Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Individual Profile:

  • Democratic Senator representing New York State
  • America’s foremost leftist
    Born October 26, 1947, Hillary Diane Rodham was the first of Dorothy and Hugh Rodham’s three children (she has two brothers, Hugh and Tony). Hillary was raised in Park Ridge, Illinois and later attended 
    Wellesley College in Massachusetts. After graduating from Wellesley, she enrolled at Yale Law School; during her years there, she interned with Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. She also met her future husband, Bill Clinton, on the Yale campus. 

    After graduating from Yale, Hillary Rodham became an advisor for the Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She also worked on the Nixon impeachment staff of the House Judiciary Committee. She had been recommended to Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino by her former Yale professor Burke Marshall. Marshall had served as Assistant Attorney General in the Kennedy administration, and later as Ted Kennedy’s lawyer during the Chappaquiddick scandal; he was also Kennedy’s chief political strategist. With the advent of Watergate, Marshall had developed a plan to get Ted Kennedy elected President in 1976.

    Hillary conferred regularly with Marshall, in violation of congressional rules against disclosure of confidential materials. Under Marshall’s direction, she worked to forestall Richard Nixon’s impeachment and keep him “twisting in the wind” until the end of his term. The purpose of this strategy was to deny Vice President Gerald Ford a chance to restore respectability to the Republican Party. It also would have enhanced the prospects for Kennedy to be elected. Nixon eventually resigned the Presidency in August 1974, and Jimmy Carter, not Ted Kennedy, was the Democratic nominee in 1976. 

    In 1975 Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton. She joined the faculty of the University of Arkansas Law School that same year, and the Rose Law Firm a year later. In 1978, the year her husband was elected Govenor of Arkansas, Hillary was appointed by President Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation. She spent twelve years as Arkansas’ First Lady, and another eight years as the First Lady of the United States (1993-2001). She was elected United States Senator from New York on November 7, 2000. 

    Among the most important and influential political figures in the United States today, Hillary Clinton is America’s foremost leftist. This is not an obvious idea to those leftists who identify themselves as radicals. Purists of the creed are likely to regard both Hillary and Bill Clinton as opportunists and sellouts of their cause. But the left is not and has never been a political monolith, and its factions have always attacked each other almost as ferociously as their political enemies.

    It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one’s agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. Political stratagems that appear moderate and compromised to radical factions of the left may present an even greater threat from the perspective of the other side. In 1917, Lenin’s political slogan wasn’t “Socialist Dictatorship! Firing Squads and Gulags!” It was “Bread, Land and Peace.”

    Yet Hillary Clinton, as America’s “first lady of the left,” is also not an obvious subject to many conservatives. And since conservative politics begins with the defense of America’s constitutional order, this is a far more significant matter. Underestimating the foe on any battlefield can be a fatal fault; in politics likewise.

    This problem is exemplified in a brilliantly etched and elegantly deconstructed portrait of Mrs. Clinton by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. Thus, the focus of The Case Against Hillary Clinton is not Mrs. Clinton’s Marxism or feminism or progressivism. Instead, it is her narcissism. It is this psychological nexus in which Noonan finds the key to Hillary Clinton’s public persona. It is almost as though Mrs. Clinton’s politics were merely instrumental to her career, as changeable as her famous hairstyles.

    “Never has the admirable been so fully wedded to the appalling,” Noonan writes of the subject and her faithless spouse. “Never in modern political history has such tenacity and determination been marshaled to achieve such puny purpose: the mere continuance of Them.”

    The wit is sharp but the point just wide of the mark. There are many unprincipled narcissists in politics. But there has never been a White House so thoroughly penetrated by the political left. Noonan’s psychological characterization is surely correct. But if Hillary and Bill Clinton were unable to draw on the dedication and support of the left—if they were Republicans, for example—there would be no prospect of a continuance of Them.

    Ever since abandoning the utopian illusions of the progressive cause, I have been struck by how little the world outside the left seems to actually understand it. How little those who have not inhabited the progressive mind are able to grasp the ruthless cynicism behind its idealistic mask or the fervent malice that drives its hypocritical passion for “social justice.”

    No matter how great the crimes progressives commit, no matter how terrible the future they labor to create, no matter how devastating the catastrophes they leave behind, the world outside the faith seems ever ready to forgive them their “mistakes” and to grant them the grace of “good intentions.”

    It would be difficult to recall, for example, the number of times I have been introduced on conservative platforms as “a former civil rights worker and peace activist in the 1960s.” I have been described this way despite having written a detailed autobiography that exposes these self-glorifying images of the left as so many political lies. Like many New Left leaders whom the young Mrs. Clinton once followed (and who are her comrades today), I regarded myself in the 1960s as a socialist and a revolutionary. No matter what slogans we chanted, or ideals we proclaimed our agendas always extended beyond (and well beyond) the immediate issues of “civil rights” and “peace.”

    New Left progressives—including Hillary Clinton and her comrade, Acting Deputy Attorney General Bill Lann Lee—were involved in supporting, or protecting or making excuses for violent anti-American radicals abroad like the Vietcong and anti-American criminals at home like the Black Panthers.* We did this then—just as progressives still do now—in the name of “social justice” and a dialectical worldview that made this deception appear ethical and the fantasy seem possible.

    As a student of the left, Jamie Glazov has observed in an article about the middle-class defenders of recently captured Seventies terrorist Kathy Soliah: “if you can successfully camouflage your own pathology and hatred with a concern for the ‘poor’ and the ‘downtrodden,’ then there will always be a ‘progressive’ milieu to support and defend you.” Huey Newton, George Jackson, Bernadine Dohrn, Sylvia Baraldini, Rubin Carter, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rigoberta Menchu and innumerable others have all discovered this principle in the course of their criminal careers.

    There is a superficial sense, of course, in which we were civil rights and peace activists—and that is certainly the way I would have described myself at the time, particularly if I were speaking to a non-left audience. It is certainly the way Mrs. Clinton and my former comrades in the left refer to themselves and their pasts in similar contexts today.

    But they are lying. (And when they defend racial preferences now—a principle they denounced as “racist” then—even they must know it).

    The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity—often without even realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life.

    Why, for example, if you were one of them, would you tell the truth? If you were serious about your role in humanity’s vanguard, if you had the knowledge (which others did not), that you were certain would lead them to a better world, why would you tell them a truth that they could not “understand” and that would hold them back?

    If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a “vanguard.” You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.

    That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.

    That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don’t care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their “mistakes.” That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.

    If you were active in the so-called “peace” movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren’t really a “peace activist,” except in the sense that you were against America’s war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves “peace activists,” you didn’t oppose the Communists’ war, and were gratified when America’s enemies won?

    What you were really against was not war at all, but American “imperialism” and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America’s democracy, which you knew to be a “sham” because it was controlled by money in the end. That’s why you wanted to “Bring the Troops Home,” as your slogan said. Because if America’s troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.

    But you never had the honesty—then or now—to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.

    Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren’t really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual—both of which you despise.

    It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left’s anti-American, but “progressive” agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem.

    Despite the homage contemporary leftists pay to post-modernist conceits, despite their belated and half-hearted display of critical sentiment towards Communist regimes, they are very much the ideological heirs of Stalinist progressives, who supported the greatest mass murders in human history, but who remember themselves as civil libertarian opponents of McCarthy and victims of a political witch-hunt. (Only the dialectically gifted can even begin to follow the logic involved.)

    To appreciate the continuity of communism in the mentality of the left, consider how many recent Hollywood promotions of the industry Reds and how many academic apologies for Stalinist crimes (in fact, the vast majority of recent academic texts on the subject) have been premised on the Machiavellian calculations and Hegelian sophistries I have just described.

    Naturally, today’s leftists are smart enough to distance themselves from Soviet Communism. But the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev was already a critic of Stalin forty years ago. Did his concessions make him less of a Communist? Or more?

    On the other hand, conservative misunderstanding of the left is only in part a product of the left’s own deceits. It also reflects conservatives’ inability to understand the religious nature of the progressive faith and the power of its redemptive idea. For instance, I’m often asked by conservatives about the continuing role and influence of the Communist Party, since they observe quite correctly the pervasive presence of so many familiar totalitarian ideas in our academic and political culture. Though still around and sometimes influential in the left, the Communist Party has been a minor player for nearly fifty years. How can there be a communist left (small “c” of course) without a Communist Party?

    The short answer is that it was not the Communist Party that made the left, but the (small ‘c’) communist Idea. It is the idea, as old as the Tower of Babel, that humanity can build a highway to Heaven. It is the idea of returning to an Earthly Paradise, a garden of social harmony and justice. It is the idea that inspires Jewish radicals and liberals of a tikkun olam, a healing of the cosmic order. It is the Enlightenment illusion of the perfectibility of man. And it is the siren song of the serpent in Eden: “Eat of this Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and you shall be as God.”

    The intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them—this is what creates the left, and makes the believers so self-righteous.

    And it did so long before Karl Marx. It is the vision of this redemption that continues to inspire and animate them despite the still-fresh ruins of their Communist dreams.

    It is this same idea that is found in the Social Gospel which impressed the youthful Hillary Clinton at the United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Illinois. She later encountered the same idea in the New Left at Yale and in the Venceremos Brigade in Communist Cuba, and in the writings of the New Leftist who introduced her to the “politics of meaning” even after she had become America’s First Lady. It is the idea that drives her comrades in the Children’s Defense Fund, the National Organization for Women, the Al Sharpton House of Justice and the other progressive causes which for that reason still look to her as a political leader.

    For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal—”social justice“—is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. “Social Justice” for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself.

    Even though they are too prudent and self-protective to name this future anymore, the post-Communist left still passionately believes it possible. But it is a world that has never existed and never will. Moreover, as the gulags and graveyards of the last century attest, to attempt the impossible is to invite the catastrophic in the world we know.

    But the fall of Communism taught the progressives who were its supporters very little. Above all, it failed to teach them the connection between their utopian ideals and the destructive consequences that flowed from them. The fall of Communism has had a cautionary impact only on the overt agendas of the political left. The arrogance that drives them has hardly diminished. The left is like a millenarian sect that erroneously predicted the end of the world, and now must regroup to revitalize its faith.

    No matter how opportunistically the left’s agendas have been modified, however, no matter how circumspectly its goals have been set, no matter how generous its concessions to political reality, the faithful have not given up their self-justifying belief that they can bring about a social redemption. In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which “social justice” prevails.

    Because the transformation progressives seek is ultimately total, the power they seek must be total as well. In the end, the redemption they envision cannot be achieved as a political compromise, even though compromises may be struck along the way. Their brave new world can ultimately be secured only by the complete surrender of the resisting force. In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them.

    In Peggy Noonan’s psychological portrait of Hillary Clinton, one can trace the outlines of the progressive persona I have just described. She observes that the “liberalism” of the Clinton era is very different from the liberalism of the past. Clinton-era liberalism is manipulative and deceptive and not really interested in what real people think because “they might think the wrong thing.”

    That is why Hillary Clinton’s famous plan to socialize American health care was the work of a progressive cabal that shrouded itself in secrecy to the point of illegality. Noonan labels Clinton-era politics “command and control liberalism,” using a phrase with a familiar totalitarian ring. But, like so many conservatives I have come to know, Noonan is finally too decent and too generous to fully appreciate the pathology of the left.

    She begins her inquiry by invoking Richard Nixon’s comment that only two kinds of people run for high office in America, “those who want to do big things and those who want to be big people.” She identifies both Clintons as “very much, perhaps completely, the latter sort,” and clinically examines their narcissism by way of unlocking the mystery of who they really are.

    Regarding the husband, Peggy Noonan is probably right. I do not think of Bill Clinton as a leftist inspired by ideas of a socially just world, or as having even a passing interest in the healing of cosmic orders. He is more readily understood as a borderline sociopath. Fully absorbed in the ambitions of self, Clinton is a political chameleon who assumes the coloration of his environments and the constituencies on which his fortunes have come to depend.

    Hillary Clinton is not so slippery. Despite the cynicism she shares with her husband, one can clearly observe an ideological spine that creates political difficulties for her that one knows he would be able to avoid. This is not to deny the force of her personal ambitions or the power of her narcissistic regard. But these attitudes could be expected in any member of a self-selected elite, especially one like the left, which is based on moral election.

    For this reason, it would be difficult to separate the narcissistic from the ideological in the psychology of any political missionary. Do they advance the faith for the sake of the faith, or because advancing the faith will turn them into saints? Do the Lenins of history sacrifice normal life in order to achieve “big things,” or because they hunger for the canonization the achievements will bring? It is probably impossible to finally answer the question. But we can observe that the narcissism of Stalin—ex-seminarian, Father of the People and doer of epic revolutionary deeds—makes the Clintons’ soap opera of self-love pale by comparison.

    Despite their life-long collaboration, Bill and Hillary Clinton are different political beings in the end. Her marital rages provoked by a mate whose adolescent lusts put their collective mission at risk are probably a good measure of just how different they are.

    “In their way of thinking,” Noonan observes of the Clintons, “America is an important place, but not a thing of primary importance. America is the platform for the Clintons’ ambitions, not the focus of them.” The implication is that if they were principled emissaries of a political cause, the ambition to do big things for America would override all others. Instead, they have focused on themselves and consequently have made the American political landscape itself “a lower and lesser thing.”

    They have “behaved as though they are justified in using any tactic in pursuit of their goals,” including illegality, deception, libel, threats and “ruining the lives of perceived enemies . . . ” They believe, she continues, “they are justified in using any means to achieve their ends for a simple and uncomplicated reason. It is that they are superior individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership.” They do it for themselves; for the continuance of Them.

    But the fact is they all do it. The missionaries of the big progressive causes, the Steinems, the Irelands, the Michelmans, the Friedans, and Hillary Clinton herself, were all willing to toss their feminist movement overboard to give Bill Clinton a pass on multiple sexual harassments, and on a career of sexual predation that reflects his utter contempt for the female gender.

    Indeed, the Clinton-Lewinsky defense—accord which the feminists signed onto, can be regarded as feminism’s Nazi-Soviet Pact. Their calculation was both simple and crude: If Clinton was removed, Hillary would go too. But she was their link to patronage and power, and they couldn’t imagine losing that. Their kind was finally in control of the White House, and the conservative enemies of their beautiful future were not.

    Almost a decade earlier—in the name of the very principles they so casually betrayed for Clinton—the same feminists had organized the most disgraceful lynching of a public figure in America’s history. Despite fiercely proclaimed commitments to the racial victims of American persecution, they launched a vicious campaign to destroy the reputation of Clarence Thomas, an African American jurist who had risen, unblemished, from dirt-shack poverty in the segregated south to the nation’s highest courts. They did it knowingly, cynically, with the intent to destroy him in his person, and to ruin his public career.

    Has there ever been a more reprehensible witch-hunt in American public life than the one organized by feminist leaders who then emerged as vocal defenders of the White House lecher? Was there ever a more sordid betrayal of common decency than this collective defamation—for which no apology has or ever will be given?

    What was the sin Clarence Thomas committed to earn such punishment? The allegation—that he had talked inappropriately ten years before to a female lawyer and made her uncomfortable—appears laughable in the post-Lewinsky climate of presidential gropings and borderline rapes that the same feminists have sanctioned for their political accomplice. Thomas’ real crime, as everybody knew but was too intimidated by the hysteria to confirm at the time, was his commitment to constitutional principles they hated. They hated these principles because the Constitution was written for the explicit purpose of preventing the realization of their socialist and egalitarian dreams.

    Peggy Noonan is right. The focus of Hillary Clinton’s ambition is not her country. But it is not just herself either. It is also a place that does not exist. It is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one.

    That is why Hillary and Sid Blumenthal, her fawning New Left Machiavelli, call their own political philosophy the politics of “The Third Way.” This distinguishes it from the “triangulation” strategy Dick Morris used to resurrect Bill Clinton’s presidency. Morris guided Clinton, in appropriating specific Republican policies towards a balanced budget and welfare reform as a means of securing his re-election. Hillary Clinton was on board for these policies, and in that sense is a triangulator herself. But “triangulation” is too merely tactical and too morally crass to define a serious political philosophy. Above all, it fails to project the sense of promise that intoxicates the imaginations of self-styled “progressives.” That is why Hillary and Sid call their politics “The Third Way.”

    “The Third Way” is a familiar term from the lexicon of the left with a long and dishonorable pedigree in the catastrophes created by messianic socialists in the 20th Century. It is the most ornate panel in the tapestry of deception I described at the beginning of this essay.

    In the 1930s, Nazis used “The Third Way” to characterize their own brand of national socialism as a equidistant between the “internationalist” socialism of the Soviet Union and the capitalism of the West. Trotskyists used “The Third Way” as a term to distinguish their own Marxism from Stalinism and capitalism. In the 1960s, New Leftists used “The Third Way” to define their politics as an independent socialism between the Soviet gulag and America’s democracy.

    But as the history of Nazism, Trotskyism and the New Left have shown, there is no “Third Way.” There is the capitalist, democratic way based on private property and individual rights—a way that leads to liberty and universal opportunity. And there is the socialist way of group identities, group rights, a relentless expansion of the political state, restricted liberty and diminished opportunity. The Third Way is not a path to the future. It is just the suspension between these two destinations. It is a bad faith attempt on the part of people who are incapable of giving up their socialist schemes to escape the taint of their discredited past.

    Is there a practical difference in the modus operandi of Clinton narcissism and Clinton messianism? I think there is, and it is the difference between “triangulation”—a cynical compromise to hang onto power until the next election cycle, and “The Third Way”—a cynical deception to ensure the continuance of Us, until we acquire enough power to transform everyone else. It is the difference between the politics of getting what you can, and the politics of changing the world.

    A capsule illustration of these different political ambitions can be found in the book Primary Colors, which describes, in thinly veiled fiction, Bill Clinton’s road to the presidency. Primary Colors is an admiring portrait not only of the candidate, but of the dedicated missionaries—the true believing staffers and the long-suffering wife—who serve Clinton’s political agendas, but at the price of enabling the demons of self.

    These staffers—political functionaries like Harold Ickes and George Stephanopoulos—serve as the flak-catchers and “bimbo eruption”—controllers who clean up his personal messes and shape his image for gullible publics. But they are also the idealists who design his message. And in the end, they enable him to politically succeed.

    It is Primary Colors‘ insight into the minds of these missionaries that is revealing. They see Clinton clearly as a flawed and often repellent human being. They see him as a lecher, a liar and a man who would destroy an innocent person in order to advance his own career. (This is, in fact, the climactic drama of the text). Yet through all the sordidness and lying, the personal ruthlessness and disorder, the idealistic missionaries faithfully follow and serve the leader.

    They do it not because they are themselves corrupted through material rewards. The prospect of fame is not even what drives them. Think only of Harold Ickes, personally betrayed and brutally cast aside by Clinton, who nonetheless refused to turn on him, even after the betrayal. Instead, Ickes kept his own counsel and protected Clinton, biding his time and waiting for Hillary. Then joined her staff to manage her Senate campaign.

    The idealistic missionaries in this true tale bite their tongues and betray their principles, rather than betray him. They do so because in Bill Clinton they see a necessary vehicle of their noble ambition and uplifting dreams. He, too, cares about social justice, about poor people and blacks (or so he makes them believe). They will serve him and lie for him and destroy for him, because he is the vessel of their hope.

    Because Bill Clinton “cares,” he is the vital connection to the power they need to accomplish the redemption. Because the keys to the state are within Clinton’s grasp, he becomes in their eyes the only prospect for advancing the progressive cause. Therefore, they will sacrifice anything and everything—principle, friends, country—to make him succeed.

    But Bill Clinton is not like those who worship him, corrupting himself and others for a higher cause. Unlike them, he betrays principles because he has none. He will even betray his country, but without the slightest need to betray it for something else—for an idea, a party, or a cause. He is a narcissist who sacrifices principle for power because his vision is so filled with himself that he cannot tell the difference.

    But the idealists who serve him—Stephanopoulos, Ickes, the feminists, the progressives and Hillary Clinton—can tell the difference. Their cynicism flows from the very perception they have of right and wrong. They do it for higher ends. They do it for the progressive faith. They do it because they see themselves as having the power to redeem the world from evil. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their sordid and, if necessary, criminal means.

    And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your “reactionary” commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes.

    Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left—by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints.

    Conservatives are caught by surprise because they see progressives as merely misguided, when in fact they are fundamentally misdirected. They are the messianists of a religious faith. But it is a false faith and a self-serving religion. Since the redeemed future that justifies their existence and rationalizes their hypocrisy can never be realized, what really motivates progressives is a modern idolatry: their limitless passion for the continuance of Them.

Take Out the Mullahs , Tonight!!

Take Out the Mullahs , Tonight!!

By Herbert E. Meyer

To think clearly about the looming crisis with Iran, close your eyes and imagine that you’re standing outside your children’s school. It’s 2:55pm, and you’re chatting amiably with other parents while waiting for the 3pm bell to ring.  Suddenly you see a man running toward the school, holding a hand grenade and shouting: ‘I hate kids.  I welcome death.’

Now, what do you propose to do?

One option is to engage your fellow parents in a dialogue about the serious and complex questions raised by the running man with the grenade.

For instance, you might try to calculate precisely how long it will take him to reach the school.  When he does reach the school, will he stop or go inside?  If he does go inside, will he run toward the basement, or toward the auditorium where the third and fourth grades have been brought to watch a video?  (It’s probably about ‘safe sex’ — but what the schools teach our kids is another subject for another day.)  Is the hand grenade real, or might it be a fake?  If the grenade is real, does the man really know how to pull the pin?  And if he does, how big will be blast radius be and what’s the potential number of casualties?

And why is the man doing this?  Is he really a vicious killer?  Or is he a harmless but mentally disturbed individual who didn’t take his medication today and slipped out of the house without being noticed by his wife?  Or is this just a case of a well—meaning but very misguided protester who’s mad at the Bush administration for not signing the Kyoto accords, or who’s upset because dolphins are still getting caught in tuna nets?  Oh, and is it possible that in addition to the hand grenade he’s got a gun inside his coat pocket?

Should you try to talk with the man?  Or would it be better to notify the school’s principal, and perhaps suggest he call the police?

And remember —— while you and your fellow parents debate all this, the distance between the man holding the grenade and your kids is narrowing.
The Option to Act

Your other option is to take the man down — now, this minute, however you can — and to sort out the mess later.

If you go for this option, it’s because you believe that anyone who runs toward a school with what appears to be a live grenade while shouting ‘I hate kids.  I welcome death‘ forfeits all rights to a cautious, comprehensive inquiry about his motives and real capabilities.  If it turns out that the grenade was a fake, or that the man is a harmless nut who really wouldn’t hurt a fly — too bad.  And if the man or his family sues you or the school district for injury or wrongful death — so what.

If you choose this option, it’s because you understand that when someone puts your children’s lives at risk, the instinct for survival trumps the analytic process.  Take too long to think, and you may lose the opportunity to act — and it’s impossible to accurately project when this line will be crossed until you’re already over it.

Okay, now let’s turn our attention to Iran.

The country is led by individuals who are proven, ruthless killers.  Several of them — most especially the country’s president, Mahmoud Amadinejad — are visibly insane.  They have launched huge programs to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, and Iran has both the money and talent to pull it off.  They have pledged to wipe at least one country off the map — Israel —— and they don’t like us, either.

In response, our diplomats are fanning out to engage our allies in ‘frank and comprehensive’ consultations about the looming, potential crisis.  They are even struggling mightily to bring non—allies including France, Russia and China into the dialogue.  Our State Department is ‘cautiously optimistic’ that the issue will eventually be brought to the U.N. Security Council.

Meanwhile, members of Congress are demanding to know how much time we have before it will be too late to act.  Just last week the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that in the judgment of our country’s intelligence experts, Iran ‘probably’ hasn’t yet built a bomb or gotten its hands on enough fissile material to build one.  Over in Vienna the International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that it will be several years, at least, before Iran’s mullahs have a nuke.
What Can We Do?

Based on public comments by officials of the Bush Administration and of various European and Asian governments, there are four options on the table for dealing with Iran:  First, do nothing since Iran won’t actually have nukes for several years — and hope that the mullahs really aren’t serious about using them.  Second, engage the mullahs diplomatically in hopes of dissuading them from pursuing their present course.  Third, help trigger a revolution by providing as much covert support as possible to those within Iran — students and a growing range of worker organizations, for example — who are already demonstrating against their hated regime.  And fourth, launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to destroy, or at least delay, that country’s weapons programs.

Alas, none of these options is any good.  The first is feckless, and the second is hopeless.  The third — helping support a revolution — is terrific, but even under the best possible circumstances would take a long time to bear fruit.  And the fourth option — taking out the nuclear facilities with military force — is extraordinarily difficult to execute, runs the real risk of igniting a political explosion throughout the Moslem world, and in any case it isn’t imminent.

Meanwhile, with each day that passes the distance between Iran’s mullahs and nuclear weapons is narrowing.  And remember:  Take too long to think, and you may lose the opportunity to act — and it’s impossible to accurately project when this line will be crossed until you’re already over it.

Indeed, we may already be over the line.  While it may be correct, as Director Negroponte has testified, that Iran ‘probably’ hasn’t yet built a bomb or gotten its hands on enough fissile material to build one —— it also may not be correct.  Given our intelligence community’s recent track record, it would be foolhardy to place much confidence in this judgment.  Generally, countries trying to build nuclear weapons succeed sooner rather than later — usually to the great surprise of Western intelligence services.  And isn’t it possible that Iran already has a bomb or two that it bought rather than built itself?  When the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 there were the so—called ‘loose nukes’ that the Soviet military wasn’t able to account for.  Make a list of those countries with the money and desire to get its hands on one of these weapons — and Iran tops the list.
It Isn’t Only Nukes

Most worrisome, while everyone in Washington is focusing on nuclear weapons, no one has uttered so much as a peep about the possibility that Iran may be developing chemical or biological weapons.  These weapons are far less costly than nuclear weapons, and the technology required to develop them is more widely available.  And since a cupful of anthrax or botulism is enough to kill 100,000 people, our ability to detect these weapons is — zilch.  So why wouldn’t the mullahs in Teheran order the development of chemical and biological weapons?  If they really do plan to wipe Israel — or us — off the map, these will do the job just as well as nukes.  And if reports are true that Saddam Hussein had such weapons before the war and shipped them out to Syria and Iran before we attacked in 2003 — then the mullahs already have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Simply put, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, combined with the murderous comments of that country’s president, is the political equivalent of a man running toward your children’s school holding a hand grenade and shouting ‘I hate kids.  I welcome death.’  The risk of taking time —— to think, to talk, to analyze, to co—ordinate with other countries — is just too high.  We know where Amadinejad and the mullahs work, and we ought to know where they live.  (And if we don’t know, the Israelis do and would be more than happy to lend a hand.)  We have cruise missiles, Stealth fighters, and B—1 bombers that can fly from the US to Teheran, drop their lethal loads, then return to the US without ever landing en route.  We have skilled, courageous Special Forces teams that can get themselves on the ground in Teheran quietly and fast. 

The question is whether we still have within us the instinct for survival.  If we do, then our only course is to act — now, this minute, however we can — and to take out the mullahs.  Tonight.

Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council.  His DVD on The Siege of Western Civilization  has become an international best—seller.

The enemy within … America

President Carter Talks of Funeral Plans — How soon?

President Carter Talks of Funeral Plans
Dec 03 6:27 PM US/Eastern

Former President Jimmy Carter said Sunday he hopes to be buried in front of his home in Plains, the southwest Georgia town where he and his wife were born.”Plains is special to us,” the 82-year-old said during a three-hour live C-SPAN2 interview. “I could be buried in Arlington Cemetery or wherever I want, but my wife was born here and I was born here.”

As a child, Carter briefly lived next door to Rosalynn, and the two began dating in 1945. The couple married the next year and in July celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary.

“Plains is where our hearts have always been,” he said.

Carter said there are also plans for a funeral in Washington as well as a brief display of his body in Atlanta.

DUI illegal kills Marine home on leave from Iraq

DUI illegal kills Marine home on leave from Iraq
4 times legal limit: Mexican driver cited
for earlier accident but charges dropped

Posted: December 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

One week after he slammed his Nissan Sentra into a car waiting at a stoplight, killing a U.S. Marine and his female passenger, Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano, whose blood alcohol level was measured at .32 – four times the legal level in Maryland for intoxication – has been identified as an illegal immigrant by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office in Baltimore.

Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, 21, of Columbia and his date, Jennifer Bower, 24, of Montgomery Village were killed Thanksgiving night, shortly after 10:00 p.m. when Bower’s Toyota Corolla was hit from behind by Morales-Soriano, 25, of Mexico. Mathews and Bower were on their second date and were planning to take part in the June wedding of friends who had introduced them to each other.

Mathews had served 8 months in Iraq and completed another tour of duty in the Pacific. He was stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., and had come home to Maryland for the holidays. He was scheduled to leave the Corps in June 2007.

Mathews’ fellow Marines are upset over his death.

“It’s more anger than anything,” Cpl. Garrett Farris, 21, of Texas, told the Baltimore Examiner. “A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it’s supposed to be our safe place.”

Cpl. Daniel Robinson, 22, of Texas, Mathews’ squad leader, recalled the Marine’s unflinching performance under fire when their unit walked into an insurgent sniper ambush in Ramadi, Iraq, last year.

“He was beside me the whole time,” said Robinson. “He was giving his team commands. He was a perfectionist Marine, and it really showed. We didn’t have one casualty or one killed in action in the ambush.”

Police said Morales-Soriano’s blood-alcohol level was .32 after the accident, four times Maryland’s legal limit.

“It’s outrageous,” said Caroline Cash, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the Chesapeake region, noting that this was the highest level she had ever heard of. “I can’t give you a specific number of drinks, and I wish I knew the level where someone could potentially die from alcohol poisoning, because he had to have been close.”

It wasn’t Morales-Soriano’s first auto accident and it wasn’t the first time police had dealt with the landscaper when alcohol was apparently involved.

In February, Columbia police responded to a non-injury accident in a parking lot involving Morales-Soriano. According to police reports, he was “unable to maintain his balance” during a field sobriety test. He was given four citations and allowed to leave the scene of the accident with a relative after he refused to take a Breathalyzer test.

Although Maryland law requires an automatic 120-day forfeiture of a drivers license for refusing the test, Morales-Soriano’s license was not suspended after the accident.

Prosecutors dropped all charges in the February accident due to “weak evidence,” allowing Morales-Soriano to recover his seized license from the police and to avoid a fine and points added to his license. A policeman’s error at the accident scene – returning the form documenting the refusal to take the Breathalyzer test to Morales-Soriano – meant that the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration did not receive the information necessary to suspend his license, Wayne Kirwan, a spokesman for the Howard County state’s attorney told The Baltimore Sun.

Morales-Soriano used a North Carolina driver’s license issued Feb. 5, 2004, to obtain a license in Maryland on July 8, 2005, according to Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. WND has reported on the popularity of North Carolina as a destination for illegal aliens seeking easy access to a driver’s license.

The state’s requirements to obtain a driver’s license are weaker than those of many surrounding states, according to a performance audit of the licensing process.

Court officials in New Jersey, for instance, have complained that the requirements are so weak that busloads of illegal immigrants get on I-95 heading south and drive to North Carolina to obtain licenses fraudulently.

The audit, administered by the Department of Transportation and the Division of Motor Vehicles, said documents considered acceptable for proof of residency in North Carolina are easily forged, or the information provided by applicants is not verified.

Morales-Soriano joins a growing list of illegal immigrants who have not only ignored U.S. immigration laws, but state laws against drinking and driving as well, killing innocents on the highways in the process.

When Jose Trejo Encino lost control of his 1996 Pontiac Grand Prix late one night last October in Madison County, Tenn., killing one of his passengers and injuring another, he at least had the presence of mind to throw the cans of beer he had from the car into the woods before the police arrived, according to affidavits entered in court from witnesses.

Encino, 27, who admitted to deputies at the scene “to drinking a 12-pack of beer earlier in the night,” is now facing charges of vehicular homicide and tampering with evidence after the one-car accident that killed Sergio Lopez, 18, and injured Hugo Trejo, 20.

According to affidavits from deputies who investigated the wreck, “a strong odor of an intoxicant about his person” was detected. Alcohol is believed to have contributed to the accident.

In neighboring North Carolina, Hispanic drivers were involved in 76,000 of the drunken-driving arrests made last year even though they make up only 10 percent of the population. The state has seen five deaths in the last two weeks in accidents caused by illegal aliens.

“These victims would be alive if our border was secure and our immigration laws were enforced,” William Gheen, president of Americans For Legal Immigration, told WRAL-TV of Raleigh. “It’s clear across the country – there’s a direct connection between drinking and driving deaths and the illegal alien community. (We need to) crack down on illegal aliens in this state and do everything we can to prevent these preventable deaths.”

While not dismissing the problem of drinking and driving, Tony Asion, an ex-cop and current director of public-safety programs for El Pueblo, a Hispanic advocacy group, said the focus on the national origin of the offenders is misplaced.

“Anytime a Latino does anything that’s wrong, it’s going to come down on the rest of us,” he told WRAL-TV. “It’s not a Latino issue. It’s a drunk-driving issue, and that’s what we have to deal with.”

El Pueblo, along with the North Carolina Highway Patrol, has launched a multimedia education campaign to warn Spanish-speaking drivers of the dangers of drinking and driving.

The problem is that many young Hispanic men use alcohol to deal with boredom and cultural differences, said Asion.

“They’re learning how to drive. They’re learning how to survive,” he said.

As WND reported, Asion’s program came too late for 3 young people – two North Carolina State University students and a 16-year-old – who were killed by an illegal alien, who allegedly was driving drunk, and already had a record of crime in the U.S.

Authorities say Pastor Rios Sanchez, 55, is expected back in a North Carolina court on Nov. 15 on charges he killed Helen Meghan Hughes, 22, of Summerville, S.C., Jennifer Carter, 18, of Jacksonville, N.C., and Hughes’ stepbrother, 16-year-old Ben Leonard.

The two women were students at North Carolina State and all three were returning to Raleigh recently when a car crossed the center line about five miles from Sanford and collided head on with Hughes’ station wagon. Two died instantly and Leonard died after being taken to Central Carolina Hospital, Highway Patrol Trooper K.T. Hill said of the Oct. 27 crash.

Sanchez is being held on $75,000 bail and an immigration detainer on three counts of involuntary manslaughter and he also may face charges of carrying fraudulent residency card, immigration authorities told the Raleigh News-Observer.

Authorities also said Sanchez had pleaded guilty to driving without a license a year ago. And court records show he was accused of a similar count in March and another in April. One count was dismissed and Sanchez failed to show up for court on the other.

“There are hundreds and hundreds of traffic citations of people who are illegal immigrants, and as a practical matter (immigration) is not notified of each one of these,” Tom Lock, the prosecutor, said.

It was only a short time ago a twice-deported illegal alien with a record of drug arrests was told he was facing jail time. Marcos Ramos Medina, 35, who was found to have at least eight aliases and falsely identified himself at his first court appearance, escaped serious injury on Aug. 4, 2005, when his car swerved several times across the center line, causing a tractor-trailer rig to jackknife in Yakima, Wash. His car then plowed head-on into the 2000 Lexus driven by Peggy Keller, 53, dean of distance education at Yakima Valley Community College, killing her at the scene. As WND reported, Medina’s first trial came to an abrupt end in August 2006 when Russell T. “Todd” Sharpe, a six-year Washington State Patrol officer, testified that the suspect fought against his restraints while being taken to the hospital for a blood alcohol test and refused to answer questions. The case against the Mexican national was declared a mistrial because his constitutional right to remain silent had been violated. It took a second jury only 30 minutes to find Medina guilty.

Then in 2005, WND reported, Scott Gardner of Mount Holly, N.C., was on vacation and heading to the coast with his family when his station wagon was struck by a truck driven by Ramiro Gallegos, an illegal alien charged three times previously with drunk driving. Gardner, the father of two young children, was killed. Gallegos of Mexico was charged with second-degree murder and driving while impaired.

In Chattanooga, Tenn., a court heard the case of an illegal alien convicted of running her car into a house and killing a 91-year-old woman. A judge ordered Vitalina Bautista Vargas deported. Amazingly, the family of the victim remained compassionate and merciful. “They wanted one of the conditions to be that she learn how to drive,” prosecutor Jay Wood said. Prosecutor Wood said federal officials insisted that she be deported. He said as a convicted felon, she will not be allowed to apply to re-enter the country for at least 10 years. Louella Winton, the victim, was asleep in her bed when the car crashed into her house. The vehicle knocked the victim through the bedroom wall and threw her against the wall of the house next door.

But driving under the influence may be only the tip of the problem of illegal aliens on U.S. highways.

There also was the case of Victor Manuel Caballero. Even though he entered the country illegally from Mexico five years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that he could collect damages for being hurt in an auto accident from a special state fund set up to benefit those hurt in accidents with uninsured drivers. Caballero would hitch a ride to his computer job with a co-worker, 19-year-old Ricardo Martinez. One morning, Martinez fell asleep at the wheel, veered off the road and struck a parked tractor trailer. Martinez walked away from the accident, but Caballero, who also was illegal, was badly hurt. The hospital costs of $38,300 were paid by a charity fund, while his successful lawsuit found he was eligible for up to $15,000 for “pain and suffering.”

Little caution, critics say, is being exercised when it comes to preventing mayhem on America’s highways as the country witnesses record high numbers of unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured drivers – millions of whom are illegal aliens like Medina.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks traffic accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.

A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

While police do not routinely ask drivers about their immigration status, New York’s Rockland County District Attorney Michael Bongiorno – who has prosecuted more than 20 felony cases this year involving people accused of both unlicensed driving and drunken driving – estimated that two-thirds of about 70 drivers charged in Spring Valley with misdemeanor counts of driving while intoxicated and unlicensed driving were illegal immigrants.

“Unfortunately, the undocumented drivers here do that (drive unlicensed) more than the natives,” said California Highway Patrol Officer Wendy Hahn. “If they’ve been involved in an incident, they flee because they don’t want to deal with immigration.”

Federal immigration officials typically do not get involved when an undocumented person is charged with drunken driving or driving without a license, said Bongiorno and police officials around the country.

While the Census Bureau estimates there are 9 million illegal aliens living in the U.S., other sources put the figure closer to 20 million. Running parallel to those estimates are the best guesses on the number of unlicensed motorists – 17 million.

In addition, the states with the most illegal aliens also have the most unlicensed drivers. Those states are also in the lead for the most hit-and-run accidents, according to reports issued by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the Pew Hispanic Center. California ranks at the top with 24.1 percent of the known 11.1 million illegal aliens.

The proportion of unlicensed drivers varies widely state-by-state, with 6 percent in Maine and 23 percent in New Mexico.

Many of those advocating allowing illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses make the case by suggesting most unlicensed drivers are so because they cannot get a license.

In California, for instance, the Legislature is considering several proposals that would help illegal immigrants drive. One of them is a bill that would prevent police from seizing vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers. Senate Bill 626 by Sen. Nell Soto, D-Ontario, would apply to all drivers who have never obtained a California license. Opponents point out those favoring the bill are the same people promoting licenses for illegals.

‘Under current state law, police can seize vehicles for up to 30 days if the driver is unlicensed. Under the new bill, if the driver never had a license, the vehicle could be seized for only 24 hours; those who had licenses suspended or revoked would still have the vehicles impounded for up to 30 days.

Who are the people who have never had a license? Disproportionately, critics of the bill say, they are illegal immigrants.

In the Maryland Legislature, Delegate Luiz R.S. Simmons, D-Montgomery, is drafting legislation that would stiffen penalties for unlicensed drivers. His bill requires them to appear before a judge and would make them subject to up to 90 days in jail for a first offense and as much as a year for a second offense. In addition, cars belonging to unlicensed drivers could be impounded for up to a month or forfeited if they were involved in an accident that caused an injury.

Though there is absolutely no government data on the identity of Maryland’s unlicensed drivers – or those in any other state – Simmons’s bill has been attacked by immigrant rights’ activists, who say it targets Latinos.

Whether they are mostly illegal aliens or not, one thing is certain – there are more unlicensed drivers on the road than ever before. So prevalent is the trend that many police departments have cut back on sobriety checkpoints in favor of checkpoints to check the documentation of drivers.

A WND statistical study of police reports of dozens of such checkpoints around the country show that close to 10 percent of drivers stopped are either unlicensed or have suspended licenses. Even at sobriety checkpoints, far more drivers are found to be unlicensed than intoxicated.

While some say the answer to the illegal alien-unlicensed driver crisis is permitting illegals to get licensed, others say the solution is decreasing the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Rules determining who is eligible for a driver’s license vary by state. Eleven states do not require legal immigration status to obtain a license. The rest do require proof of legal status, either by state law or the documents required to apply. The eleven states are: Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tennessee and Utah have introduced a separate “certificate for driving” for state residents who cannot prove they are lawfully present in the United States. But Tennessee stopped issuing the certificates in February after reports that undocumented immigrants were coming from out of state and using false documents to apply.

The Real ID act, scheduled to take effect in 2008, will prohibit all states from issuing licenses to illegal aliens or the licenses will not be accepted as identification for federal purposes.

In addition to being unlicensed, most illegal alien drivers are uninsured – making the accidents they cause even more injurious. Statewide, more than one-third of California drivers are without insurance, according to the California Department of Insurance. In some low-income and minority neighborhoods, the rate is over 50 percent. In San Jose, for instance, 55 percent of all drivers on the road have no auto insurance. In some parts of Los Angeles, Imperial, San Diego and Alameda counties, the rate reaches as high as 90 percent.

The situation isn’t much better in other states with high populations of illegals. In Texas, 27 percent of drivers are uninsured. In Florida, the estimates are between 15 and 25 percent. In Colorado, 32 percent.

There are no official statistics about highway carnage and illegal aliens. But there is an increasing awareness among law enforcement officials – and victims of traffic accidents – that illegal aliens are playing a disproportionate role in the road mayhem.

According to surveys conducted by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Hispanics believe it takes 6-8 drinks to affect driving, while Americans, indoctrinated for years against drunk driving, believe it takes just 2-4 drinks.

In 2001, MADD reported 44.1 percent of California’s drunk driving arrests were of Hispanics, while, officially, they made up just 31.3 percent of the population.

How the West Was Lost

How the West Was Lost

Created 2006-12-04 15:53

Is Islam compatible with democracy? This is a question I address elsewhere. We also have to ask ourselves, however, whether the conditions needed for a properly functioning democratic system are currently present even in the West. I’m not always sure about that. In a functioning democratic state, the state passes laws in accordance with the wishes of the people, and also strives to uphold these laws. In Western Europe in particular, the state does neither, as most laws are passed by unelected EU bureaucrats and not elected national parliaments, and as the streets are increasingly ruled by gangs and criminals.

When Arne Hjemaas from Fauske in Norway discovered who was behind a series of burglaries in August and September, he gave the information to the police. “We knew where the burglar was and where the stolen goods were. He had stolen so much from us and from other firms that he had hired a garage to store everything,” Hjemaas said, but the police did nothing.

Finally, Hjemaas and his brother decided to pick up the goods and hand the burglar over to the police. “Unfortunately, it ended in a fight. The man was armed and aggressive. This is not stated in the police documents. The police have documented the burglar’s bruises, but not mine. Our actions led to recovering stolen goods for us and others.” Later, Hjemaas was told that the man was supposed to be apprehended the day before, but the officer who had been assigned the mission had to attend a funeral. Now, Hjemaas is about to be prosecuted for violence and risks four months in jail.

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. I don’t agree with everything Boot says. He places a lot of emphasis on the importance of religion, which is fine, but I disagree with his criticism of post-Enlightenment civilization in general. Still, he is articulate and original, which makes him worth reading anyway:

“Parliaments all over the world are churning out laws by the bucketful. Yet, they fail to protect citizens so spectacularly that one is tempted to think that this is not their real purpose. […] Governments are no longer there to protect society and the individuals within it. […] For that reason a crime committed by one individual against another is of little consequence to them.”

The law also increasingly denies citizens the right to protect themselves and their property, with the United States as an important exception, at least for now. This despite the fact that Switzerland, with the heaviest-armed population in the world, has low crime rates. In the first two years after a complete ban on handguns was introduced in Britain, gun crime went up 50 per cent and is still growing.

According to Boot,

“While killing is still frowned upon, other violent crimes, including assault and even attempted murder, often go not only unpunished but even unprosecuted in many Western countries. Unless, of course, they are committed in self-defence, something the state abhors as this diminishes its control over the life and property of its subjects. […] The burglar is in the same business as the state: redistributing wealth. Burglary is a form of income tax, and the burglar merely collects the excess that has evaded the tax collector’ net. […] A burglar is a victim, not a criminal, grew up needy and downtrodden, we, society at large, are to blame for his plight.”

Citizens no longer respect laws because they know the state does not do so either. According to Boot, this is caused by the loss of religion:

“Without God laws are arbitrary and can fall prey either to evil design or ill-conceived political expediency, which is another way of saying that without God law is tyranny. […] Religion, for all the misdeeds committed by it or in its name, was the foundation on which Western  culture and civilization had been erected. Destroy the foundation, and down comes the whole structure with a big thud. […] The unsavoury Spanish inquisitors, for example, are variously estimated to have carried out between 10,000 and 30,000 executions during the three-and-a-half centuries they were in business.”

That’s pretty bad, but still not more than a monthly output in your average Socialist regime. And Alexander Boot does not buy into the excuse that Marxism has been misunderstood:

“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. […] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands […] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”

Boot also has some critical words about the Western political system, especially since he believes that the loyalty of Western political elites “is pledged to the international elite that increasingly supersedes national interests.”

“The word ‘democracy’ in both Greece and Rome had no one man one vote implications and Plato used it in the meaning of ‘mob rule.’ The American founding fathers never used it at all and neither did Lincoln. […] a freely voting French citizen or British subject of today has every aspect of his life controlled, or at least monitored, by a central government in whose actions he has little say. He meekly hands over half his income knowing the only result of this transfer will be an increase in the state’s power to extort even more. […] He opens his paper to find yet again that the ‘democratic’ state has dealt him a blow, be that of destroying his children’s education, raising his taxes, devastating the army that protects him, closing his local hospital or letting murderers go free. In short, if one defines liberty as a condition that best enables the individual to exercise his freedom of choice, then democracy of universal suffrage is remiss on that score.”

He believes that democracy, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word. The impulse behind Political Correctness consists of twisting the language we use, enforcing new words or changing the meaning of old ones, turning them into “weapons of crowd control” by demonizing those who fail to comply with the new definitions. Glossocracy depends upon a long-term investment in ignorance.

“Like the Russian intelligentsia of yesteryear, the glossocratic intelligentsia of today’s West is busily uprooting the last remaining vestiges of Westernness. The press is one gardening implement they use; education is another.”

One example of how language is power is given in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’”

According to Boot,

“A semi-literate population is a soft touch for glossocratic Humpty Dumpties insisting that words mean whatever they want them to mean. […] Laws against racism are therefore not even meant to punish criminal acts. They are on the books to reassert the power of the state to control not just the citizens’ actions but, more important, their thoughts and the words they use to get these across. […] It is relatively safe to predict that, over the next ten years, more and more people in Western Europe and North America will be sent to prison not for something they have done, but for something they have said. That stands to reason: a dictator whose power is based on the bullet is most scared of bullets; a glossocrat whose power is based on words is most scared of words. At the same time, real crime is going to increase. […] A state capable of prosecuting one person for his thoughts is equally capable of prosecuting thousands, and will predictably do so when it has consolidated its power enough to get away with any outrage.”

This is unfortunately already happening. In Canada, Mark Harding was sentenced to 340 hours of community service slash indoctrination under the direction of Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ontario. Ashraf made it clear that during the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam. “He said he was my supervisor, and if I didn’t follow what he said, he would send me back to jail,” recounted Harding.

Harding was convicted because of a June 1997 incident in which he distributed pamphlets outside a public high school in Toronto, listing atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims. The pamphlet said: “The Muslims who commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here” and that “Toronto is definitely on their hit list.”

Harding stated that after his case became public, he no longer felt safe, due to threats from Muslims. When he entered court for his trial, a large crowd of Muslims chanted “Infidels, you will burn in hell.” Judge Sidney B. Linden’s 1998 ruling against Harding was based on Canada’s hate-crimes law. The judge determined he was guilty of “false allegations about the adherents of Islam calculated to arouse fear and hatred of them in all non-Muslim people.”

In June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of Muslim men suspected of planning terror attacks against various targets including the Toronto subway, and possibly of beheading Canadian Conservative, pro-Israeli PM Stephen Harper. An intelligence study warned that a “high percentage ‘ of Canadian Muslims involved in extremist activities were born in Canada.

In Britain, after Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, was cleared for stirring up racial hatred by calling Islam “a wicked, vicious faith.” Gordon Brown, by many considered PM Tony Blair’s likely successor, immediately pledged to strengthen hate speech laws: “I think any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes.”

The issue here is not whether you agree with the BNP, the issue is that a politicized police force is used on behalf of the Labour government to harass political rivals and silence critics of their Muslim voters. Moreover, at the same time as the state is using legal harassment against critics of Islam, Islamic sharia laws are spreading in Britain.

Just like in Norway, where the authorities fail to protect their citizens against criminals but prosecute those who do what the authorities fail to do, so in Britain the state is harassing those who point out the fact that the state is incapable or unwilling to uphold the laws and the borders of Britain. The British see this, which is probably why they are increasingly leaving. And in Canada, you get convicted for “racism” for making predictions about the threat posed by Muslim immigration that later turn out to be perfectly accurate.

Theodore Dalrymple writes about a book entitled A Land Fit for Criminals, written by David Fraser, who has served as a probation officer for more than a quarter of a century. According to Dalrymple,

“For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if not always de jure, has been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals and criminality. […] No Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence. […] As Fraser pointed out to me, the failure of the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and to take seriously its duty in this regard, creates a politically dangerous situation, for it puts the very legitimacy of the state itself at risk. The potential consequences are incalculable, for the failure might bring the rule of law itself into disrepute and give an opportunity to the brutal and the authoritarian.”

The democratic states of the West are losing the ability to protect their citizenry, and are in some cases turning into enemies of their own people. That is a situation that cannot and will not last forever. If left unchecked, these developments could have more serious consequences than most of us would like to contemplate.

There’s a Fungus Among Us


“Fifth columns” consisting of subversive agents who infiltrate sympathizers into the fabric of a nation, especially during times of war, try to undermine that country from within. FSM President Carol Taber takes a look at the more obvious fifth columns right here in America.


There’s a Fungus Among Us

Carol A. Taber


Otherwise known as “fifth columns”, there are quite a few fungi living right here in America, and they have been operating quietly in the United States, under the radar, for about 40 years. Many of them were upset with their comrade Osama who drew American attention to their world on September 11, 2001. You have to admit, it was a bit heavy handed and it woke up about half of America. The rest still sleep.

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, a fifth column is a “clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nation’s solidarity by any means at their disposal. The term is credited to Emilio Mola Vidal, a Nationalist general during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39). As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his ‘fifth column’, intent on undermining the loyalist government from within.”

What is most interesting is the rest of the definition, which describes with precision what is beginning to happen here in America: “A cardinal technique of the fifth column is the infiltration of sympathizers into the entire fabric of the nation under attack and, particularly, into positions of policy decision and national defense. From such key posts, fifth-column activists exploit the fears of a people by spreading rumors and misinformation, as well as by employing the more standard techniques of espionage and sabotage.”

While I cannot comment on whether there are terrorist agents who have infiltrated major U.S. institutions, one would have to assume that this is indeed the case. We know this enemy to be brilliantly clever, and in my estimation, smarter at handling and understanding us than we have handled or understood them. To this day. The very idea that our wise men in the Iraq Study Group, our “best” thinkers Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton and others, would – after gargantuan amounts of cash and time were consumed – come up with the imaginative and sophisticated idea of asking our implacable, on-the-brink-of-nuclear weapons genocidal enemy to help us get out of Iraq, has the kooks with nukes rolling in the aisles. Actually, I am too…that’s at least one thing I have in common with the mullahs. We are looking for commonality with our Islamist fanatic friends, yes?

But what I can comment on is what I see and hear, and so I must comment on the recent Bill O’Reilly interview with Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, or the Council of American-Islamic Relations, an organization that states it is a human rights operation for Muslims, even though terrorism experts have stated for years that CAIR is a front for terrorist-related causes and activities, including fund raising. Listen to this exchange:

O’R: 75% of all the violence in the world is coming out of the Muslims. Why?

NA: Check the statistics. Robert Pape, author of “Lying to Win”, will disagree with you. He will tell you that most suicide bombings are not religious-based and not done by Muslims.

O’R: Almost all the terrorism in the world is being caused by Muslims, that’s the truth and you don’t know why. 

NA: No, no…that’s according to you and I think you are biased when it comes to this point.

O’R: If you’re not buying that most terrorism in the world is coming out of the Muslim community, I don’t know what to tell you.

NA: I think you’re wrong. You’re wrong.

O’R: OK…so it’s the Japanese, the Australians…

NA: Fair minded people would disagree with you – that’s my point.

Notice how Mr. Awad uses “misinformation” to get his point across (the Muslims didn’t do it!), and an attempt at a clever appeal to what we Americans like to think of ourselves as being: fair-minded. Does he really think we are that stupid to fall for this worn out snake oil salesman approach to our sensibilities? (Maybe he thinks we’re stupid because he landed an advance copy of the Baker report.)   But here, dear reader, are the facts: according to thereligionofpeace.com, Islamists terrorists have carried out a staggering 6,795 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11, documented on their site from worldwide news sources, where one can also read from the New Zealand Herald about a teacher “partly disemboweled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes. The remains were put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.”   Or of Islamists who gunned down a Buddhist man and his wife, or of a woman who was murdered in a tea house by Islamist terrorists…on and on…the site is a laugh a minute (that is, for Muslim extremists).

So what are we to make of Mr. Awad’s claim that terrorism is not caused by Muslims? I make of it this: he lost his cool with O’Reilly when asked this question and showed the world his real stripes. He flunked out of charm school, but big. And he hurt his nefarious cause by stating at the beginning of the interview, “The more you bring people like me on (your show), and hear our point of view, you’ll get the mainstream point of view from the Muslim community.”   Good try Nihad, but you failed again. If your fantastically grotesque thoughts are “mainstream” Muslim, you did your people zero favors that night. What an amateur.


And now we come to U.S. Representative-elect, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to national office in America. According to thereligionofpeace.com: “In his official biography, Ellison claims that he hasn’t eaten pork or drunk alcohol since converting to Islam at the age of 19, and has always found time to pray toward Mecca five times a day.  That’s nice.   Since his religious epiphany he’s also picked up at least 40 unpaid parking tickets, 17 moving violations, one failure of a breathalyzer test at a traffic stop, and two suspensions of his driver’s license.  He’s also somehow found the time to climb up off the prayer mat and into bed with at least one mistress, and there are credible allegations of more. He has openly supported a string of convicted cop killers, known racial separatists and at least one domestic terrorist.  This is in addition to the virulently anti-Semitic comments that he made while working for the Nation of Islam (an organization that believes white people were created in a laboratory by an evil scientist). Sounds like the perfect candidate for Congress.”


I don’t mean to disparage members of Congress here, nor do I claim to know if these charges are true (good heavens knows they are entertaining). Rather, I’d like to point out that Mr. Ellison insists on being sworn in on the Koran, not the Bible. In contemplating this, I’d ask that we remember the description of the fifth column. “A cardinal technique of the fifth column is the infiltration of sympathizers into the entire fabric of the nation under attack and, particularly, into positions of policy decision….” and “group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nation’s solidarity by any means at their disposal.” America – having been founded on the solidarity of Judeo-Christian values which are what made our nation so great and indeed the superpower in the world – can do nothing but suffer if it allows such fractures and fifth columns, even the obvious ones that harbor these bozos, to exist. 


Americans, who have been taught to be kind and accommodating to others, and who have flourished wildly embodying such values, must now be taught something else. We must learn to spot charlatans, to do our homework about them, and with each attempt they make to chip away at the fabric of America that binds us together as the most remarkable nation in the world, we must learn to say no, and no again, and no once more, unequivocally.


Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org, dedicated to providing American citizens with fact-based information on all issues related to national security.

Bush Follows Patton

Bush Follows Patton
By Alan W. Dowd
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 4, 2006

There is a haunting yet hopeful moment in the film Patton, when George C. Scott’s General Patton utters a warning that carries timeless weight—a warning we would do well to heed.

In the scene, British and American generals are discussing the grim situation in the strategic town of Bastogne, where the US 101st Airborne is surrounded by German forces. A British general reports that there’s nothing General Montgomery can do to help. Other Allied generals simply avert their gaze from the map and the problem. But then General Patton volunteers to do the unthinkable: attack with three divisions in just 48 hours. The assembled brass are incredulous and tell him to be “realistic.” One general counsels Patton to “fall back and regroup.” Noting that it’s the dead of winter, another dismisses Patton’s plan as impossible. Patton interrupts them with a sobering declaration. “We can still lose this war,” he growls, adding with paradoxical optimism, “We’re in business” to do the impossible.

Patton and his Third Army would do just that.


What was true that final winter of World War II is true today: When given the opportunity and the public backing, the U.S. military can still do the impossible. Yet we can still lose this war, because we—the American people and our elected officials—are losing the will to wage it.


The signs are everywhere: a new Congress promising to withdraw or redeploy; a new commission advocating overtures to the region’s thugs and hinting at an old solution—a return to realism and the end of an audacious democracy project in the Middle East.


But it’s not only Iraq—and it’s not only politicians and policymakers—that expose our foundering will. A recent CNN poll found that 48 percent of the country opposes the war in Afghanistan, the very place that spawned al Qaeda’s mass-murderers. More than half the American people—56 percent—are resigned to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Less than 10 percent of the country supports military action to prevent that increasingly likely and bleak outcome. Plus, a dwindling percentage identifies the war in Iraq as part of the wider War on Terror.


Yet as Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute has found in a massive survey of post-9/11 polling data, 77 percent of the country reasoned (rightly) in early 2003 that Iraq was part of the War on Terror. Bowman has also unearthed a CNN poll that asked Americans just days after 9/11 if they would support military action even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. In a sign of our grim, if ephemeral, determination, 76 percent said yes.


Iraq has always—or at least since 1991—been just one of many fronts in a global war. Today, it is a strategic toehold surrounded and infiltrated by enemy forces. Indeed, if we Americans lose this war on terror, a major factor will be our failure to see it in global terms; to connect the dots from Manhattan to Madrid to Bali to Beslan to Iraq to Israel to Waziristan to Washington to London to Lebanon; to understand that summits and sanctions and compromise won’t sate this enemy.


Consider that Iran and Syria—two regimes the well-meaning Realists say we need to work with and talk to—have fomented a war in Israel and lower Lebanon, pumped jihadists into Iraq to kill Americans and bludgeon Iraq’s nascent democracy, and used their proxies to light the fuse of another civil war in Lebanon. Iran’s leaders openly talk about crippling the U.S., destroying democratic Israel and building a nuclear arsenal. Syria, for its part, has played a role in at least two assassinations of moderate leaders committed to democracy.


All of this has taken place in the past four years, most of it in the last two.


Any real war against jihadism and its terrorist offspring has to recognize that regimes like this—regimes which support the likes of al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Mahdi Army, and Hezbollah—are enemies.


This doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. should launch military strikes against Iran or Syria—there are many ways to wage war, as the Iranians and Syrians remind us every day—but it should put to rest the notion that these terrorist states can help heal Iraq. It’s one thing to make common cause with the enemy of my enemy. It’s quite another to partner with the friend of my enemy. Indeed, reaching out to the blood-smeared hands of Ahmadinejad and Assad would push realpolitik to a new low, if that’s possible.


For his part, President George W. Bush is trying to resist those who counsel that it’s time to make a deal with the devils in Damascus and Tehran. “Iran knows how to get to the table with us,” he recently said in response to the Realist caucus.


He’s also resisting the push toward the easy way out of Iraq—the path that leads to defeat. “We’ll make the changes necessary to succeed,” he said while in Europe. “But there’s one thing I’m not going to do. I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.” He has even used the language of the Realists to defend his lonely position. “This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever,” he argued during the Amman summit.

Bush can change tactics and troop levels; he can reshuffle cabinet secretaries; he can even revamp policy and strategy. But one wonders if he can change the can’t-do attitude of the now-ascendant Realists, who would rather fall back and regroup—and who fail to recognize we can still lose this war on terrorism or win it. It all comes down to will.

As General Dwight Eisenhower put it during that desperate winter of 1944, “The present situation is to be regarded as one of opportunity for us and not of disaster.”

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

CAIR KOs “24”

CAIR KOs “24”
By Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 4, 2006

Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland, and I play counterterrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox’s ’24.’ I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching ’24,’ please, bear that in mind.

It is not without reason that Fox TV’s hit counterterrorism show “24,” with its take-no-prisoners protagonist Jack Bauer, has captured the imagination of millions of Americans. Year after year, Bauer’s Los Angeles-based “Counter Terrorism Unit” has faced down and bested domestic and foreign terrorists intent on destroying American cities and eventually our nation itself. Not surprisingly—because while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims—Bauer’s principal enemies have been Muslims. Art imitates life. Although Bauer is smart, resourceful, and ruthless in his patriotic determination to keep America safe, neither he nor Fox TV were tough enough to withstand pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). It was at CAIR’s insistence that Sutherland make the politically correct statement quoted above on national television. In its Annual Report—“The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the Untied States 2006, The Struggle for Equality”—CAIR proudly explains how it successfully intimidated Jack Bauer and Fox TV. 

Early in 2005, CAIR met with representatives of the FOX television network and producers of the hit drama “24” to discuss concerns about the depiction of a “Muslim” family at the heart of a terror plot on that popular program.


CAIR was concerned that the portrayal of the family as a terrorist “sleeper cell” would cast suspicion over ordinary American Muslims and increase Islamophobia.


Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for CAIR, said that the show was “taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects…it’s very dangerous and very disturbing.” [Quotation’s source footnote omitted].


The FOX series stars Kiefer Sutherland as a U.S. counterterrorism agent based in Los Angeles. At the beginning of the fourth season, the storyline found Sutherland battling a Muslim terror cell with members including a married couple and their teenage son.


CAIR officials requested the meeting with FOX after viewing the first four “24” episodes, which “confirmed our concerns that the story was going in a dangerous direction: casting a shadow of suspicion on ordinary American Muslims.” [Quotation’s source footnote omitted].


At the meeting, which included CAIR and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) representatives, FOX officials agreed to distribute a CAIR public service announcement to network affiliates and ask that it be aired in proximity to “24.” Network officials also agreed to air a disclaimer stating that American Muslims reject terrorism. FOX’s disclaimer, read by actor Kiefer Sutherland [is quoted above].

 Although many Americans were rightly enraged at Fox’s capitulation to CAIR, they wrongly complained of “censorship.” The corporate decision by Fox TV to have Sutherland/Bauer humbly mouth a politically correct and factually incorrect apology—“terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges” [along with health care?], the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism” [it does not!]—was not censorship. Only the government has the power to censor (subject to whatever protection that might be afforded by the federal First Amendment and state constitutions). Instead, Fox’s capitulation was craven political/commercial cowardice, in the face of yet another successful intimidation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wrapping itself in the flag, invoking the Constitution, and hiding beneath its veneer of a self-styled “civil liberties” organization—modeled on its anti-American mentor and template, the American Civil Liberties Union—CAIR is the preeminent domestic mailed fist of Islam in the velvet glove of civil liberties. Whatever its other activities, CAIR is using the American legal system to intimidate the exercise of free speech, to undermine our homeland defense and to advance Muslim cultural infiltration of our domestic institutions by seeking special dispensations concerning dress, national holidays, educational texts, the content of books, movies, television, and more. In addition to its incessant intimidating complaints about the alleged violation of “Muslim Civil Liberties”: ·        CAIR sued the website Anti-CAIR for $1.35 million for “libelous defamation.”·        CAIR sued a congressman because of his statement to a reporter that the organization was supporting a fundraising arm of a foreign terrorist organization. ·        CAIR-supported Global Relief Foundation, Incorporated, sued media defendants for reporting that GRF was a target of a federal investigation into funding for terrorism.·        CAIR sued the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, challenging the constitutionality of a Patriot Act document production section. It allowed the FBI to apply to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court “for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, or other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.”·        CAIR, making common cause with the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations that allegedly conducted regular international telephone and internet communications, sued the government challenging the National Security Agency’s formerly secret program for warrantless interception of international telephone and internet communications. ·        CAIR and others sued the Department of Justice seeking information regarding persons who had been detained in connection with the government’s investigation of the September 11th attacks.·        CAIR filed an amicus curiae brief in a civil case involving a body’s disinterment from a cemetery because, it claimed, the trial judge failed to consider the Islam religion’s bar on disinterment of dead bodies. These legal actions and others undertaken by CAIR are always brought in the name of “Muslim civil liberties,” and often invoke quotations from American presidents. For example, CAIR’s 2006 Annual Report quotes George Washington (“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”), Thomas Jefferson (“The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”), and Abraham Lincoln (“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”)

Since Muslims are so quick to accuse others of blasphemy, they need to be reminded that it is they who blaspheme by invoking these presidents’ sentiments on behalf of Islam—the most intolerant religion extant, one which not only considers women and non-Muslims as worse than second-class citizens, but whose authoritative tracts require either the conversion or death of non-believers and the murder of defectors from Islam.


But invoking Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, and by using buzz words like “justice,” “peace,” and “freedom,” allows CAIR to act out its charade of being a civil liberties organization devoted to the protection and advancement of American constitutional principles.


It is obvious that CAIR, with its national headquarters in Washington, 32 offices nationwide and in Canada, national conferences, professional publicists, slick annual reports, and a formidable litigation operation, is receiving substantial financial support from sources that share its agenda of intimidating the exercise of speech critical of Islam, weakening our homeland defense, and infiltrating our culture.


The considerable funding for CAIR and its dogged determination to push its “Muslim Civil Liberties” agenda to the limit raises the question of how the organization’s skilled and widespread intimidation and litigation operation can be fought.


To answer that question, a distinction must be made between CAIR’s threats and lawsuits against the federal government, and those against everyone else—namely, state and municipal governments, private organizations, and individuals.


The federal government, through the vast resources of the Department of Justice, has done a pretty good job so far of taking care of itself. It will continue to do so.


Everyone else, however, needs help. But they are not getting it.


About a year ago, I made a suggestion about a legal response to the War on Terror. In part, I wrote the following:


By now, most people who pay attention to current affairs in general, and to courts in particular, know that decades ago, when liberals realized they couldn’t achieve their social and economic goals through popularly elected state legislatures, they decided to make their last stand for political dominance through the judiciary. Regrettably, they’ve succeeded. Witness the results, beginning in the days of the Warren Court’s “Living Constitution,” in cases involving prisoner’s rights, capital punishment, affirmative action, administrative regulation, eminent domain, and more.


* * *


For decades, the liberals’ tactics have been emulated by the Legal Left to further their pro-Communist and anti-American agenda. A gaggle of Congressmen sued over the legality of providing military aid to El Salvador (Crockett v. Reagan). English ladies, joined by American Congressmen Ron Dellums and Ted Weiss, sued to enjoin the deployment of cruise missiles in the women’s town. (Greenham Women v. Reagan). Another group of legislators sued to declare the invasion of Grenada unconstitutional. (Conyers v. Reagan). Still other Congressmen sued to force President Reagan to file status reports under the War Powers Resolution. (Lowry v. Reagan). An “ordinary citizen” sued to block military action in Gulf War I. (Pietsch v. Bush). Traitors like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, who gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese Communists, were counseled by the Legal Left about how they could travel to Hanoi while avoiding prosecution. They succeeded.


Immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Legal Left morphed into a pro-terrorist, anti-American Fifth Column and aimed their considerable firepower at our government’s attempts to defend America. (The Encarta Dictionary defines “fifth column” as meaning “any group of people who give aid and support to the enemy from within their own country.” Those who do are called “fifth columnists.”)

 Prominent among them was lawyer Lynne Stewart, counsel for the incarcerated sheik-mastermind of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Stewart has promoted anti-American causes for years and in 2005 was convicted of aiding the sheik in communicating with his followers while incarcerated [and recently received from a Carter-appointed federal district judge in New York a slap-on-the-wrist sentence].  Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark piously defends the likes of Saddam Hussein and the mad ayatollahs of Iran while opposing every attempt by Americans to defend themselves from their Islamofascist attackers.  Stanley Cohen’s incendiary statements, the nature of his clientele, his unbridled animus toward the United States, his identification with terrorists and their cause, and his apparent willingness to do virtually anything in their defense, make clear that he is using the American legal system to advance an anti-American, pro-terrorist agenda.  All of these lawyers can fairly be characterized as members of today’s fifth column. In a close race with the ACLU for the most pro-terrorist, anti-American organization of the Legal Left is the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). When the September 11 attacks occurred, it was manna from heaven for the CCR. It attacked the government’s detention of alien detainees, described by the CCR as the “real” victims of September 11. CCR attacked President Bush’s order creating military commissions. CCR attacked the Patriot Act, which arms the present, and all future, administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—with the weapons we’ll need to fight this unconventional war. CCR attacked American cooperation with friendly intelligence services. CCR represented a terrorist named Rasul and squeezed a 5-4 decision out of the Supreme Court of the United States that enemy combatants are entitled to due process of law. The Left and its platoons of lawyers had their fingerprints all over a recent case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asserting that enemy combatants are entitled to Geneva Convention protection, and that the President had no right to create military commissions to try Guantanamo prisoners.  In that case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the government was supported by only two amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs. The terrorist was supported by briefs from scores of American law professors, hundreds of British and European legislators, and such organizations as Human Rights First, People for the American Way, World Organization for Human Rights USA, and the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights.  It is of some consolation that the three-judge panel . . . ruled against the terrorist, but the case is far from over. The Georgetown Law professor who represented the terrorist has proclaimed that he may ask the entire Court of Appeals to rehear the case. Whether or not that happens, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is headed for the Supreme Court of the United States. And when it gets there, the Legal Left will be out in force, filing dozens of amicus curiae briefs in support of that particular terrorist and, by implication, all other terrorists currently known and to be captured later. [They were. They won. And the Supreme Court invalidated the military commissions that the President had created, forcing Congress into compromise legislation which gave enemy combatants many of the rights enjoyed by domestic criminal defendants.] * * *To be sure, there are some fine conservative and libertarian organizations that litigate on behalf of legitimate personal and property rights issues—among them Judicial Watch, the Institute for Justice, and the Individual Rights Foundation. But they have their own defined portfolios, and none of them are devoted exclusively to fighting the War on Terror in the appellate courts of this land. Sadly, since I wrote these words nothing has changed. None of those groups, nor any other non-governmental organization in America, is devoted exclusively to going head-to-head with CAIR in the trial or appellate courts of the United States—from the Justice Court of the Town of Colonie, New York, to the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C. The time is long past for such an organization to be formed: a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity that could raise tax-deductible contributions for the sole purpose of fighting CAIR in court. When I proposed the anti-terrorism legal project about a year ago, I limited it to the filing of friend-of-the court briefs in appellate courts where terrorist cases were pending. Except for a few lawyers who welcomed the idea and volunteered to help, there was no interest.  My decades-long experience as a practicing constitutional and appellate lawyer told me then, and tells me now, that the necessary anti-terrorist, pro-America legal talent is available—and it is available even on a pro bono basis What, then, has been lacking? Two things.  Lacking is a thorough understanding, especially by many of those capable of funding an anti-CAIR legal organization, of what the United States is up against from terrorists—and now from CAIR.  Lacking are dedicated lawyers with the desire to meet CAIR on the legal battlefield and there prevent our enemies from using the American legal system to intimidate the exercise of free speech, to undermine our homeland defense, and to advance Muslim cultural infiltration of our domestic institutions by seeking special dispensations concerning dress, national holidays, educational textbooks, the content of books, movies, television, and more. Unless enough stalwart Americans, funders and lawyers alike, attack CAIR and defend its victims, the self-styled “Muslim Civil Rights” organization will continue, unchallenged, to intimidate and litigate in pursuit of its pernicious goals. To paraphrase the English King Henry II speaking of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest”), who will rid us of this metastasizing ersatz civil liberties organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations?