The World in 2007

The World in 2007
By Dennis Prager | December 19, 2006

On the eve of the year 2007, it is evident to anyone with the fortitude to see reality that the world is not getting better, nor even staying the same, but getting worse.

There are a few positive developments. But they are mostly technological and medical. More people are eating better and living longer than ever before. And the Internet gives more people access to more information (and more lies) than ever before. But aside from medical and technological progress, there is little positive to report. And, as always, the technological breakthroughs are frequently morally mixed bags.


Almost wherever one looks, there are more reasons for pessimism than optimism.


Africa is probably in worse condition than at any time in recorded history. Though often exaggerated, great numbers of young and middle-aged people are dying from AIDS; corruption in Africa is so widespread and deeply rooted that aid workers are telling the West to stop giving funds to Africa because those funds only serve to prop up corrupt regimes and increase poverty, malnutrition and violence; about three million people have died in the ongoing wars in the Congo; and the Islamic Arab regime of Sudan has allowed or directed genocide.


In Asia, China, sitting on reserves of over a trillion dollars, is beginning to regard itself as a world power, and most of where it meddles, it plays an immoral role (regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons and the
North Korea regime). As
China’s economic power grows, it will increasingly seek to flex its muscles. This could mean tension over Taiwan, but it will even more likely mean that Japan will try to become a military power once again and perhaps develop its own nuclear weapons — because of North Korea’s weapons and because of
China’s strength and ambitions. A strong Japan, given North Korea’s lunatic regime and
China’s drive for regional dominance, is a positive development but an unfortunate one nevertheless.


Russia, like
China, increasingly uses its power in immoral ways, and its government is becoming increasingly authoritarian.


As bad as Africa and parts of
Asia are, the Arab world is in many ways in even worse condition and poses a far greater threat to world stability. The Arab world is largely divided between corrupt regimes and Islamic totalitarians who await the downfall of those regimes. Since World War II, the Arab world has sought a solution to its backwardness — first in nationalism, then in Pan-Arab nationalism and Marxism, and now in Islam. “Islam is the answer” is the motto of vast numbers of young Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere), and the Islam they are referring to is often not benign. Making matters worse, the Arab world is consumed by hate. Hatred and oil have become its primary exports: hatred of Israel, of America and of other non-Muslims in its midst — e.g., Maronite Christians in Lebanon, non-Muslims in
Sudan and Christians in the Palestinian territories.


This hatred within the Arab world is in turn the product of a culture that values face-saving over truth-telling. To this day, the Egyptian government and public deny that the EgyptAir jet that fell out of the sky in 2000 did so because the pilot, an Egyptian Muslim, decided to kill himself and all those on board. The majority of the Arab world does not believe that Arabs plotted and executed the 9/11 murders of American civilians. And it widely believes that Jews slaughter non-Jewish children to use their blood to bake matzos on Passover; that
Israel spreads AIDS in Arab countries by sending AIDS-infected prostitutes into Arab countries; and that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a genuine text authored by Jews conspiring to take over the world.


The Islamic world at large is increasingly influenced, and sometimes dominated, by a violent expression of religiosity that seeks to impose itself on any society it can. One of the largest Muslim countries has declared its desire to see
Israel annihilated and is presumed to be developing nuclear weapons that would enable it to do so. Anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim worlds has reached levels most of humanity thought had been vanquished along with Nazi regime.


Western Europe is disappearing demographically and culturally. Like other secular societies,
Western Europe is not repopulating itself and has relied on importing immigrants to provide citizens and workers. Most of them are Muslims, and many of them loathe
Western Europe and its values. It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for
Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war.
Western Europe is the first secular society in human history and consequently believes in very little beyond having a secure and comfortable life untroubled by war, work or children.


The increasing influence of the world’s Left makes combating the above problems very difficult. The Left dominates the world’s news media and universities, is regaining power in
Latin America, and is socially as well as politically dominant in most Western European countries. And it either sides with
America’s enemies or makes combating them far more difficult. Thus it is increasingly common to see Che Guevara pictures at Hezbollah rallies in Lebanon and to see Western leftists, like
London’s mayor, honor radical Muslims.


One society stands opposed to all these developments — the
United States of America. But that society is itself deeply divided. About half holds the values of Western Europe; and the other half believes that Western European values — essentially secularism and socialism — are anathema to
America. The latter half believes
America must remain true to its founding principles: Judeo-Christian values; individual freedom and small government; and a melting pot rather than multiculturalism.

Which side wins will determine the fate of mankind for a century or more. And you can’t win if you are naively optimistic.


Happy New Year.

Thug-in-Chief asks: What would Jesus do?

Thug-in-Chief asks: What would Jesus do?

“Ahmadinejad: What would Jesus do today?” by Yaakov Lappin for YNet News:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent a greeting to the world’s Christians for the coming New Year, in which he has linked Christianity’s deity, Jesus, with the Shiite messianic figure, Imam Mahdi, saying he expected both to return and “wipe away oppression.”

That’s not Ahmadinejad’s invention. Islamic tradition– both Sunni and Shi’ite — calls for Jesus and the Mahdi to appear together, with Jesus taking a subordinate role to the Mahdi and praying behind him:

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah. (Sahih Muslim 001.293)

“I wish all the Christians a very happy new year and I wish to ask them a question as well,” the Iranian leader said, according to the Iranian Student News Agency.

“My one question from the Christians is: What would Jesus do if he were present in the world today? What would he do before some of the oppressive powers of the world who are in fact residing in Christian countries? Which powers would he revive and which of them would he destroy?” the Iranian president asked.

“If Jesus were present today, who would be facing him and who would be following him?” He added.

This is an attempt to manufacture a sense of common cause by exploiting general ignorance: In playing the “Jesus” card, Ahmadinejad relies on the lack of awareness of the difference in the Christian and Muslim accounts of Jesus, with the expectation that Christian readers will project their understanding of Jesus onto a much different figure portrayed in Islam:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. (Bukhari 003.043.656)

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him. (Abu Dawud 037.4310)

This view is corroborated in Shi’ite narrations about Jesus (see 11, 12).

‘Occupiers warned to evacuate Iraq’

Ahmadinejad then linked Jesus with Imam Mahdi, a Shiite leader believed by the Iranian president to have gone into hiding centuries ago, and who is expected by Shiite Muslims to return and usher in a period of messianic dominance for Islam.

To clarify, the coming of the Mahdi is foretold in both Shi’ite and Sunni Islam, but the Shi’ites identify him with the hidden 12th imam.

“All I want to say is that the age of hardship, threat and spite will come to an end someday and God willing Jesus would return to the world along with the emergence of the descendant of the Islam’s Holy Prophet, Imam Mahdi and wipe away every tinge of oppression, pain and agony from the face of the world,” Ahmadinejad said.

Debbie Schlussel: Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim

Debbie Schlussel: Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim

By Debbie Schlussel

Many months ago, readers began asking me whether Barack Obama is Muslim. Since he identifies as a Christian, I said, “no,” and responded that he was not raised by his Kenyan father.

But, then, I decided to look further into Obama’s background. His full name–as by now you have probably heard–is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali’s son–Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.

And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that’s not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he’s a Christian, but they do not.

barackobama.jpgThen, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon, Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).

And Obama has a “born-again” affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law, when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow:

Obama’s father died in a traffic accident in Nairobi in 1982, but while Obama was working in Chicago, he met his Kenyan sister, Auma, a linguist educated in Germany who was visiting the United States. When she returned to Kenya in 1986 to teach for a year at the University of Nairobi, Obama finally made the trip to his father’s homeland he had long promised himself. There, he managed to fully embrace a heritage and a family he’d never fully known and come to terms with his father, whom he’d long regarded as an august foreign prince, but now realized was a human being burdened by his own illusions and vulnerabilities.

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father’s heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?

Is that even the man we’d want to be a heartbeat away from the President, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn’t turn down)?

NO WAY, JOSE . . . Or, is that, HUSSEIN?

Marital Import: The Cause of Europe’s Rapid Islamization

Marital Import: The Cause of Europe’s Rapid Islamization

Second-generation Muslim immigrants in Europe marry people who have arrived straight from their parents’ homelands, rather than immigrant youths of their own ethnic background who have also grown up in Europe. Research by Hilâl Yalçin and Ina Lodewyckx of the University of Antwerp reveals that almost three quarters of the Moroccan and Turkish community import their spouses from Morocco and Turkey.

“Marital import” is on the rise. In the 1970s 41.4% of the Moroccan immigrants in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, married a partner who lived in Morocco, while almost all the others married a member of the Moroccan immigrant community in Belgium. In the 1980s the number of spouses arriving fresh from Morocco had risen to 48.8%. In the 1990s that number rose even further to 60.3%. Between 2000 and 2003, 65.4% of Belgian Moroccan youths imported a spouse from Morocco. The figures are even higher for Turks. Today, eight out of every ten Turkish youths whose family emigrated to Flanders between their 7th and 17th year of age marry someone who lives in Turkey. And six out of every ten Turks who were born in Belgium or moved there before their 7th birthday do so, too.

The researchers point out that people in Morocco and Turkey regard marriage to a Belgian Moroccan or a Belgian Turk as a means of gaining access to the “promised land.” Often, however, they encounter serious difficulties and their inadequate education combined with an insufficient mastery of the Dutch language lead to “social isolation.” Nahima Lanjri, a Belgian Moroccan and a member of the Belgian Parliament, says that children of these marriages “are often considered to be third-generation immigrants, but this is wrong since one of their parents has had to start from zero.”

The study of the Antwerp researchers does not mention the fact that Muslim girls in Belgium are often married off by their families to relatives (such as first cousins) from their home country. The study also fails to mention the dramatic demographic consequences of “marital import.” It increases the speed and extent of the islamization of Western Europe. The following simulation may serve to clarify this.

Assume that couples on average have their children at the age of 25. Assume also that no-one dies within the next 50 years and that the immigrants remain Muslim, i.e. do not convert to Christianity or secularism. In these circumstances, without marital import in the Muslim community (i.e. the immigrants marry other immigrants) and with couples having an average of three children, the Muslim population will increase eight-fold in 50 years.

In this model a population of 8 immigrants, constituting 4 couples, will have 12 children, who 25 years from now will constitute 6 couples with 18 children. The Muslim population will then be 8+12+18=38. In 50 years from now the 18 children will constitute 9 couples with 27 children. The population will have increased by a factor of 8, to 38+27=65.

However, if wedding partners are imported the situation alters dramatically. Assuming in the above model that two thirds of the brides and grooms are imported (the current situation in Flanders is even worse, with three quarters of the Muslim marriage partners being imported) and that every couple has three children, there will be a 30-fold increase of the Muslim population after 50 years, rather than an 8-fold increase.

In this situation a first-generation immigrant population of 4 couples also yields a second generation of 12 young Muslims. The latter, however, import 8 partners, constituting 10 couples with 30 children. The Muslim population will then be 8+12+8+30=58. The 30 children by importing 20 partners constitute 25 couples who have 75 children. This will lead to a Muslim population of 58+20+75=153, which is a 30-fold increase.

If two thirds of the partners are imported and every couple has four children the population will multiply by 50 after two generations. This is also the case if all the partners are imported and every couple has three children.

Pentagon: Shi’ite Sadr Army bigger threat than Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Pentagon: Shi’ite Sadr Army bigger threat than Al-Qaeda in Iraq

But who cares? As far as the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is concerned, it’s all the same thing anyway.

“Sadr Army is called top threat in Iraq: A Pentagon report cites the danger of the Shiite cleric’s militia,” by Julian E. Barnes in the Los Angeles Times, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON — Armed militiamen affiliated with radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr pose the gravest danger to the security and stability of Iraq, surpassing Sunni Arab insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists, a new Defense Department report to Congress says.The finding represents the military’s strongest characterization of the danger posed by Sadr and is among the conclusions of a quarterly report to Congress that chronicles the instability in Iraq and record level of sectarian violence.

In the last three months, the number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians rose 22%, and the number of U.S. casualties grew 32%, the Pentagon assessment says.

As attacks have risen, the confidence of the Iraqi people has fallen, with fewer saying in surveys that they thought their government could protect them and more agreeing that civil war was likely.

The conclusion that Sadr-related militiamen posed the chief threat to the country’s security came after the U.S. military had complained for months that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a Shiite, had been unable to address armed Shiite groups and had obstructed American efforts to confront Sadr.

Meanwhile, everyone has gotten used to the idea that there is nothing unusual in a cleric having a militia in the first place. In any case, from reading Sam Harris, Andrew Sullivan, and the like, you’ll learn that the militia commanded by Jerry Falwell is far more lethal than As-Sadr’s anyway. What’s that? Falwell commands no militia? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Posted by Robert at