I have changed my position on imigration, and no longer support amnesty. I had long taken flak from my fellow conservatives for my views, defending amnesty because the illegals are usually Catholics and hard workers, whom we need to keep our population growing. However, I shredded that erring view earlier today, when the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sent me a letter. A money-plea it was, but the plea rolled on for eight pages, with such disturbing facts as
I. Haman traffickers commonly rape female aliens.
II. The Mexican government encourages illegal immigration, so that that nation’s elite class can profit from the portion of the American wages which is sent back to Mexico, i.e. rich exploiting poor (Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon are giving conservatives a bad name!).
III. Drug trafficking and related violence (lest we forget)
IV. Illegals often destroy and steal property of those living near the border.
V. ONE ILLEGAL’S JOURNAL WAS DISCOVERED WITH ARABIC WRITING INSIDE!
I concluded that however good it would be to legalize the c. 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in America, they would most likely refuse to assimilate (like in France); even if we then increased border security, it would leave foreigners with a precedent for hope that crossing the border illegally could someday land them American citizenship. I also made an analogy to the dogmatic situation in the Church. Whenever we allow that Baptism isn’t necessary, or that men outside the Church can be
saved, the gates of Hell break loose. Now, I’m not obligated to take the hard line on the border, but neither am I obliged to follow Fr. Feeney’s wise rejection of the Baptism of Desire [anyone with a bad view of the Feenyites, check out catholicism.org, and read the article on Baptim of Desire, in Resources]. It is just the best thing for America-and all the friendly Latinos!
Still, we’ll need to do some stuff to offset not granting amnesty, simply,
A. Increase the flow of legal immigration, and make the process more efficient (except for Muslims, who hould have to make an honest conversion to Roman Catholicism as a prerequisite), and more importantly
B. Have more children. That means priests should tell their paritioners contraception is a mortal sin, and we should…
Contentment: God Will Provide
Where socialism fails, the Judeo-Christian tradition succeeds.
Sunday’s sermon at the Long Ridge Congregational Church (a non-UCC congregation in North Stamford, Connecticut) was preached by the Reverend Jason Pankow. His principal text was 1 Timothy 6:3-10.
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5)
The inverse relationship between wealth and contentment is a frequent theme in literature and theatre. Likewise the sense of emptiness, the lack of fulfillment that characterize so much of our hectic lives today. Hillary Clinton, in an article published in the New York Times Magazine, noted this early in the first Clinton administration. Despite the sincerity of her concern, she was mocking dubbed ‘St. Hillary’ by liberal intellectuals.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:6-10)
Inner peace and real happiness are matters of the heart, not of cash in hand.
The Protestant ethic was described by Max Weber as a commitment to hard, efficient work, which often produced riches. In contrast to our 20th century society, corrupted by the atheistic materialism of socialism, the 17th and 18th century Puritans and Presbyterians, here and in Holland and the UK, acknowledged that those riches belonged to God, that rich families were merely His stewards and accountable for using wealth for good purposes. That ethic resulted in the greatest and fastest improvement in living standards, for everyone, of any period in history.
The bottom line is that making money, as in Jesus’s parable of the good and faithful servant, is not sinful. The sin lies in worshipping the making of money for itself and for one’s selfish gratification.
Too many people today pit their personal desires against what God wants them to do, against living a moral life in accord with the Judeo-Christian instruction of the Bible. Juedo-Christian morality requires us, as individuals, to do the right thing. We can’t get away with letting the socialistic government planners tell us what to do and assuming that passive conformity to millions of regulations constitutes morality.
While it was not part of Rev. Pankau’s sermon message, another of his quotations nails the fatal weakness of socialism:
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless. (Ecclesiastes 5:10)
Émile Durkheim, a founder of sociology in the 19th century and a sympathizer with socialism, observed that socialism has an inherent and insurmountable problem, as the post-Revolutionary French government quickly discovered. Socialistic theory speaks of collectivizing society’s wealth in order to satisfy everyone’s needs. But, in real life, people do not distinguish between desires and needs. And experience has demonstrated that people’s desires have no limits. People will always want more than is available.
We see the result today, here and in Europe, in huge government deficits, massive public debt, and welfare entitlement commitments that can not be fulfilled as our populations age, at the same time that special interest groups pressure politicians for still more hand-out programs.
The situation will get worse, at an accelerating rate, year by year. The ratio of working taxpayers to the elderly, sick, and destitute is dropping rapidly. When President Roosevelt instituted socialism in the 1930s, there were approximately 35 working taxpayers for every Social Security beneficiary. Today there are slightly more than 3 working taxpayers for every Social Security beneficiary.
Another aspect of liberal-socialistic-progressivism’s fatal weakness is its exclusive focus on material things, welfare benefits of all kinds. Liberal intellectuals assume, as part of the social “sciences” introduced by French socialists in the 18th century, that humans have no souls, that humans are the same as any other animal, motivated only by desires for water, food, sex, clothing, shelter, and power.
This is one reason why liberals aggressively attack spiritual religion, consigning it to the realm of ignorant superstition. It is essential to the materialistic religion of socialism that humans be soulless animals that can be trained by regulations to conform to the socialist ideal: a classless society in which everyone is happy to be equally poor.
Against this bleak and dreary prospect, the Bible instructs us that only through faith in God can people attain inner peace and true happiness that will liberate them from selfish jockeying for more personal welfare benefits, without regard to the costs to society as a whole.
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Hebrews 13:5-6)
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
…While concern about the future of Turkish secularism is warranted, alarmism about military intervention is not. There will be no more military coups in Turkey. Erdoğan may be prepared to spark a constitutional crisis in pursuit of personal ambition and ideological agenda, but Turkey’s civilian institutions are strong enough to confront the challenge. The greatest danger to Turkish democracy will not be Turkish military intervention, but rather well-meaning but naïve interference by U.S. diplomats seeking stability and downplaying the Islamist threat. …
Cross-posted at netwmd.com and IsraPundit
Leaving Islam can be hazardous. Apostasy is a capital crime in a number of Islamic countries. But even in elite conservative circles in the United States, there is a tendency to dismiss or at least ignore some important former Muslims who have a lot to teach us about their former faith, as we face an era in which religious war on the West has been declared by radical Islam.
Two years ago, following a modest Washington, DC area reception celebrating the release of Leaving Islam, a compilation of Ibn Warraq’s own brilliant essays, and poignant, harrowing testimonials from other ex—Muslim ‘apostates,’ I received a disturbing communication from a former admirer and supporter of Warraq’s work (particularly the seminal, Why I Am Not A Muslim) who attended the same event.
This individual dismissed Warraq’s unique and important collection on apostasy in Islam, because Warraq (and by extension, all Muslim apostates) was (were), ‘…no longer in the game.’ It was astonishing to hear such a glib assessment from a conservative intellectual and self—appointed doyen (subsequently, government—appointed) examining Islamic terrorism. The pernicious effect of this mindset—apparently quite pervasive among the lemming—like denizens of the most influential Washington, DC area conservative ‘think tanks’—was reinforced during Warraq’s dismissive small audience (composed entirely of self—important, self—appointed doyens) at perhaps the pre—eminent Institute of this ilk. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s rise to prominence as an openly avowed Muslim apostate Parliamentarian in the Netherlands—both before, and most decidedly after the murder of her colleague, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh—demonstrates that it is completely misguided to dismiss the profound intellectual and sociopolitical contributions courageous apostates can make to both the public discourse, and specific policy initiatives, regarding Islam.
Four recently published interviews (here, here, here and here) of Somalia—born Ayaan Hirsi Ali provide an informative overview of her evolution—from a teenage Islamic school—educated supporter of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, to an asylum—seeking refugee in the Netherlands in her early 20s (in 1992), and now, a courageous Dutch Parliamentarian (since January 2003) dedicated to the defense of the core Western values (i.e., such as true freedom of conscience) embodied in modern human rights constructs.
Shortly after completing her studies in political science at Leiden University, Hirsi Ali was hired as a researcher for the Dutch Labor Party, and assigned to write a brief on immigration. She stunned her Labor colleagues by making blunt recommendations that were a frontal assault on established multicultural taboos: shut down all 41 Islamic schools; curb immigration; and radically alter Article 23 of the Dutch constitution (which embraced the multicultural orthodoxy by sanctioning the creation of separate schools and cultural institutions for distinct religious groups).
Disillusioned with the Dutch left, Hirsi Ali joined the opposition VVD party in 2002, and by September 2002, also publicly ‘apostasized’ from Islam—an action which precipitated death threats against her. Ibn Warraq’s unique compilation and analysis of apostate testimonies highlights the courage of such a public declaration:
“…for a free discussion of Islam remains rare and dangerous, certainly in the Islamic world, and even in our politically correct times in the West…Apostasy is still punishable by long prison sentences and even death in many Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Iran….”
The fact that Hirsi Ali’s declaration elicited murderous threats in the Netherlands—in the heart of Western Europe—where, as Warraq notes,
“…one talks of being a ‘lapsed Catholic’ or ‘nonpracticing Christian’ rather than an ‘apostate.’ [and] There are certainly no penal sanctions for converting from Christianity to any…superstitious flavor of the month, from New Ageism to Islam….”
underscores the serious erosion of Europe’s core values under its new Islamized Eurabian sociopolitical ethos.
Combining lucid intellectual and experience—based understanding with rare valor, uncompromised by politically correct apologetics, Hirsi Ali has made explicit the threat that orthodox Islam (as she stated, ‘The problem is the Prophet and the Koran‘ )—not ‘Islamism’—poses to the Western civilization she has come to cherish, and staunchly defend. She identifies the core Muslim texts—Koran, hadith, sira—their codification into Islamic Law (i.e., Shari’a), and the orthodox interpretation of this sacralized literature by seminal Muslim jurists—noting Ibn Taymiyya’s ‘pure’ Islamic exegesis, specifically—as being responsible for the incompatibility between Islamic and Western values. In particular, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, versus the Shari’a—based Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (Cairo, 1990).
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam included the triumphal statement that the Shari’a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to ‘guide’ humanity. This formulation captures the indelible influence of the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude on the Shari’a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels—reiterated in the Cairo Declaration.
Hirsi Ali’s response to the standard non—sequitur apologetic about the putative existence of, ‘different Islams’, is unequivocal:
“No that is an erroneous idea . If one defines Islam as the religion founded by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by hadiths, there is only one Islam that dictates the moral framework.”
Finally, she concludes that true reform of Islam, to render it compatible with modern human rights standards, must include criticism of both its core sacred text, and founder:
“You cannot liberalize Islam without criticizing the Prophet and the Koran…You cannot redecorate a house without entering inside.”
As a VVD Parliamentarian since 2002, Hirsi Ali’s major legislative focus has been on women’s issues: drawing up legislation, which was subsequently enacted, to improve enforcement of the statute against female genital mutilation [a practice sanctioned by hadith]; working to assure better enforcement of laws protecting women from ‘honor killings’, a particular problem among Turkish Muslim immigrants in Europe; and drafting a position paper about the economic integration of women. Her outspoken positions on matters apart from women’s issues include: urging intensive oversight of new Muslim schools before they are accredited; supporting the US—lead coalition’s invasion of Iraq; and raising sober concerns about Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership (which she characterizes as a ‘big gamble’ for Europeans).
It is quite illuminating to juxtapose Hirsi Ali’s unapologetic arguments, and her concrete legislative agenda based upon those principles, with the views and ‘achievements’ of ‘moderate’ Muslims championed by U.S. media and policymaking elites, across the political spectrum. Four prominent examples will suffice.
Conservative elites have promoted, most notably, Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz [SASS] and Khaleel Muhammad [KM], while liberal elites have embraced Irshad Manji [IM] and Khaled Abou El Fadl [KAEF]. Despite certain disagreements between them, what these individuals unfortunately share is a persistent avoidance or absolute denial of the need to challenge and alter institutions intrinsic to Islam—to the Shari’a. Instead, they blame so—called ‘distorted’ interpretations of a theological—juridical system they deem completely compatible with modern human rights constructs, and normal international and inter—communal relations. The logical conclusion of their arguments is the absurd notion that jihad war, and its corollary institution, dhimmitude (which only IM of the four ‘moderates’ even acknowledges, albeit fleetingly) are ‘distortions’ of basic Islamic dogma.
Below, I have summarized a series of their specific views on critical issues. The dismaying opinions range from denying altogether, to ignoring or trivializing:
“…a democracy campaigner for whom the role of an ordinary democratic citizen is off limits…Hers is a big heroic life that moves her fellow citizens but now gets lived mostly in locked rooms and bulletproof cars.”
Hirsi Ali, condemned Muslim ‘apostate’, and intrepid politician committed to maintaining the democratic vitality of her adopted Dutch society, epitomizes the powerful, effective voice Ibn Warraq foresaw in Leaving Islam. Recalling The God that Failed, a collection of testimonial essays by ex—Communist intellectuals and their warnings about the all—encompassing oppression of body and spirit intrinsic to Soviet—style Communism, Warraq noted that the accounts of these ex—Communist ‘Cassandras’ appeared eerily similar to the ex—Muslim apostates whose testimonies he had compiled. Warraq concluded,
“Communism has been defeated, at least for the moment…unless a reformed, tolerant, liberal kind of Islam emerges soon, perhaps the final battle will be between Islam and Western democracy. And these ex—Muslims…on the side of Western Democracy, are the only ones who know what it is all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries.”
Hirsi Ali’s practical efforts in the Netherlands mirror the strategies outlined by Warraq in a thoughtful essay about reform (somewhat ironically) of Middle Eastern Muslim societies. She clearly shares the unapologetic views about the obstacles to such reform presented by Islam itself, which Warraq characterized as follows:
“There are some (I believe, misguided) liberal Muslims who deny any such transformation is necessary, that Islam need not be marginalized for liberty to flourish. These liberals often argue that the real Islam is compatible with liberal democracy, that the real Islam is feminist, that the real Islam is egalitarian, that the real Islam tolerates other religions and beliefs, and so on. They then proceed to some truly creative re—interpretation of the embarrassing, intolerant and misogynist verses of the Koran. But intellectual honesty demands that we reject just such dishonest tinkering with the Koran’s text, which, while it may be open to some re—interpretation, is not infinitely elastic. The truth is there is no real difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism — at most there is a difference of degree, but not of kind. There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. All the tenets of so—called Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Koran, the Sunna, and the Hadith — the defining texts of Islam — and elaborated in intimate detail by the classical Muslim jurists from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, as well as by Shi’ite jurists. The only solution is to bring the questions of human rights out of the religious sphere and into the sphere of the civil state, in other words to separate religion from the state and promote a secular state where Islam is relegated to the personal. Here, Islam would continue to provide consolation, comfort, and meaning, as it has to millions of individuals for centuries, yet it would not decree the mundane affairs of state.”
It is also apparent from her own statements and actions that Hirsi Ali agrees with Warraq’s assessment, summarized below, about the crucial need to encourage scholarly criticism of the Koran, in particular, and more generally, to promote secular education emphasizing critical thought:
“First, we who live in the free West and enjoy freedom of expression and scientific inquiry should encourage a rational look at Islam, should encourage Koranic criticism. Only Koranic criticism can help Muslims to look at their Holy Scripture in a more rational and objective way, and prevent young Muslims from being fanaticized by the Koran’s less tolerant verses. It does not make sense to lament the lack of a reformation in Islam, and at the same time boycott books like Why I am Not A Muslim nor to cry ‘Islamophobia’ (or ‘fatwah!’) every time a critique of Islam is offered. Instead, political leaders, journalists and even scholars are bent on protecting the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. We are not doing Islam any favors by protecting it from Enlightenment values. … We can encourage rationality by secular education. This will mean the closing of religious madrassas where young children from poor families learn only the Koran by heart, learn the doctrine of Jihad — learn , in short, to be fanatics… What kind of education? My priority would be the wholesale rewriting of school texts, which at present preach intolerance of non—Muslims, particularly Jews. One hopes that education will encourage critical thinking and rationality. Again to encourage pluralism, I should like to see the glories of pre—Islamic history taught to all children.”
Finally, we should consider this insightful warning from another Muslim secularist, Professor Reza Afshari, the pre—eminent historian of the human rights tragedy engendered by Iran’s return to its theocratic roots, after a 50—year hiatus, in 1979:
“What we have from liberal Muslims today are only ideological claims punctuated by expressed good intentions. A sector of the traditional custodians of religion, the ulema, politicizing Islam did come to power[in Iran]; therefore it is logical to assume what we faced in the 1980s and 1990s was the result of Shiite Islam (at least an authentic version of it) injecting itself into the politics of a contemporary state. They created a record of what the `culturally authentic’ rulers did… The issue is not Islam as a private faith of individuals. It is about what state officials claiming Islamic authority might have to say about the state’s treatment of citizens.”
Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books (2005).
Some say that Science says this or that; when they only mean scientists, and do not know or care which scientists. – G.K. Chesterton
We at Dearborn Underground don’t plunge willy-nilly into every controversy or fad.
But when it comes to this recent push on global warming I’m really getting a major case of sour grapes: If the world is going to build a consensus to save humanity, why not agree to confront global jihadism—which is so bad for the planet right now—before we dismantle the global economy over a potential climate change that might make some difference in another 100 years?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), has just released its most recent Summary for Policymakers. France hosted this year’s IPCC gathering, and as a sign of hospitality to these UN hacks, they briefly turned off the lights on the Eiffel Tower.
The purpose of the IPCC report has always been to elevate the persuasiveness of the climate-change evidence from “smoking gun” level to “slam dunk.” Though the Summary has only now just been released, the global warming crowd has been talking it up for months, and predicting that the IPCC was going to reach this very “consensus.” The temptation for me to refer to this pre-release period as the “buildup” to the 2007 report, and to accuse the scientists of “sexing up” their results is almost too much to resist, so please just forget I mentioned it.
It goes without saying that this is a weather forecast. The prediction and causation findings in the Summary range on a highly scientifical certainty range from “More likely than not,” to“Likely,” “Very likely,” and “Virtually certain.” The overall report itself only dared to call its conclusions “Very likely,” or, as it might be rephrased, “less than virtually certain.” (Sort of the way “virtually certain” would accurately be rephrased as “not exactly certain”).
Not only is it not a slam dunk, it isn’t even a smoking gun. A smoking gun is direct evidence. Very likely is still a guess.
Not that anyone on the “smoking gun” side of the argument cares.
As is evident from the statements being released since the Summary was announced on Friday its only purpose was to establish that there was a “consensus” of scientists on the issue, so that dissenters can be marginalized and silenced. As was utterly predictable, the usual kinds of people now are claiming that the “consensus” is incotrovertible proof for their case that “human activities” are responsible for global warming, and so we must now curtail those activities as fast as we can.
National Audubon Society President John Flicker pronounced, “The clarity and completeness of the IPCC’s global warming findings permanently relegates skeptics to the fringe.” The St. Louis Dispatch pontificates, “We’ve heard enough from Flat Earth Society members,”such as Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who rightly said the Summary was a political document, and not a scientific one. Flat Earth is the reigning pejorative for any one who questions the theory. Google “flat earth” and see what I mean. The point is, there is no time for argument, there is no room for dissenters.
Is this the language of science? Listen to this expert, as quoted in one Fox News story:
“‘It is critical that we look at this report … as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it,'” said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.”
This is like a prosecutor saying on the first day of trial, “Ladies and gentleman of the jury, you are not here to decide the evidence, nor even to wonder about whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent, rather the question before your minds should be: ‘Should we hang him or just lock him up for life?’”
And here’s where I get to the sour grapes: the complete disjunct with liberals between what qualifies as an imminent danger and what doesn’t.
You see, the maddening thing about the certainty on the Left about the imminent danger of global planetary catastrophe in another century or two is how insanely it clashes with their absolute indolence and self-delusion on the clear and present danger of global jihad expanding right now. One would think jihadism might raise some concerns among Greens if only because a nuclear exchange provoked by Iran and leading to the incineration of Israel and Tehran would result in even more global warming, and even sooner than that warned about by the IPCC, leaving no time fore the mitigating effects of the new CAFE standards.
There’s no need for me to repeat all the reporting on the Iranian determination to get a bomb. It has also been reported that the madmen who run that country intend to use it when they get it, and are even calculating the cost of an Israeli response. Most of us are well familiar with Iranian rhetoric on the subject:
“In a Dec. 14, 2001, speech, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (long depicted by the Europeans as an Iranian “moderate”), declared that, if the Muslim world had an atomic bomb, it would be in good shape after a nuclear exchange with Israel, because a nuclear bomb would destroy the Jewish state, while Muslim countries (with their much larger populations) would survive.”
By the way, Rafsanjani later said his nuclear-survival strategy was firmly rooted in the “consensus view” of Iranian scientists.
But observe how the Left views the threat level a nuclear Iran. In response to a Washington Times editorial in December 2005 warning about the looming danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, liberal website Media Matters complained that the editorial “ignored key facts about Iran’s nuclear capability” just “to exaggerate the threat.” Note that the charge isn’t that the threat referred to in the editorial was invented or false, but only exaggerated.
You’ll see in the Media Matters response the painstaking effort to minimize the Iranians’ technical capacity to make weapons-grade uranium for at least another two years. The significance of the two years prediction was to counter Drudge Report’s and Washington Times’ estimates of Iran being “months away” from enriching uranium, in conjunction with Iran’s stated foreign policy goals of nuking Israel. The whole Media Matters argument was not over Iran’s intentions, nor even its eventual success in producing nuclear weapons, (which Media Matters appears to take for granted), but whether they were going to be significantly closer to enriched uranium in mere months or in up to two years. In the meantime, it is now fourteen months later, only months away from the two year prediction. Yet Media Matters blasted the Washington Times for being alarmist.
Months? Two or three years? By way of comparison, the IPCC report makes predictions as far out as 2090-2100, and even 2200. One of the authors of the report, Kevin Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., made this kicky comment: “We’re creating a different planet. If you were to come back in 100 years time, we’ll have a different climate.”
How’s that for a persuasive argument? You want proof? Just come back here in 100 years and see for yourself!
But see how alarmed Media Matters gets over any challenges of a “consensus on global warming,” a subject to which it is absolutely committed. (So far, I haven’t seen them post on the 2007 IPCC Report).
On just this January 7th they attacked Willard Scott (Willard Scott, for God’s sake!) for daring to suggest that anyone, anywhere, could cast “doubt on global warming.” In a moment of thoughtless morning-show ebullience over the deadly snowstorms in Colorado, Scott obliquely questioned the dogma by asking co-host Meredith Vieira if she was “a global warming fan.” Media Matters felt this called for a response, and in it referred back to the overwhelming proof of consensus they had already “documented” in a previous attack on Tucker Carlson in August 2006 when he questioned the existence of consensus.
This example from Media Matters is only meant to show the widespread approach by liberals to global warming, which is to go to any lengths to answer any critic denying there is a consensus view of it, waging arguments that the critic is demonstrably wrong, and incensed that the dissenter could be so reckless with the future of humanity, or at least the future of the planet. In this view of it we simply can’t tolerate dissent when we are facing a growing danger from climate change in response to which we cannot act fast enough, nor commit sufficient resources.
It is only when confronting global jihadism, or deposing weapons-mad dictators, or searching out and stopping terrorists across the globe that Leftists always find there’s a fatal lack of evidence, and malign those trying to oppose jihad as liars, distorters of the facts, intolerant of dissent, and always rushing into action at “the drop of a hat.”
Using the IPCC’s likelihood scale, Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons by developing them internally or getting them from a rogue actor like North Korea or the Russians is “Virtually certain.”
The likelihood that the UN, or any other combination of international diplomats will never take any meaningful action to forestall Iran’s plans is “Virtually certain.”
The likelihood that Iran will use its nukes aggressively as soon as they’ve got them is “Virtually certain,” or, at least “Very likely,” which puts it into the same 90% category as the IPCC weather forecast for 2090. Only Iran could easily be pushing the button in 2008 or 2009.
Now do you think the French are going to turn the Eiffel Tower off over that?
Exclusive: Understanding Jihad
Author: Ray Kraft
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: February 4, 2007
FSM has never seen a more cogent articulation of what this enemy is we are fighting. Nor have we been compelled to contemplate exactly how the Iraq War should much more accurately be known as the Battle of Iraq. FSM Contributing Editor Ray Kraft enlightens us…and let’s hope the Congress, as frighteningly uninformed as they are, are listening.
He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the Guidance and a religion of the Truth,
that He may make it Victorious over every other religion . . .
Know your enemy.
Only by knowing what motivates your enemy, knowing what he is fighting for and what he intends to achieve, what his strategic objectives are, can you become able to strike him where he is weakest – most brittle, most fragile, most vulnerable – and that is by striking at what motivates him. If you do not know what motivates your enemy, you cannot strike where he is weakest. But if you can defeat his motivation, you defeat his will to fight.
War is always at least as much a battle of wills, of morale, of determination and endurance, as it is a battle of bullets and bombs, although the bullets and bombs are the weapons, the tools, by which will is projected, or weakened, depleted and defeated. An army, a nation, a tribe, will keep fighting as long as it believes it can win, and no longer. When it no longer believes it can win, it will leave the battle, or seek peace. It will surrender, formally, or informally by retreating back into the hills, into the woods, into safe territory, wherever that is. If you can convince your enemy that he cannot win the battle, or the war, then you have won. As long as your enemy believes he can defeat you, he will keep fighting. When he is convinced that his defeat is certain, and that his victory is impossible, he will quit fighting.
In the Jihad War that radical Islam has declared on America, Israel, England, and indeed on Western Civilization, most Americans and Europeans do not seem to know or understand the enemy, the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement that now includes Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, and the many other and smaller non-governmental organizations of Islamic Jihad. Most of us know only what we hear on the evening news, or read in the papers, and the major media have hardly (if ever) mentioned the motives that are the driving force of Jihad.
But the Jihad is not difficult to understand – one need only look to the Koran for illumination and clarity.
Westerners no longer think of religion as a reason for war. We think “religious wars” are the stuff of ancient European history from centuries and centuries ago. We are wrong. The Jihad War is fundamentally and quintessentially a religious war. It is religious at the core. It is a war for the conquest of the world by Islam. It is inspired, motivated, driven, by the words of Allah, the words of God Himself. It is a war for the dominance of Islam over all other religions, for the dominance of Islamic culture over all other cultures. It is a war for Islamic supremacy.
In Muslim belief, the Koran (in the original, classical Arabic) is the literal, verbatim word of Allah. Not merely inspired by Allah, but dictated by Allah. Allah spoke to Gabriel, who recited the words of Allah to Muhammed, who, illiterate himself, recited the words of Allah verbatim to his secretaries, scribes, and listeners, who wrote down the words of Allah, all perfectly, without error, so that in the original Arabic the Koran is not merely inspired by Allah, it is the very words of Allah, the very words of God Himself, perfect, unchangeable, infallible, inerrant, beyond doubt or question. The words of God cannot be wrong. The promises of God cannot fail.
In various places throughout the Koran, Allah directs the Believers, Muslims, to make war upon the Unbelievers, Infidels, Kaffirs, until all the world has converted or submitted to the primacy of Islam, and those who refuse to convert or submit have been killed.
These, the words of God, the words of Allah, are the key to understanding Jihad. God has promised that Islam will be “victorious over every other religion,” and from this Islam derives a conviction of fate, a divine mission, a manifest destiny, a divine right, to be victorious over every other religion and culture, in order to fulfill the prophecy of Muhammed, the promise of Allah. This is the fulcral idea, the singularity of faith that inspires the Jihad War – God’s promise of ultimate victory over all others, the victory of the Believers over the hypocrites (non-devout Muslims) and the Infidels (non-Muslims).
This is set forth most specifically and forcefully, perhaps, in Sura 9 (Book 9 or Chapter 9) of the Koran, as follows:
“And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God
wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them
with every kind of ambush; but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay
the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.”
“O Believers! – make not friends of your fathers or your brethren if they love Unbelief
above Faith; and whoso of you shall make them his friends, will be wrongdoers.”
“Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe
not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle
have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the Truth, until they
pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.”
“The Jews say, ‘Ezra (Ozair) is a son of God;’ and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah
is a son of God.’ Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the saying
of the Infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided!”
“He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the Guidance and a religion of the
Truth, that He may make it victorious over every other religion, albeit they
who assign partners to God be averse from it.”
“God promiseth the hypocritical men and women, and the Unbelievers, the fire of
Hell – therein shall they abide – this their sufficing portion! And God hath cursed
them, and a lasting torment shall be theirs.”
“O Prophet! – contend against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be rigorous with
them. Hell shall be their dwelling place! Wretched the journey thither!”
“Never pray thou over anyone of them who dieth, or stand at his grave – because
they believed not in God and His Apostle, and died in their wickedness.”
“Verily, of the faithful hath God bought their persons and their substance, on condition
of Paradise for them in return; on the path of God shall they fight, and slay, and be slain;
a promise for this is pledged in the Law, and in the Evangel, and in the Koran – and who
more faithful to his engagement than God? Rejoice, therefore, in the contract that
ye have contracted; for this shall be the great bliss.”
“Believers! – wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors,
and let them find you rigorous; and know that God is with those who
fear him . . . But as to those in whose hearts is a disease, it will add
doubt to their doubts, and they shall die infidels.”
From the Koran, Sura 9:5-126 (not inclusive)
This is the commandment of God – to make war on the hypocrites and the Infidels, the Unbelievers, on “such infidels as are your neighbors,” until they have converted to Islam, or submitted to Islam, or have been slain. This is the driving force, the idea, that energizes Jihad.
How can Jihad be defeated?
Simply – perhaps not easily, or quickly, but simply – Jihad can be defeated, its motivation broken, dissipated, fractured, destroyed, by a Western “solidarity” to resist Jihad with all necessary will, political force, and military force, a solidarity to convince the Jihad that it cannot succeed, that it is doomed to fail, that it does not have the strength, the power, to fulfill the promise of Allah that Islam will be “victorious over every other religion.”
This will require the projection of overt military force and covert intelligence and combat operations against Jihad as long as Jihad continues to fight. This is necessary, but this is not enough.
It also requires a projection of moral force and intellectual force, of intellectual and moral clarity and will. America, Europe, and the rest of Civilization must say to the face of Jihad –
“You cannot win. We will not let you win. We will do all that is necessary to defend the Western principles of intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom. We will not let Islam be victorious over Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the freedom to be Agnostic or Atheist, or to follow any other religion. It is not we who must change – it is YOU who must change. Islam must change. Islam must leave the 7th century behind, and emerge into a 21st century of freedom, tolerance, multiculturalism, diversity, and liberal democracy. Islam must learn to accept the legitimacy of other religions and cultures. Islam must learn to live as a Faith that accepts the legitimacy and equality of all other Faiths. Islam must learn to live as a culture that accepts the legitimacy and equality of all other cultures. Until Islam learns this, we, the people of Civilization and freedom, will stand in solidarity against Jihad.”
When the Jihad movement understands that it can only fail, that it cannot win, that it does not have the strength to win, that it cannot emerge “victorious over all other religions,” then the Jihad War will be won, or will begin to be won, for then, but only then, the Jihad movement will begin to dissipate, to lose its morale, to lose its hope of victory, its reason for being.
Today, many leading American Democrats (and a few prominent Republicans) are clearly unclear on the concept, clueless, tragically and dangerously ignorant and oblivious, playing into the hands of the Jihad by their calls to retreat from the Battle of Iraq, which, for now at least, is the central battle in the Jihad War. It is not the first, and it will not be the last – unless the Battle of Iraq is won decisively by the US and Iraqi government forces, unless the Jihad in Iraq is decimated and denied control of Iraq, or even a foothold in Iraq, when the smoke has cleared, and the Jihad has suffered a complete and humiliating, demoralizing defeat.
If that happens, it may well be the beginning of the end of the Jihad.
But if the Jihad – which encompasses the calculated savagery of the Shia and Sunni militias, and the provocateurs of Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda – wins the Battle of Iraq, control of Iraq, or simply drives the Americans out of an Iraq left in chaos, it will be seen as a victory for Jihad over The Great Satan, America, a vindication of the promise of Allah to make Islam “victorious over every other religion.” It will fuel the flames of Jihadist struggle and terror around the world.
Dr. Jack Wheeler writes of this in The Fragility of Islamofacism (at www.ToThePointNews.com) in which he points to mass “frenzies of criminal insanity, like the Gulag Communism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Hitler’s Germany, or the barbaric imperialism of Tojo’s Japan.”
“An entire people like the Germans or Japanese can go criminally, murderously nuts. Such mass criminality has to be
ended by whatever means necessary. But once the frenzy is over, the people crazed by it can become normal human
beings again . . . Just such a mass criminal insanity has today taken over the minds of a substantial fraction of the world’s
Muslims . . . the distillation of the very worst aspects of the Islamic religion into an ideology of fascist bullying
“The absolute last thing we are involved in here is a ‘clash of civilizatoins.’ Our civilization is in a fight to the death with
a subhuman barbarism. With folks who believe in a Whorehouse Heaven which they can get into by blowing themselves
up in order to murder women and children.”
“Islamofascism is a frenzy, a mass delusion. What all such mass delusions have in common is an incredibly intense
psychological energy that is impervious to reason, reality, and morality.”
The Jihad cannot be reasoned with. It cannot be bargained with. It cannot be treatied with. It is not amenable to diplomacy, which it will view (correctly) as a sign of weakness, timidity, fear, and lack of resolve. It can only be surrendered to, or destroyed. Its ultimate victory is certain, unless it is defeated, because it is certain that it is doing the will of God. And if Allah is with Jihad, who can prevail against it?
The Jihadist Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Jihadist Syria of Assad and Hezbollah cannot be entrusted with “helping to restore peace in Iraq,” as the Iraq Study Commission, which did not understand the driving force at the core of Jihad, fantasized. Unless we want to concede to the Jihad its ultimate goal of “victory over every other religion,” Jihad can only be resisted, by whatever means necessary, until it is defeated. And it can only be defeated by a show of moral, political, cultural, and military solidarity in the West sufficiently strong, sufficiently determined, sufficiently resolute, to convince the Jihad leaders, mullahs, rank, and file, that the cause of Jihad is futile, that it cannot win, that however many young Muslims they throw into the slaughter, that however many Muslim women and children and police recruits they blow to bits, the Jihad, in the end, can only lose. That it is all for nothing.
That Islam will never be “victorious over every other religion.”
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to COY7m@aol.com.
© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved
Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of Family Security Matters.
Hillary’s First Broken Campaign Promise
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 5, 2007
Just two weeks after inviting the American public to “chat” about her bottomless powerlust, Hillary Clinton has already broken her first campaign promise.
At the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting last Friday, Hillary Clinton made her newest, most left-wing statement on Iraq. Goaded on by – and trying to drown out – protestors from Code Pink and Iraq Veterans Against the War, Hillary pledged: “If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”
And thus she continued the grand tradition of Clintons lying to the public. Last June, Hillary told the 2006 “Take Back America” conference – including a crowd of Code Pink protestors – that while “[t]here must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home,” she did “not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain.” Now she has set a “date certain”: January 20, 2009. If her party and occasional Republican McGoverns have not successfully eroded public support of the troops, she will pull the plug.
Never content to sit by and bake cookies, she has a plan to securing U.S. defeat on the installment plan. The media report: “Clinton has her own plan for Iraq, which would cap troop levels in the war-torn nation, and has threatened to work to cut off funding for the Iraqi army, unless Iraqi leaders take responsibility for quelling violence.” Hillary is asking America to believe that the best way for al-Maliki to fight off terrorism is to give him progressively fewer resources with which to accomplish this end. As the president tries to send in the cavalry, she pulls tightly on the reins.
Memo to the terrorists: in John Kerry’s words, “Hope is on the way!”
The moonbats at such leftist blogdom (blog-dumb?) mainstays as Democratic Underground love her leftward (rhetorical) turn, including apparent regret over sanctioning the war.
She purred to the DNC Friday, “I want to be very clear about this: If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war.” But she did start the war, with her vote for HJR114, “A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.” This is the kind of authorization of military force her husband never sought (and perhaps couldn’t have obtained) while aiding the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army in Serbia. Indeed, Operation Iraqi Freedom would have been unnecessary had her husband “let the UN inspectors do their job” by insisting Saddam readmit them into the country after his defiant expulsion in 1998.
Shrillary now shrieks the president “misused” her vote, but the record is clear: while casting October 2002, she declared on the Senate floor, “I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war.” She concluded hers was “a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.” Saddam Hussein promptly produced a joke of a report, indicating no compliance in his UN-mandated disarmament, terminated the ceasefire, and invited an invasion (which “rush to war” began the following spring).
In 2003, she shed additional light on her decision making process, saying, “I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision” (naturally). She has indicated former Clinton administration officials corroborated Bush’s assessment of the threat Iraq posed to the United States and the region.
Faced with her public statements, one is forced to convinced, by her own reasoning process, she would have launched this war. Like JFK’s advisors in Vietnam, she now seeks to leave the president holding the bag, as she inches closer toward Jack Murtha.
Leftist commentators have likened Hillary’s pledge to end the war upon inauguration to the Republican campaigns of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. (The fact that troops are still stationed in South Korea is apparently lost on them.) Ike and Nixon campaigned for peace – as would any sane candidate – but neither set an exit date for an ongoing war. In the waning days of the 1952 election, Eisenhower told the nation:
Now, where will a new administration begin? It will begin with its president taking a firm, simple resolution. That resolution will be to forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean War, until that job is honorably done. (Emphasis added.)
Nixon, too, pledged “peace with honor.” “Honor” is the difference between Eisenhower in ’52 or Nixon in ‘68 and Sen. Clinton forty years hence. The Democrats’ abandonment of South Vietnam dropped American prestige to new lows (before bottoming out under Jimmy Carter, who was more threatened by the number of Jews on the Holocaust Museum Board than by Brezhnev or Khomeini). Hers is a party that seeks withdrawal for withdrawal’s sake – before the American military secures an American objective or even prevents a dedicated enemy that has already killed thousands of Blue State Americans from making the oil-rich nation in question its next base of operations. But such is the outlook of her party’s primary voters, and she’s “in it to win it.”
The mainstream media will not explore the tension between vowing not to set a “date certain” in June and setting a date in February, anymore than they held Hillary accountable for declaring the Bush administration “wanted to turn the clock back the progress of the 20th century” and “came to town to reinstitute a 19th century attitude.” (“Senator Clinton, is it true you said the Bush administration wants to repeal light bulbs?”) The nation may conclude, however, that positions reveal a shrewd calculation governed only by her self-seeking ambition – am ambition she is willing to indulge at the cost of 100,000 American soldiers and millions of Iraqis, now or on Inauguration Day 2009.
In time, Hillary may leapfrog Dennis Kucinich as the terrorists’ favorite presidential candidate. At present, the terrorists’ best hope is clear: ratchet up the killing and support the Democrats.