Saturday, March 31, 2007

USA To Attack Iran On April 6, 2007 at 0400 Hours EDT


Operation Bite: April 6 Attack by US Forces against Iran planned, according to Russian Military sources.

The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran 's nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued (1, 2) by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented. “

Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

"Your Offer To Wimp Out Is Refused, Mr. Prime Minister"


The Insanity Of The Leftists

...the sanity of Liberals..??
By Dick Turpin
We see this in their extreme and hysterical reaction to those who disagree with them, their apparent hatred of Western civilisation, of Israel, of free speech, traditional education, our history and the leaders who helped make us what we are, of religion and of America - both internally and externally. And whilst they are busy hating the very society and culture which enables them to parasitically survive and prosper we see their love affair with all the ideologies that threaten our society, manifested in pro third- world immigration, multiculturalism, radical feminism and until very recently, Communism (oh, if only they could have made their economy work), and, of course, Islam.
And here the first of their varied pathological contradictions is exposed for the sane world to see - how is it possible for them to sympathise with Islam, a political ideology that runs counter to every issue they apparently deem of transcendental importance? One of the pet word of abuse that the Liberal love to smear their opponents with is Nazi yet are they so blind they cannot differentiate between the white Nazis of 1940 that we "right wing" classical liberalists went to war witha and the brown Nazis of 2007 so admired by the "left wing" liberals of today?
Just look at the comparisons; Nazism was a racially supremacist, totalitarian, Messianic movement with an avowed aim of global domination; an ambition for which they were happy to use military force. They genuinely believed they were the master race and all others the sub- race. They promoted their ideology via overt propaganda in the brainwashing of their children; they wished to eradicate Jews and homosexuals; they thought women fit only for childbirth, the kitchen and the bedroom; and, finally, they thought nothing of killing their critics. Islam is...exactly the same. It is the 21st Century reincarnation of the Nazi Party and as every white European is now the new Jew or a member of the new sub -race, so Islam becomes our worst possible sweat-soaked ngithmare as an enemy. And the Liberal's new best friend.
Not content with enusring that a new Nazi party is fostered and encouraged to grow within the West, the Liberal also works to ensure that his own society is traduced and destroyed from within. He does this by accepting the edicts of subversion planted by Soviet Moscow, with whose ideology and global ambitions they were not entirely unsympathetic. It says a great deal about the Liberal that he sympathises with an ideology penned by a man with an unhappy childhood and a catastrophic adult life whose bearded scribbling led to a flawed revolution carried out in the wrong country at the wrong time which subsequently reduced the Soviet working man (at the expense of millions of deaths) to queuing for bread in Moscow whilst the capitalist working man was queuing for beer in Ibiza.


The Pre-School Socialist Putsch

The odd pattern of our current era is a trend toward free markets and reduced regulation on the widest scale of global commerce—combined with a trend toward ever more detailed and intrusive legislation, the farther you go down to the local scale. (The Chicago City Council just banned foie gras, in a move Mayor Daley derided as "the silliest law that they've ever passed.")
Why? Despite all the evidence of capitalism's moral and practical superiority, our intellectuals still cling to an anti-capitalist prejudice, which teachers then attempt to instill in their students. That starts, in one outrageous case, with a Washington State pre-school that banned its students from playing with Legos until the teachers browbeat the tots into a accepting a scheme of Lego collectivization, in which all Lego houses must be built in "standard sizes" and with collective approval.

Then again, perhaps this pre-school is merely training its pupils for their future careers—as zoning inspectors, county planning commissioners, and members of local architectural review boards.

"Banning Legos," John J. Miller, National Review Online, March 27 Perhaps you’ve heard about the schools that have banned tag. Or dodgeball. Or stories about pigs.
If so, you won’t be surprised to hear that the Hilltop Children’s Center in Seattle has banned Legos.

A pair of teachers at the center, which provides afterschool activities for elementary-school kids, recently described their policy in a Rethinking Schools cover story called “Why We Banned Legos.”…

“We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity,” write Pelo and Pelojoaquin. “We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice. So we decided to take the Legos out of the classroom.”

The root cause of Hilltop’s Lego problem was that, well, the kids were being kids: There were disputes over “cool pieces,” instances of bigger kids bossing around little ones, and so on.

An ordinary person might recognize this as child’s play. But the social theorists at Hilltop saw something else: “The children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys—assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society—a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive.”…
“Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.”….

All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.
Lego people can be saved only by a “team” of kids, not by individuals.
All structures will be standard sizes.

You can almost feel the liberating spirit of that last rule. All structures will be standard sizes? At Hilltop Children’s Center, all imaginations will be a standard size as well: small.

The Murder Of The Killing Jihadist Cartoon

It's time for another review of the West's reaction to Muslim demands for "dhimmitude"—the voluntary acceptance, by Westerners, of the status of an official oppressed minority under Muslim rule.

On the positive, let's look at the latest addition to the Anti-Dhimmitude Honor Roll: Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission, which is threatening to revoke the licenses of Somali cab drivers who have refused to transport passengers carrying alcohol from the Minneapolis airport's duty-free shop, under the pretext of some invented Muslim restriction.

Also on that honor roll is Fred Thompson, whose latest commentary praises Ayaan Hirsi Ali, deplores the fact that she has to be protected by bodyguards for speaking her mind in America, and compares the Muslim threat to that of the Nazis. No wonder he's polling in the double digits for the Republican presidential nomination, before he has even declared himself a candidate.

But top billing, unfortunately, has to go to an entry on the Dhimmitude Roll of Shame—an example so garish that it could not be invented in fiction. A brave publishing company decided to produce a book of editorial cartoons that had been "killed" by timid newspaper editors, thus demonstrating its devotion to freedom of speech. Then, of course, the publisher killed one of the killed cartoons, because it criticizes Islam.

This is the pattern of the dhimmitude of the contemporary Western leftist: a studied pose of defiance against the harmless "repression" of Western adversaries—combined with a crawling supplication before the vaguest hint of a threat from Muslim thugs.

"Killing Cartoons into Submission," Kathleen Parker, Jewish World Review, March 30 With an unintentional irony that might even tickle the Prophet himself, a new book called "Killed Cartoons'' killed a cartoon. Not because it was bad, but because it was just too good.

The book, edited by David Wallis and published by Norton, features political cartoons that other publications considered too hot to handle.

Except for one—a drawing familiar to cartoon watchers, the omission of which merely reiterates the premise that made the book necessary….

The cartoon depicted a jihadi driving a Ryder truck with a nuclear bomb in back with the caption: What Would Muhammad Drive?

Wallis says he fought unsuccessfully for the cartoon's inclusion, but "I know why it didn't run and you know why it didn't run.''

Many doubtless would agree with Norton's decision, figuring that the possibility of mortal threat is a pretty good reason not to publish a controversial cartoon. But, in fact, it is the very reason to publish.

Not to be gratuitously in your face, but to be purposefully in your face. To make clear that free speech — even drawn opinion — not only trumps special interests, but also requires a bold and sometimes insensitive defense.

An Exercise In Imaginary Indignation - U.S. Attorney Firings

I haven't devoted much coverage to the "scandal" over the fired federal prosecutors, for the same reason that I never devoted much coverage to the "scandal" over Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. The reason is that these scandals merely function as a massive distraction to draw our attention away from the really important issues of the day.

Reluctantly, I will devote a link to the latest trumped-up scandal—but only to explain why it shouldn't really be a scandal.

"The Scandal That Wasn't," James H. Warner, Washington Times, March 29 The contrived controversy over the firing of eight US Attorneys is largely an exercise in imaginary indignation. Congressional Democrats suggest that some of the firings may have been improper and demand to know the reasons for each of them. By what authority they make such demand is not clear, since the Supreme Court has ruled that, with limited exceptions, Congress has no voice in the dismissal of federal officers….

In 1926, the Supreme Court held that the requirement for Senate approval of a dismissal was unconstitutional. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the majority, stated that in order for the president to fulfill his constitutional duty, he must be able to discharge federal officers whose performance in office was not in accordance with his desires and that this responsibility could not be shared with Congress. Neither the statute providing for the appointment of US attorneys nor the Supreme Court opinion makes any attempt to define what would constitute proper or improper reasons for dismissal. In fact, nowhere is there any suggestion that the president would need any reason to dismiss a federal officer who is not covered by the Civil Service Act.

If Congress can have no voice in the removal of US attorneys and no reason is required to dismiss them, then by what authority do members of Congress demand to know why the attorneys were fired?...

[S]ince the Bush administration has complacently provided them with a mountain of documents, [Congress] can hold hearings and ask an endless series of questions relating to minutiae hoping to trip up a faulty memory and open the door for a prosecution for perjury. (Remember Patrick Fitzgerald and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.)… [Second, by] constantly hyperventilating about a "scandal," even if it is imaginary, eventually you get some people to believe it.

One Result Of Treason By The Democommie Congress

The consequence of Congressional Democrats' approval of deadline for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is not, as some have argued, that it would tell our enemies to lay low until we leave. The danger is that it would tell our enemies to attack us until we leave.

Once our enemies know that we're going to depart by a certain date, no matter what, then they have no incentive to allow us the leisure of a smooth departure, which we might portray as a victory. Their incentive is to increase the number and ferocity of their attacks, to make us retreat under enemy fire—and to portray our departure as a victory for the force of their arms.
So as the direct, immediate consequence of the Senate vote, we should not be surprised to see an escalation of attacks on our troops in Iraq. Ralph Peters is already blaming Congress for giving Iran the green light to seize those British hostages. Even more ominous is this report that Muqtada al-Sadr's men are moving back into Baghdad with Iranian arms and training, ready to take on American troops.

"Militiamen Return to Sadr City," Sharon Behn, Washington Times, March 30 Shi'ite militiamen, who melted away from Baghdad when US and Iraqi troops began their security crackdown seven weeks ago, are rolling back into the city with fresh Iranian training, Iraqi and other officials said.

It is not clear whether the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is in control of the newly trained group, which some Iraqis describe as a "secret army" trained and equipped by Iran.
US forces are concerned that, despite Shiite leaders' assurances that they have pulled their fighters off the streets, uncooperative militias will return and seek to destabilize efforts to secure the city….

A new element appears to be entering the territory: an extreme Mahdi Army splinter group that broke off from Sheik al-Sadr, went to Iran for training and started to return, said one Iraqi with intimate knowledge of the group.

"This is a special group, used for special operations, not controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr. This is a secret army," said the Iraqi, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals. "They work for Iranian intelligence. They have good weapons, good salary."

A New Cold War With Iran?

Rich Lowry argues that Iran's hostage-taking is the result of a "misunderstanding": it is a result of the West's refusal to understand Iran's malevolent intentions. But his best line is his opener:
Iran wants to quit the international community, but the international community won’t let it. No act of warfare against the civilized world, no defiance of the United Nations, no violation of international norms, no brazen lie is ever enough to mark Iran as unworthy of outreach, dialogue and the art of sweet persuasion. To prove that statement true, along comes the New York Times op-ed below, which is like a guidebook to the anatomy of appeasement.

"Iran, the Vicious Victim," Max Hastings, New York Times, March 30 The only realistic course, even after the latest insult represented by the British sailors’ seizure, is to sustain the policy of engagement, however thankless this seems….

We must keep talking to the Iranians, offering carrots even when these are contemptuously tossed into the gutter, because there is no credible alternative. Even threats of economic sanctions must be considered cautiously. Their most likely consequence would be to feed Iranian paranoia, to strengthen the hand of Tehran’s extremists. A state of declared Western encirclement could suit President Ahmadinejad very well indeed.

Iran represents a menace to the security of us all, not to mention what it must be like to live under that reprehensible regime. But, in the wake of the Iraq catastrophe, never has the overwhelming military power of the United States seemed less relevant to confronting a large, relatively rich nation that enjoys considerable grassroots support in the Islamic world for its defiance of the West.

No matter how it ends, the seizure of the British sailors is likely to be viewed by most of the world as an Iranian victory. Thus it is unlikely to be Iran’s last affront to us. It is not the American way, but only patience, statesmanship and a refusal to respond in kind to outrageous behavior offer a chance of eventually persuading this dangerous nation to join a rational universe.

A British Call For War With Iran

British Prime Minister Tony Blair once showed some political courage, when he committed Britain to join the US in its invasion of Iraq. Now, alas, he is doing his best impersonation of Jimmy Carter in response to Britain's own Iran hostage crisis.

But some folks in Britain are still attempting to develop a sense of outrage and advocate that Britain do something in response to the Iranian attack. An author in the leftist newspaper The Guardian asks why, if Europe is supposed to be unified, no other European country seems to care about Britain's plight—though all he wants from them is support for (yawn) more UN sanctions.

Only one author, linked to below, draws the obvious conclusion that a weakened Britain has no choice but to throw in its lot with the United States and to prepare for war with Iran.

"Heading for War with Iran," Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph, March 30 I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us….

We don’t have the means to engage in gunboat diplomacy with Iran, and any special forces operation would be fraught with risks both for the hostages and their rescuers.

For the moment, ever-stricter sanctions on Iran seems the only answer. America is resolute about this. So too, oddly, is the world’s greatest sanction-busting nation, France. So the scope for tightening the economic ratchet on Iran, and the means to do so, look healthy.

However, we should be under no illusions about the effectiveness of such weapons….

If we are going to continue to try to be a player in the Middle East, then we have to throw in our lot with the Americans, for no-one else makes the blindest bit of difference there….

This is no time for our clueless Government to be mothballing the Navy and cutting down the other services. For, at some stage, Iran’s lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war.

Friday, March 30, 2007

The Thinking Blogger Award Nominations

It should be no surprise that many bloggers themselves have favorite blogs they read on a regular basis that should receive recognition for excellence; so without further ado, I will post my picks for "The Thinking Bloggers Award:

1. Liberty & Culture by Jason Pappas who connects the dots between the ancient and contemporary Western Civilization.

Liberty doesn’t start with limited government and individual rights – these are the product of a specific cultural evolution having its genesis in Ancient Greece and reaching the summit of philosophical maturity in the Anglo-American Enlightenment. Today civilization is weakened by a cultural disintegration and threatened by theocratic barbarians. Only a rational reality-based philosophy can secure liberty on a proper foundation.

2. God Help Britain -- The New Battle of Britain fought daily here with Islam standing in for the Nazis of World War II. No engagement in this new conflict is too small to escape notice and commentary by Britney British who would make an excellent candidate for Prime Minister in the mold of Churchill.


Clutching at straws in the fight against the Islamification of Britain and other nasties.

Please describe how you could take the peel off an apple all in one go:
Explain what could become of Britain and frighten it right out of its skin.

3. Egyptian Freedom Fighter: An awesome dude, Freedom Fighter and defender of the Enlightenment who stands up to Islam in Egypt and has recently been thrown into prison there for his heroic defense of freedom of speech. The reactionary authorities in Egypt may throw this blogger into prison to silence him, but his blog continues live on to the tune of Mozart's, "A Little Night Music."

abdel kareem nabil
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Astrological Sign: Gemini
Zodiac Year: Rat
Industry: Education
Occupation: student
Location: alexandria : Alexandria : Egypt
Wish list
About Me
I am down to earth Law student; I look forward to help humanity against all form of discriminations. I am currently studying Law in Al Azhar University. I am looking forward to open up my own human rights activists Law firm, which will include other lawyers who share the same views. Our main goal is to defend the rights of Muslim and Arabic women against all form of discrimination and to stop violent crimes committed on a daily basis in these countries.
4. Withdrawn by the request of blog owner


Zionist Youngster -- This blogger defends Zionism by going on the attack to expose the substandard nature of its attackers. The best defense is always offense and this blogger K.O.s the opposition in excellent intellectual article after article that take no prisoners. King David could wish for no better soldier than Zionist Younger on the battle line.

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

A Profile In Courage: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

In recent months, one woman has come to be the most prominent defender of the spirit of the Enlightenment against the Islamist threat. That woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a former Muslim who adopted the spirit of the West, only to be condemned as an "infidel" by Muslims and as an "Enlightenment fundamentalist" by the Western left.

I have read most of Hirsi Ali's 2006 book The Caged Virgin, though I have not yet read her new book, the aptly titled Infidel. My impression so far is that, while I wish her analysis of the nature of the Enlightenment were a little deeper and more philosophically sophisticated (she has too great an admiration, for example, for John Stuart Mill), she gets the basic issues eloquently, beautifully right. Her virtues are nicely captured in a Wall Street Journal article's summary:

Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Mogadishu—into, as she puts it, "the Islamic civilization, as far as you can call it a civilization." In 1992, at age 22, her family gave her hand to a distant relative…. But as she was shipped to the appointment via Europe, she fled, obtaining asylum in Holland. There, "through observation, through experience, through reading," she acquainted herself with a different world. "The culture that I came to and I live in now is not perfect," Ms. Hirsi Ali says. "But this culture, the West, the product of the Enlightenment, is the best humanity has ever achieved."

Hirsi Ali sums it up best herself: she describes herself as having "moved from the world of faith to the world of reason." She was a daughter of Somalia, and she is now a daughter of the Enlightenment.

How has she been received in America and Europe, in the geographic homeland of the Enlightenment?

On the right, the reaction to Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been glowingly positive. Today's National Review Online, for example, carries an article by Clifford May that is a largely descriptive summary of Hirsi Ali's message in Infidel—but one that is obviously admiring.

Far better was a recent column by Mona Charen, also carried at NRO, whose theme was that "It is appropriate that Hirsi Ali was singled out along with the United States, Holland, and Europe [as an object of Muslim threats]…because as we learn from her new autobiography, Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has come to appreciate and to personify the greatest virtues of our civilization."
Then there is that Wall Street Journal profile I quoted from earlier, which is one of the best, most informative articles on Hirsi Ali and what she stands for. In the middle of this essay, however, author Joseph Rago inserts a note of conservative confusion:

Many liberals loathe her for disrupting an imagined "diversity" consensus: It is absurd, she argues, to pretend that cultures are all equal, or all equally desirable. But conservatives, and others, might be reasonably unnerved by her dim view of religion. She does not believe that Islam has been "hijacked" by fanatics, but that fanaticism is intrinsic in Islam itself: "Islam, even Islam in its nonviolent form, is dangerous."

But Rago still can't help but admire Hirsi Ali. He concludes with a somewhat reticent compliment.

All of this is profoundly politically incorrect. But for this remarkable woman, ideas are not abstractions. She forces us back to first principles, and she punctures complacencies. These ought to be seen as virtues, even by those who find some of Ms. Hirsi Ali's ideas disturbing or objectionable. Society, after all, sometimes needs to be roused from its slumbers by agitators who go too far so that others will go far enough.

That pretty much sums up the reaction of the conservatives: they are uncomfortable following her "first principles" to the point of questioning religion as such—but they find Hirsi Ali's "politically incorrect" defense of Western Civilization invigorating.

So what about the American left? The moderate, mainstream left has been generally polite to Hirsi Ali, partly because she has one attribute that allows her to penetrate their "politically correct" defenses: she is black and a woman—and better yet, she is a black woman from the Third World. If a white American male denounces Islam as a religious of tyranny and oppression, a standard New York Times liberal is primed to dismiss him as a bigot whose views are racist and "Islamophobic." (The New York Times recently published a revealing overview of exactly this kind of reaction.) But it's harder for the left to dismiss a Somali-born woman who appeals to their "feminist" pretensions by exposing Islam's unspeakable oppression of women.

Thus, for example, the New York Times published a relatively friendly interview with Hirsi Ali which begins with the admiring question: "What do you think it was about you that made you grab the reins of your own life?" A New York Times review of her most recent book concludes with a somewhat bland sympathy.

Death threats have since driven Ms. Hirsi Ali to the United States, where she has accepted a fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group.

This is a pity. As a politician, she focused Dutch minds on a subject they steadfastly ignored. In her brief career, she forced the government to keep statistics on honor killings, in which enraged family members murder sisters or daughters believed to have brought shame on the family or clan. Much to the surprise of the Dutch, it turned out that there were a lot of them. Unfortunately, Ms. Hirsi Ali is no longer in the Netherlands to point out these things.
That is pretty much as far as the left's sympathy for Hirsi Ali goes.

Newsweek, for example, chose to give a Muslim apologist space to attack Hirsi Ali's book. This reviewer complains that
In describing the 9/11 hijackers, she comes up with an inflammatory conclusion tailor-made for her right-wing constituency: "It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast majority of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam."

The article concludes by declaring: "It's ironic that this would-be 'infidel' often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose."

This idea—that a principled defender of Western Civilization and the Enlightenment is just as dogmatic and dangerous as a Muslim terrorist—is a theme that, as we shall see, has been taken up by the secular Western left. In the same issue of Newsweek, a short, painfully superficial interview with Hirsi Ali is titled: "A Bombthrower's Life." Who is it who is throwing the bombs here? Given that Hirsi Ali lives under the constant threat of death and was run out of Holland after her friend Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic fanatic, this is inexcusable.

Similarly, the Washington Post published a snide profile whose subtitle refers, with an apparent note of alarm, to Hirsi Ali's "incendiary views on Islam." The snide aspect of the review is the humorously dismissive attitude with which it describes her fascinating and dramatic life story.

So now, ladies and gentlemen, live from Somalia and the Netherlands! Give it up for new-to-Washington Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Muslim heretic, self-proclaimed "Infidel," whose memoir by that name is at No. 7 on the New York Times bestseller list!

It's a popping good story, fascinating, with lots of forward lean to the narrative. She's got guts, brains, looks, talent. She's called the prophet Muhammad a pervert. She says, "Islam is a culture that has been outlived." She has lost her faith, ditched two husbands and been disowned by her family.
Even more disgusting is the author's snide contempt for the ideas Hirsi Ali stands for.

But Hirsi Ali sees herself standing in the long light cast by the Western Enlightenment thinkers: Voltaire, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and maybe Thomas Jefferson. The stifling clergy, the sackcloth-and-ashes drag of faith and superstition—all rinsed away by the ablutions of personal freedom, reason, logic.

How heady! How liberating!

The not-so-subtle message is that Hirsi Ali's vaunted idealism is just a flamboyant act, a kind of garish intellectual carnival side show. I recommend this article, incidentally, because it has enough quotes from Hirsi Ali, from her books and from an interview, that her actual personality and ideas come through, despite the Post reporter's best efforts. But what comes through just as strongly is the fact that what motivates this reporter is exactly the kind of Western self-loathing that Hirsi Ali warns about. To take seriously the ideas of Voltaire, Locke, and Jefferson is, this reporter implies, to be a naïve and easily impressed rube.

The article concludes: "[S]omewhere in the chord of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, there is a note as discordant and troubling as it is compelling. Smart, angry, tough, vulnerable: she'll be a big hit in this country." Notice the natural connection: the author dislikes Ayaan Hirsi Ali because he recognizes that she "fits in" here in America—and he has contempt for America.

This, as we shall see, is a recurring theme, and it is captured very nicely in a review of the European reaction to Hirsi Ali, as recounted by one of her few liberal defenders, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. Applebaum is a particular favorite of mine, not because I always agree with her, not by a long shot, but because she is one of the last examples of a dying breed: a real, genuine, old-fashioned liberal. Notice that I refer to today's left as "the left" and rarely as "liberals," because the day has long passed when intellectuals on the left took seriously the idea that they were supposed to be for "freedom." The modern left is militantly illiberal—but not Applebaum.

Applebaum recently wrote a perceptive column on the reaction to Hirsi Ali, which concluded with this observation:

Curiously, what seems to rankle Europeans most is the enthusiasm with which Hirsi Ali has adopted their own secularism and the fervor with which she has embraced their own Western values. Though this continent's intellectuals routinely disparage the pope as an irrelevant dinosaur, Hirsi Ali's rejection of religion in favor of reason, intellect and emancipation seems to make everyone nervous. Typical is the British feminist who complained that not only does Hirsi Ali paint "the whole of the Islamic world with one black brush," she also "paints the whole of the Western world with rosy tints," which is, of course, far more objectionable.

Applebaum's column was in response to a description of Hirsi Ali as an "Enlightenment fundamentalist" by British leftist Timothy Garton Ash, and an attack on her by Dutch-born author Ian Burama, comments that touched off a fierce debate among European intellectuals. (The whole exchange is catalogued here.)

The flavor of Burama's comments are captured in his subsequent March 4 Sunday New York Times review of Infidel:

This uplifting story of liberation is entirely plausible, but it gives Hirsi Ali’s descriptions of life in the West an idealized, almost comic-book quality that sounds as naïve as those romantic novels she consumed as a young girl. Whereas the picture of Hirsi Ali’s childhood is full of nuance and variation, the images of the Netherlands could have been lifted from some patriotic Dutch children’s book: “so well-kept, so well-planned, so smoothly run and attractive.” And: Holland was “the capital of the European Enlightenment…the center of free thought.” Comparing the lack of aggression in a Dutch school with her own childhood experiences, she concludes that “this is why Somalia is having a civil war and Holland isn’t.”

All this warms the cockles of my Dutch heart, of course, but it offers up the West as a caricature of sweetness and light, which is then contrasted not to specific places, like Somalia, Kenya or Saudi Arabia, but to the whole Muslim world. Because of this, Hirsi Ali tends to fly into a rage when the inhabitants of this Garden of Eden fail sufficiently to appreciate their good fortune….

Enlightened reform of religious practices that clash with liberal democratic freedoms is necessary. But much though I respect her courage, I’m not convinced that Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s absolutist view of a perfectly enlightened West at war with the demonic world of Islam offers the best perspective from which to get this done.

From what I can tell, Burama is the left's Dinesh D'Souza, bearing the same message: we caused radical Islam by being too free, too decadent. According to a New York Times review of Burama's own book, Murder in Amsterdam:

The Dutch, Mr. Buruma writes, savor irony, and perhaps because their political establishment is so dull, enjoy the politics of outrage. This taste is not shared by the country’s Muslim immigrants. “This was the crowning irony of his life,” Mr. Buruma writes. “Van Gogh, more than anyone, had warned about the dangers of violent religious passions, and yet he behaved as though they held no consequences for him.”…

For the products of rigid tribal societies, Dutch freedom has often proved to be oppressive.

Why has the left—which has long paraded as a defender of secularism, persuasion, artistic freedom, and sophisticated intellectualism—turned against the Enlightenment and its defenders? The answer is that the left was always a mere pretender to the liberal legacy of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was about upholding the power of reason—but the left has long rejected reason in favor of subjectivism. And this subjectivism is what they seek to defend by attacking Hirsi Ali. In their view, she has committed the unpardonable sin of thinking that there is a truth and that she is right.

In his book, Burama complains that "It is a characteristic of Calvinism to hold moral principles too rigidly, and this might be considered a vice as well as a virtue of the Dutch.” He then proceeds to equate the religious dogmatism of Calvinism—and of Islam—with Hirsi Ali's "Enlightenment fundamentalism."

That is made clear in one of Burama's contributions to an exchange with one of Hirsi Ali's European defenders.

I admire the achievements of the Enlightenment as much as Professor Cliteur appears to do, but I also believe that one of its greatest achievements is the rejection of dogmatism, of any kind. It is possible to be dogmatic about ideas that are not in themselves bad…. My objection is not to the Enlightenment as such, but to the ideological zeal of some of those who believe they are acting in its defence. If we wish to isolate and defeat religious extremism, we must must have mainstream European Muslims as our allies. This, readers may notice, is pretty much the same argument put forward by Dinesh D'Souza in The Enemy at Home: that we must temper the zeal with which we champion our freedom, so that we may pursue an alliance with "moderate" Muslim traditionalists. So Dinesh D'Souza has found his sympathetic audience after all—but on the left, not on the right.

True, some on the left have their reservations. The Guardian's Andrew Anthony concludes his profile of Hirsi Ali by admitting, wistfully, that "it may say something for our incurable self-loathing that it is Hirsi Ali, the most fervent admirer of European liberalism, that we've effectively sent packing." And some old Marxists have mounted a spirited defense of Hirsi Ali, including the redoubtable Christopher Hitchens—but wait, he isn't really on the left any more, is he? This is perhaps the most revealing fact. In the post-September 11 world, a man who wants to defend the pro-reason, pro-liberty, pro-secularism legacy of the Enlightenment finds that he can only do so by allying himself with the right, not the left.

And that brings me back to the immediate reason for compiling these two reports—a report on the reception for Dinesh D'Souza and a report on the reception for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Our goal is to assess which is the greater domestic threat to liberty and reason, and which is our potential ally: the cultural/political left, broadly considered, or the cultural/political right, broadly considered? Our goal is to assess the fundamental ideological loyalties of these two movements by looking for the proof in intellectual action: their reaction to two actual, concrete advocates who represent opposite attitudes toward the Enlightenment.

The result of these two initial reports is clear. In recent months, intellectuals on the right have been confronted by a monster who tempted them to embrace the worst implications of their ideals—and they almost universally repudiated him. Intellectuals on the left were beckoned by the angel of their better natures, who called upon them to defend the best aspects of their intellectual heritage—and they have largely rejected her.

I say this not to promote the American right as having the best answers. They, too, are philosophically confused and they, too, make attempts to evade the real meaning of the Enlightenment.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The Second American Revolution: The End Of The Beginning

Fellow Freedom Fighters Of The World:

The Leftist revolutionary forces and the revolutionary terrorist barbarians of radical Islam are allies in an unholy cabal with the same goal in mind: The complete destruction of Western Civilization. They are opposed by only a few brave Freedom Fighters who understand that appeasement, compromise and living side by side by with these forces of tyranny is impossible and who realize that the best means to stop revolution is counter-revolution.

As is well known in my circle of friends, since 2005 with creation of The Freedom Fighter's Journal, I've collected the names and locations of a large number of trustworthy people all over the USA, Europe and the world, who, whether they want to admit it at the present time, are a revolutionary cadre: A small radical minority of rugged individualists and heroes who have been "Mugged By Reality" in a dozen different nations and understand that the various governments of the West cannot be reformed -- They must be destroyed or they will murder our lives and liberties in time.

My main focus is revolution in the USA first -- a Blue Revolution -- like the original American Revolution to restore liberty and put into place lasting checks on a return by socialists and Islamists to power. I think if America, the world's most powerful country, does a 180 degree turn in its politics, philosophy and culture: The rest of the world will follow our lead beginning with the Anglosphere countries: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I think that if we don't elect the severe choice of revolutions and civil wars in our various countries and destroy socialism and Islamism, the world will be plunged into A New Dark Age of tyranny and the level of our Civilization reversed back to that of the non-industrial European Middle Ages.

History has taught us that Revolutions are as necessary from time to time in a country as forest fires are from time to time in order to destroy the dead wood that threatens the existence of a nation. On April 19, 1775, the American Patriots stood against the army of most powerful imperial force in the world, the British Empire, not because they hated the glorious historical example of Britain to the cause freedom and its generous gift of liberty that even in the 18th century had produced "13 Little Britains" (The 13 original colonies and later states)-- rather because they embraced these imported British ideals of liberty as being the products of the wisdom of human history that began with the Glory That Was Greece and The Grandeur That Was Rome. The American Patriot's rebellion was a Revolt against a government and ruling class that had become oppressive and the enemy of its own true constitution.

The time has come, Freedom Fighters of the World, in particular Americans, to admit that the time of open rebellion against The State has arrived. It is in vain to think of reform of our various governments, they must be destroyed. It is in vain to think of reformation, this will be only used by the opposition to further limit freedom. It is in vain to look for a great leader like Lincoln or Churchill to lead us away from the abyss of revolution and civil war. The war has started already, it is an undeclared civil war in all our Anglosphere countries between the Nationalist Faction of the Right and the International Socialists of the Left, and our choice in this war is victory or death.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry March 23, 1775
Do you want a private word with Ronbo, or have an article you'd like to post here?

The United States of EUROPE?

Last weekend was the 50th anniversary of the formation of the European Union. You might expect that Europe, after its long and bloody history of internal warfare, would be celebrating that union. But they haven't, as Anne Applebaum reports below. She gets to the heart of the issue when she cites the claim that Europe stands for an "idea"—but admits that no one knows what that idea is.

"Europe's Birthday Blahs," Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, March 28 If you didn't notice that last Sunday was the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Union, don't worry: most Europeans didn't either. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who holds the rotating European presidency, did invite all 27 heads of state to hear Beethoven's "Ode to Joy," and it's true that at one designated Berlin nightclub, the Europeans of tomorrow danced to music played by DJs from all 27 countries. Fireworks went off as well, and of course a document was signed—the "Berlin Declaration"—which described Europe as an "Idea, a hope for freedom and understanding."

Still, an aura of gloom hung over the whole affair…. What is odd about the gloom is the fact that, objectively speaking, life in Europe has unquestionably improved. Five decades ago, before it became a city of chic clubs, much of Berlin was still in ruins. In Britain, food rationing had just ended. The eastern half of the continent was dominated by thuggish and incompetent communist dictatorships. Yet over the next half century, living standards grew at an astounding rate, health improved, life expectancy increased. Now there is no war, no rationing, no communism….

[A]n important part of the problem actually lies in the language of the Berlin Declaration itself, and in particular with that "Idea of Europe." Fifty years since its founding, the EU has created many things: a free-trade zone, a common currency, and a lot of common regulations. But it has not, as yet, created anything resembling an "Idea," or even a sense of truly shared destiny.

The Environmentalist Fraud: "Renewable Energy"

The major fraud by the environmentalists' is their claim that they merely want to replace fossil fuels with benign, "renewable" energy sources. In fact, the environmentalists have only supported "renewable energy" so long as it is so small and inefficient that it is incapable of sustaining industrial civilization.

The article below follows the predicted pattern, finding a variety of "environmental problems" with the production of the latest favorite "renewable" fuel, ethanol. The authors try to use these problems to argue for their own pet ethanol scheme, but that's futile—because once any form of "renewable power" threatens to become a thriving industry, the environmentalists will turn against it precisely for that reason.

"Corn Can't Solve Our Problems," David Tilman and Jason Hill, Washington Post, March 25 The world has come full circle. A century ago our first transportation biofuels—the hay and oats fed to our horses—were replaced by gasoline. Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.

This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil. In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day….

[O]ur recent analyses of the full costs and benefits of various biofuels, performed at the University of Minnesota, present a markedly different and more nuanced picture….

Our most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production. As demand for both food and energy increases, competition for fertile lands could raise food prices enough to drive the poorer third of the globe into malnourishment. The destruction of rainforests and other ecosystems to make new farmland would threaten the continued existence of countless animal and plant species and would increase the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Biofuels, such as ethanol made from corn, have the potential to provide us with cleaner energy. But because of how corn ethanol currently is made, only about 20 percent of each gallon is "new" energy. That is because it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol.

If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the US gasoline market. Moreover, the "new" (non-fossil) energy gained would be very small—just 2.4 percent of the market. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy….

[W]hen tropical woodland is cleared to produce sugar cane for ethanol, the greenhouse gas released is about 50 percent greater than what occurs from the production and use of the same amount of gasoline. And that statistic holds for at least two decades.

Concerns about the environmental effects of ethanol production are starting to be felt in the United States as well.

Al Gore's Conflict Of Interest

I've heard from a number of readers who have pointed out the fact that Al Gore, despite his public image as the idealistic visionary, also has a direct financial interest in massive new government controls on industry. If the government declares a policy of "cap and trade"—a corrupt system that allows corporations to sell their government carbon dioxide allowance—Al Gore is a partner in a firm that would manage the trading.

I haven't mentioned this story very much, because I don't think it is really driving the global warming swindle. If you want to make money off of government favors—and even if you want to do so while posing as an "idealist"—there are plenty of conventional ways to do so. There is no need to invent a giant new pseudo-scientific rationalization for your corruption.

But this "global warming industrial complex," as the author below describes it, is important. Now that there is a corrupt faction with a financial interest in the global warming hysteria, the campaign is going to be much harder to stop. The alarmists are backed by enormous sums of money—and their supporters are now motivated by the panic of losing their shirts if they can't use global warming to reach into our pockets.

"The Global Warming Industrial Complex," Joseph Loconte, Weekly Standard, March 28 To devoted opponents of global warming, it must have seemed like the makings of a perfect storm: Al Gore pocketed an Oscar for his doomsday climate documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report with dire warnings about man-made carbon dioxide emissions. British Secretary of State for the Environment, David Milibrand, introduced the first-ever climate change bill in the House of Commons. Even President George W. Bush offered conciliatory talk about the importance of reducing carbon pollutants.

But then an unwelcome squall appeared on the horizon: The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle aired earlier this month on British television's Channel 4. Director Martin Durkin's 75-minute production combines interviews with distinguished scientists, a sober narrative, and damning graphs and statistics to challenge the core claims of global warming theory. The film also alleges that government funding for climate change research is perverting science and fueling a political agenda of massive state intervention in local economies….

The Great Global Warming Swindle makes at least one incontestable charge: a "discourse of catastrophe" has infected the scientific community's approach to global climate change and is shaping the budget priorities of government…. "
If the global warming virago collapses," Stott predicts, "there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs."

New Democommie Congress Goes Pork

This will be no surprise to anyone, but the return of Democratic control in Congress means the return of a policy of tax and spend. (The Republicans spent, too—and how!—but they didn't tax.) And as Amity Schlaes points out below, it is the nation's top producers—the kind of people who read her column for Bloomberg's financial news service—who are going to be the main targets for Democratic sacrifice.

So Wall Street, already reeling from the onerous restrictions imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley, will now face the possibility of being hit by increased taxes on dividends and capital gains—taxes that directly target the formation of the capital that drives the American economy.

"Five Tax Increases Democrats Are Aiming at You," Amity Schlaes, Bloomberg News, March 28 Why won't Democrats tell us that they are after the Bloomberg reader?...

[U]nder Congress's own pay-as-you-go rule…For every new entitlement dollar it spends, or tax breaks that it offers, Congress must also come up with sufficient entitlement cuts or tax increases to compensate…. [I]n the end the increases the Democratic leadership is most likely to support will be paid by the very highest earners on Wall Street….

The first is the most obvious: raising the top marginal rate on income tax back to President Bill Clinton's old 39.6 percent levy….

A third likely change is especially important for Wall Street, which has enjoyed a tax on dividends of 15 percent for the past several years. Lawmakers are likely to revert to the old system for dividends, under which the payments are treated as ordinary income and taxed up to the top 35 percent rate. Or make that 39.6 percent—if the first of the changes above is made….

Capital gains likewise are under the gun, with the possibility that the tax rate may move back to the 20 percent of the 1990s from the current 15 percent….

In an era when markets have proven the best engine to pull the country forward, these lawmakers are again making it their goal to squeeze the higher earner.

Around September, in other words, you may well hear [New York's Senator] Schumer begin to talk about the sacrifice that must be made. And there's no doubt about who will be making that sacrifice.

Dear reader, it is you.

A Muslim Ally Is An Oxymoron: The Saudis Flip

Condoleezza Rice's term as Secretary of State is turning out to be an unmitigated disaster. In a return to the short-sighted policies of the "realists," Rice has been pursuing a so-called "Sunni strategy" of using Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations as our proxies in a policy of "containment" against Iran. The problem is that these Arab dictatorships don't share our values and interests.

We're being reminded of that now as the leaders of Saudi Arabia turn against us, condemning the "illegitimate occupation" of Iraq, threatening Israel with war, and, according to the article below, canceling a state dinner at the White House in a deliberate snub of President Bush.

The author of this op-ed is a conventional liberal, so although he recognizes that the 2008 election is part of the cause for the Saudi stab in the back, he limits the significance of that observation to Bush's political weakness and the few bogus "scandals" that have been ginned up against the administration—and not to the deadly message of American retreat being broadcast to the world by the Democratic leaders of Congress.

"Bush's Royal Trouble," Jim Hoagland, Washington Post, March 28 President Bush enjoys hosting formal state dinners about as much as having a root canal. Or proposing tax increases. So his decision to schedule a mid-April White House gala for Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah signified the president's high regard for an Arab monarch who is also a Bush family friend.

Now the White House ponders what Abdullah's sudden and sparsely explained cancellation of the dinner signifies. Nothing good—especially for Condoleezza Rice's most important Middle East initiatives—is the clearest available answer….

Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, flew to Washington last week to explain to Bush that April 17 posed a scheduling problem…. But administration sources report that Bush and his senior advisers were not convinced by Bandar's vagueness—especially since it followed Saudi decisions to seek common ground with Iran and the radicals of Hezbollah and Hamas instead of confronting them as part of Rice's proposed "realignment" of the Middle East into moderates and extremists….

Abdullah gave a warm welcome to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Riyadh in early March, not long after the Saudis pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas into accepting a political accord that entrenches Hamas in an unwieldy coalition government with Abbas's Fatah movement….

A few months ago, Bandar was championing the confrontational "realignment" approach in Saudi family councils: Iran's power would be broken, the Syrians would have to give up hegemonic designs on Lebanon, etc., etc. Now the Saudi prince visits Tehran and Moscow regularly. He helped set the stage for the Palestinians' Mecca accord, which has caused Israel to reduce what little cooperation it felt it could extend to Abbas….

[T]he Saudis, too, know how to read election returns.

Britannia No Longer Rules The Waves

Yesterday, I mentioned Britain's recent decision to reduce its navy to insignificance. Arthur Herman, who has written a book on the history of the British Navy, has covered that story nicely. When I first reported on this, I cited the lyrics of "Rule, Britannia" and asked: if Britannia no longer rules the waves, does this mean that Britons shall be slaves? The answer, it turns out, is "yes."

Today, Arthur Herman offers another damning report on the servile British policies that led to the seizure of British sailors by Iran:

The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.

The best commentary on this, however, is a 19th-century British poem linked to in a post by John Derbyshire over at NRO's "The Corner" blog. The poem was written in honor of a lowly British private who was killed because he refused to kowtow (in the original usage of that word) to his Chinese captors. Derbyshire gives the context, which you should read before you read the poem, but the most important point is from the last stanza:

Vain, mightiest fleets, of iron fram'd; Vain, those all-shattering guns; Unless proud England keep, untam'd, The strong heart of her sons.
The same goes for us, too.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007



I chose to restrict myself to 1,000 words because my original draft was 3,247--and still incomplete; and while this more condensed version leaves many important things untouched and a lot to be desired, it has the benefit of being just that--condensed. This will at least give you some insight into the ideas that contributed to the imagining of this piece.
To examine its present trajectory is to discover the state of the American nation irredeemable. The proportion of citizens pickled—like cadavers—in the toxic bromides of multiculturalism is formidable; consequently, the dissolution of the once indivisible American ethos into sects of squabbling ethnicities is all but destined. As for those citizens not so intoxicated, they dwell divided betwixt distraction and despair, in passivity and complacency, awaiting a savior that will never come. And so it is with a hardened heart I hammer out
The idea of American Manifest Destiny is not exclusive to the mid-nineteenth century, though the period of imperial "Westward Ho!" is one of the more conspicuous symptoms of that deeper, existential malady—the messianic mission to make the world over in America's image. Not only does this mandate hearken back to the founding of the Republic but, to this very hour, it gallops apace under the banner of global democracy. The crusade to extend salvation across the globe—to make all places not America, America—is matched only by a more recent, penitent reflex to make all places America, un-American. And whereas once American pretensions to empire could bring but shame to the nation for military misadventures or issue punitive slaps to the jingoist’s ego, at home, the uncritical institutionalization of diversity and the aggressive indoctrination of such facile dogmas as "we are a nation of immigrants," must prove even more destructive to the American body politic for they threaten the very existence of the nation itself.
The political knaves and the meretricious mouthpieces of popular culture have spoken: Thou shalt not question immigration—legal or otherwise. "We are a nation of immigrants" goes the benediction and the demons of racism and xenophobia are exorcised back to Dark Ages before the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred nineteen and sixty-five. Talk of immigration reform (except to increase the huddled masses yearning to cannibalize the Middle Class at the behest of their elitist wranglers) is tantamount to heresy; indeed, proposing a moratorium during which to examine the environmental, financial and existential consequences of permitting millions of aliens of questionable political allegiances to populate this country is the most damnable offense of all.
That we are a nation of Americans—and not a nation of immigrants—is an elementary civic fact. (Incidentally, Osama bin Laden’s fatwa was not titled “Declaration of War Against All Immigrants.”) Neither fact nor force of history—until that force is brought to bear—will convince the open-borderites that their World Nation of Babel is a destructive delusion. Nor is such utopian idiocy confined to any one political persuasion. It is touted by dim-bulbs named Bush and bloated Bostonians called Kennedy, America-hating Leftists, their puling liberal lapdogs and laissez faire libertarians alike. Corporatists of the Church of Economic Determinism gorge themselves on cheap labor while Evangelicals from the School of Putting los Anuses en los Asientos lustily pack the pews with the ceaseless supply of commodities, consumers and congregants unlimited immigration provides. If America is prohibited from restricting immigration on the belief that we are a “nation of immigrants,” it warrants consideration that if we are, and always have been so, then prior to the 1965 Immigration Reform and Control Act America was a nation of immigrants—almost exclusively of European origin. This, the reconquistadors of La Cuckaracha Raza aught to ponder when next they march their Mexican flag waiving mestizo minions onto American streets. Clearly, immigration policy should be dictated by some other criteria; if not, then perhaps it isn’t too late to correct a certain historical mistake.
The nation killers assure us that none can escape the dizzying, centripetal spin of the great American assimilation machine. In goes the immigrant, out the American: not the proud citizen reverential of America’s historical exceptionalism, but the malleable sort eager only to consume scows of garbage they don't need or that demands little more from their leisure time than to slobber over the tawdry exploits of Hollywood’s latest loose bimbo. (In the very least, they are sufficiently American to vote Democrat or attend Catholic mass.) This is a cynical estimation, but the only one that matters to our governing elites. That they themselves do not truly accept the acculturation of immigrants into the American national family is betrayed by another indubitable truth they trumpet so loudly: Diversity is our greatest strength.
Our leaders pay lip service to assimilation even as they deny a particular American culture exists; and inasmuch as one does, it is vilified as inherently oppressive—a racist, sexist legacy to be openly rejected by the immigrant and native alike. Worse still, group rights have formally replaced the rights of the individual. The government incentivizes factionalism and rewards minorities for maintaining their cultural exclusivity through generous entitlements and policies of affirmative action. Adding more diversity to the already encouraged-to-be-indignant ethic blocs can only lead to future violent, internecine conflict—a civil war that will tear the country apart at its unnatural seams as the nations-within-nations vie against one another for scarce resources.
Lamentably, the just and the wise do not always prevail. As the rhetorical salvos are lobbed and the ideological artillery discharged, from the carnage of our country a hideous new order is bent on ascendancy. Out of the reconstituted ashes of the nation no phoenix spreads its blazing wings but there hatches a hydra—its multifarious heads and snapping beaks hissing the false praises of diversity. The Shining City on the Hill has been trampled into the ground by the hungry hordes. Liberty Enlightening the World stands not as she once did—as an inspiration—but as an easy harlot of the harbor. The Mother of Exiles has cast aside her shining lamp and, like some pagan fertility goddess, invites the huddled masses of the world to milk the bounteous udders of the State bone dry. America, home of the new mongrel proletariat has become Amerogod, great welfare state to the world.
A Hat Tip To: The Study of Revenge:

"War Soon With Iran" say Russians

Please let this be true!
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

The Patriot March Against Islam


2nd Annual
Rally Against Islamofascism (Islam) Day

Saturday March 31st 2007

On Saturday March 31st Americans of all ethnicities and of all religious backgrounds (except Muslims) are urged to take to the streets in peaceful protest of Islamic radicalism. The primary locations of the rallies will be in front of several offices of the Council on American Islamic Relations deemed by many as a radical Islamist front organization.


Global Warming: The New Pagan Religion

The idea of environmentalism as a religion—I believe it was Wesley Pruden who dubbed it the First Church of the Warming Globe—is beginning to catch on; it is the theme of a Michael Barone column today.

Like all religions, this one has its daily rituals of devotion and submission. Are those who sort their garbage five times a day, in the name of "recycling," all that different from Muslims who bow toward Mecca five times a day? And like all religions, this one has its zealots who attempt to take their religious seriously, adopting a lifestyle of monastic asceticism and mortification of the flesh.

Hence this story in the New York Times about a couple who are experimenting in living a life with no "carbon footprint" or environmental "impact"—a life of monastic purity, according to the strictures of the First Church of the Warming Globe.

But of course this, too, is a sham. "No impact"? They're still taking advantage of running water and modern sewage and sanitation. They won't drive a car—but they live in Manhattan, a metropolis whose very existence is made possible by a massive industrial infrastructure. And they won't use toilet paper, but the husband has a book contract and the wife works (get this) for BusinessWeek. Remind me: what are books and magazine made out of?

Yes, this couple is living a miserable, dirty little life of self-imposed poverty in their Fifth Avenue high-rise apartment—but that is only the smallest down payment on the human misery demanded by a truly consistent devotion to the religion of the environmentalism.

"The Year Without Toilet Paper," Penelope Green, New York Times, March 22 A sour odor hovered oh-so-slightly in the air, the faint tang, not wholly unpleasant, that is the mark of the home composter. Isabella Beavan, age 2, staggered around the neo-Modern furniture—the Eames chairs, the brown velvet couch, the Lucite lamps and the steel cafe table upon which dinner was set—her silhouette greatly amplified by her organic cotton diapers in their enormous boiled-wool, snap-front cover.

A visitor avoided the bathroom because she knew she would find no toilet paper there….

Welcome to Walden Pond, Fifth Avenue style. Isabella's parents, Colin Beavan, 43, a writer of historical nonfiction, and Michelle Conlin, 39, a senior writer at Business Week, are four months into a yearlong lifestyle experiment they call No Impact. Its rules are evolving, as Mr. Beavan will tell you, but to date include eating only food (organically) grown within a 250-mile radius of Manhattan; (mostly) no shopping for anything except said food; producing no trash (except compost, see above); using no paper; and, most intriguingly, using no carbon-fueled transportation.

Mr. Beavan…needed a new book project and the No Impact year was the only one of four possibilities his agent thought would sell. This being 2007, Mr. Beavan is showcasing No Impact in a blog ( laced with links and testimonials from New Environmentalist authorities like His agent did indeed secure him a book deal, with Farrar, Straus & Giroux, and he and his family are being tailed by Laura Gabbert, a documentary filmmaker and Ms. Conlin's best friend….

The dishwasher is off, along with the microwave, the coffee machine and the food processor. Planes, trains, automobiles and that elevator are out, but the family is still doing laundry in the washing machines in the basement of the building…. And they have not had the heart to take away the vacuum from their cleaning lady, who comes weekly (this week they took away her paper towels)….

Ms. Conlin….said she saw "An Inconvenient Truth" in an air-conditioned movie theater last summer. "It was like, 'J'accuse!' " she said. "I just felt like everything I did in my life was contributing to a system that was really problematic." Borrowing a phrase from her husband, she continued, "If I was a student, I would march against myself."…

[C]onsider this response to Mr. Beavan's Internet post the day he and his family gave up toilet paper.

"What's with the public display of nonimpactness?" a reader named Bruce wrote on March 7. "Getting people to read a blog on their 50-watt L.C.D. monitors and buy a bound volume of postconsumer paper and show the filmed doc in a heated/air-conditioned movie theater, etc., sounds like nonimpact man is leading to a lot of impact."

Hillary Clinton Wants Socialized Medicine

If the concept of another Clinton in the White House weren't frightening enough on its own, Hillary Clinton has just made it clear that she will bring back one of the worst aspects of her husband's administration: a scheme for socialized medicine in America, despite the fact that we pesky Americans "like our choices."

We also like actually receiving medical care—and we don't want to live like people in Canada, where everyone is now excited over a new reform of that nation's socialized medicine system. In the future, cancer patients in Canada will only have to wait two months for treatment. Except that this target will only be reached by 2010. Under socialized medicine, it seems, there's a waiting list for reducing the waiting lists.

"Clinton Touts Universal Health Care Plan," Mike Glover, AP via Washington Post, March 26 Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Monday to create a universal health care system if elected, saying she "learned a lot" during the failed health care effort of her husband's presidency.

"We're going to have universal health care when I'm president—there's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done," the New York senator and front-runner for the 2008 nomination said….

The reason she hasn't "set out a plan and said here's exactly what I will do," Clinton said, is that she wants to hear from voters what kind of plan they would favor. "I want the ideas that people have," said Clinton. She said any health care plan must deal with the reality that there's a unique climate in the country. "We are bigger and more diverse and people like their choice," said Clinton.

Germany Wimps Out To Islam Again!

Why are the Europeans so weak in dealing with the Muslim menace? Because Europe's elites have lost any moral or intellectual confidence in the superiority of their civilization—and thus they are willing to subordinate their ideals to the claims made by any backward, non-Western culture.

Here is a case in point: a judge in Germany who refused to grant a Muslim woman's request to speed up her divorce proceedings because her husband was beating her. In turning down the request, the judge—a German woman—cited a passage from the Koran sanctioning wife-beating.
Plenty of people in Germany have, fortunately, condemned this ruling, but to the extent that it represents a wider trend of Europe's cowering moral uncertainty in the face of a wave of Muslim immigration, the best summary is provided by a German politician who concludes, "Good night, Germany." "Night" is the right metaphor, as Germany once again faces the specter of a relapse into barbarism.

"German Judge Cites Koran, Stirring Up Cultural Storm," Mark Landler, New York Times, March 23 A German judge has stirred a storm of protest by citing the Koran in turning down a German Muslim woman's request for a speedy divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

In a ruling that underlines the tension between Muslim customs and European laws, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, noted that the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu, in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote in her decision, sanctions such physical abuse….

The court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Judge Datz-Winter from the case on Wednesday, saying it could not justify her reasoning….

"When the Koran is put above the German Constitution, I can only say, 'Good night, Germany,' " Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of the Christian Democratic Union, said in the mass-market newspaper Bild.

In a statement defending her ruling, Judge Datz-Winter noted that she had ordered the man to move out and put a restraining order on him. But she also cited the verse in the Koran that speaks of a husband's prerogatives in disciplining his wife. And she suggested that the wife's Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised.
The woman, her lawyer said, does not wear a headscarf….

"For Muslim men, this is like putting oil on a fire, that a German judge thinks it is OK for them to hit their wives," said Michaela Sulaika Kaiser, the head of a group that counsels Muslim women.

Iranian War Making Is Getting Old

Britain is now experiencing its own version of our 1979 Iran hostage crisis—with Tony Blair, alas, in the role of Jimmy Carter, the ineffectual leader whose refusal to use force is making him into a symbol of his nation's self-inflicted weakness.

A few days ago, in a deliberate act of military provocation, the Iranians seized 15 British sailors in Iraq's waters, and they are now threatening to put the hostages on trial as spies, a charge which carries a death penalty
So when does the British bombing of Iran begin? Never, it seems. Tony Blair has given Iran several days to release the hostage, but "Downing Street sources denied that Mr. Blair's comments should be read as an ultimatum to the Iranians or that any sort of military option was under consideration." The only penalty that has been threatened, according this report in the Daily Telegraph, is "a shift in the language being used."

The Telegraph editorial below says that Blair must do much more, that he must demand the release of the hostages "or else"—but it is still vague about what such an "or else" would include.
"Britain Must Leave Iran in No Doubt About Its Anger," Daily Telegraph, March 26 Yesterday Tony Blair used the platform of the EU summit to tell us what we already knew, namely that the Iranian action was "unjustified and wrong", and stressed how seriously Britain is taking the situation, adding: "It is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important."

This was fine as far it went, but it was not enough….

There may be neither political will nor public support for an invasion of Iran, but we do have the power to hurt that country grievously without committing our forces to another long haul, and the threat must be made explicit: release these prisoners, or else….

We wait anxiously to see whether this weakened and discredited Prime Minister has the necessary spine to do what is required, or whether Britain will persist in presenting its weakest aspect to a potential enemy.