Inspiring the American Voter – The Fred Thompson Factor

Inspiring the American Voter – The Fred Thompson Factor
By JB Williams | Published  Today | Politics | Unrated

JB Williams

As an entrepreneur, I understand and appreciate all of the economic opportunities America provides for each of us, and the responsibility that comes with them. As a dirt road scholar with a degree in BS from the school of hard knocks, formal education seems a poor substitute for common sense, something that ain’t so common anymore in America. As a lifelong student of American History, Philosophy and Political Science, I know how our country was founded, who founded it, and what they had in mind. I also realize that we’ve made a mess of it.America has always been the most loved, and the most hated country on earth, both the most respected and the most feared, and that’s how it must remain.

More, http://www.jb-williams.com/

 

View all articles by JB Williams

Continued …

When 50% of the voting population no longer bothers to vote at all and the other 50% wish they could find someone who truly deserves their vote for the first time in their lives, what’s your next trick?

The answer seems to be, draft Fred Thompson… I’ll get to why in a minute.

If you ask the 50% who quit voting years ago why they quit voting, they will be fast to tell you that their vote doesn’t matter because all modern politicians, no matter what political party they attach themselves to or what principles and policies they claim to hold dear, none of them ever do what they say after the election. In fact, most do the exact opposite after elected… It’s the only thing in Washington that isn’t a partisan matter.

When you begin talking with the politically engaged 50%, you fast find that they are divided 50/50 between Republican and Democrat and both vote for the lesser of recognized evils in every election. Those still holding on to American principles vote (R) and those who prefer more European ways, vote (D).

But if you step off of the merry-go-round of insane American politics, sit back for a wide angle glimpse at the insanity, take a deep breathe and listen to the white noise of modern day electioneering – you begin to wonder why anyone bothers to vote. Based on the “who” we have to choose from, “what” are we voting for? Fact is, we aren’t voting for anyone, but against the others…

It’s been said by many including me, that America is experiencing a nationwide epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder. Not so much when it comes to keeping up with American Idol, but when keeping focused upon the constitutional duty to self-govern.

But in watching the Fred Thompson phenomenon develop, I am coming to a different opinion, one that might explain the clear political apathy of the average American voter and the current Fred Thompson fever all in one shot.

The problem may not be a general lack of interest in the future of our nation, or even a general lack of attention span for the task of self-governance. The problem is looking more like a nationwide state of extreme political boredom. A case of a nation bored into a trance, or a deep slumber by a nauseatingly boring group of over-stuffed politically correct and morally bankrupt blowhards saying nothing, constantly singing the same old tune the same old way with the same old results, election after election, while things continue to get worse no matter which we elect.

Eventually, it all just blurs together to make one big boring indistinguishable white noise and nobody is listening anymore. Why should they? Nobody’s saying anything.

In short, it appears that the electorate is simply not inspired by any of the common career politicos who have been systematically ripping the people off for decades, boring them to a near suicidal state of trance, then picking their pockets clean while claiming it’s all for the greater common good. The nation has been stuck in political yawnsville for so long that nothing short of a cataclysmic event can wake it up.

As a conservative, even I can’t stand to hear another Republican candidate read from cue cards written forty years ago as if it were some brilliant new revelation that Democrats love higher taxes, bigger government and full control over their always faithful proletariat class in search of more gifts from the treasury.

Likewise, I’m sure the average old Democrat is equally sick and tired of hearing their new socialist candidates regurgitate the sixty year old medley of pro-Marx anti-American capitalist pig hating tunes from their bunch of career losers seeking the early retirement get rich quick scheme of elected office.

Collectively, the nation seems sick and tired of all of them and no matter the party affiliation, only a Washington outsider who is not a career politician can capture the imagination of the average American voter and inspire them to self-greatness through good old fashioned self-governance.

Only someone truly different can make a real difference – seems to be the bottom line here.

And that my friends, is what people like about former two term, then back to the real world, plain spoken Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. I mean aside from the fact the he is a professionally trained orator capable of completing a sentence using only his own thoughts and no old cue cards from any political party campaign guru.

Yes, he’s a Republican. But so is every other American who still likes America today. You have to hate America and all its founding principles to be a Democrat, so of course he’s a Republican, like most, by default.

But he is no RNC/GOP golden boy, beholden to party powers and that’s why the RNC is more afraid of him than the DNC, who hopes to pass a bill making it illegal for Law and Order employees to run for political office as soon as possible. The last thing Democrats want to see is a TV debate between prosecutor Fred and Mrs. Bill Clinton, or worse yet, the freshman kid from Illinois with no resume at all.

Fred Thompson is still trying to find a nice way out of running for the most thankless under-paid job in America. His problem is, when stacked along side of the other few dozen presidential wannabes seeking their turn at the political brass ring, he begins to look like the only presidential figure in the lot real fast. He’s the only one smart enough to not really want the job!

But the nation can’t stand to endure another fraudulent presidential white noise debate where all the questions are limited to the answers some speech writer prepared ahead of time. We are the Reality TV, I’ll Google it myself generation. We need to see real people taking real questions and giving real answers without any concern for political correctness, to be inspired today.

For heavens sake, half the nation gets their news from comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart just because they are the only politically engaged people on TV willing to say whatever they really think. Fairly balanced FOX is first, then the comedians. Only those in serious need of a power nap, tune into the MSM white noise channels today.

Fred Thompson stands out in the crowd like a real live candidate with a mind of his own, even when trying not to slip up and accidentally agree to run for president. And as long as he retains his traditional irreverence for Washington nonsense, he will continue to be popular among voters who can very much relate to that uncommonly outspoken irreverence.

And that’s why folks all over this nation are sitting on their wallets waiting to see if Fred will answer the people’s call before committing a penny to the ’08 political circus already center stage and raging out of control, a year before the primaries are even supposed to begin.

Mrs. Bill Clinton was supposed to be a lock for the DNC nomination. Then all of a sudden, this kid from Illinois with no experience at anything worth noting comes along and matches her allegedly unmatchable fund raising prowess and all bets are off.

The people’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani was the clear favorite to take the RNC nomination as thanks for his leadership in New York after 9/11. Then out of nowhere, conservatives started thinking out loud, “Hey, what if we run a conservative Republican for a change? What about Fred Thompson?” and the Mayor has been in a tailspin ever since.

Republican talk show hosts and RNC leaders alike, who spent much of the first quarter pimping their favorite liberal Republican buddies, are now shaking off the shock that listeners aren’t following and they are starting to look for ways to claim Fred was all their idea from the start. If Fred keeps climbing in the polls without even entering the race, he might sit it out until he’s in the lead before even announcing he’s in the race. Why wouldn’t he?

Both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out a way to derail the campaign that seems to have a full head of steam, despite the fact that the campaign doesn’t even really exist. It’s like watching Abbott and Costello goes to Washington. No matter how it turns out, it sure is entertaining reality TV.

The experts say that Fred is too late already, a year before the primaries, if you can imagine. He can’t catch up with those already out in front on the campaign fund raising trail. Are they not paying any attention at all to what is happening here?

The current fund raising leaders are Clinton, Obama and Romney, all at about $25 million each for the first quarter. How many true conservatives would it take to put $25 million into Fred’s campaign in very average Republican $200 contributions?

It’s easier than they think. 125,000 conservatives can catch Fred up at $200 a man in short order and I think many are sitting on their wallets waiting to do just that. The RNC thinks so too, since their fund raising is notably off the mark. Only time will tell though… Stay tuned.

I like Fred and if he agrees to run and will agree to not share a penny given to him for that purpose with any other political entity, I’m sure he’ll have no trouble out-raising every other contender, even if he waits another three or six months to formally enter the race. Keep in mind – while the others are already raising funds, they are also spending funds, mostly to compete against a man who has not even agreed to enter the race yet… Ain’t that a hoot?

Fred can raise the money. But more importantly, he seems able to inspire voters who are desperate for an inspired candidate unlike all the others. He might also get people to the polls that have not been to the polls in a very long time. And that’s why Fred alone is inspiring the imagination without even being in the race.

Now that’s a real “peoples” candidate…. And this is about to get really interesting

U.S. military develops Robocop armour for soldiers

U.S. military develops Robocop armour for soldiers

By MATTHEW HICKLEY, Defence Correspondent – More by this author » Last updated at 12:51pm on 10th April 2007 We may have seen it all before in science-fiction films. But the bionic warrior is in fact a vision of real-life warfare in the 21st century. U.S. defence chiefs hope to have their troops kitted out in the outlandish combat gear as soon as 2020.Included in the Pentagon’s Future Warrior Concept are a powerful exoskeleton, a self-camouflaging outer layer that adapts to changing environments and a helmet which translates a soldier’s voice into any foreign language.

Scroll down for more…

The robo-warriorArmour-clad and armed to the teeth, this is the soldier of the (near) future

Enlarge the image

The future soldier will also benefit from ‘intelligent’ armour, which remains light and flexible until it senses an approaching bullet, then tenses to become bulletproof.

Perhaps worryingly, several of the planned enhancements seem to owe more than a little to Hollywood blockbusters such as Robocop, Aliens and Predator.

But officials are quick to point out that many of these systems are already working in prototype form, or are refinements of proven technologies.

Some of the blueprints will be unworkable without eagerly awaited advances in nanotechnology, but researchers remain confident. And perhaps with good reason.

The sheer scale of U.S. military research spending and the pace of recent advances in aircraft stealth technology and guided precision bombs are staggering.

Project specialist Jean-Louis DeGay, a former captain in 75th Ranger Regiment, said: “We’re already trialling equipment and technologies that did not exist a few years ago.

“The air force has just debuted its new stun gun and five years after the concept of an exoskeleton was first discussed, we have fully functioning prototypes.”

He told Soldier magazine: “Five years ago, nobody thought we’d have a portable hydrogen fuel cell, but we’ve got them now.

“They’re functioning, and we’re just trying to make them smaller. And if I’m honest, nothing speeds up the development of technology like war.”

If the U.S. military’s vision of the future is even half-right, Britain’s armed forces will have their work cut out trying to keep up.

Even comparatively understated attempts to improve our troops’ battlefield technology, such as the Bowman digital battlefield radio system, have been blighted by years of delays and embarrassing technical blunders.

Can the United States deter a nuclear terrorist attack?

Another city defying federal immigration laws

Good Boy

Good Boy

We showed weakness and will pay the price

We showed weakness and will pay the price

By Patrick Mercer

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 08/04/2007

 Have your say      Read comments

Shiny new suits, goody bags, handshakes from a head of state and smiles (almost) all round.

Horseplay between young Brits completed what might have been the end of a package tour as the 15 sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall were returned by the grace and favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was the perfect media coup for the Iranians until the almost simultaneous slaughter of four of our soldiers (two of them women) and a local interpreter burst onto our screens. The blood-spattered helmets and effects of our troops made a horrid contrast with the homecoming of our sailors.

During the Iran statement in the House of Commons last week I seemed to be the only person asking about the fate of our soldiers rather than our sailors. While the world’s media has been grabbed by the mercifully bloodless crisis of our sailors, our troops have had to face increasingly lethal attacks from Iranian-provided weapons in southern Iraq that have left many dead.

advertisement

Thursday’s attack was just the latest improvised explosive device that, doubtless, has come across the border from Iran. Military commanders and diplomats have been protesting for at least three years now about what one serving military officer said to me was an “undeclared war with Iran”. Yet the fiasco of the last two weeks grabs the public’s imagination much more readily.

Three years ago a similar party of marines and sailors were seized in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway by Iranian gunboats. Their treatment was reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam wars, with blindfolded prisoners being paraded for the world’s media and statements being made by the captives. The prisoners were treated inhumanely, there was an outcry, and Iran quickly learnt to manipulate the press at our expense. So, if Iran could learn why couldn’t we?

Last weekend there was a deeply disturbing letter in one of the national papers. It came from the wife of a recently retired Royal Navy rating who had served in many boarding operations off Iraq in just the circumstances in which HMS Cornwall’s people were seized. The letter concluded, “the Armed Forces spend lots of time and money training our service personnel how to do their job correctly in non-threatening circumstances but then, at a time when we are involved in a war, they receive no training to equip them for this sort of scenario”. Can this be correct, and if so what will the Royal Navy inquiry conclude about continuing operations in these disputed waters?

For general war, Army, Navy and RAF personnel are all told that if captured they must reveal nothing but name, rank, serial number and date of birth. As an infantry soldier, this was dinned into me at least twice a year, and I know it was the same in the other services whose people were more liable to capture. But this isn’t general war and how are our personnel expected to behave when they are “arrested” rather than “captured” by a nation with whom we are not at war?

Clearly, the captured boarding party was put under psychological pressure and there were some who were intensely unhappy with being seen to cooperate with their captors. Faye Turney and one of the marines referred to HMS Cornwall as “Foxtrot 99″ – something that no sailor would do – sending a clear message that their “confessions” were scripted by the Iranians. Similarly, two of the party were clearly truculent and very uneasy in the final propaganda footage before they left Iran. But the overriding impression is one of intense embarrassment for this country.

The Iranians made it clear more than three weeks ago that they were looking to capture “blond-haired and blue-eyed officers”. We had been through all of this three years ago and still it happened again, provoking Israeli papers to headline: “Iran shows up Britain’s weakness”; Saudi Arabian papers to say “the whole incident has become a triumph for the Iranians”, and for most American papers to condemn us roundly.

While this incident has been dealt with bloodlessly, we must still face the frequent deaths and injuries of our troops in Iraq, directly or indirectly, at Iranian hands. The soft diplomacy of the naval incident will mean that any detente by the Government towards Iran will cause the world to say that Britain owes the Iranians for the release of our captives.

Militarily, there is no practical solution to Iran’s nuclear programme nor its support for international terrorism. Anyone who doubts Iran’s intent must look beyond the smiles of the last few days at the bodies of the young men and women who will be returning, slain, from southern Iraq. This is the reality of a dangerous, unstable and unpredictable government, where power is divided between the clerical and secular parts of their society.

I doubt that Iran will swerve from her determination to build nuclear weapons or her declared intent to destroy Israel. While the maelstrom of Iraq continues with the US committing more troops yet Britain seeking to withdraw hers, so a power vacuum is bound to develop. As early as 2005, Blair’s Government showed its hand in terms of wanting to withdraw our forces from Iraq, and there seems little doubt that President Bush has similarly decided the game is up. Teetering on the edge of this is ambitious, dangerous and mendacious Iran.

I was awestruck on my last visit to the Iran-Iraq border to see just how much remained of their great war with each other in the 1980s. Burnt out tanks, half destroyed gun positions and the blackened trappings of battle lay everywhere, along with the graves of a generation of young men. We must have no doubt about the intentions of a country that was prepared to face such sacrifices and which, if anything, has become more unstable. Weakness in the face of such a threat will only be exploited and we must never put ourselves in the position again where we allow our servicemen and women to be used as pawns.

  • Patrick Mercer is Conservative MP for Newark and a former Army colonel.
  • Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women

    Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women

    By James Arlandson

    Islam in its purest form honors and elevates women, we are often told. But does it?

    All too often, textual reality (the Quran) matches up with the historical reality of seventh—century Arabia. Gender inequality and oppression in the Quran reflect the culture of seventh century desert nomads. If Allah and Muhammad improved on this patriarchy, then they did not go far enough for a religion with a claim to universality.

    Here are the top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women.

    10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

    The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

    Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

    We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that ‘a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.’

    The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). The hadith come only second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world. Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363—3365.  See these parallel hadith here and here.

    We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.

    . . . ‘If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.’ (Bukhari)

    Here is a back—up article, and another is here

    9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.

    The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

    . . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

    Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

    The Prophet said, ‘I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.’  (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here  and here)

    This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness. See this article for details on women in Islamic hell.

    Muhammad was also superstitious (see here and here for the evidence).This hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.

    I heard the Prophet saying. ‘Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.’ (Bukhari)

    More detail can be found here. This article also supports this ninth point.

    8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

    The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

    The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

    For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see hadith herehere  and here.

    Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al—Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:

    The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara’id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.

    This Islamic law is regressive. In the US, for example, inheritance is divided equally among all siblings, regardless of the gender. No religious law prohibits this from happening. So American secular law fits into a modern context better, where women have more economic opportunities and freedom. This online booklet  has a short explanation on women’s inheritance ‘rights.’ Click on Chapter 15.

    More information can be found here and here.

    7. A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

    The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

    And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

    The foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may ‘forget’ something. This verse goes to the nature of womankind, and implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

    This hadith removes any ambiguity about women’s abilities in Sura 2:282:

    The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.‘ (Bukhari, emphasis added)

    More information can be found here and here.

    6. A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.

    The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

    And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)

    The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why have the intervening step of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?

    To see this tragedy in real life, go to this question and answer feature at a traditional Muslim fatwa website. Apparently, a Muslim husband pronounced divorce three times, the divorce is final, and now he regrets his decision made in haste and anger. The cleric or scholar says that they are allowed to reconcile only if she follows the Quranic steps of her marrying someone else, consummating that marriage, and then his divorcing her. As for divorce generally,

    This article analyzes the ethics behind Quranic divorce procedures and contrasts them with the New Testament. This very short article at a Muslim website shows concern for the divorce rate in Islam. This short page at a Muslim website explains divorce. This short article at a Muslim website also gives an overview on divorce, under the larger section  on women.

    This news report says that problems emerge in the modern world during the Islamic divorce proceedings. This news report  says that Malaysia permits ‘text messaging’ divorce. At this Muslim website an Islamic scholar answers  the question of a Muslim who wrote in about divorce. Here is a fatwa (legal decree) on divorce from a Muslim website.

    These links can yield only one conclusion: Islamic divorce favors the man.

    More detail can be found here. This article replies to a Muslim polemicist. It analyzes the differences between Christianity and Islam on divorce.

    5. Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.

    The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

    And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

    Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No marriage should take place between prisoners of war and their captives, married or not. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. 

    Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so. For more information on this Quran—inspired immorality, see this short article. See also Suras 4:3; 23:5—6; 33:50; 70:22—30, all of which permit male slave—owners to have sex with their slave—girls. Suras 23:5—6 and 70:22—230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars in Medina.

    The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one—fifth of the spoils of war.

    Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law, had just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

    The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [of the booty] and . . . Ali had taken a bath [after a sexual act with a slave—girl from the Khumus].

    What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

    Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more that that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

    This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave—girls.

    Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists ‘received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.’ They asked the Prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invoked the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:

    It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; also go here and here)

    That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

    It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

    This article  quotes the Quran and many hadith passages on sex with prisoners of war. It also analyzes modern Islamic scholars on the topic. They support this practice. In Appendix One, the author answers a Muslim charge that the Old Testament allows this practice. This article provides further details on Muhammad’s encouragement to his soldiers to ‘just do it.’ In addition to the two previous links, more information can be found here and here.

    4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

    The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

    And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

    The clause ‘marry those who have fallen in your possession’ means slave—girls who were captured after a war. Men may ‘marry’ them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave—girls as they wanted.

    Maududi paraphrases the verse: ‘If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities’ (note 6) (See Sura 4:24).
    However, Muhammad would not allow polygamy for his son—in—law Ali, because an extra wife would hurt Muhammad’s first daughter Fatima, by his first wife Khadija. Fatima was married to Ali.

    I heard Allah’s Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, ‘Banu Hisham bin Al—Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don’t give permission, and will not give permission unless ‘Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me.’ (Bukhari)

    Muhammad’s special marriage privileges

    Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre—Islamic days of ignorance.

    The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:

    O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave—girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers . . . . (Maududi vol. 4, p. 111, emphasis added).

    This verse says that besides those women whose dowery Muhammad paid, he may marry slave—girls—that is, he may have sex with them (see this article and this one for more information on this Quran—inspired immorality). Maududi references three slave—girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

    This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave—girls.

    But the capstone of these ‘special’ marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex—wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son—in—law divorced her with the Prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter—in—law in a state of undress, so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah conveniently reveals to him that this marriage between father—in—law and daughter—in—law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36—44.

    This hadith says that Muhammad used to visit nine (or eleven) wives in one night. See the parallel hadith here, here, and here. This article explains why Christians do not accept polygamy. This page  in an online index explains polygamy. For a more thorough analysis of polygamy in the Quran, go to this online booklet and click on Chapter 12.

    See this article on the number of wives and human sexual property Muhammad allowed himself.  Here  is yet another article. At the end, it links to more articles on the marriage and divorce of Zainab and Muhammad.

    3. A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

    The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

    It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)

    Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383—84, note 161). He writes:

    Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill—natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.

    This means that wives are the source of a man’s inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super—human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

    Maududi continues:

    In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

    Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no—longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

    More detail can be found here. This article (see ‘the unpleasant truth behind divorce in Sura 4:130′) demonstrates that Muhammad wanted to divorce one of his wives because she was overweight and old. Instead of a divorce, she gave up her turn’in the ‘rotation’with the Prophet, who gladly agreed with her proposal. See these three hadith here, here and here

    2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

    The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

    4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

    The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

    Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’ (Bukhari, emphasis added)

    This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right—hand Companion:

    ‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’ (Muslim no. 2127)

    See this article for fuller details on wife—beating. It clarifies many translations of the verse. At the end, it has many links to modern interpretations of Sura 4:34 and to arguments for wife—beating today. This article is a shorter version. This article,  though long, offers a clear analysis of wife—beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics.

    This mid—length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of Sura 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics.

    1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

    The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

    65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

    Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:

    Therefore, making mention of the waiting—period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

    Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran—believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

    This is precisely what happened in Iran after the religious revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. A girl’s marriage age was lowered to nine years.

    Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

    The hadith says:

    . . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari ; since this is a serious issue, see the parallel hadith hereherehere, herehere, herehere,  and here)

    This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.

    The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said ‘But I am your brother.’ The Prophet said, ‘You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.’ (Bukhari; see this hadith that shows Muhammad’s dream life in regards to his pursuit of little Aisha, and this one and this one)

    This hadith recounts the fifty—plus—year—old Muhammad’s and the nine—year—old Aisha’s first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.

    . . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)

    This hadith describes Muhammad counseling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.

    When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, ‘What type of lady have you married?’ I replied, ‘I have married a matron.’ He said, ‘Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?’ Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’  (Bukhari) See parallel hadith here and here.

    This hadith describes Muhammad’s and Aisha’s ill—timed sexual encounters:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bukhari)

    For more evidence on this most outlandish of Muhammad’s domestic acts even for seventh—century Arabia, readers should refer to this article. This article  responds to Muslim defenses of this indefensible Quranic permission. This summary of a news reports reveals Pakistan lowering the marriage age to twelve for a girl.

    Conclusion

    The nightmare must end for women in Islamic countries.

    But the political and legal hierarchies in the Islamic world do not seem ready to reform on women’s rights. Here is a 1998 interview with Shirin Ebadi, one of the first female judges in Iran. She correctly sees abuses in Iranian law, which favors men. However, what has been done about these abuses?

    Zohreh Arshadi ‘was a practising lawyer in Iran prior to her forced exile to Europe. She is currently an advocate in France and is active in human rights and especially of the rights of women. She has been especially active in defence of the rights of women in Iran.’ She reports  on the inequities in Iranian law as it pertains to women:

    The Islamic punishments have encouraged a culture of violence against women, especially within the family and has spilled into violence against children. This has been commented upon by many within the country . . . The fact that men receive a lighter punishment if they commit a violence against women undoubtedly encourages such violence. We saw how women could be killed with impunity during alleged adultery. Stoning to death for adultery, although technically admissible for both sexes, has also been carried out mainly against women. 

    Though these two examples come from Iran, they could multiply throughout the Islamic world. However, the legal hierarchies understand the cost of reform: abandoning many verses in the Quran and many passages in the hadith, and this they cannot do.

    A sign of hope? The Iraqi Constitution, so far, says that 25% of the seats in the Parliament are specified for women. So maybe reform can be strongly encouraged in a fledgling democracy.

    But if Islamic nations, especially those who follow sharia (Islamic law) closely, refuse to reform, then the second best strategy must be played out. Islam must never be allowed to impose its sharia system of ‘justice’ anywhere in the West and around the world. No sharia courts should be permitted outside of the Islamic world. The Quran—the ultimate source of sharia—oppresses women and people generally.

    The Islamic holy book is too patriarchal and culture—bound to be relevant to the new millennium.

    James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

    Supplemental Material

    Readers may go to these three sites for other translations of the Quran: this one  has multiple translations; this one  has three; and this conservative translation  is subsidized by the Saudi royal family.

    Here is the website for the online hadith.

    A good online resource for the historical context of a sura is here,  where Maududi provides excellent background material.

    If readers would like to see many links to women’s issues, they should go to this article and scroll down to the end. It has modern views in the Islamic world on wife—beating. This webpage  has a number of links to women’s issues, as well. This is a superb overview of the Quran and hadith on women’s inferior status in Islam. This online booklet  explores the differing ideas in Islam and Christianity on the place of women.

    This short article reviews Jesus’ attitude towards women. This short chapter  has an excellent overview on the differences between Islam and Christianity and women’s role in each.

    Who’s Next to Host ABC’s The View — David Duke?

    Who’s Next to Host ABC’s The View — David Duke?

    By Steven Zak

    Deniers of 9/11 and of the Holocaust are two of a kind. It is a given that television networks put profits above pride, but ABC has reached a new low in its sponsorship of Rosie O’Donnell. The daytime talk show host recently joined the world of “truthers” –people who believe that 9/11 was an attack staged by this country’s own government. 

    On ABC’s popular The View, O’Donnell lent her expert opinion that it is impossible for the World Trade Center’s building 7 “to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved.” To say otherwise, she added, “is beyond ignorant.” (When she isn’t offering instruction on the fine points of structural engineering, O’Donnell entertains by hanging upside-down from a rope.)
    If this all sounds like the howling of a rabid dog, O’Donnell isn’t alone in the kennel. A recent poll from the Scripps Research Center found that more than a third of Americans believe that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Those who actively promote the idea, though, are more than mere laughable loons. They bear resemblance to another particularly virulent conspiracy nut — the Holocaust denier.
    It may be coincidence that O’Donnell’s 9/11 denial has manifested itself in such close proximity to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “Holocaust conference” of last December, but she sounds a lot like many of its participants.
    Both profess interest in the pursuit of truth.
    Mahammad Ali Ramini, advisor to Ahmadinejad, announced that he would chair a committee to find “the truth on the genocide of Jews.”

    O’Donnell says that she is merely “trying, as always, for a rigorous truth.”

    And both profess total objectivity in that pursuit.
    Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made an offer to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to send “independent investigators” to visit former Nazi death camps – people “who are not sympathetic” to the Nazis nor “to the Zionist regime.”

    “I have begun doing exactly what this country, at its best, allows for me to do,” wrote O’Donnell on her blog. “Inquire. Investigate.”

    Yet for both, “truth” precedes “investigation.”
    The Holocaust, Ahmadinejad said at the start of the “conference,” is a “myth.”

    The terrorist attack of 9/11, said O’Donnell at the mere outset of her “inquiry,” “is impossible.”

    Both make shameless use of fabricated math and science.
    “The number of victims at the Auschwitz concentration camp,” said Australian Holocaust denier Frederick Toben, “could be about 2,007. The railroad to the camp did not have enough capacity to transfer large numbers of Jews.”

    “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel,” said O’Donnell. “It is physically impossible.”

    And both cite “studies” or “experts” without actually citing any studies or experts.
    “All the studies and research carried out so far have proven that there is no reason to believe that the Holocaust ever occurred,” said former Iranian interior minister and Hezbollah cofounder Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour.

    “Look at the films, get a physics expert in here from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school,” said O’Donnell.

    The worlds of deniers O’Donnell and Ahmadinejad intersected more overtly when the former defended the latter’s hostage taking of 15 British sailors and Royal Marines who, O’Donnell ruled by fiat, “went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians.” O’Donnell added her expression of sympathy for mass murderers the world over: “Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.” 
    Only one with the most sinister sentiments toward the country that gave her so much for so little could express such warm regard for its most determined enemies. And therein lies the real similarity between Holocaust deniers and 9/11 deniers. The “theories” of both, which could otherwise only be explained as serious psychopathology, are but expressions of venom and bile. The former hate Jews (and, often, the United States). The latter hate the United States (and, often, Jews).
    White House press secretary Tony Snow’s description of Ahmadinejad’s conference as “a platform of hatred,” then, applies as well to the current incarnation of The View:
    Which leads to this question: If ratings were strong, would ABC allow, say, David Duke to host a show on which he preached his doubts about the Holocaust and his fondness for Nazis? Stay tuned and the answer will soon be revealed — by whether and how fast the network pulls the plug on O’Donnell. 

    Seven Pillars of Middle East Reality

    Seven Pillars of Middle East Reality
    By Kenneth Levin
    FrontPageMagazine.com | April 10, 2007

    A theme of virtually every New York Times editorial touching on the Arab-Israeli conflict is knee-jerk criticism of the Bush Administration and/or Israel for not taking steps that could promote “peace.” On April 7, the Times editors defended House Speaker Pelosi’s Syrian jaunt and referred to the administration’s “failed policies” and its alleged refusal to test whether talking to Syria “might help… revive efforts to negotiate peace.” A March 26 editorial on Condoleeza Rice’s latest visit to the region complained of the administration having squandered six years in diplomatic inaction, supposedly because it did not realize the importance of a “just, negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and the need for Washington to “help jump-start the process.” The editors also advised Rice to pursue talks with Palestinians “willing to discuss peace” – whatever that means – “no matter what Israel’s objections.”

    A February 21 editorial on Rice’s previous Middle East trip accused her of missing what “just might have been a moment for breaking the stalemate…” Israel’s dereliction, meanwhile, was its failure to take steps that would have “increased the chances for progress…”

    For many politicians and diplomats as well, the accepted wisdom is that Arab “moderates,” and perhaps even some in the radical Arab camp, are ready for peace with Israel and that, despite the rise of Hamas, sufficiently intense diplomatic engagement can resolve the conflict. This popular line ignores fundamental Middle East realities:

    Arab leaders have no interest in genuine peace with Israel. They do not fear Israel, knowing she will not attack them unless herself threatened, and they see no great advantages to peace. Rather, both anti-Western regimes, particularly Syria, and so-called “moderate” states see gain in using anti-Israel, as well as anti-American, hate-mongering to divert their publics from domestic ills. This is true even of Egypt and Jordan, states officially at “peace” with Israel. In Egypt, government-controlled media now purvey more rabid anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda than before the Camp David accords.

    The revival of the 2002 Saudi “peace” initiative at the recent Riyadh summit hardly indicates some new Arab direction. The summit insisted its plan was a “take it or leave it” proposition and called for Israel to return to the pre-1967 armistice lines and honor a Palestinian “right of return” – a formula for remaking Israel into another Arab state – after which the Arabs would reciprocate with vague steps toward recognition and an end of the conflict. Even some Arab commentators, such as Mamoun Fandy writing in the London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, noted that the Saudi plan does not reflect serious interest in peace with Israel.

    Israeli-Arab peace will come on the Arabs’ timetable. The Arabs, more than 300 million strong as compared to Israel’s five million Jews, are by far the region’s dominant force. Israel may deter or defeat Arab attacks, but it cannot, either by concessions or other steps, force peace on the Arabs.

    All minorities living within the Arab world are under siege. Tunisian human rights activist Muhammad Bechri has traced this to the “twin fascisms” – his term – that dominate the Arab world, Islamism and pan-Arabism. The first promotes murderous intolerance of religious minorities. It helps explain why Christians are under siege across the Arab world and why Sudan enjoyed broad Arab support as it killed some two million non-Muslim blacks in the south of the country. Pan-Arabism translates into endorsement of murderous policies toward Muslim but non-Arab groups and accounts for Arab support for Saddam Hussein as he slaughtered 200,000 Kurds in northern Iraq, as well as backing for Sudanese policies toward the Muslim but black population of Darfur.

    The Arab world is not about to make an exception for the Jews. This broad intolerance of minorities is further evidence of how unlikely it is the Arab world will accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in its midst any time soon.

    Arab regimes also demonize non-Muslim and non-Arab peoples living beyond the Arab world. In both ostensible Western “allies” and hostile states, denigration and demonization of the non-Muslim world, and particularly of the Christian West and the United States, are common in government-controlled media, schools and mosques. Such attacks not only deflect attention from domestic ills but are also used either to bolster a regime’s radical agenda or help assuage radicalized opposition elements of the population.

    The concern of so-called “moderate” regimes with the threat posed by radical forces in the region has not altered these realities. Saudi Arabia, for example, has been worried about the Iranian Shi’ite theocracy since its birth in 1979, but the Saudi response has been more aggressive export of its own radical, Wahhabi, Islamism, with its intolerance of non-believers and its attacks particularly on Christians and Jews. This lavishly funded campaign has seen the rise of schools and mosques promoting Wahhabi Islam throughout the Muslim world, Europe and the United States.

    In recent years, the Saudi regime, having been awakened to the threat at home, has cracked down on anti-government radicals within its borders. But it continues to export its own radicalism.

    Those who urge an American return to Realpolitik in Middle East policy are promoting a delusion. There is a superficial logic to arguing that the United States should support cooperative dictatorial regimes, and try to win over uncooperative ones, and that to push for democratic reforms is likely to lead instead to empowerment of radical dictatorships hostile to America. But just as Pearl Harbor shut down the American isolationist camp, 9/11 should have shut down the Realpolitik camp. The 9/11 hijackers and their key leaders were mainly from American “allies” Saudi Arabia and Egypt and were indoctrinated to hate America both through the state-supported religious and cultural education given them by these “friends” of America and through the teachings of the regimes’ domestic opponents. To urge ongoing unqualified embrace of such regimes and silence in the face of their hate-mongering is to invite new disasters.

    America’s chattering classes may cling to their old delusions about the Middle East, but for policy-makers to do so is an indulgence the nation cannot afford.

    Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

    Britain Was Once Great Britain

    Britain Was Once Great Britain
    By Dennis Prager
    FrontPageMagazine.com | April 10, 2007

    It is painful to see the decline of Great Britain.

    Greatness in individuals is rare; in countries it is almost unique. And Great Britain was great.

    It used to be said that “The sun never sets on the British empire.” That is how vast Britain’s influence was. And that influence, on balance, was far more positive than negative. Ask the Indians — or the Americans, for that matter. The British colonies learned about individual rights, parliamentary government, civil service and courts of justice, to name of few of the benefits that the British brought with them. Were it not for British involvement, India might still have sati (burning wives on the funeral pyre of their husband), would have no unifying language, and probably no parliamentary democracy or other institutions and values that have made that country a democratic giant, now on its way to becoming an economic one as well. But today, the sun not only literally sets on an extinct British empire; it is figuratively setting on Britain itself.

    Two recent examples provide evidence:

    One is the way Britain handled the recent act of war against it by Iran. Everything about the British reaction revealed a civilization in decline.

    Whether the British sailors and marines should have put up more resistance — i.e., any resistance — to the unprovoked Iranian military attack is something for military and other experts to decide. Whether the captured sailors and marines offered more information and more cooperation, and more smiles than was necessary to the leader of their kidnappers, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will also be determined in ongoing investigations. Whether the British government engaged in appeasement of Iran or ineffective diplomacy will also have to be judged.

    What does seem clear, however, is that the British government did not confront the Iranians in any way reminiscent of a great country, let alone of Britain’s great past. If we judge the British government’s reaction alone — without any reference to the behavior of the British sailors and marines — Iran was the feared power, not Great Britain, which acted like the supplicant.

    But what really makes one weep for Britain’s lost greatness is what has happened since the sailors and marines were released.

    The UK Minister of Defense, Labor MP Desmond Browne, announced that the released sailors and marines were all free to sell their stories to the media, “as a result of exceptional media interest.” If this is not unprecedented, it would certainly be difficult to find anything similar in the annals of military history. Some of the captured sailors and marines have already earned large sums of money. The Guardian newspaper said the one woman who had been captured, Faye Turney, agreed to a deal with The Sun and ITV television for approximately $200,000. (American soldier Jessica Lynch, who was captured when her Army convoy was ambushed in 2003, received a $500,000 advance for her book, “I Am a Soldier, Too.” But that was a book published later and she had never charged the news media when interviewed by them.)

    And John Tindell, the father of another of the hostages, said the marines were planning to sell on eBay the vases given to them by the Iranians.

    As The Australian reported, “Some of the sums being offered to the captives are higher than the money paid to service personnel maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The standard tariff for the loss of an arm is 57,500 pounds.”

    The Labor government’s decision was described well by the mother of a British soldier killed in Iraq. As reported by Reuters: “The mother of a 19-year-old British soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq at the weekend said she would be ‘very shocked’ if any of the detainees were paid for their stories. ‘If you are a member of the military, it is your duty to serve your country,’ Sally Veck, mother of Eleanor Dlugosz, told the Times. ‘You should do your duty and not expect to make money by selling stories.’”

    That pretty well sums up the revulsion many feel at the British government’s decision.

    The other current example of Great Britain’s decline is the widely reported (in the UK) decision of schools in various parts of that country to stop teaching about the Holocaust in history classes. The reason?

    As reported by the BBC, “Some schools avoid teaching the Holocaust and other controversial history subjects as they do not want to cause offence, research has claimed. Teachers fear meeting anti-Semitic sentiment, particularly from Muslim pupils, the government-funded study by the Historical Association said.”

    No comment necessary.

    But a word of caution: If Great Britain can cease to be great in so short a time span, any country can. All you need is an elite that no longer believes in their country, that manipulates history texts to make students feel good about themselves, that prefers multiculturalism to its own culture, and that has abandoned its religious underpinnings. Sound familiar, America?

    Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 56 other followers