You might get a different answer].

What has changed is that after WWI Islam was an exhausted ideology, attacked from within by Kermal Ataturk as he attempted to secularize Turkey. But after getting a second wind, the radicals began preaching, as Pipes references. The creation of Israel was a big motivator, but over the years the victories over the Shah in Iran, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the various unanswered attacks against the US have emboldened those seeking to reimpose the caliphate. This is an idea that started with Mohammed, and just because it was not always able to be pursued doen't mean it was gone, only hibernating,waiting for fertile soil to germinate. Today is a very fecund time.

Are there peaceful Muslims? Sure, I guess. But so what? Does anyone refer to the peaceful Christians when they refer to the Inquisition? Yes, it would be nice if the decent people would stand up and take a hand in helping to bring their ideology into the twenty first century, but I don't see that happening.  Waiting for that to is a formula for suicide. We have to defeat the enemy by any means possible, with that I agree with Mr.Pipes. This is a war not just of cultures, and certainly not a struggle against a distorted and hijacked Islam. This is a battle of ages, with our century engaged with a medieval enemy who has stayed remarkably true to its ideals and beliefs. The Art of War says to defeat your Enemy, first you must know them. So far we have failed miserably at that.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NYC Decides Arbitrary Gender Change Problematic.

Some months ago I wrote about a NYC proposal to allow people to change their sex on their birth certificate without having any surgery, thereby including gender among those facts that are relative and arbitrary and subject to personal choice as opposed to , let's say, what Nature had planned for you.  The geniuses in New York decided that it would be so wonderful if you could just decide to change from a woman to a man without going through the detail of changing your genitalia. I mean, what could that have anything to do with the true, inner you anyway?

Well, after careful consideration, the idea has been, no doubt  reluctantly, rejected ,  the authorities [how can anyone considering this be called an Authority] having realized there were some, shall we say , problems with the consequences which they hadn't envisioned. In their infinite wisdom, they now say they probably  should have consulted some of the institutions and people who would have been affected by the change, such as prisons and hospitals, instead of just leaving it up to a bunch of medical experts, but , hey , we all make mistakes. And of course , the bleeding heart Liberal supporters, who for a moment saw paradise materializing before their eyes, are denouncing the "cave in " to moral police.  I wouldn't expect any less of them.

I admit It was fun to play "what if" with this regulatory change. For instance, if the man in a marriage decided one day to be a woman, would the marriage now be "gay" and therefore illegal in NY? Or on a lighter note, would I be able to get in free to a "Woman's Night" bar if I decided I was a woman? And I am not positive, but I don't believe there was a limit to your changes [why should there be. A man/woman has the perogative to change his/her mind doesn't he/she?], so I guess your gender could become an accessory worn to fit the occasion. Dear should I wear my black tux or that strapless evening gown?

This whole thing is   absurd, and probably should be a skit on some late night show, but it is also scary because it almost happened and Liberals are , if nothing else , persistent, and will keep trying. If they ever succeed, I guess  one of the casualties will be the question" is it a boy or girl " for an expectant mother , since the answer would always be  "Could be".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fairness Doctrine Threatens Talk Radio

Before the elections I read about concerns regarding the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine if the Dems got power, a move that might very well cripple Conservative talk radio . For those who don't know what it is, it was the law that required equal on air time for competing views, making it almost impossible to have partisan shows . It was repealed in 1982, when talk radio was still a distant thought, in an attempt to save the AM radio business which was dying. We all know what happened, as Conservative talk radio flourished while Liberal efforts were like trees falling in the forest with no one around to hear or care. Now the Liberals, having given up trying to compete on a level  field, are threatening to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and win not by playing fair but by taking the ball and going home. To read more about this potential threat, you can go to National Ledger - Preserve Talk Radio: The Threat of the So-called Fairness Doctrine. I guess the attacks on Conservatism are really going to come from all sides, just as we feared.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muslim Conquest, Western Deference

 Here is an insightful article by a research librarian at the Library of Congress which carefully analyzes the Muslim belief that they are justified in conquest while any resistance is heretical, and shows that  the Western attempt at conciliation is reinforcing this dogma and leading us down a path of destruction. For anybody who believes the terrorists are aberrant Islamicists who are distorting the Koran, this will be an eyeopener which puts into historical context the imperialistic  underpinnings of Islam. It is becoming clear that for Muslims, conquest and domination are as important as charity or prayer, and that the Liberal attempt to paint it a "peaceful" religion is an exercise in self delusion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brits Debate ENDING Nuclear Arsenal

 Tony Blair is now trying, over resistance from his Labor Party, to get Parliament to extend the life of Britain's nuclear deterrent which is on the verge of becoming obsolete [see  article ]. There are a couple of ironies in this situation, one being that Blair, at one time, was staunchly  against his nation's nuclear arsenal , but  I guess his stint in office has awoken him to the reality of power politics. The other more important thing to realize here is that while the rogue nations of the planet are doing everything in their power to obtain nuclear forces [for no doubt humanitarian reasons], the Liberals in the West are  seeking to disarm themselves in a gesture of goodwill and enlightenment which I am sure will cause Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad to reconsider the error of their ways and turn them to peaceful pursuits  that will benefit mankind [yeah, right!].

We live in an amazing time when madmen threaten our existence, our Allies are unilaterally disarming, and our Liberal quislings are doing all in their power to emasculate us in the name of reason and human rights and leave us at the mercy of our enemies' discretion.  Even in 1938 the Allies maintained defensive military capabilities even if they refused to confront Hitler. At no time in history have nations chosen to leave themselves defenseless in the face of such an obvious threat. This is the Progress Liberals so proudly trumpet, but it may very well turn out to be national suicide.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islam- An Enemy for 1400 Years

I have seen recent posts which are shocked that some military experts are proposing that the War against IslamoFascism could last forty years. Actually, the West has been engaged in this battle for about 1400 years, so why anyone is incredulous about it continuing seems a little naive to me. Islam is the most dangerous enemy Western culture has ever fought, and we have never been less prepared to fight them.

Why do I consider them more dangerous than Nazism or Communism? The former was a radical ideology centered essentially on one person, Hitler, and its effective lifetime was about twelve years [1933-1945]. While a horrible philosophy which subjected the world to perhaps the worst six year period in history [1939-1945], it was easily eradicated because it was so new and hadn't really entrenched itself in human psychology. It was a terrible aberration which it took a world war to destroy, but it was destroyed, and even before its ultimate downfall the people under its sway were losing faith in it.

Communism lasted about seventy years [1917-1989] as a governing ideology, with the sole large power still clinging to it [China] actually trying to be a large Singapore, practicing an authoritarian capitalism. Soviet Communism probably would have met its demise much sooner if not for WWII, which gave it a level of legitimacy its economic policies never warranted through its leadership of the nation during a life and death struggle. Having lived through the Cold War, and its image of the mighty Soviet Empire, once it fell and we got to peek behind the curtain, we were surprised to see a morally, militarily and economically bankrupt system where alcoholism was rampant and the basics of life rare. This attempt to create Marx's secular religion had left its practitioners bereft of any spirituality or material rewards and deservedly was abandoned. Aside from its nuclear arsenal, it had never really been a threat, but we had to defeat it to find that out.

Which brings us to Islam, something all together different. Mohammed was the only founder of a religion who was also a military leader, and his secular empire went hand in hand with his spiritual dominion. Islam has never been a religion predicated on peace, unless you mean by that a peace imposed by subjugation. And over the 1400 years that is has waged war against those who refuse to bow to it, it has maintained its fervor and fanaticism because it has as its bedrock belief faith that God supports it. While the semi mystical Nazism and atheistic Communism attempted to create faith in its followers, Islam IS Faith, and , tied to its militancy, it motivates and comforts its believers like none of the other enemies of the West has ever been able to do. Muslims believe they are special, and that gives them a fearful strength.

Now they have been defeated in the past. The Mongols decimated them [the Mongols decimated everyone!], but they always seemed to bounce back. After WWI the secularization of Turkey after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire seemed to herald the "Reformation" of Islam, when its harsh tenets would be "softened" by the modern world's values. However, what happened was that after centuries the exhausted ideology went into hibernation for a while , awaiting its wakeup call, which came when the  radical Wahhabi strain made its appearance and gave birth to fundamentalist movements  which sought to recapture past glories.With the geopolitical realities of the world, the Arab population was ripe for a belief system which told them they were "special" and "chosen", and so as the West grew wealthy and satisfied, the people of the Middle East licked their wounds and sulked and plotted, comforted and motivated by the only kind of ideology capable of sustaining men in hard times, religious belief, coupled with their knowledge of the past worldly success of bygone empires.

And so today we face this enemy and threat yet again, but today we are a people without the comfort of our own faith, or the strength that brings. As  children of the Enlightenment, we cherish Reason, and treat religion as a quaint relic of a superstitious time. But reason does not provide that inner fortitude which comes from believing you are special, and that what you represent is worth fighting and dying for. Reason moderates your sense of self, and as listening to any Liberal will prove, results in relativism, and if you really see no true difference between yourself and your enemy, why die fighting him? So as we  face Islam [I am getting tired of saying IslamoFascism, which is just another attempt to avoid the truth] as have countless of our ancestors before us, we do so with better weapons and more wealth, but lacking the resolve  and determination that comes with faith. Because of that we should be very scared.

James Biga has written a series of posts on the Islamic threat which I think are excellent, and can be read at http://bigasrants.townhall.com/. His latest has a link to a website which is trying to organize action against the Muslim Enemy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti Muslim or Sensible Actions?

 The recent radio "hoax" during which the host suggested that Muslims in this country be "marked" in some way  has stirred up a hornet's nest because so many callers agreed [see article ]. The host expressed amazement and disgust that we could devolve so quickly to the behavior of Nazi Germans. I guess he was hoping his little prank would have generated a whole bunch of angry righteous callers who were going to prove the moral superiority of Americans.

Instead he got the gut  responses of a  frustrated, attacked, threatened people who are living with the knowledge that our enemy is amongst us, and that we seem to have little we can  do about it. Attempts at border enforcement are turned aside,  racial and other forms of profiling are disparaged as "discriminatory" and  when suspicious behavior results in action being taken, as it was recently with the infamous Six Imans, the Liberal establishment decries the end of the American way of life.  While all those Democrats in Congress pay lip service to enforcing security , they still demand "due process" and "probable cause" before allowing steps to be taken, ignoring that the guilt implied by these terms would mean thousands, maybe millions, have been killed. Is it any wonder the American people want to do anything, even if it is only making Muslims wear armbands?

In honesty, when I first heard about this, I too felt a little shocked [I guess a lifetime of being inundated with Liberal dogmas has had its effects], but in thinking about it, I realized that this response is the easy way out, like most Liberal judgements are.  There is much to consider  here.

Firstly, Muslims chose their ideology, and go out of their way in dress and appearance to separate themselves from the infidel, so having them wear an armband, for instance, seems trivial [would we even see it under the burkha?].  By the same token, I suspect the real evil guys wouldn't announce themselves as Muslim, so really what good would "marking " them do, other than make the rest of ourselves feel a little better, but that is something, isn't it?

But let us really get into the tough stuff here, and that is the suggestion of callers that internment camps be used to isolate Muslims. Again, this is something that conjures up WWII.  The question is, is this justified, and would it accomplish anything?

For all those who immediately decry this idea, and point an accusatory finger at the government for what happened to the Japanese in this country in the 1940's, my response is: how many sabotage and terrorists attacks did we thwart by using internment camps? I suspect the answer is more than we will ever know. Were innocent people held there? Without a doubt, but in war a presumption of innocence is suicide, and you have to assume your enemy wants to hurt you. Sometimes the net you cast takes in non belligerents, but that is called erring on the side of safety. Again, if you wait for proof of guilt, someone has already died.

Coming back to today, even if most American Muslims are good people, they provide protective coloration and indirect support for the terrorists , who can just blend in to the local Islamic community until the day they emerge to attack us.  If segregating and isolating Muslims protects us from a nuclear attack, are you willing to do that? When I look into my soul, the answer comes back "yes".

So what is the difference between us and Nazi Germany, if any? First, the Jewish population of that country was targeted strictly on racial grounds. They were not terrorists, they did not threaten attacks, and in many cases they sought to assimilate, and the only way to identify them as Jewish was to do a family tree. They were people who considered themselves German, who valued that nation, and who longed to be accepted as such. When they were used as scapegoats by the Nazis, the anger released was the historical AntiSemitism of Europe, and the solution was not internment , but death camps.

Muslims choose Islam, they seek to convert or kill the infidel, and proudly advertise their separateness. They are the principle, if not sole, reason for terrorist attacks in the world today, and they continue to pursue their jihad against the rest of the world with pride  and fanatical vehemence. The "warriors" are supported by the "good" Muslims, and the "innocents" cheer when an American or Italian or Israeli is killed is a restaurant or church or wedding.  They envy us and hate us, and seek to subjugate or destroy us and our children.

Compared to all that, is making them wear an armband or tattoo, or even segregating them in camps, all that horrible to consider? Not really, regardless of how knee jerk Liberalism will try to cower us into shame with facile and inaccurate comparisons to other times and other peoples. An action is justified by its causes,  and reflexively deriding something because it has been used injudiciously or wrongly in the past is not only foolish, it can be dangerous if it restricts actions to improve our safety.  We are engaged with an enemy who is ruthless and respects only power, and we must consider all options rationally before accepting or rejecting them, not be cowered by Liberal reproach. The terrorists must be laughing as they watch as we paralyze ourselves because of concern about offending them. They have a much simpler strategy; they just want to kill us.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive