The War Within Islam The growing danger of the Sunni-Shiite rivalry.

UC-Intifada

UC-Intifada
By Aaron Hanscom
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2007

Last year Pat Rose, head of the FBI’s Orange County al-Qaeda squad, was asked whether radical Muslim students at the University of California at Irvine posed a security threat. Rose responded evasively, saying that “it was a tough question to answer.” Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes would have no difficulty with the question. On January 31, Pipes gave a talk at UCI titled “The Threat to Israel’s Existence.” Pipes was invited to speak by Hillel at UCI and Anteaters for Israel, UCI’s pro-Israel group. But it was another student organization that decided to give Pipes a welcome he won’t soon forget.

Roughly 100 member of  occupied the central seats in the lecture hall at the beginning of the speech. Most of them wore t-shirts reading “UC Intifada,” the latest in a long line of pro-terrorism fashion trends to hit campus. A coordinated disruption began about five minutes into the talk, after one member stood up and addressed Pipes. After being approached by UCI officials, the protesters exited the building while chanting slogans such as “Anti-occupation, anti-Israel!” and “Anti-hate, anti-Israel!”

Reut Cohen, a third-year student, decided to follow the MSU students outside with her video camera running. She was greeted with laughter and waving from the members of the MSU, who are well aware of the work Cohen does on her blog documenting their organization’s activities. Apparently unconcerned about the fact that he was being filmed, an organizer of the protest proceeded to give an impromptu speech. To shouts of “Takbir” and “Allahu Akbar,” he said:

They have no future. And it’s just a matter of time before the state of Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth…. Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out, and we deflate their morale, and this is the best we can do right now. And our brothers and sisters, on the other side of the world, they’re handling business in their own way. May Allah give them strength…

Cohen’s video immediately began circulating on the internet. In an interview with the present author, Cohen said, “MSU’s right to free speech does not require the administration to be silent when MSU calls for the destruction of Israel and threatens students who support her.” Indeed, silence was the initial response of UCI officials.

Not until Fox News aired Cohen’s video and inquired about the event did UCI release a statement. Media Relations Director Jim Cohen explained that “the protesting audience members stepped into the aisle and peacefully left the building.” As Daniel Pipes made clear on his blog, there was no condemnation of the protesters (the MSU wasn’t even mentioned by name), “much less [of] the horrifying statements their leader made outside the hall.”

This underscores a troubling fact about today’s college campuses: Calling for the destruction of Israel and supporting terrorism are tolerated. By contrast, calling for the destruction of terrorist groups is likely to earn students condemnation from campus officials.

Starkly demonstrating this double standard is a recent story from San Francisco State University. On October 17, SFSU’s chapter of the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism protest at the school’s Malcolm X Plaza. Members had painted flags of Hamas and Hezbollah on butcher paper, on which they stepped during the protest. An offended student, noting that the flags have the word “Allah” written in Arabic, filed a complaint. This led to allegations of “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment.”

In fact, if anyone at SFSU has a record of inciting violence, it is Muslim students. In November 2004, a mob of Arab students attacked a group of College Republicans during a “Turnout the Vote” event. Meanwhile, the General Union of Palestinian Students at SFSU has a history of issuing threats of violence against Jewish students on campus. During one pro-Israel rally, Jewish students had to be physically escorted off campus by 25 San Francisco city police officers.

Considering that such acts of real violence have taken place at SFSU so recently, the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development could have placed the “terrorist flag stomping” incident in its proper context and dismissed the charges. Instead, the OSPLD sent the case for trial to the Student Organization Hearing Panel. If the panel of students, faculty and staff members finds the College Republicans guilty, the organization will be effectively disbanded — a possibility that has rightly exercised free-speech advocates. Vice President Robert Shelley of the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education has said, “In a free society, neither SFSU nor any other agency of the government has the power to investigate a group simply for disrespecting a religious symbol.”

Conversely, there is nothing objectionable about investigating groups who support terrorism. Muslim students at UCI who spout such hatred as was heard during Daniel Pipes’ speech should be monitored. Omri Ceren, a PhD student who often blogs about the tense situation at UC Irvine, explained why earlier this year. “The kind of viciousness regularly on display at UCI Muslim Student Union events doesn’t emerge in a vacuum — it represents a sensibility built on the ground of very particular beliefs about Jews, Israel, and the US government.” Indeed, as Ceren notes, speakers who appear at the MSU’s events, while generally careful to avoid advocating violence, have on occasion done just that. Ultimately, allowing groups like the MSU to host such extremists creates what Ceren calls the “perfect hiding place for terrorism — a place where the terrorists could hide in plain sight.”

What many college administrators in California and even some counterterrorism officials are reluctant to acknowledge is that those places are the state’s universities

London-based Sunni historian: Iran plotting to annihilate the Sunnis, establish global Shi’ite government

London-based Sunni historian: Iran plotting to annihilate the Sunnis, establish global

 Shi’ite government

The Shi’ites, according to Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim, are even worse than (gasp) the Zionists! The fervid conspiracy theorists are beginning to trip over their Protocols. “London-Based Syrian-Born Historian Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim on Al-Jazeera: Iran Established Global Shiite Government, Operating in Accordance with the Protocols of the Mullahs of Qom, to Annihilate the Sunnis,” from MEMRI:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Syrian-born historian Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 30, 2007.TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1380.

Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim: “We consider the Zionist plan to be dangerous to the Arab nation, but even more dangerous is the Safavid Sassanian Iranian plan to restore the Empire of Cyrus, which would range from Greece to Egypt, and the Arabian Peninsula, in addition to other regions. The Zionist plan was unable to penetrate the ranks of Islamic unity, the way the Safavid Iranian plan did. The collaborators with the Zionists throughout the Arab and Islamic world are too ashamed to reveal themselves, while the collaborators with the Sassanian Safavid plan boast about it in public. Wasn’t it one of their leaders who said yesterday: ‘We are a Lebanon in Iran, and an Iran in Lebanon?'”

[…]

“While the Zionist plan targets Jerusalem, which is holy to us, the Safavid plan targets Mecca and Al-Madina. If you go back to their books – which they do not mention in the media, yet these books exist and are accepted by them – they claim that their Hidden Imam will come to Mecca and Al-Madina, destroy the Al-Haram Mosque and the Mosque of the Prophet, and dig in the graves of Abu Bakr and Omar and burn them both, and then he will command the wind to blow them away. He will also dig in the grave of Aisha, the Mother of the Believers, and will execute her. All this is part of their plan.”

[…]

“The Shah was most definitely one of the sworn enemies of the Arabs, but he did not legislate a law to persecute the Sunni Muslims, who constitute one-third of the Iranian population. The new Iranian constitution persecutes Sunni Muslims in Iran, while it gives constitutional rights to the Zoroastrians, the Jews, and the Christians. This constitution denies the Sunnis these rights. There is no Sunni mosque in Tehran, even though there are over two million Sunni Muslims there.”

[…]

“All these actions are part of the 50-year plan of the Protocols of the Mullahs of Qom. This plan has been published and is well known. It aims to infiltrate the Sunni Muslim countries, to annihilate them, and to sow civil strife between the ruler and his subjects, all within fifty years.”

[…]

“Listen to the following secret communiqué: ‘At the command and with the guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and under the title ‘The Shi’a of Ali Are Victorious,’ the extended conference of the world’s Shiites was held in the holy city of Qom. It was attended by the leaders of all Shiite parties and religious authorities. The conference decided that a global organization must be established to annihilate the people who are left, to examine and analyze the current regional situation, to build a military force, to infiltrate governmental institutions through the women’s organizations everywhere, and then to infiltrate intelligence agencies, and to finish off the Sunni leaders, even by assassination.’ This is the plan of the Hashashin, which still exists.

[…]

“While the American target is economic oil, the Iranian Persian goal is to massacre the Arabs, as is evident in all their writings.”

Something to think about……….

Something to think about……….The Peaceful Majority
by William Haynes

I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

“Very few people were true Nazis “he said,” but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without paying heed to it, or sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the world and it’s citizens. Best we support them. 

Hillary: Little Miss Can’t Be Wrong

Hillary: Little Miss Can’t Be Wrong
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2007

Sorry seems to be the hardest word for Hillary Clinton. The New York senator is not used to being challenged on either her policy positions or her votes – especially when it comes to Iraq. For the last six years, she’s operated in a protective bubble – insulated from the press and the voters.

Those days are over.

Since she entered the presidential race two weeks ago, she’s learned quickly that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire – and most likely in the rest of the country – want truthful answers and won’t accept scripted spin.

During the last week, wherever Hillary Clinton campaigned, she faced one dogged question that wouldn’t go away: “Are y ou sorry for your 2002 vote in favor of invading Iraq?”

But try as they might, neither reporters nor voters can pry the “S” word out of Hillary. She refuses to apologize for voting to authorize the use of our military.

Instead, she repeats that she “takes responsibility” for her vote and that had she “known then what I know now,” she would have voted against the resolution. She reiterates that she doesn’t believe in “do-overs” and even tries to persuade her listeners that she never meant to vote for “pre-emptive war” and that she was actually voting to strengthen the weapons inspectors.

Iraq is not her mistake; it’s President’s Bush’s mistake. End of story.

But the questions persist. So, why has she chosen to take on an unnecessary fight about whether to apologize for a vote she cast five ye ars ago? Her fellow candidate John Edwards and 2004’s Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, both have used the “S” word and apologized for their votes. Likely her advisers have warned that the perception that she flip-flops on the issues is a key negative and have urged her not to change her position. She doesn’t want to look like Kerry in 2004.

But her refusal to apologize is typical of two other characteristics that so frequently land her in trouble: her stubbornness and belief that she is always right.

We’ve seen this before.

Urged to compromise on health-care reform in 1994, she refused. Counseled by most of her staff to release the Whitewater documents when The Washington Post first requested them, she said no and triggered the designation of a special prosecutor. When Whitewater co-conspirator Jim MacDougal suggested that he buy her out of the investment to avoid political embarrassment, she refused, saying that she planned to use the proceeds for Chelsea’s college tuition. When Bill Clinton had the opportunity to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit, Hillary vetoed that possibility, paving the way for her husband’s impeachment.

When Hillary takes these positions, she believes that she is right – and no one can convince her otherwise.

When Hillary is right, this stubbornness is commendable. But when she is wrong, it is frustrating to her supporters and infuriating to her advisers.

But there’s another reason for her stubbornness. Hillary, for all of her vaunted independence, depends on gurus to guide her every move. She falls under their spell and, while thus mesmerized, she believes they can do no ill or make no mistake.

Hillary wouldn’t compromise on health care because her guru-du-jour Ira Magaziner told he r not to do so. She wouldn’t release the Whitewater records because her former mentor, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, advised against it. She wouldn’t back off her support for the war partially because the generals to whom she had come to listen and admire while serving on the Armed Services Committee warned that it would lead to a disaster. Combine that with the flawed guidance of her pollsters and you see why Hillary is stuck.

Sometimes the gurus are right (as on Iraq). Sometimes they’re wrong. But Hillary can’t tell the difference.

That’s a key reason why she shouldn’t be president.

Do trees share blame for global warming?

Humans’ beef with livestock: a warmer planet

Global-warming theory and the eugenics movement

Global-warming theory and the eugenics movement

By John Linder
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 19, 2007
    
    “Global Warming” had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel “State of Fear,” brilliantly juxtaposes the world’s current political embrace of “global warming” with the popular embrace of the “science” of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world’s thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the “science” of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.

    Believers in eugenics argued that we could improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The most respected scientists from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other bastions of intellectual rigor retreated to a complex on Long Island named Cold Spring Harbor. Their support came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman fortune working with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, State and other agencies.

    The “science” was not lacking important public supporters. Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson were enthusiastic believers. The theory won approval of Supreme Court justices, leaders in higher education and Nobel Prize winners. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the most vocal adherents. She established the first “birth control” clinic in 1916.

    They believed that “the best” human beings were not having as many children as inferior ones—the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, Blacks, degenerates, the unfit and the “feeble minded.” Sanger said “fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.” H.G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Roosevelt said, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

    Twenty-nine states passed laws allowing sterilization. Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were sterilized—some legally. The Germans were the most progressive. They had help. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists, one of whom was Josef Mengele.

    Ultimately the “mental defectives” in Germany were brought to newly built houses where they were interviewed. They were then shown to a back room where they were gassed. Eventually the German program was expanded into a vast network that killed 10 million undesirables. After World War II many of the public adherents to the pseudoscience of eugenics went silent. Colleges removed the textbooks and stopped teaching it.

    But not everyone went away. As recently as July 24, 2003 Tony Platt testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee on S.R. 20 relative to eugenics. He agreed that the state should apologize for its actions.

    One must ask, “How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?” A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some “science” which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.

    We are told today that human activity is causing a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels that is responsible for “global warming.” While a congressional delegation was visiting the Antarctic expedition in January of 2003 we were shown the results of the Vostok ice-sheet cores where temperatures and CO2 levels were measured as far as 400,000 years ago. At that time, the level of CO2 was 280 parts per million parts of atmosphere (ppm), about what it was 20 years ago. The levels of CO2 and temperature rode up and down in consonance over 400,00 years. “Who,” I asked, “was burning the fossil fuels 400,000 years ago?” I was treated as though I was rude.

    It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called “carbon sinking.” The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, “the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned.” If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don’t they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives.

    In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world’s production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.

    When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world’s production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands, which provide habitat conducive to bacteria, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material. It is curious that the very alarmists on climate change are alarmists on saving and increasing wetlands.

    It becomes clear from the literature—not to mention documentary films—produced by the alarmists, that if human beings do not change the way we live the planet is doomed. This is not the first charge against human behavior. Many of you will remember the “scientific” studies 30 years ago about the destruction of the ozone layer, particularly at the poles, that would reduce the atmosphere’s ability to stop infrared rays from the sun. We would see increasing incidence of skin cancer and increasing temperatures. It was theorized that this was caused by the increased production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were used—as Freon—in refrigeration units.

    When Freon was invented it was considered a miracle gas. It replaced, in refrigeration units, a combination of toxic gases that, if released, actually killed people. But the settled science concluded that human activity was a threat to the planet. We outlawed the production of CFCs and thousands of people across the world died from eating rancid food due to the loss of refrigeration.

    The world’s production of CFCs peaked at 1.1 million tons per year. If 100 percent of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. That is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone. But that couldn’t be controlled so the alarmists went after us.

    Indeed, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June of 1991 produced some of the highest levels of chlorine and bromines in history and led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever recorded. You would not know that today. The earth survived.

    Today, if there is a settled science, it is adduced by climatologists who have been observing and studying the world for decades. Many are retired and not seeking government grants for research and thus not inclined to reach outcomes that are politically popular. Most have been through more than one alarmist cycle of doom. The predictions by scientists in Time magazine’s “Another Ice Age?” in 1974 and Newsweek’s “The Cooling World” in 1975 come to mind. The latter article stated that scientists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climactic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

    But wise old heads believe that we are going through normal cycles of heating and cooling that we have seen over hundreds of millions of years as the earth heats and cools when the activity of the sun changes. The earth is heated by the sun. The sun is impacted by magnetic forces creating outbursts called sunspots, which increase the heat it imparts. During the coldest period in the Little Ice Age, which ended near the end of the 19th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. The earth cooled. Sunspot activity has been declining for a number of years and is expected decline by 40 percent over the next decade. The world is about to enter a cooling period. Be prepared to change your lifestyle.
    
    Rep. John Linder is a Georgia Republican who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Visionary or Buffoon?

Visionary or Buffoon?

Al Gore, if remembered at all in in future decades, is likely to be seen as more than slightly unbalanced.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
The gnosticism of liberals’ atheistic materialism leads them to flit from doctrine to doctrine, as one theory, then another, promises to be the key for human control of the universe.  Global-warming theorists’ plans to regiment the world are just the latest in a long line of crack-pot schemes wearing the garments of science.

Liberal gnostic materialism since the 18th century has presumed occult knowledge in the hands of an elite group of scientists and intellectuals.  Think of Karl Marx’s scientific socialism, of President Roosevelt’s undermining the Constitution by allowing his “brain trust” of socialistic professors to nationalize agriculture, control industry, and devalue the dollar by roughly 50%, at the cost of prolonging a business recession for twelve years.  President Roosevelt’s state-planning was born of his admiration for the gnostics in the USSR and their liberal supporters here in the United States, who sincerely believed that liquidating more than 20 million Russians would perfect human nature and political society.

Today, those same gnostic worshippers are zealously endeavoring to push us back into the economic stone ages in order to save the globe.  As did the liberal-socialist-progressives of the 1920s and 30s, who had “seen the future” in the USSR’s experimentation, Al Gore’s minions confidently predict the global future and hubristically propose to substitute their limited knowledge for the forces of nature.

A hallmark of modern gnosticism is its collectivist approach.  In contrast, western civilization, the product of Judeo-Christianity, is an individualistic culture that emphasizes reason and personal responsibility.  The dogma of global-warming falls into the former camp, the collectivist, bureaucratic management of human life from on high, in the counsels of intellectuals, who always presume to know better than you what is best for your life.  Not content to promulgate an hypothesis, those gnostic intellectuals want to force each of us to bow to their will.

Congressman John Linder’s opinion piece is a worthy effort to bring a sane perspective to the gnostic, pagan religious obsession with human control of the forces of nature. 

The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com

The Politicians of Fear

The Politicians of Fear

The big news of last week was of course the House passing a resolution disapproving of the President’s Iraq “surge” plan.  But the actual text has seldom been published in any newspaper article about it.  Do you wonder why?  Well, let’s have a look at it:

“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that:
1. Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect
the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have
served bravely and honorably in Iraq and
2. Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W Bush
announced on 10 January 10 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq.”

Like I suspect many of you may have, I found myself surprised when I read the actual resolution after hearing and reading about it for days.  What was it about the actual words of the resolution that was so different than how it was being spun in the media?  Here are my observations:

  1. The specific wording of the resolution has almost never appeared in media coverage, because the Democrats want to allow the public to assume that the wording is totally negative, while actually incorporating some fairly supportive wording that will allow some Republicans to vote for it.  The technical term for this is “talking out of both sides of your mouth”.
  2. The hiding of the actual wording allows the Democrats to use the resolution as justification of their next steps in the “slow bleed” strategy.  That strategy explicitly requires that they ignore the first point of the resolution, doesn’t it?  This neatly illustrates the futility of compromising with a political party that controls the media – anything they get included will be trumpeted, and anything you get in return will cease to exist.  In fact, part 1 of the resolution never really existed at all – it was never reported and so has had no presence in the real world.  It was there only to allow the faint-hearted to fantasize that they had done something not wholly self-serving.
  3. The real surprise treat is the fact that this is a “concurrent” resolution.  Note the parenthetical “the Senate concurring”.  This was an attempt to garner more support for the Senate version after the fact, just as the Saturday timing of the vote was an attempt to reduce the number who might be able to vote at all.  But the Senate did not concur, so therefore this resolution is not only non-binding, it is also non-approved, by its own definition.  Of course had the Senate approved it, the word “concurrent” would have been featured in every news story.  But for now it has gone into the memory hole, just as “resolved” item number 1 has.  Poof.

Let’s take a hard look at this in summary.  This portentous resolution has been:

  • – Rejected by one of its two claimed co-sponsors.
  • – Crafted to give feckless opponents cover
  • – Hidden from detailed public view to allow the supportive half to be ignored
  • – Voted on in a precedent-breaking weekend session designed to handcuff opposition in the Senate where it had already failed once, and
  • – Worded as double-speak to allow Democrats to claim to be on the right side of any outcome, their position to be selected at some future date.

If one looks past the media tub-thumping that tries to frame the discussion of these things, we can see this resolution for the piece of tinsel it really is.  The anti-war Democrats labored for weeks to come up with a few sentences of Orwellian doublespeak that they could only manage to stick-handle halfway to the goal.  You almost expect to see the terms Eastasia or Oceania in there someplace.
In this weak performance there lurks a profound truth that Democrats are desperate to hide: Americans aren’t ready to quit – they will have to be pushed into it.  The Democrats are quite prepared to do just that, and the death-drooling media and pollsters are eager to help by telling us how fearful we are.  What is the motivation?  It is nothing more than gaining political power and destroying a President they despise.
Remember all this the next time you hear someone wailing about that favorite boogey-man of progressives everywhere, “The Politics of Fear”.  Be warned, if they are a Democrat they probably know exactly what they are talking about.
Dave in Seattle