Islam: Setting the United States up for the fall

Islam: Setting the United States up for the fall

“Islamic organizations are carefully orchestrating lawsuits, marches, large propaganda campaigns all across the nation. Islamic schools and mosques are being built in record numbers across the nation with Saudi oil money being funneled into the US legally. Islam is on the march. The submission of the great country of the United States to Islam has begun just as planned. Just as we were warned by Osama bin Laden, Islam is using Americas own laws and freedoms to destroy us.” –Randy Taylor

By Randy Taylor, Independent Analyst

19 March 2007:

1990-1998: The population of the United States is largely unaware of Islam, Islamic terrorism or what is being planned against this great nation. We vaguely recall some Islamic persons trying to blow up the World Trade Centers but it is only a distant memory, a fluke, a failed attempt. We aren’t even aware of the structure of terrorist masterminds behind the event. There was a bombing in Oklahoma City by some disgruntled ex-soldier but we were told he acted alone, so we accepted it at face value. We didn’t look any deeper. We accepted what we were told. Most of us did anyway. We sought to ignore the ones trying to tell us otherwise.

Wise men like Steve Emerson are largely unheard by us, by choice. Steve is the equivalent of a modern day Paul Revere placing himself at great risk to warn us of the enemy coming. We choose not to listen. Ignore it and it will go away. As long as it doesn’t affect the stock market, it doesn’t count as a threat.

Most of us don’t really know the name Osama bin Laden and we may have heard about an Islamic grass roots style group named al Qaeda at one time or another. But that is what the CIA and the FBI are for, to protect us from bad guys. So we don’t give it much thought. The ground was set in our minds for underestimating this enemy.

2001-2003: On September 11, 2001 airplanes flown by Islamic terrorists crash into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon resulting in huge death tolls of our fellow Americans. Another airliner crashes into a field in Pennsylvania killing everyone on board. In the following days our televisions are filled with images of nineteen men, Islamic men who did this terrible deed. We want revenge and we demand it. The focus shifts to the Taliban, the group named al Qaeda that we had ignored for years and the leader Osama bin Laden. Now we want to know about this guy, these animals that follow him. Our President speaks to us and makes it clear that we are going after these people and going after anyone who supports terrorism. He makes it clear that this isn’t a quick fix and this could take twenty years or more. We as a national majority, still angry, agree. The War On Terror begins. We start in Afghanistan and later we move into Iraq and remove the terrorist dictator, the killer of many people, Saddam Hussein.

Islam starts the counter-campaign within the United States. Islam is determined to force their ways and means upon the American society. Islam starts lobbying the people, the government as a largely “misunderstood” religious minority. The Islamic organizations get to work along with many similar Islamic organizations branching out to spread the poison where ever they can to whoever will listen.

2006-2007: We as a country have forgotten or softened on everything above. We have grown weak in our resolve and prove this by having elected weak people into the government positions within our government. A large cross-section of the American people want us to leave Iraq immediately. Cindy Sheehan is the new Jane Fonda and develops a following of other like-minded weak pacifists. Islam is growing in strength within the government itself. The people in Minnesota actually elected a Muslim into Congress. He has done nothing positive for the United States as a whole and when you look at his hometown, his election seat, there are Muslim related problems across the board. The cabbies at the airport are trying to force their religious issues on the passengers and the flight where the six imams were removed for creating a security threat all originate in his hometown. Coincidence some could claim? I doubt it.

Islamic organizations are carefully orchestrating lawsuits, marches, large propaganda campaigns all across the nation. Islamic schools and mosques are being built in record numbers across the nation with Saudi oil money being funneled into the US legally. Islam is on the march. The submission of the great country of the United States to Islam has begun just as planned. Just as we were warned by Osama bin Laden, Islam is using Americas own laws and freedoms to destroy us.

Islam is working both ends against the middle if you look closely. They are heavily recruiting in the ghettos and the prisons as well as recruiting at the top, the Senators and the Congress. They are working on the middle now. They have infiltrated the military. At every infiltration point there is a common factor. The rules have been changed to accommodate Islam specifically.

We were established as country based around God where a person had a right to worship God, their God as they choose to do so. That line has been crossed however and the Constitution violated in favor of Islam. Anytime one religion takes precedence or is granted privilege specifically as a religion then there has been a discrimination against all other religions. Such is the case here. This is dangerous ground. This in itself is endangering the Constitution and everything the Constitution stands for. This is endangering the rights of all other peoples in this country.

True Islam, in its purest form is a danger, a threat to all other religions, cultures and peoples. It is a threat to civilization itself. Islam is uncivilized in its doctrine. It is uncivilized in its justice system. It affords no rights and freedoms. It condemns all activities outside its teachings. It makes no allowances for other religious beliefs. It calls for the extermination of peoples that worship any other religions. Its brings death to where there is life.

And we are welcoming Islam? Let’s look at that closely.

The primary reason that we are making this mistake is because we are uninformed about the true teachings of Islam. There is a fabricated gentle version floating around that is unlike the true teachings of Islam. It is a softened version, the liar’s version. We choose it because it is the easy way out. It presents itself as sheep when in fact true Islam is nothing but wolves. It presents itself as a religion of peace, love and tolerance. If you look around the world at every trouble spot there is, where Islam is involved, there is not a trace of peace, not a trace of love of others and there is no tolerance whatsoever. Islam is about submission, nothing else. Submit to Islam or they will kill you. They killed over 3,000 of us on September 11, 2001 and we still don’t get it.

There are those that claim that Islam was hijacked by some radicals. Here’s a Newsflash to these ignorant people who claim this. It is way past that and since these peaceful people that you weak minded people keep referring to have no control over what is going on in their own religion and since the terrorists are obviously in charge of Islam, then Islam as whole is a danger to the western world and the people in it. Islam isn’t being run by pacifists and peaceniks. It really never was and any chance that these “peaceful” Muslims could reel in their religion is long gone. They refuse to do so and this is mostly in part because Islam never was a peaceful religion. Sounded good, seemed like good water cooler talk but it is and always was a line of BS. Another example of “Political Correctness” run amuck.

But we go on with this fraudulent diatribe because we don’t want to alienate our so called “allies”. You know the ones that are funding the mosques, schools and Islamic organizations inside this great country. The allies that pay families of suicide bombers when family members blow themselves and others up in a suicide attack. These same allies sent money to the 9/11 hijackers to fund the operation against the United States. This is nothing short of these Islamic governments smiling in our faces and stabbing us in our backs.

The primary piece of irony that strikes me as asinine is our push in this country to arrest, prosecute and even forever blacklist pedophiles yet we are welcoming a religion established by a pedophile.

Mohammed, the Islamic prophet took a girl as a bride at age six so he could have sex with her at age nine. That will get you 10 years to life in the United States and we are welcoming a belief system established by this pedophile? We are not only welcoming it, we are making provisions within our society and government to accommodate it. What are we thinking?

Is it going to take another 9/11 attack or bigger to open our eyes? Do we not realize that what is going on is a struggle, a fight to the death between the forces of good and evil? Do we not realize that we, the United States and countries like ours are the only thing that stands between the good people of the world and Islam destroying mankind? Do we not understand that if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan that the terrorists will become emboldened and will not hesitate to strike us here in America?

People, shut the door on Islam while there is time. Write letters to your Congress and your Senators. Support the ones that are trying to protect us. Abandon and condemn the ones that are opening us up to the enemy. Get on the blogs and speak your mind. Email anyone that will listen. Speak out against this evil called Islam. Don’t let the few of us that do be the lone voices in the wilderness. We are speaking for you. Help us be heard.

Thank you.

Stay safe. Be vigilant.


Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.
To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

American Congress for Truth (ACT) , P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456

The witch hunt against gun owners — The Second Amendment,” Charlton Heston used to say, “is America’s first freedom.” The Second secures the rest

Twisted solution to sun’s mystery heat

Labor Unions: Double-Edged Blade

Labor Unions: Double-Edged Blade

Liberals see labor unions through rose-colored glasses.  Reality is somewhat different.

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; } }
Tuesday’s edition of the Stamford Advocate, my local newspaper, has a front-page article about actor-director Tim Robbins’s attempt to revive public interest in his 1999 film “Cradle Will Rock.” Mr. Robbins, a resident of the adjoining Westchester County town of Pound Ridge, spoke to a Stamford audience the night before at the Avon Theatre Film Center on Bedford Street.

Mr. Robbins’s movie, according to the Wikipedia:

… chronicles the process and events that surrounded the production of the original 1937 musical The Cradle Will Rock by Marc Blitzstein. Tim Robbins, in his third film as director, adapts history to create this fictionalized account of the original production, bringing in other stories of the time to produce this commentary on the role of art and power in the 1930s, particularly amidst the struggles of the 1930s labor movement and the corresponding appeal of socialism and communism among many intellectuals and working class people of that time.

Mr. Robbins’s evidently identifies emotionally with labor unions of the 1930s and sees business as a source of evil. 

In a speech given at an antiwar rally in New York City’s Central Park on October 6, 2002, he said:

Let us find a way to resist fundamentalism that leads to violence–fundamentalism of all kinds, in Al Qaeda and within our own government. What is our fundamentalism? Cloaked in patriotism and our doctrine of spreading democracy throughout the world, our fundamentalism is business, the unfettered spread of our economic interests throughout the globe. Our resistance to this war should be our resistance to profit at the cost of human life. Because that is what these drums beating over Iraq are really about. This is about business.

Mr. Robbins’s view is straight out of the Socialist International’s appeal to the “workers of the world” to boycott World War I, on the theory that wars result only from capitalists struggling for monopoly market power, using the blood of the workers to achieve their goals.

In socialist doctrine, economic forces are the only factors having meaning for political societies.  The essential feature of that doctrine is that all elements of society must be organized to control production of economic goods.  From the very beginning of socialism as a cogent theory, Henri de Saint-Simon pictured the transition to socialism as one of conflict between capitalistic business owners and the workers. 

Thus labor unions are absolutely essential to socialism as the organizing mechanism of the entire labor force.  Unions are the heart of politics, which has no goal other than production by Marx’s “workers of the world.”

In the 1930s period of Mr. Robbins’s movie, industrial unions first became major factors in our economy.  The results then and now have been, on the whole, negative for the United States. 

The springboard for socialistic industrial unions was the New Deal’s 1935 Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), which stacked the bargaining cards in labor’s favor.  Overnight, unions were able to employ almost any sort of coercive tactics against businesses, without fear of legal prosecution. 

Unions could legally seize private property and prevent businesses from operating.  They could prevent all workers from entering private businesses and could stop deliveries of all supplies, including food, to those businesses.  Having been exempted from anti-trust prosecution, unions could organize mass boycotts and demonstrations to prevent people from buying products of companies that they targeted.  And they did not hesitate to resort to violence to implement such tactics.

In 1936, business enjoyed its only significant rally under the Depression-era New Deal.  That rally came as a result of the Supreme Court’s declaring the National Recovery Administration (NRA) unconstitutional.  The NRA had been the most onerous of President Roosevelt’s agencies patterned on Mussolini’s Fascist state corporatism.

The rally was shortly thereafter curtailed by the onslaught of union tactics that caused a surge of labor costs.  Unable to raise prices to offset higher labor costs, major industries found production essentially unprofitable.  By the end of 1936 and into 1937 industrial production turned sharply downward, precipitating a stock market crash as severe as that of 1929.  Business never recovered until the nation began gearing up in 1940 for the probability of participating in the European war.

Automobile manufacturing was the union’s first and main target in 1936.  Then and after the end of World War II, industrial unions exacted extremely high wages and supplemental benefits for their non-skilled laborers.  In the brief period before European and Japanese industry recovered from the war and began exporting to the United States, automobile production costs were pushed completely out of line with those in the rest of the industrialized world.

Japanese auto makers today gain a profit of about $2,000 per vehicle sold here (a great many of them manufactured here by non-union labor).  General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, in contrast, lose about $1,200 per passenger sedan made and sold in the United States.  They have roughly $2,500 more per vehicle in labor costs than Japanese auto companies manufacturing vehicles in the United States. 

Despite union boasts about union labor being better than non-union labor, the public finds the Japanese products to be of higher quality than the Big Three union-made variety.

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are now teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy, with intransigent unions heedlessly pushing them.

Labor unions have benefited a limited portion of the American work force and they have been the principal financial and get-out-the-vote engine for their sponsors, the Democratic Party.

But it has been at tremendous cost to the rest of the nation.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Who’s your choice for President 2008?

U.S. intel chief expects Israel to ‘protect’ against Iran threat

Obama Rebuffs Soros:Billionaire’ s Comments on Aipac Are Scored

Obama Rebuffs Soros:Billionaire’ s Comments on Aipac Are Scored

comment by Jerry Gordon

Fresh from his gaffes about Palestinians uttered before the recent AIPAC Washington,DC policy conference and questions raised about his early Muslim upbringing in Indonesia in a Los Angeles Times, “Barry” Obama, as he was called then by friends there, had to hustle to distance himself from the sordid essay of George Soros in a recent edition of the New York Review of Books. Soros’s essay was a virtual send up of Measrheimer Walt’s thesis about “the octopus of the powerful Jewish lobby” meaning faltering AIPAC and the inability to forge a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that would, in my opinion, and perhaps others, ensure the destruction of the State of Israel and Jews. Soros repeated in the New York Review of Book his oft-quoted canard that ‘he was “neither a Zionist nor any longer a practicing Jew”-as if he ever was, given his and his family’s murky track record during the Shoah in Hungary. Soros reminds me of Lady MacBeth in her famous solilquy in the Shakespearean play of the same name who utters the famous remark ‘out, out damn spot’. In Soros’s case his renark is a reference to any vestige of his family’s Jewish origins. Their original family name was Schwartz. As if in a peell mell rush, many leaders of what passes for the pantheon of Democratic Congresasional Representatives – people like Bob Wexler of Florida and Elliot Engel of the Bronx in New York City – Democratic National Committee icons like former head Steve Grossman interviewed in the New York Sun piece joined with Barry ,or is it Barack Obama ,in back peddling so fast it makes your head spin!

Whether by necessity or unseemly ‘haste’ the Democratic party and its candidates find themselves trying to extract thermselves from the mega-billionaire hedge fund mogul who looks like a tar baby from the Brer Rabbit Uncle Remus tale of the same name by Joel Chandler Harris of the old-meaning “seg” South. Problem is Soros has been a deep pocket moneybag for many of these erstwhile political leaders. Is this a case of pinning the tail on the proverbial donkey? We’ll see.

by Eli Lake, The New York Sun, March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — Leading Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, are distancing themselves from an essay published this week by one of their party’s leading financiers that called for the Democratic Party to “liberate” itself from the influence of the pro Israel lobby.

The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the
influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee


Yesterday, Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign issued a dissent from the Hungarian-born billionaire’ s assessment. “Mr. Soros isentitled to his opinions,” a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki,said. “But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. The U.S.and our allies are right to insist that Hamas — a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction — meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC isone of many voices that share this view.”

The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes, and the pro-Israel lobby, whose members are also active in campaign fund-raising. Pressed by The New York Sun, some Democrats aired their differences with Mr. Soros.

Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat of Florida who sent out an e-mail to Jewish supporters in his home state last week vouching for Mr. Obama’s pro-Israel bona fides, said he too rejected Mr. Soros’s comments. “Senator Obama says until the Palestinian government fulfills all three of the quartet requirements, the United States should not and would not recognize the Palestinian government. Senator Obama is clear, Mr. Soros appears to have a different position,” Mr. Wexler said. “I agree with Senator Obama and have felt that way for a long time.”

Mr. Wexler also took issue with Mr. Soros’s view that Aipac was a major reason why the Bush administration would not recognize the new Palestinian unity government. “I have never met him, he’s a very substantial figure in the country,” Mr. Wexler said of Mr. Soros. “I think his views are obviously the views of a prominent man. I respectfully disagree with him.”

A Democratic congressman from New York who has endorsed Senator Clinton, a Democrat from New York, yesterday was tougher in hisassessment of the new Soros article. “He is obviously very self absorbed. … I am trying to be kind, but he doesn’t leave anyroom for kindness,” Rep. Eliot Engel said in a phone interview Monday.

Regarding Mr. Soros’s claim that Aipac drives American foreign policy, Mr. Engel said, “It’s a myth and lie about Aipac’s supposed stranglehold on the Congress, it’s just nonsense. Hewent on to say, “I don’t think Mr. Soros will sway the Democratic Party one iota.”

Other prominent Democrats yesterday also differed with Mr. Soros. A vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Susan Turnbull, said in an phone interview, “My view is the problem here is George Bush, Mr. Soros has made that clear and at that point I agree with him. I am not going to say that the problem is Aipac. I don’t necessarily agree with him on that.”

She added, “There are a lot of reasons why we are in the state we are in. I don’t think that blaming it on one lobbying organization, which is one aspect of the Jewish community, is the be-all or end all to the problem. The problem is not with Aipac, but with President Bush.”

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, Amaya Smith,declined to comment.

At one point in his essay, in a section discussing how the pro Israel lobby “has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism,” Mr. Soros recalls the fate of Howard Dean’s campaign for the presidency. “When Howard Dean called for an evenhanded policy toward Israel in 2004, his chances of getting the nomination were badly damaged (although it was his attempt, after his defeat in Iowa, to shout above the crowd that sealed his fate),” Mr. Soros wrote. Dr. Dean is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The chairman of the Dean campaign, Steve Grossman, yesterday respectfully disagreed. “While Howard’s public statements about Israel certainly cost him support in the pro-Israel community, I believe his anti-war positions continued to attract a broad cross section of support from the Jewish community. No one that I know ascribes Howard’s defeat in 2004 to his public statements about Israel, even though I’ll acknowledge that he lost support among some pro-Israel activists as a result.”

Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and past president of Aipac, said he recognized and respected Mr. Soros’ commitment to “progressive American values,” and his “investment in political change in America.” But Mr. Grossman also said, “I reject out of hand Soros’s charges directed toward Aipac.”

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 8:59 am |

Who Needs Nukes

Who Needs Nukes

Why the U.S. and other Western powers need to modernize their arsenals.

by Bret Stephens, Global View, The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2007

comment by Jerry Gordon

Buried in this thought provoking Global View column by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal was this “shocker.”

“Would it hinder Islamist terrorists if the U.S.’s declared policy in the event of a nuclear 9/11 was the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Iranian religious center of Qom?”

My view is why wait for a nuclear 9/11 event from Iran’s terrorist President Ahmadinejad or al Qaeda to occur resulting in a total Holocaust of Israeli citizens-regardless of faith, and even fellow members of the Muslim ummah in the Middle East.

Israel could send a telling message to the Islamist perpetrators of such a nuclear terrorism ’scenario by issuing veiled comments and commands – if it hasn’t already done so- to its elite startegic air and naval ‘assets’ that could pre-target these revered Islamic targets for destruction as a means of deterring the ‘madmen’ from pulling the trigger.

I have written in postings on Israpundit of Israel’s small fleet of German made Dolphin class submarines that are purportedly equipped with cruise missiles with both conventional and nuclear warheads. Positioning such missile boats in the waters of the eastern Mediterranean and off the Straits of Hormuz could provide ‘cover’ to make this deterrent alluded to by Bret Stephens, credible.

Bret Stephens has articulated the ruminations of myself and others about what Israel should do to create a credible deterrent to rein in the irrational aspirations of Jihadis bent on destruction of Israel and the West. The problem is, that the Islamists are irrational and would as former Iranian President Rafsanjani – has been reported to have said several years ago- be willing to tolerate the deaths of millions of fellow Iranians and others in the Muslim ummah to achieve world dominion.

What was the title of the late Herman Kahn’s book on nuclear deterrence strategy in 1962: “Thinking About the Unthinkable.”

The problem with nuclear weapons today can be summed up as follows: They are going out of fashion where they are needed most and coming into fashion where they are needed least.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair eked out what is likely to be the last significant legislative victory of his government on Thursday when parliament approved funds, over the objections of 88 Labour MPs, to begin design work on the next generation of ballistic missile nuclear submarines. Whether the subs and their missiles will actually be built remains a question for a future parliament to answer.

At nearly the same time, the Bush administration awarded a contract to the Lawrence Livermore Lab to design something called the Reliable Replacement Warhead–basically a re-tinkered version of the previously tested but never-deployed W89 warhead–to replace the current mainstays of the U.S. arsenal, particularly the 100-kiloton W76. But with Democrats in control of Congress, the RRW will surely face funding hurdles of its own. The New York Times has already chimed in with an editorial denouncing RRW as a make-work scheme for nuclear scientists based on the supposedly bogus rationale of ” ‘aging’ warheads.”

Too bad the Times didn’t rely on its own fine reporting of the issue: “As warheads age,” noted the paper’s William J. Broad in a 2005 exposé, “the risk of internal rusting, material degradation, corrosion, decay and the embrittling of critical parts increases.” Too bad, too, that British anti-nuclear activists fail to consider the dire consequences for their collective poodledom should they relinquish their independent deterrent.

Still, these ironies are of small account and at least the left maintains its scruples. No similar scruples inhibit the nuclear ambitions of other nations. Russia is fielding a new land-based missile called the Topol-M and building a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines. The Chinese are upgrading their land- and sea-based nuclear forces with multiple warheads and solid-fuel propulsion technology. Pakistan last month successfully tested its Shaheen-II ballistic missile, capable of lifting a nuclear payload to a range of 1,250 miles. Iran is reportedly within months of developing an industrial-scale uranium enrichment capacity of about 3,000 centrifuges, which in turn puts it on track to acquire a bomb’s worth of fissile uranium by the end of 2008. The progress of North Korean arms is well known.

Why are the world’s responsible powers in such doubt about the necessity of nuclear deterrence when the irresponsible are seeking as never before to enlarge or improve their store of weapons? One answer was offered in these pages in January by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who noted that the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty committed non-nuclear powers not to develop weapons in exchange for a promise by the nuclear powers to “reduce and eventually abolish their arsenals.” “If this reciprocity is not observed,” he wrote, “then the entire structure of the treaty will collapse.”

As a matter of rhetoric, Mr. Gorbachev is surely right, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be clever to press the point when he makes an appearance before the U.N. Security Council later this month. As a matter of reality, the argument is wrong on facts and dangerously solipsistic: Messrs. Kim and Ahmadinejad have better reasons to seek nuclear weapons than pique at American (or British) “hypocrisy.” As it is, both Russia and the U.S. have reduced their arsenals from Cold War peaks by as much as 80%–much of the reduction being achieved by the current administration–yet that has done little to incentivize rogue actors not to seek their own weapons of mass destruction.

A more serious objection to the American and British modernization plans is that they offer no realistic security against terrorism. Suppose al Qaeda detonates a nuclear bomb in Times Square. Suppose that the weapon was stolen from an old Soviet depot, meaning no “return address” for purposes of retaliation. Suppose, also, that al Qaeda threatens to detonate five other bombs if the U.S. does not meet a list of its demands. What use would deterrence be then? Against whom would we retaliate, and where?

This scenario does not invalidate the need for a nuclear deterrent: There would still be conventional opponents to deter, and it’s odd that the people who tell us we can “contain” a nuclear Iran are often the same ones who insist we can forgo the means of containment. But the question of what to do after a nuclear 9/11 is something to which not enough thought has been given. We urgently need a nuclear doctrine–and the weapons to go with it–for the terrorist age. The RRW, which simply prolongs a Cold War nuclear posture through the year 2050, amounts to a partial solution at best.

What would a sensible deterrence strategy look like? “Even nihilists have something they hold dear that can be threatened with deterrence,” says Max Singer, a collaborator of the great Cold War theorist Herman Kahn. “You need to know what it is, communicate it and be serious about it.”

Would it hinder Islamist terrorists if the U.S.’s declared policy in the event of a nuclear 9/11 was the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Iranian religious center of Qom? Would our deterrent be more or less effective if we deployed a range of weapons, such as the maligned “bunker buster,” the use of which a potential adversary might think us capable? How would the deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile shield alter the composition of a credible deterrent? Does it make sense to adhere to the NPT regime when that regime is clearly broken?

One needn’t have answers to these questions to know it requires something more than pat moralizing about the terribleness of nuclear weapons or declaring the whole matter “unthinkable.” Nothing is unthinkable. But whether the unthinkable remains the undoable depends entirely on our willingness to think clearly about it, and to act on our conclusions.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays

Universal Health Care: An idea who’s time should never come


Universal Health Care: An idea who’s time should never come

by Robert E. Meyer


Now that the Democrats have majorities in both houses of congress, and seem poised to make a run at the presidency in ’08, the idea of universal health care is again gaining ascendancy. Another tentacle of this abominable socialist leviathan is rearing itself from the abyss.

The idea of health care paid for by the government for everyone seems appealing, but the drawbacks of such a program make its establishment an albatross.

In the 1950’s physicians made a good living, yet the average person good afford a house call.

What are the main contributors to the escalating cost of health care? There are probably several factors, but two of the main contributors are excessive government entanglement in underwriting the cost of health care, and the costs related to perpetual litigation for malpractice.

Think of it this way: If you are not paying for health care, how sick will you need to be before you will go see a doctor? That invites abuse of the system. If you are a provider, how much will you charge if you know you will be paid whatever you charge? That is a ticket to greater cost and inefficiency. If your profits are limited by mandatory price caps, how long will you continue to provide the highest quality of service? That is the pathway to diminished quality of service.

What is the single best way to reduce health care costs? Preventative maintenance–and almost all of us have the capacity to do something about that. Do you eat large quantities of junk food? Do you fail to exercise and watch your weigh? Are you a smoker or an excessive user of alcohol? If you answered yes to any of these questions, it is alright–this is America–you have a freedom of choice. But if you answered yes, please don’t ask me to subsidize your bad habits via a system that seeks to economically equalize those who are health conscious with who are indifferent.

Universal health care will make care worse for almost everybody. Why should your company continue to pay for an excellent health care plan for retirees or current employees when the government does it for free? A company program that you liked could be replaced with a less personal and friendly system. The doctors you knew and trusted could be replaced overnight, disrupting your continuity of health care and treatment. Wage earners will see the value of their negotiated labor contracts fall in value with universal coverage, because part of the fringe benefits built into your total compensation paid for a superior health care plan.

In places like Canada where socialized medicine already exists, people wait a long time for what we consider routine operations and procedures. They may die waiting for their turn to get the treatment they need, which might more easily be procured in a country with free market health care. Canadians living near the border of the U.S. come here for operations they can’t get in a timely manner in their own country.

Of course the obvious impetus for universal health care is to protect the poor person who has a catastrophic medical crisis. But don’t we have plans such as medicaid, and state medical assistance programs to pay for medical care for people who are destitute? This is an area where religious organizations and charities should flex their altruistic muscle. The desire to aid the poverty striken should not be yoked to a “one size fits all” tunnel vision mentality.

Middle class individuals might benefit from health savings accounts that reduce expenses by using low premium catastrophic coverage, combined with a savings account that pays nominal and moderate health care expenses. I believe that we could allow tax credits for money put into these plans, since they offset the costs that would otherwise be paid by the government in a universal system.

One idea which I find fascinating is the “shared liability co-op’s.” One such Christian organization that administers this type of program is known as Medi-Share. For a monthy fee far lower than traditional health care, and an agreement not to engage in certain destructive life-styles, Christians are able to procure funds from a pool of contributers to pay for unaffordable health care expenses. Why couldn’t other ideologicaly like-minded groups do the same thing? This is a great way to keep the government out of the business of coercing charity from its citizens.

Social justice is not the eternal dispensing of benefit rights. Compassion is not the act of stealing from some to acquire the political pratronage of the masses. Ultimately, we have to ask where the government gets the constitutional authority to foist this type of system on its citizens, much less, force them to pay for it.

Cutting the cancer out

Cutting the cancer outBy Marylou Barry

World Net

Ever since today’s free world first crossed swords with regenerated Islamic imperialism, the word cancer has been a predictable metaphor in the lexicons of many pundits. We can’t ignore it and we can’t argue with it, they say; we’ve got to cut the cancer out. Comparisons began in earnest on the heels of the 9-11 attacks. On Sept. 26, 2001, New York Rabbi Ben Tzion Krasnianski wrote: “Terrorism is like a cancer, and you never make peace with cancer. Certain battles you don’t have the luxury to grow tired of. Terrorism is a malignant tumor, and you don’t make peace with a tumor. If you play nice with cancer, it will kill you. Show mercy to a tumor and it will metastasize and mercilessly kill you and kill itself in the process. The only merciful thing to do is to eradicate, destroy and pulverize the tumor into oblivion.” Yet five and a half years after the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our government still maintains open borders, funds terror-supporting entities with our tax dollars, misinterprets clear acts of domestic terror as isolated incidents, welcomes continued immigration from the culture that brought us so much death and suffering, and sends U.S. border guards to prison for having the impudence to do their jobs. As we hung on every word of our president’s emotional address following those attacks, did any of us imagine that such inertia would ever again prevail? What has changed in these past five years to enable so many once-enraged Americans to blithely hit the snooze button and fall back asleep? In 2006, I underwent surgery for cancer – the literal kind, not the metaphoric. I was blessed with uncommonly talented doctors and technologies that a few generations ago could only have been dreamed of. The cancer in question was a slow-growing, garden variety with a high cure rate, and it was caught – thank God – very early. I am healthier than you are now, so don’t send me any get-well cards. However, heading into the O.R. that day I had some very specific expectations. My wonderful doctors agreed with them completely and did not let me down.

  1. I wanted a medical team that knew what it was doing. I wanted a surgeon who was smart, had received the best training, and had been performing this type of surgery for a substantial length of time. My life was important to me, and I wouldn’t have entrusted it to foreign oil princes, hack politicians looking for votes, liberals infected with political correctness or, worst of all, the United Nations. None of them lived in my body, and had I died because of malpractice it wouldn’t have been any skin off their respective noses.
  2. I wanted my surgeons to remove the entire area, both the malignancy itself and any tissue close enough to be contaminated. History has shown what cancer does if left unchecked, and I wasn’t going to wait until its spread was imminent just to be fair. I didn’t want them to appease it, negotiate with it or try to make its removal more acceptable to the European Union. My life was at stake. Had any doctor suggested I was intolerant or my response disproportionate, I would have climbed right over those steel railings and hurled him down the hall.
  3. I wanted competent aftercare, not just glib reassurance that the job had been done and I could go home. I wanted the enemy defeated, not just injured or temporarily contained so someone else could deal with it another time. And I wanted ongoing vigilance, so that any reinforcements that found their way back in could be destroyed before they could mount another offensive.
  4. If I needed radiation therapy, I wanted it given to me, not, as one writer satirically suggested, to 10 random people just to ensure that no profiling would occur. I still cringe when I think of what I had been carrying around and my utter helplessness to do anything about it. I wanted that sucker profiled, all right, so hard that it would never, EVER think of invading this body again.
  5. If the surgery proved futile because the cancer had already spread, I at least wanted my family to know I had taken every possible measure to spare them that outcome. So I reported the symptoms promptly, sought the most competent care throughout and followed the advice of those who truly wanted me to live. And I prayed.

“Islam isn’t in
America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant,” Council on American-Islamic Relations co-founder Omar Ahmad said in 1998. “The Quran should be the highest authority in
America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” What part of his statement are we still not grasping, and why? Islamic imperialism, like cancer, takes no prisoners. It is programmed to conquer by force all those who do not surrender, regardless of their worldview, religious philosophy or party affiliation. It cannot revise its murderous goal because that goal is foundational to its nature; that is what it does. Cancer patients who have chosen to peacefully co-exist with their symptoms for any length of time all have one thing in common. They are all dead. Oncologists understand this. That’s why they don’t minimize a malignancy’s threat or wait for it to change its mind and go away. They just cut it out and get rid of it so a human life can be saved.Doesn’t our country – and the world – deserve the same?


Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.
To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

American Congress for Truth (ACT) , P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456