Fighting the Ideological War

Fighting the Ideological War
By Jed Babbin  |  November 15, 2006

We have the ability to tell right from wrong and good from evil and there is no need for us to apologize for that.

We aren’t fighting a war against terrorists to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. We are fighting it to end the threat of terrorism. Victory can’t be achieved with bullets and bombs alone. This is, at its core, an ideological war. Just as we defeated communism by defeating the communists’ ideology, we need to attack and destroy that of the radical Islamists.

To do that, we first have to understand that radical Islam – the Islam of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Usama bin Laden and the rest – isn’t a religion. It is an ideology that cobbles totalitarianism together with a messianic vision of religious nationalism. Radical Islam (unlike the actual religion) tolerates no other religion, and demands that its adherents give up the basic human freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. No freedom of speech, no free press, no fair trials by a jury of your peers, only enslavement. Like the Nazis, the radical Islamists play on the sense of persecution and cultural inferiority that many people in underdeveloped nations have because they are truly oppressed. And, like the Nazis, the Islamists have convinced their followers that the problems of their world are the fault of others. The Islamists blame every ill of their world on America, the West, the Jews and Israel. Like the Soviets, the Islamists believe that their enslavement of the world is inevitable (though, unlike the Soviets, they believe it is God’s will that they must succeed). Its adherents, like the Nazis and the Communists before them, believe their victory is both inevitable and irreversible. That is a powerful ideology which we have yet to engage with the necessary weapons.

We fought the Soviet ideology from 1946 to 1989. In those years, we rode our own ideological roller coaster. For many Americans – and many more Europeans, Africans and others around the world – the only weapon in that ideological battle was self-criticism. They were willing to confuse healthy criticism of our own system of government with praise for the Soviet counterparts. They were even willing to deny the horrific repressions, mass murder and subjugation by force of other peoples.

The Soviet ideology was defeated, and the Cold War won, by the Soviets’ self-imposed poverty, our military buildup, and by the fact that we proved to the world – by objective comparison – that their enslavement of people was inferior to our freedoms. It was neither fashionable nor even polite conversation to say, as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did relentlessly, that our system of freedom was objectively superior to Soviet oppression. That constant ideological pounding, coupled with the physical courage and intellectual mastery of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Lech Walesa, won the ideological battle of the Cold War. We have to do the same in this war, and in much the same way.

Our military – comprised of many of the best people our country has ever produced – is winning every fight it enters. But it can’t win the war alone. Our politicians have to do that by fighting the ideological war. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, understands this better than any of our pols. In his “guidance” to the Joint Staff, published right after he took the job, Pace said that, “Our enemies are violent extremists who would deny us, and all mankind, the freedom to choose our own destiny. Finding this distributed, loosely networked enemy is the greatest challenge we face. We must find and defeat them in an environment where information, perception, and how and what we communicate are every bit as critical as the application of traditional kinetic effects.” So how do we do it?

President Bush needs to lead us in the ideological fight just as Ronald Reagan did in the Cold War. We need to hear from him – and the rest of our leaders – the kind of blunt comparisons we heard from Reagan. Radical Islam enslaves people. It robs them of the inalienable rights endowed by their creator that our Declaration of Independence described, and our Constitution protects. Our society is as prosperous as any in the world, and that is a direct result of the freedoms we enjoy. Radical Islam condemns its adherents and its slaves to poverty and suffering. And the nations that support it are our enemies.

We have the ability to tell right from wrong and good from evil and there is no need for us to apologize for that. Nor should we twist our relations with other countries to suit some false moral equivalence. Those who say, for example, that if India or Israel can have nuclear weapons why shouldn’t Iran are guilty of illogic. It is permissible for us, and the rest of the free world, to say that some countries are evil and others are not, and to condition our relations with them all on the basis of our own judgment. To deliver that judgment, and act upon it, is the job of the president.

In time of war, the President of the United States has to be the boldest spokesman for freedom in the world. President Bush needs to be fighting this ideological battle with all the energy and relentlessness of a Marine sergeant assaulting a bunch of terrorists holed up in a cave. In the Cold War, Ronald Reagan stood fast, and spoke clearly without fear of offending the enemy because he knew that a war between ideologies cannot be fought with soft words and euphemisms. What was true for the Cold War is no less true today. It’s not enough to say that we fight tyranny. It is essential to say that we fight for what is right, and what is by any measure better than the enemy will ever deliver to even its most loyal followers.

The original article can be found at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

Nancy Pelosi Carter

Nancy Pelosi Carter
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 11/17/2006 12:08:24 AM

It was the first hint of things to come, and it did not bode well.

President-elect Jimmy Carter, over the objections of everyone from the AFL-CIO to conservative Democratic Senators (think Robert Byrd), had just nominated former JFK speechwriter and noted liberal Theodore Sorensen to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Democrats, flush with their first presidential victory in twelve years were suddenly divided, appalled and decidedly angry — at each other.

It was December, 1976.

What could the new president possibly be thinking? All of the tons of positive press, the absolute glow that surrounded the Man from Plains, the ex-Naval officer and successful Georgia businessman/farmer who had just defeated incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford, was suddenly being turned upside down. Before Carter had even been sworn in there were worried whispers about his competence, the startling revelation of a decided and previously unnoticed tendency to left wing politics.

Sorensen, famous as JFK’s alter ego, had emerged from JFK’s shadow in the thirteen year since the President’s death. His emergence startled. Sorensen, in the words of one Democratic Senator as quoted in the New York Times, had shown himself to have a “pacifist background.” His background as a conscientious objector, ignored when he was simply a speechwriter, was now front page news. Conservative leader Barry Goldwater was outraged at the thought that a pacifist would head the CIA, and in spite of the fact Democrats controlled the Senate he was not alone.

Jimmy Carter would not back down from his choice. “Carter Stands Firm, Supports Sorensen As Director of CIA” proclaimed the supportive front page of the Times. The stand-off went on for weeks. Conservative Democrats went after Carter’s choice as the incarnation of “radical chic.” The domestically liberal but foreign policy conservative AFL-CIO head Lane Kirkland, who would later play a role as an ally of the Polish anti-Communist union Solidarity during the Reagan era, was appalled. Labor union leaks sprung like a sieve, tying Sorensen to left-wing activist Jane Fonda.

Still, like Pelosi and her support of Murtha, Carter refused to abandon his first choice. The end was an unhappy one for the new president, the end coming after his inaugural. Senate Democrats, including Senators Byrd, Biden and Inouye, forced an end to Sorensen’s CIA appointment. Carter moved on to Admiral Stansfield Turner, who was confirmed.

But the episode sent chills down the Democratic Party leadership of the day, and with reason. The Sorensen episode turned out to be an introduction to a presidency that became the historical embodiment of weakness in the presidency. Almost without a pause, Carter kept whirling on as one of the most self-destructive leaders in the history of any modern political party on the planet. His cardigan-sweater television appearance had a President of the United States proclaiming an energy policy that begged a nation of can-do Americans to give up their freedom to heat their own home. Then there was the plaintive bleat about Americans having an “inordinate fear” of Communism. The kiss on Soviet leader Brezhnev’s cheek. The shock that after that kiss the Communist leader would — really!!! — invade Afghanistan. Towards the end was the infamous “malaise” speech, in which the President blamed America’s troubles on — Americans. That was even too much for a disgusted Ted Kennedy, who promptly challenged Carter for the Democratic nomination. The last straw was the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter’s kowtowing to Islamic radicals who called him — yes, Jimmy Carter! — the Great Satan. Finally, on the morning of the Wisconsin primary, there was the abysmal failure of the Desert One “rescue” attempt of the hostages.

By November of 1980, shocked Democrats were staring at the precursor of Red America — a 44 state Reagan win over Carter, the Senate turnover to the GOP after over two decades.

There is a reason for the unsettled reaction of Democrats not only at Pelosi’s backing of Murtha, but her apparent imminent support of the once-impeached Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings to be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Rank and file Democrats rallied to Pelosi’s nemesis, Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer, over Murtha as Majority Leader. But just as Democrats were unable to stem one Carter disaster after another they now face another dilemma. Will they — can they — prevent the promotion to one of the most sensitive positions in the War on Terror to a man earlier Democrats decided was, essentially, a crook worthy of impeachment?

The Carter experience is instructive here. Regardless of what increasingly uncomfortable Democrats did or said as the Carter presidency unrolled — or unraveled — they found themselves confronted with a leader who personified a deadly combination. Jimmy Carter proved to be both weak yet unstoppable within the rank and file of Democratic activists. Salivating at the prospect of a supposedly “extremist” Reagan candidacy, Democrats to this day are reeling under the devastating impact of Carter’s presidency and his uncanny ability to make one bad personnel and policy choice after another.

As Democrats stagger forth after abruptly overruling their new leader’s choice of Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi’s Ted Sorensen, they are clearly beginning to look at the soon-to-be reality of Speaker Pelosi and shudder at the realization they have are about to have a Carter-like Speakership.

One awaits the mantra of Democratic disaster to emerge from the past of the 2000 election as the Pelosi-sponsored Alcee Hastings gets his moment in the sun, a mantra that no doubt already has Karl Rove chuckling.

The Pelosi legacy begins.

Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A former Reagan White House political director, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.

Diary of her final days — I had a friend in England that suffered a similar fate

Diary of her final days

After winning big in New York state Hillary Rodham Clinton promised/warned

“Health care is coming back,”  adding, “It may be a bad dream for some.”

As Americans write ever larger checks for health insurance premiums while paying more for non covered medical costs many find this idea rather attractive.

Not so fast!  Reading this horror story of the final days of a British cancer patient coping with the debt ridden, underfunded, medically lacking, rationed, delayed, bureaucratic, government run system should remind us of the nightmare that awaits us if even half of Senator Clinton’s health care agenda passes.

It’s eight months since I collapsed and was taken to hospital, where I was diagnosed with lung and brain cancer. Because of my age – 57 – I was told that very little could be done for me, and that I had up to six months left to live. I then discovered that because of the cash crisis in the NHS, treatment is rationed to those who are most likely to recover, and if you suffer from more than one form of cancer, you don’t fall into that category.

Yeah, yeah there are probably those who could counter Ms. Balsom’s tale with  equal horror stories about US health care. However is our system so pervasively bad as this?  I don’t think so.

Ethel C. Fenig   11 17 06

McDONALD’S latest bid to attract more customers — Muslim fast-food lovers — has caused uproar among customers. — Do you think this could happen here?

McDONALD’S latest bid to attract more customers — Muslim fast-food lovers — has caused uproar among customers.

The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales.However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran.

McDonald’s consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores.

Halal meat is from animals that have been killed facing Mecca and blessed using the name of Allah.

Brunswick East store assistant manager Nicholas Yacoub said the move had attracted a surge of new customers.

“It has pretty much doubled our sales,” Mr Yacoub said.

The store does not tell drive-through customers about the change and has only one small sign inside advertising the move.

Coburg resident Miriam McLennan was stunned to discover the hamburger she bought from the Brunswick East store was blessed.

“Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn’t halal . . . I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn’t been blessed,” she said.

A Catholic Church spokesman said non-Muslims deserved to know if the food was halal before buying. But he said there was no biblical reason for Christians to avoid halal food.

A McDonald’s spokeswoman said customers who did not want halal food should buy from any of its other stores

Greetings from Ramadi

NYPD warns business owners about female jihadists evading security

NYPD warns business owners about female jihadists evading security

There will no doubt be an uproar from Muslim advocacy and civil liberties groups about “profiling,” and if Nancy Pelosi had her way, it would be much easier to take security agencies to court (civil and criminal) over such actions, and win. “Jihad’s femmes fatales,” by Robert F. Moore for the New York Daily News:

That’s not a pregnant belly – that’s a bomb.

The NYPD is warning business owners to be on the lookout for female jihadists who can hide explosives by faking pregnancy or sweet-talk their way past security officers.

“The threat posed by women is real, and it can’t be overlooked,” Rachel Weiner, an NYPD intelligence specialist, said at a security conference yesterday.

The warning was not in response to a threat against any specific targets in the city, but a general caveat for private security in light of the radicalization of women in other parts of the world.

“What this means is that we don’t have the luxury of ignoring 50% of our population in assessing whether someone is a threat,” Weiner said.

Cossor Ali, a young mother among two dozen suspects accused in a London-based plot to blow up U.S.-bound flights, intended to use her 8-month-old baby’s bottle to hide a liquid explosive, authorities said.

Counter-terrorism experts noted that 19 of the 41 Chechen militants in the 2002 siege of a Moscow theater were women, part of a group known as the “black widows.” More than 120 civilians were killed.

Experts said yesterday that female terrorists achieve martyr status among radicals. Wafa Idris, widely considered the first female Palestinian suicide bomber, killed one person and injured more than 150 in an attack in Jerusalem in 2002. She has a Palestinian summer camp named in her honor.

A growing number of female terrorists are housewives, scientists or even teens schooled in the U.S. and Europe, officials said yesterday, blurring the profile of would-be bombers.

During the NYPD Shield conference yesterday at police headquarters, cops also gave business owners tips on the general behavior of potential terrorists. The NYPD Shield is a security partnership between cops and private businesses designed to prevent terrorist attacks.

Peter Patton, an NYPD intelligence specialist, drew from an “Encyclopedia of Jihad” found at an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, saying that 80% of jihadists’ information is drawn from public sources.

They read newspapers and scour the Internet for maps and shareholder reports, he said. The other 20% of their information comes from taking panoramic photos of potential targets, casually interviewing security staff, examining surveillance equipment and traffic patterns onsite and observing product delivery schedules.

Activities also easily carried out by either gender.

Israeli envoy walks out of U.N. session

Israeli envoy walks out of U.N. session

Good for Dan Gillerman. The UN is a disgrace, a handmaiden of the global jihad. And the European Union covers itself with shame yet again. From UPI, with thanks to Davida:

Israel’s ambassador walked out on the United Nations session that resulted in a strong call to Israel to end its military operations in the Gaza Strip.The 192-member General Assembly voted Friday night 156-7, with six abstentions, in favor of the non-binding resolution in an emergency special session.

The United States, Israel and Australia voted against the document, while all the European Union members supported it after last-minute changes were made to soften the tone.

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman conducted a news conference nearby and blasted the session as a “farce” and a “circus,” Ha’aretz reported Saturday.