Follow the Links

These quotes may encourage you to read the whole article. You'll be better for it!

Vaclav Klaus: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Grant Jones: "Some people can't handle the truth about their religious cult of Gaia."

Hugh Fitzgerald: "Those candidates for President should begin to demand an end to the 'payment of the disguised Jizyah of aid' ... It sets up the idea in the minds of Muslims who receive the aid that it is theirs by right, it is owed to them by the Infidels. And they act according to that belief. Just look at the 'Palestinian' Arabs using such absurd terms as 'embargo' and 'boycott' to describe the refusal of Infidel states to give aid to Hamas, or to a Hamas-linked government."

Reuters: "The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to prohibit any aid to Saudi Arabia." (HatTip AOW).

"George Mason": "Despite the many re-readings of Anthem over the years, I was not prepared for a big surprise this time. It was all there before, but the context for the surprise was not. The quality of life and way of life details of this society focus on Marxist collectivism, to be sure, both in Ayn Rand's native Russia and elsewhere in the world. This time, however, in 2007, Anthem took me to the very heart and essence of Islamic society as well."

Secretary of What State?

Condi Rice has pledged $86 million to Fatah, the Palestinian terror organization formerly headed by Yasser Arafat. Condi’s claim, that Fatah is a moderate bulwark against Hamas, hinges on Arafat’s tradition of lying through his teeth while supporing Israel’s destruction with wave after wave of suicide bombing. That Fatah and Hamas are made of the same cloth is undeniable. Hamas just refuses to lie.

Buried in the news is a little noticed gift to Hamas, again courtesy of the American taxpayer. The Washington Post has a single line burried in the middle of an article: “Rice said an additional $40 million will be contributed to the U.N. agency that assists Palestinian refugees in Gaza.” The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support the unapologetic terrorist organization, Hamas, which draws its members from the general population. Disguising support for Hamas as humanitarian aid has precedent.

The Islamic Committee for Palestine was established in 1986 by Sami Al-Arian and Hussam Jubara “as a philanthropic advocacy group devoted to alleviating the suffering of Palestinian women and children. In reality, the organization served as an American front for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad.” [1] It “was an Islamist organization that raised money in the United States for Hamas.” [2] Al-Arian was charged with seventeen counts including “conspiracy to murder and maim people abroad.”

In 2001, the FBI and Treasury froze the assets of The Holy Land Foundation, an Islamist organization base in Texas disguised as a humanitarian relief organization. “Treasury officials conceded that a 'substantial amount' of the money raised goes to worthy causes, but insisted that Holy Land's primary purpose has been to subsidize Hamas.” [3] It’s founder, Ghassan Elashi, was sentenced to 7 years in 2006 “for doing business with a terrorist (funnelling money to Hamas throughout the the past 10 years.)”

Has Condi Rice joined Sami Al-Arian and Ghassan Elashi?

Update1: It gets worse! Condi contemplates joining forces with the creators of Hamas and the teachers of bin Laden. The New York Sun explains how the State Department contemplates reaching out to the originators of Hamas and the teachers of bin Laden! “The Bush administration is quietly weighing the prospect of reaching out to the party that founded modern political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood. … These developments, in light of Hamas's control of Gaza, suggest that President Bush … has done more than any of his predecessors to accept the movement fighting for the merger of mosque and state in the Middle East. … Making the case today for outreach is Mr. Leiken, who co-authored [an article] titled, ‘The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.’ … has gotten the attention of senior National Security Council officials and Secretary of State Rice.”

Nuclear Attack On American Soil?

A few recent articles briefly broach the topic of a nuclear attack on America. Given that an attack on an American city is a religious aspiration of our jihadist enemy, the near silence on this topic points to the difficulty we have facing the threat. The threat isn’t a technology; it is an enemy likely to use this technology which raises the difficulty we have discussing the problem. The enemy is clearly Islamic in nature.

Most discussions focus on covert activity but state-sponsorship is still a requirement for entry into the nuclear club. Our actions are inadequate to deal with the problem. We’ve failed to stop Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons and furthering the spread nuclear technology. But we’ve removed Saddam and discouraged Kaddafi; only to become obsessed with utopian nations-building. Leaders of both political parties emphatically oppose Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; but they oppose doing anything concrete to stop Iran even more.

The French newswire, AFP, reports that at a recent “international conference on nuclear terrorism” in Miami, experts called for “renewed efforts to crack down on black market sales of nuclear and radioactive material.” This was followed by the shocking (shocking!) news that “the likes of Al-Qaeda network leader Osama bin Laden -- responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States -- are actively seeking nuclear material.” The productiveness of the conference can be gauged by the summary statement: “Communication, sharing and coordination ... are the essence of what will ultimately make our network stronger than the terrorist network."

If that doesn’t convince you of the expertise and competence of those charged with protecting us from an attack that is because they aren’t convinced either. In a Washington Times’ article titled “FBI director predicts terrorists will acquire nukes” we learn that it isn’t only foreign terrorists that are a threat but “homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence” i.e. those inspired by Islam to wage jihad.

Not to be outdone in defeatism, passivity, and denial, the New York Times, in an op-ed called “After the Bomb” is concerned about avoiding another Katrina-like response of the Federal government when (not if) we are attacked. A passing quip urges that we resist “the temptation … to retaliate.” Instead the author urges that we grovel for the cooperation from the governments who gave the terrorists nuclear technology. No mention is made of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that kept our enemies from using nuclear weapons (either directly or through proxies) during the Cold War.

It is common to hear that we can never morally use nuclear weapons; too many innocent people will die when it is only a few perpetrators (covert like al Qaeda or dictators like Saddam) who are responsible. Usually this is accompanied by some vacuous moral vanity about “being better than they are.” Finally this is capped off with “we brought it on ourselves” with the implication we have no moral right to respond.

When talking to the younger generation, what’s shocking is the widespread belief that we were morally wrong to use nuclear weapons in WWII. Growing-up in the 1950s and 1960s this was considered a crank-viewpoint. It is almost standard now although I’d like to have hard statistics to gage if my sample is correct. The vast moral doubt that permeates the younger generation about our nation and our culture suggests a lack of self-esteem required to vigorously defend this nation against foreign threats. The accompanied acceptance of an eventual nuclear attack is the result of a surrender which is first and foremost a moral surrender. A person or nation that doesn’t believe in their worth and greatness won’t have the righteous fighting spirit to insure their existence.

The spiritual killers within are our greatest enemy. Civilizations aren’t destroyed by primitive savages unless they’ve been already destroyed at the core from within.