No post in almost 3 months?? shame on me.

Anyway, here's a comment I made to a blog of a member of CAIR. All comments are there read before public posting, so I won't expect it to see the light of day. :

    Dennis Prager’s article is in no way “anti-islamic,” in fact, it is anti-nothing. It is pro-American values. Congressmen who affirm the Bible, solely or as well as their own holy book, in public, symbolic ceremonies, affirm the values that built America. (Which, not incidentally, provides Muslems with more religious or other freedom than they have in any Islamic country.)

    Secondly, there is NO incongruity with being anti-Islamic and being on a holocaust memorial advisory board; indeed, it is almost a requirement, given the regular denials, or worse, praise, of the Holocaust done my prominent Muslem leaders or clerics, when speaking to their own people. (I assume you are familiar with MEMRI.org?)

    Major Victory, a contestant on Sci-Fi Channels recent "reality" show, Who Wants to be a Super Hero (pure camp, and I mean that as a compliment) had a slogan: "Be a Winner--not a weiner." Could a more apt admonition to our times be had?

    We are a nation of girly men, as recent events point out, or at least a nation led by them. The military brass, or someone who sets rules of engagement, nixed the opportunity to splatter some Taliban at a funeral. Called off the predator drone because it would be insensitive to whack someone in a cemetary. As if a culture that has no respect for life deserves respect for their dead. 
    The Supreme court has declared terrorists deserve the protections of the Geneva convention which were designed to prevent the warfare that they embrace. And the media and congress cry foul when the President tries to spell out just what the Geneva convention is? 
    Captured terrorists are treated to gourmet meals and an acrobatics show as military police try to work around their religious sensibilities. Demagogues scream torture when loud music is played to break these men who spend their time excreting bodily fluids to fling at our soldiers.
    Examples of suicidal sensitivity abound in this PC age. Republican "hawks" are girly men, and their opponents are positively post-op. And don't look at Europe if you want to see survival instincts. From a Dutch Justice Minister advocating Sharia, to banning Piglett in offices and self-censoring cartoons, to playing nuclear patty-cake with Iran, "diplomacy", i.e., pre-emptive surrender rules the day. Perhaps it has to do with being a geriatric continent, as Mark Steyn laments frequently, or as likely a pathological self-hatred at the level of the cultural elite. Or simply the church of multiculuralism unable to do anything to the barbarians at the gate other than roll out the red carpet.
    Will is our nation's fate sealed as Europes appears to be? I doubt it. We have at least faith enough in something to reproduce ourselves, as I note with satisfaction every time I see a Sunday school class. And when the riots grace our streets, I have to believe Americans will throw off the shackles of multiculturalism. Realize that common sense is far more reliable than non-judgementalism. 

    But if we continue to act like weiners, we will not be the winners. Nor will the world, if Sharia continues to grow and America fears countering it, here and around the world. With action, and more importantly, truth.

From (where else) http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ :

SRINAGAR, India (AFP) - Police in Indian Kashmir seized newspapers carrying Pope Benedict XVI’s strong criticisms of Islam and jihad, fearing a Muslim backlash in the flashpoint area.

“We’ve seized copies of (Indian) newspapers carrying the pope’s remarks. It has been done to prevent any tension here,” a police officer said. Copies of the Indian dailies were impounded at Srinagar’s high-security airport when they arrived from New Delhi, he said on Thursday.

The pontiff hit out at Islam and the concept of holy war or jihad in a speech in Germany on Tuesday, citing a 14th-century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Mohammed had brought the world “evil and inhuman” things.

The Muslim league, a Kashmiri separatist group, called for a protest Friday over the pope’s comments. “Whatever has been said against our Prophet is unbearable,” the group’s chief Masarat Alam said. “It should be condemned by all.”

It hardly needs to be said that they prove Pope Benedict correct by their actions. But it does need to be said that Catholics as well as protestants (and Hindus, and Atheiests, et al) should be grateful for Pope Benedict.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/one_arabs_apology_opedcolumnists_emilio_karim_dabul.htm
Excerpt in case the NYPost takes down the article later:

"Well, I'm sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture.     

Every single 9/11 hijacker was Arab and a Muslim. The apologists (including President Bush) tried to reassure us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but was a twisting of a great and noble religion. With all due respect, read the Koran, Mr. President. There's enough there for someone of extreme tendencies to find their way to a global jihad. "

    This is what every honest Muslim who values decency over tribal loyalty should be saying. Fear doubtless plays a role in keeping some who share his views from coming forward--especially as Islamo-monsters are more than happy to eat their own, as evidenced by Al Queda's recent video [Do they actually do anything anymore? All they do is release videos and threats. What's the matter losers, can't sneeze without wearing a cruise missle?].
But if good muslims are really so cowardly, what use are they to advancing goodness? If they won't clean up the festering pit their religion has become, we must do it. 

    Which reminds me of something Laura Ingraham said today. American Muslims tend to be conservative. Well of course--though liberals and Muslims share a contempt for American foreign policy and hatred for Israel, they differ on, well, homosexuality, feminism, environmentalism, capital punishment (heh, oh yeah), and multiculturalism (except as a tool to sneak Muslims into the west w/o assimilation). But are we really willing to advance our (needed) political agenda at the expense of a possible 5th column (or would that be 6th column, after the "peace" movement?) in our countr

     We have a duty to this day, the aniversary of the greatest sucker punch in modern memory.

    Not to 'Honor the Victims'. First, because vicitms don't merit honor; sympathy yes, and justice, for sure. But honor is, or should be, reserved for those who do good when it isn't easy. Certainly there were many from that day who merit honor, but it isn't because they were victims, rather because they were heroes. 

    But our duty isn't even to honor the heroes, though that isn't a bad thing if it helps us do what we must do. Renew, not our sorrow or pain, but our anger and resolve. Endless pain is not the purpose of remembrance, but a strenghening of purpose. As Christopher Hitchens points out, we can have a war memorial after we win. For now, our duty is to fight against the repetition of the horror, first in our lands, which we have done well at so far, and second in the rest of the world. Which we cannot hope to stop attacks one by one, but must fight the enemy, jihadis, where ever they are found.

     Plug for Mark Steyn's review of 9-11 Myths debunked. here If polls are to be believed, you probably know a few people who believe that 9-11 was not the work of the most hate filled group of people on the planet, but rather by the American president in the most cold blooded--and pointless--killing in history. This is tragic. Thanks to David Dunbar and Brad Reagan for taking the time to plow through these inanities in Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. I doubt it'll have much effect at DailyKos (I won't give them a link), but maybe a friend or relative will benefit.
    Painful as it is to admit that a friend might be so arrogantly gullible as to buy into the nutter stuff.

My favorite author, Orson Scott Card (www.hatrack.com) has a "world watcher" column out. Read it and check back.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-08-13-1.html

 “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, and don’t get me wrong here, I have the highest respect for Islam, and learned a lot of very good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do, because they had the guns, and we didn’t know what the hell was going on,” he told Fox. --Steve Centanni of Fox news, after being released from the clutches of Islamo-monsters.

    I have two issues with this. First, though, I'm loathe to criticize people in a trying situtation that I've never been in. Captured, beaten, and threatened with death, can they be blamed for merely saying a few words?

    I'd really like to think that I'd have chosen the death, though. Much as I love my life, my extremely blessed life, is honor nothing? It would be worth my life to avoid paying homage to the god of murder these thugs worship. What has happened to "I regret I have but one life to give for my country?" What happened to standing up and sticking to principles despite the price? (Though it often seems that those "forced" to slander America and honor their captors are saying nothing they disagree with--I'm thinking of the so-called Christian peacemakers in the news awhile back.) Still, how many westerners have the courage and integrity to make a statement to the world that they value thier liberty, values and/or faith above their own lives? The only one I remember was an Italian, I believe, who said to effect, "I'll show you how an Italian dies!" Bravo, and may I be as valient if I am ever in his shoes. God forbid I should ever utter "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammod is his prophet," machine gun at my head or none.

    Secondly, he got free, good, and I don't fault him loving life more than courage and honor. But then said in an interview: "I have the highest respect for Islam, and learned a lot of very good things about it"

W
T
F
?

    If Juan Williams, to pick the only black journalist who comes to mind (and I have nothing at all against him), was kidnapped by the last remnants of the KKK, and forced to call them "master" for a week on pain of death, when freed would he go on to say "I was forced to be a slave at gunpoint, but I have the highest respect for white supremacy, and learned a lot of very good things about it."?
    
    I sure hope not, and if so he'd be ridiculed from here to the moon. Islam today is no better than the klan--it seeks to enslave the globe, and Mr. Centanni's step towards dhimmitude in praising the ideology of his captors only advances their cause.

     In response to recently uncovered terrorist plots, airport security is getting stricter, soon to the point of absurdity. Stuggling airports can't risk losing planes, passengers, or lawsuits, and government agencies don't dare get caught with their pants down.     

    Do screeners dare profile passengers? It's not a stupid question, though liberal's responses usually are. Liberals object to stereotyping one group of people as more likely to be terrorists--we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of those arab-looking people who aren't terrorists. Feelings be darned, of course, but there is a real problem with racial profiling. While all terrorists are Muslims (outside of regional drug lords, perhaps) not all muslims are swarthy looking types, either, and those more european or asian or african looking muslims will increasingly be the tools the terror organizations use to carry out their plots.

    So here's my proposal: Everyone will be carefully searched at the airport unless they agree to eat a ham sandwich and say something nice about Jews. If the first doesn't stick in the throat of every serious muslim (and thus terror suspect) the second sure will.

    There's a discussion over at NRO about whether or not pres. Bush should use the term "Islamic Fascism," after he used it recently in a speech and CAIR (the council of Apologists for Islamic Radicals) complained about it. I recall an earlier usage, where he said something to the effect of "... some call the ideology we fight "Islamic extremism" others "Islamofascism" ..." Certainly the term is more descriptive than War on Terror.
    But it is a redundancy. Jonah Goldberg points out that fascism isn't explicitly defined. However, it is popularly conceived of as a description of an ideology bent on total control by a state. All devout muslims want two things that fit this perfectly:
    Return of the Caliphate. A single ruler over the whole Islamic world imbued with the powers of government, military, and religious authority. (Rather than religious authorities using an oddly named figure head with secular control.) Now, doubtless such a figure would spark an Islamic civil war to put the 30 years war to shame, but once achieving control would have the allegiance of every Muslim official, and would have powers and (if today's Muslim leaders are any sort of guide) actions to put Hitler and Mussolini to shame. Except in the getting trains to run on time, of course.
    And secondly, a world (all of it) run according to Sharia law, with harsh penalties for any infraction. In such countries today (like probably Somalia) people are KILLED for WATCHING soccer, girls killed for... well, its a long list.  If Fascism does not describe what such a world would look like it's a meaningless word, and if all Muslims who wish for this world are not by this fact fascists then no one is.

( First, an aside to apoligize for not posts for a month. I've found another outlet for writing, and dwelling daily on current events is a recipe for madness these days. )

   Thank God for the British intelligence and police and all for preventing yet another Muslim terror attack, involving blowing up airplanes bound for USA inflight. If you follow Little Green Footballs, then you hopefully noticed this story: Here Two of the would be killers were a married couple, bringing along their young baby, so they could hide explosives in its bottle.

    That's right, they were willing to use a still innocent child as mere cover in a suicide mission. Not only do these "people" who have declared war on dar-al-Kufir welcome their own death, they welcome, or at least willingly bring about their children's deaths.

     Is there any way whatsoever to deter such a person? What do Jihadis value? Three things come to mind. The dominance of Islam; their pride; their, and presumably their children's place in "paradise." (I am hoping that the delusion that their child would go to paradise is what allowed the couple mentioned in the linked article to plan their twisted plot, else they are less than animals.) 

    Here is a deterent that may strike at all three, though it hasn't a prayer of being implemented until after a couple more 9-11 style attacks. Announce that if any individual commits, attempts, plots, or funds an attack on America or our allies, we will track down their homes, take their children, and give them to Christian, Jewish, athiest, Hindu, Budist, etc. parents to raise as their own. 

    Of course this would not work with children over 9 or 10, and all records would have to be destroyed to protect the family. But this would strike at the growth of Islam (by one child at least), the parents pride (what's worse than another man raising your children?) and deny the children paradise (in their parent's eyes, at least).
 
    Would this be child abuse? Muslims commited to killing infidels raise their children to do likewise. It would be taking children out of abuse. The only downside is that many of the terrorists are childless young men, often second generation westerners who reject their families assimilation. To these creatures, I can think of no deterrent, can you?

    You know how so often when we'd corner some terrorists in Faluja or elsewhere the media would report in hushed tones about how this was the 114th or 33rd or 672nd most holy site in Islam? And that was supposed to mean that we therefore had to let them continue to hold weapons/hostages/beheadings/terrorists/whatever in there rather than risk damaging or even tresspassing there?

   Maybe we should try telling the Islamists that human life is holy and sacred in our religion, and we get really offended when they take so much of it? Think that would work?

    Three cheers for Bush telling it like it is. Vulgarity exists for a reason, to show the when the time for polite talk is over. My hunch is GWB knew the mic was on him when he let the s-word fly, to make clear to Syria that he knows what's up. Also, was there a surer way to get the MSM to cover something he says then to somehow (in their opinion) screw up?
    Vulgarity is only effective when used by a polite person, and this will set a nice backdrop for any comments Bush makes about any need for Israeli "restraint."

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (yes, I had to look that spelling up) recently said of Israel, and I paraphrase, "If you Europeans felt so bad about your imagined Jew killing, why didn't you give them a nation in your own land and not ours?" This is an arguement that might work--on anti-westerners, fanatic muslims, or ignorant people.

   Israel was founded on European land--Palestine, which was owned by Britian following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. The territory included Jordan and Iraq. So the state of Israel WAS founded on land belonging to Europeans. "But didn't Britian take the land from Muslims anyway?" Sure, but not the muslims living there. And the Ottomans had taken it from the crusader states, who had taken it from the arabs, who had taken it from Byzantium, who had inherited it from Western Rome, who had dispersed the Jews that had taken it centuries earlier from pagan tribes. 


   Of all the peoples that have ever had a state on that land, only the Jewish people still exist. Britian never really wanted it anyway, and they were only too happy to divvy it up into Jordan and Israel. 

   However, Islam teaches that once land belongs to a muslim power, that land belongs to the house of Islam forever. No take-bakes in their games of conquest, which is what the terrorists were babbling about at the time of the Madrid bombings. Which, along with the vile lies habitually spread about Jews in Muslim media, is why, even though it was sparsely populated and ruled from afar before, the "Arab Street" is so keen on Israel's total destruction.

Jews out of Palestine when Muslims leave Byzantium.

    Superman used to fight for "Truth, justice, and the American way." Supposedly, in the new movie I haven't seen, he now fights for "Truth, justice, and all that is good." I've heard it is sometimes truncated down to "...and all that," which would make Superman sound jaded, or as if he is giving a glib response.

    But I can live with the change. I mean, it is a "dis", but I support anyone fighting for truth and justice. Truth, capital t, is certainly needs a defense, not just of what is true, but of the actual reality that some things are, and some aren't. Distance himself from his adopted country like the prodigal son leaving dad, Supes will never be a true cosmopolitan until he ditches truth and becomes a multi-culturalist. Likewise justice. Real, unmodified justice, as in innocents being protected, good rewarded and evil punished. Any adjective on justice and we're no longer talking about people getting what they deserve, but about changing "systems" and sneaking socialism or communism, the ultimate injustice, into the culture. (Note as an aside that I talk about what I see today, and certainly some things that are just have been called social justice. But this is not always the case, or the word wouldn't need modification. Increasingly I see social justice used for taking what some have earned and giving it to those who have not.) Justice is the singular most lacking quality in the world today. If Superman fights for Truth and Justice rather than Non-judgementalism and Social equality, then he is still the down-home American farm-boy he always was, even if he leaves off the name of America for marketing purposes.

     There is a group of superheroes with a mission statement even more similar to America's then Truth and Justice, though. I must admit that I didn't hear the phrase in their movies and haven't collected X-Men comics since leaving for college in '98 (and from what I've seen browsing trade paper backs, it's gotten kinda weird at times). But the phrase the mutants use to describe their mission is: "Fighting to protect a world that hates and fears them." A great summation of America's actions the last century.

    Now, take as given that democratic governments cannot perfectly maintain continuity of purpose and that all leaders fail in wisdom, virtue, or willpower at times. Also, that our actions must first insure our own survival and then be predicated on the possible. Not withstanding these considerations, Americans have sacrificed more for the freedoms of strangers than any other people. And further, we have taken in people regardless of their income or nationality, arguably to our detriment. 

     It's still not argued, I believe, that we were the good guys in WWII. Because little to none of the fighting was in our lands, we came out of the war much better off than Europe and Asia. So what did we do? Pour time and money into repairing battered lands and peoples.

    What were the Korean or Vietnam wars for? Why is capitalism worth fighting for? The markets of two small countries would not have enriched us noticeably. America's blood, treasure, and reputation were drained away for other people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of dreams of their own choosing because our leaders recognized the threat a communist government is to its own people.

   How easy would it be to remove any given arab country? What was done when we had justifiable cause to do so, when thugs sheltered in Afghanistan attacked us? And likewise in Iraq, for less smoking-craterly obvious but certainly justified and numerous reasons? We utilized the most efficient weaponry and soldiers ever seen on earth at *not* killing, at target solely those who meant us harm and oppressed their peers, despite the fact that they broke every convention of war. And then we told the people, decide how you want to govern yourselves, and we will keep you safe as you do.

    So why does the world hate us? Marvel Comics' X-Men are hated because they are powerful and different. Prof Xavier (irreplaceable played by Patrick Stewart, I have to add) could rule any given nation from his bedroom without anyone knowing.  Likewise the red head, whatever she calls herself. Cyclops can level an army with a glance. Iceman can freeze solid anyone he sees, Beast can do quantum physics while hanging from his toes, and Angel... could, er, drop things on people. Oh, and he's rich. (That's not a mutant power, but it is hereditary.) The display of geekery could continue, but suffice to say the analog is certainly there. America's global reach and unparalleled strength set her apart, and some people might fear us for this. But only people who refuse to or are unable to clearly see history.

    The global disdain for our country, or at least the portrayal of it, goes far beyond reasonably understood suspicion of power.  In the Socializing world (i.e., western Europe and parts of Latin America, probably Canada, and Berkeley and San Francisco) part of it, I think, is a fear of capitalism and the fact that we make it look easy. You probably scoff, but image a frenchman, Jaque Chirac, say, because it's so silly, who said "Because of the US's unmatched economic growth over the last few decades, we will work towards dramatically lowering regulation of businesses and taxation." How long would that riot last?

   In the primitive world, i.e., Sharia ruled countries and oil tyrant monarchies, America's respect suffers because of our religious freedom (i.e., we allow people not to be muslim) or because of lies spread about us. If half of what is said on Al-Jazeera is a quarter true, Uncle Sam must cast no reflection.  What is the purpose of fomenting hate at "the great satan"? Three things come to mind. First, for citizens to believe that without islam they have no chance at leading a decent life. Second, to play to deep seated cultural arabic tribal loyalties. Third, as in Orwell's 1984, to keep citizens ire focused away from the governments that fail them.

    I don't know if America is especially hated in Africa or Asia. I should probably check out America Against the World before beginning such long wind suppositions.

   So what do the X-Men do with the ire directed their way? Protect themselves, perhaps whine about it a bit, then go and do good. Since if they don't, no one will. Likewise America. We must examine ourselves, consider carefully all consequences of any action and non-action, persuasively make the case for what we determine best we can is right and just, and then get some thick skin. The "world" may hate and fear us, but it's still worth fighting for Truth and Justice. That's the American way.