Sunday, August 27, 2006

The Suicide Bomb Society

The Suicide Bomb Society
by Robert Tracinski
TIA Daily
Like East Berlin and West Berlin during the Cold War, Israel and the Palestinian territories are side-by-side laboratories—not for opposing political systems, but for opposing moral systems.
Excerpt:"In early July, a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media Communications Center found that 77% of Palestinians supported the Hamas kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, the provocation that had recently led to a new Israeli offensive in Gaza. 'Significantly,' the Jerusalem Post noted, 'this high support for the abduction comes in spite of the fact that the majority of respondents…expect the crisis to end with losses incurred by the Palestinian side…. The poll also found that support for Hamas has increased despite international sanctions and the growing violence.'

"Such decisions are driven, not by any hidden ulterior motive or long-term strategic calculation, but by a simple moral imperative: the morality of self-sacrifice….

"As with the Cold War examples of East Berlin and West Berlin, the Palestinian territories and Israel offer side-by-side laboratories for opposing moralities.

"As in the Cold War, this side-by-side contrast is merely a microcosm for the contrast between two larger civilizations and their central powers: America on the one side, and Iran on the other…."

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Ministry of Truth Lies Again!

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident
How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War
+ Introduction + What Supposedly Happened: The Media Accuses Israel of War Crimes + The Ambulance With a Hole in Its Roof: Dismantling the Evidence + Possible Rebuttals and Explanations of the Apparent Fraud + Conclusion: How a Hoax Became News

Friday, August 25, 2006

The Return of the Third Reich And Adolf Hitler

American Thinker

Renascence of the Third Reich
August 22nd, 2006
Who would have thought it twenty years ago? In the first decade of the 21st century the most important world political movement is based on something recently thought to be as dead as the dinosaurs – the Third Reich. There has always been an Arab connection to the Third Reich, though. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war in Berlin, met frequently with Hitler and organized an SS-Muslim formation. He had plans for installing concentration camps in Palestine but that was not to be.

Given the ongoing relevance of National Socialism to radical Islamism, it is worth reviewing a couple of salient facts about the Hitler period in Germany. While neither of these topics are secrets, they tend not to be emphasized because they are based on
(a) the now discredited race theory of National Socialism (although similar ideas were fashionable as eugenics in large parts of Europe and the U.S. in the first half of the 20th century); and
(b) Hitler’s “great man” view of history, which is not the way historians tend to view events in the post-modern world.
National Socialist race theory. Winston Churchill summed this up admirably in The Gathering Storm, where he outlined the main thesis of Mein Kampf. Essentially, this book, which means “My Struggle,” takes a Darwinist view of the fate of nations. Man is a fighting animal, therefore the nation is a fighting unit: it must fight for its existence. In order to do this effectively, it must be free of foreign defilements, here seen as the Jews, which, being an “international race,” weaken the national will to fight. The people are not moved by reason but rather by the driving force of “fanatic and hysterical passions” – hence the central role of propaganda. The world is moving toward a great and final upheaval in which the German race must prevail.
With suitable alteration for time, place and personalities, does this sound like anyone you know? It sounds to me a lot like Mahmood Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to say nothing of Ayatollah Khamenei, Ruler of the Iran Supreme Council. So we have been here before – the Third Reich – where the radical Middle East is now.
Proceeding through the Muslim Brotherhood and the Ba’ath Parties of Syria and Iraq, and under the sponsorship of the Grand Mufti, the ideas of the Third Reich never died in the Middle East. They had to exist in the shadows for a while due to the revulsion the Nazis created in the still-vigorous civilized world, but as that world has become less vigorous in its European component and as Nazi ideas have become more apposite in the minds of Islamic radicals, they are back, with the very same centerpiece, the extermination of the Jews, serving the purpose of a “driving force of fanatic and hysterical passions.”
The Great Man theory of history. Hitler’s German biographer, Joachim Fest, characterized Hitler as the last of the great warrior/conquerors – in the line of Cyrus the Great (founder of the Persian Empire), Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghiz Khan, and Napoleon (a list that is meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive). Fest meant that a component – not the only component – of Hitler’s wars was glory, an obsolete concept now, but one that the ancients understood perfectly – “to ride in glory through the gates of Persepolis.” Indeed, for a while Hitler styled himself Grofaz, the German acronym for “Greatest Warlord of All Time.”
Glory was a component of Hitler’s makeup, but so also was policy. Hitler had a very definite view of the important of race – especially Teutonic racial purity – as necessary to secure his goals. Which were “living room in the East” – meaning acquiring all of the Soviet Union east of the Urals, securing its natural resource base for Greater Germany and turning the Slavs into a helot – slave – population serving the warrior Teutonic race, which would then direct world affairs. Whether one characterizes this conception as “crazy” it was a conception, and one similar historically to that of the ancient Spartans.
National Socialist society was organized around the leadership principle – Fuhrerprinzip – a critical aspect of the Nazi State. It meant rule by a great man. The Fuhrer was the great man who stood at the top of the edifice. Other great men proved their worth by “working toward the Fuhrer.” The concept of “working toward the Fuhrer” meant that ambitious subordinates would be competing for the Fuhrer’s attention, which allowed him to divide and rule. But they would also be anticipating his wishes based on the direction he outlined for the nation, so that a great deal got done without explicit orders and without explicitly burdening the Fuhrer with responsibility for every action.
Given the Fuhrerprinzip of the National Socialist State – the rule by a great man – a very important point regarding war comes to the fore, which is often overlooked even now about Nazi Germany. On April 29, 1939, Hitler celebrated his 50th birthday. Because Hitler saw himself as critical to the historic mission of National Socialism – to establishing the Teutonic race at the apex of world power through war – the clock was running. It was essential that the necessary war to defeat the Slavs and gain territory in the East be undertaken while he was still young and vigorous enough to direct it.
What does this mean? That no amount of diplomacy was going to deflect Hitler from his course. Indeed, he was heard to curse the prime ministers of Britain and France because they “stole” from him the war he was trying to start over Czechoslovakia. As history knows, he overcame this obstacle.
The history of National Socialism, Hitler, and the Fuhrerprinzip suggest the limits of negotiation with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, and the entire radical Islamist venture in Iran. There is good reason to think that Ahmadinejad, with his millennial Shia theology, is pursuing a timetable independent of whatever countervailing offers are or will be made by the West. If this is true, then the sooner he is out of office, the better it is for us.
Greg Richards is a frequent contributor.

Mel Gibson Discovers Signs Of the Goldstein Conspiracy

Racial "Survivor" to Air Instead of Religious Battle

Racial ‘Survivor’ to Air Instead of Religious Battle

By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief,

ScrappleFace.comNews Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.
(2006-08-24) —

Sources close to the producers of TV’s Survivor said the upcoming ‘Cook Islands‘ contest among racially-segregated teams of Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Asians will be shown in place of another concept that had to be aborted during early video production.

The unfinished season, dubbed Survivor: Jihad, had pitted religiously-segregated ‘tribes’ of Sunni, Shia, Jews and Christians against each other, but the production ended prematurely with no survivors at all.

By the close of the first episode, only the Muslims remained, according to sources, and they were all eliminated in episode two after what witnesses described as “a bizarre series of coconut martyrdom operations.”

“We felt the outcome really would have damaged the concept of our franchise,” said an unnamed source close to the show. “It’s one of those ripped-from-the-headlines ideas that seemed brilliant during our brainstorming session, but perhaps it was a bit too edgy, or simply a little ahead of its time.”

Article from ScrappleFace:

Wednesday, August 23, 2006


I have written a little something for all of you.
I rewrote the lyrics to "Fuck Tha Police" by Dope, something that I have wanted to do since I first heard the song. I don't like rap, and especially not gangsta rap, but the melody and beat of this song seems really appropriate for the new lyrics. It is written from the persepective of a hard core soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan.I hope you like it, and any of our soldiers reading this blog like it too.
FUCK THA HAJIS (new lyrics for "Fuck Tha Police" by Dope)
Fuck tha hajis, comin' straight from the free and proud.
Mother fuckers got it bad cause i'm allowed
To draw a baby raper prophet, and makes a fatwa
Calling for my head off.
Fuck that shit cause I ain't the one
For a punk mother fucker with a koran and a gun
To be shooting at and threatenin’ with hell
We can go toe to toe cuz I stay an infidel.
Tryin’ to behead me cuz I’m a stranger
You’re pissin me off, your all in danger.
Shooting at my humvee from your motorbike,
Yeah mother fucker, i'm callin’ in an airstrike.
You'd rather see the whole world end,Than have an infidel for a friend.
I’ll shoot a haji out of shape
And when i'm finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter.
Still gettin' strong off MREs and water.
I don't know if they're pigs or what
With their face in the dirt and a raised up butt.
A mother fucker on the war path
And when i'm finished, there's gonna be a blood bathof hajis dyin' on my way
yeah I got somethin' to say
Fuck tha hajis and I said it with authority
Cause the US has military superiority.
Bullets are flying all around me,
While you're a scared little maggot and hide behind your baby.
But that shit don't work, I just laugh.
My Stryker don’t stop for nothing in its path.
Jihadis, i'm sayin' fuck you punk.
Fuck your koran and shit, it's all junk.
You better say your prayers when you stand
With a rag on your head and a gun in your hand.
Our Apaches and Cobras are hunting you down,
Our Barrett 50 cals will put you in the ground.
It is so sweet to watch your raghead ass
Go up in a white phosphorous blast.
Takin' out a haji will make my day
An infidel like me don't give a fuck to say

Of Animals And Muslims

Fox Newsmen Still Missing!

Time for a BLOGBURST!

Monday, August 21, 2006


See comments for a lively discussion of this important issue!

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Why Big Brother & The World Hates The Jews

Excellent article by Underground Comrade Medved:
Long Live Goldstein!
Why the world hates the Jews
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
---Many of the bitter controversies in every corner of the globe inevitably raise the same ancient question: why does the world hate the Jews?
--Whether it’s the angry international reaction to Israel’s efforts to defend itself in Lebanon, or Mel Gibson’s drunken rant in Malibu, the age-old specter of anti-Semitism refuses to disappear. With only 13 million Jews in the world – less than one fourth of one percent of the earth’s population – why does this tiny group inspire such bitter, widespread and often violent animosity?
---The answer is obvious to anyone who monitors anti-Semitic propaganda from all its multifarious sources. People who express hatred, resentment or fear regarding the Jews almost always focus on charges of Jewish arrogance, elitism, aggressiveness and lust for power. According to the classic logic of anti-Semites everywhere, Jews deserve harsher treatment than anyone else because they work harder than anyone else to enshrine their own superior status. This argument suggests that the only way to answer constant Jewish demands for special treatment and privilege is to impose special limitations and restrictions on their instinctive will to dominate. According to such logic, the rest of the world must work together to cut Jews down to size; only then will they function on the same plane as everyone else. As Hutton Gibson (Holocaust-denying father of the scandal-tarnished star, Mel) revealingly declared to interviewer Steve Feuerstein: “I don’t know what the Jewish agenda is except that it’s all about control. They’re after one world religion and one world government.”
---This central, primeval charge that arrogant Jews seek global dominance originates from three distinct historical factors:
1- The emphasis on the “Chosen People” concept in the Bible
2- The prominence and prosperity of Jews in most nations in which they’ve established significant communities, and
3- The startling successes of the State of Israel in the mere 60 years of its existence.
These circumstances sometimes perplex even people of good will and therefore deserve deeper consideration and explanation.
--While it’s true that the Bible speaks repeatedly of a special relationship between God and the Jews, anti-Semitic agitators have always misunderstood or distorted the essential nature of that connection. According to Scripture, the Jews have been chosen for distinct responsibilities, not for unique privileges: we accept special obligations, rather than claiming special power. In Jewish tradition, non-Jews are expected to follow just seven commandments—the Noahide laws of basic morality. According to mainstream Torah teaching, gentiles who follow these rules (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit gross sexual immorality, and so forth) should be judged as righteous and assumed to earn their share in the World to Come (the afterlife). God, however, expects his covenantal people to apply far more numerous and stringent commandments to their behavior – 613 commandments, to be exact – regarding everything from food, to business ethics, marital relations, and Sabbath observance.
---The concept of chosen-ness, in other words, involves a significant burden rather than privileged status —a burden reflected in the common phrase, “Ohl Malchus Shamayim” or “The Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” to describe the commitment of every Jew who accepts the covenant of Abraham. Moreover, Jews remain more a “choosing people” than a “chosen people” because so many non-Jews over the centuries (and particularly in recent years) have selected Jewish identity and converted to our faith. In the US, nearly 10% of today’s Jewish population of 5.2 million counts as converts to Judaism. Though we don’t emphasize proselytizing efforts in the style of Evangelical Christians, many of the leaders of the Jewish people (including hugely significant rabbis in nearly every era for the last 2000 years) have been “Jews by Choice” --- those who weren’t born Jewish, but chose to join our people through an ancient, well-established process of conversion.
---Finally, the whole idea of the “Chosen People” has never brought the assumption that God selected us for unusual political, military or even economic authority. The Bible suggests that the Jews will be “a nation of priests and a holy nation” --- not some sort of all-conquering superpower within the Middle East or the world at large. Our tradition has always defined Jewish power as spiritual, rather than practical and worldly. No Jewish leader, going all the way back to Moses and Abraham, has ever suggested that our people should dominate the world and control other nations. The Bible specifies relatively modest borders for the Holy Land, and repeatedly mentions the much larger, far more formidable empires to the south (Egypt) and to the East (Babylonia, Assyria, Persia). Even during the glory days of ancient Israel under David and Solomon the Jewish state never achieved full control of that promised territory—let alone a world-girdling empire. At that time, as with Israel today, the Jewish people sought only to live unmolested within the confines of their own cherished land, each man “beneath his own vine and own fig tree.”
---No one can deny that Jews in the United States and in many other nations recently have achieved surprising levels of prosperity and influence but any talk of Jewish “dominance” or “control” in those societies remains the province of neo-Nazi propagandists. There is no significant industry or arena of endeavor – no, not one--in any nation in the world (outside of Israel) in which Jews outnumber or rule over non-Jews. Even the famous Jewish command of Hollywood is an ignorant myth concerning an increasingly international industry in which the prominence of influential Jews has actually decreased in the last seventy years. Most of the pioneering movie studios founded and owned by immigrant Jewish families have either gone out of the movie production business altogether (M-G-M) or else sold out to strikingly non-Jewish corporations (Columbia to the Japanese Sony Corporation, and 20th Century Fox to an Australian descendant of Presbyterian clergy, Rupert Murdoch). The two largest entertainment conglomerates in the world boast board chairmen who are African-American (Richard Parsons at Time Warner) and Arab American (George Mitchell at Disney) neither of whom are remotely Jewish. The yearly lists of Hollywood’s most influential power players, as identified by Premiere Magazine and other sources, regularly show that close to one-fourth of the movers-and-shakers are Jews—a disproportionate showing, to be sure, but hardly an indication of Jewish dominance. Similarly, the Fortune 500 list of the nation’s largest corporations features a top ten ranking that includes three oil companies with strong Arab ties and no affection whatever for Israel, as well as a car company (Ford) founded by one of history’s most outspoken anti-Semites, and a retailer run by conservative Christians from Arkansas (Wal-Mart)—but not a single corporation that was founded, run, or owned by Jews. Among the top 100, at most six (including Home Depot, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers) could classify in any way as “Jewish companies.” With these incontrovertible facts easy to verify for anyone with access to the internet or a library, it becomes even more difficult to explain the persistent, pernicious and utterly false belief that Jews “own” or “control” most of the world’s banks, newspapers, media companies and other important instiutions. Part of the confusion involves appalling lies and misinformation: many callers to my radio show somehow believe that the Rockefellers are Jewish (they were actually German Christians who arrived in Philadelphia in 1723) or that the Rothschild family—a favorite target of anti-Semites for more than 200 years-- still dominates world banking (the family’s power actually peaked in the Napoleonic era and their influence on the global economy today is either invisible or non-existent).
---There is also a tendency on the part of paranoid anti-Semites to search out a few Jewish names even in areas in which Jews play minor roles in order to triumphantly affirm the myth of “Jewish control.” Consider the case of the Bush administration and the frequent, laughably absurd charge that it’s somehow dominated by Jewish “neo-conservatives” who forced the President to make war on Iraq for the sake of Israel. In truth, Jews remained conspicuously absent from positions of authority during the first Bush term: for the first time in more than 65 years (since the Presidency of FDR!) the President’s Cabinet (15 department heads in all) included not a single Jew. The true believers in a Neo-Con cabal invariably cite just two names who held sub-cabinet posts (Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) and a single civilian advisor to the Defense Department (Richard Perle, of the Defense Policy Board) who doesn’t even count as an administration employee. The anti-Semites focus on these names not because of their importance (anyone who believes that Wolfowitz and Feith secretly controlled their imperious, tough-as-nails boss, Don Rumsfeld, knows nothing about Rummy) but because they happen to be Jewish. Similarly, conspiracists like to blame Jews in the Senate for pushing us into war with Iraq, while ignoring the fact that a bare majority of the eleven Jewish Senators at the time (including such fierce anti-war advocates as Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer) actually voted against the resolution authorizing war –at a time when nearly 80% of their gentile colleagues lined up on the other side to support the President in deposing Saddam Hussein.
---To me, one of the most mystifying aspects of the stubborn belief in Jewish influence and power is the notion that our fractious, deeply divided, largely disaffiliated people somehow manages to get together to exert that authority. I’m a Jewish radio talk show host, and so is the appalling (and unfunny) Al Franken of Air America. We agree on nothing, and we’ve both managed to survive several very angry, bitter, public confrontations. Do Jew-haters believe that behind the scenes we receive the same secret memos from Jewish Conspiracy Central, or else get together in dank, shadowy rooms to study the one-hundred-year-old hoax, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”? Less than half of the U.S. Jewish population (alas!) gives to any Jewish charity, or holds membership in any synagogue, Temple, pro-Israel lobbying group, B’nai B’rith lodge, or other Jewish organization.
---In this context, the almost mystical, profoundly illogical belief in “Jewish power” based on our over-representation among accountants and dentists amounts to more than a delusion; it is, in fact, a sickness.
---In order to credit Islamist denunciations of an “Israeli Empire,” or worry that the perennially embattled Jewish state might indeed count as uniquely aggressive and power hungry, one must remain incurably ignorant not only of contemporary history but of rudimentary geography. The merest glance at a map reveals the incontrovertible fact that Israel remains, in every sense, a tiny nation. Egypt alone – representing only one of Israel’s twenty hostile Arab neighbors—is more than 48 times the land area of Israel. Adding together only the various Arab nations (without including other vast Islamic homelands like Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan), the Arabs control well over 300 times the area of the New Jersey-sized Jewish state. In other words, even before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran succeeds (God forbid) in his plan to “wipe Israel from the map,” 99.7% of the Arab lands are already free of Jews.
---Moreover, for nearly thirty years, Israel has been shrinking and retreating – not expanding – hardly the behavior of an aggressive empire bent on world domination. After capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza and the West Bank in a defensive war in 1967, Israel returned the vast Sinai to Egypt in 1978, agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian State on most of the West Bank and Gaza in 1993, vacated its security zone in Lebanon in 2000, abandoned Gaza entirely in 2005 and, under the current Prime Minister, committed to moving out of nearly all territory in the West Bank in the near future. In retrospect, some of these moves look like horrible policy mistakes, but they unequivocally indicate that there is no basis at all to suggest that Israeli aggression accounts for contemporary anti-Semitism.
---The establishment of the modern Jewish state wasn’t a cause of Jew hatred, but a response to Jew hatred—not only in Europe, but throughout the Islamic world where some 800,000 Middle Eastern and North African Jews were driven from their ancient communities and found new homes in Israel. None of Israel’s eight major wars has been about a Jewish lust for new territory. All of them have been about a beleaguered nation’s ceaseless attempts to make its citizens secure from murderous attack in the distinctly limited area of their ancestral homeland. Every Arab child in Lebanon, in Gaza, and in the West Bank could sleep sweet, undisturbed slumber as soon as tomorrow night if the adults once-and-for-all gave up their long-standing project of driving the Jews out of the Middle East.
---Contrary to anti-Semitic presumptions, Israel has never demanded special privileges of any kind, but yearns (and bleeds) only for the same rights other nations enjoy: to live undisturbed beside its neighbors without unceasing attack by terrorists, militias and, occasionally, major armies. Montenegro, the newest member of the family of nations after a referendum this year, won independence and worldwide recognition despite the fact that more than 45% of the electorate opposed bringing the nation into existence, and only a bare majority claims Montenegran (as opposed to Serbian) nationality. More than 80% of the residents of Israel are Jewish, and they have fought tenaciously for their nationhood for nearly sixty years. The desire for peaceful borders and acceptance from fanatical neighbors hardly amounts to an Israeli demand of privileged status, but the refusal to grant that recognition reflects the classical attitude of the anti-Semite: that Jews indeed deserve different treatment from all other nations on earth but in a negative, hostile and, ultimately murderous sense.
---In conclusion, none of the three obsessive fears of Jew haters—the “Chosen People” concept, Jewish prosperity in the Diaspora, and Israel’s success (so far) in nation-building and self-defense –demonstrates in any way a push for world conquest or superior standing for the children of Abraham. How, then, can we understand the imperishable belief that Jews function as an arrogant, imperious, overbearing people? In a few words, that resentment stems in truth from the age-old Jewish refusal to abandon our separate identity, our irreducible distinctiveness through the millennia. My friends Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin provide the most compelling exposition on this dynamic in their invaluable book, Why the Jews?, recently reissued.
---In any event, the logic becomes most accessible when considered in personal, intimate terms. If a small group among your neighbors refuses invitations to worship in your churches and mosques, to eat the food you prepare in your homes, to marry your daughters, to embrace your nationalisms, or to share your enthusiasm for the ultimate, universally applicable perfection of your Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Catholic, Islamic, Nazi or Communist worldview, then it’s all but certain you will resent the members of that stubborn group – and assume that they exclude themselves from elements of your society due to an innate, obnoxious sense of superiority.
---For Jews who try to remain faithful to the old covenant, there’s no choice about the unyielding refusal to assimilate and disappear—and no surprise at the angry reaction in much of the world. After all, the Bible repeatedly predicts that response. This realization doesn’t make it any easier to cope with anti-Semitism, but it does make the eternal hatred comprehensible. No matter how inconvenient or unpopular, we get our marching orders from the commandments--including the crucial and celebrated injunction to choose life, for ourselves and our people.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Declaration of War against Islam

I believe it is time for America and the Western world to clarify things by declaring war against Islam. Here are my thoughts and the proposed Declaration:
I saw the movie Obsession last week, and even though I read alot about the radical islamist threat, the movie scared and motivated me more than usual, so here's an idea.
A frequent topic re Muslims is that our legal system is inadequate to deal with the threat. Our criminal justice code and immigration laws and procedures were not designed to handle issues of this magnitude. So, for example, when I discuss with others the implementation of a policy to identify, take into custody, and deport radical Muslims, most people usually agree with the concept. Very few of us want individuals who are correctly identified as radical Muslims to live in the United States. So how do we legally get from here (currently allowing radical islamists freedom of movement within the country) to there (legally deporting them)?
I think the legal means to that end is a Declaration of War against Islam. OK, OK,
I know a Declaration of War is normally directed against a country, not against a movement or a part of a religion. But I think having a document in front of us may help move this forward. The stategy would be:
1. to draft such a resolution
2. to distribute to our Congressmen (as in "see, look at this") or place full-page advertisement in the newspapers, or hand it out at rallies, etc.
3. to have one or two Congressmen introduce the Declaration, and then watch the interest and sponsors grow.

For all I know, a sample document may have already been written. If anyone can give me the reference, please do so in the comments below. If this document has not yet been written, perhaps there are attorneys out there who can help. As reference, take a look at the Declarations of War by the US Congress for World War I and World War II.


Joint Resolution Declaring that a State of War exists between Islam and the Government and People of the United States and making provisions to prosecute same.

Whereas the extraterritorial movement known as Islam has planned, advocated, and committed unprovoked acts of War against the people of the United States of America

Whereas, numerous representatives of said Islam have announced that their exists a State of War between Islam and the United States,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, that a State of War now exists between Islam and the United States and is hereby formally declared. The President is authorized and directed to employ the military forces of the United States as needed and the resources of the Government to carry on the war against Islam. Further, recognizing the danger posed by individuals who are loyal to Islam who are now or may in the future be residing in the United States and its territories, the President and the Attorney General of the United States are hereby authorized to identify such individuals, take them into preventive custody, and deport them from the United States.

For purposes of this Declaration, individuals adhering to Islam are defined as those advocating or supporting jihad attacks and the institution of Sharia law for Muslims now living in the United States.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Declare War On Iran, IMMEDIATELY!!!!

TIA Daily • August 10, 2006
Five Minutes to Midnight
The War Is Coming, No Matter How Hard We Try to Evade It
by Robert Tracinski
---I have noticed a recent trend in war commentary, starting a few weeks after the beginning of the current conflict in Lebanon. The trend began with a series of analogies between recent events and the events of the 1930s, leading up to World War II.
---In the August 2 Washington Times, for example, Kenneth Timmerman referred to the Lebanon War as "Islamofascism's 1936." Just as the Spanish Civil War that began in that year was a preview of World War II—the 1937 bombing of Guernica was Hermann Goering's test of the ability of aerial bombing to destroy cities—so Timmerman argues that the Lebanon War is a preview of a larger conflict: "Iran…is testing the international community's response, as it prepares for a future war." (Jack Wakeland made a similar point in the July 19 edition of TIA Daily.)
---For others on the pro-war right, the preferred analogy is 1938, the year in which Western appeasement of Hitler emboldened him to further attacks. That year's Munich Agreement—the "diplomatic solution" to a German-fomented crisis in Czechoslovakia, abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for promises that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed would guarantee "peace for our time." On August 7, the headline of a Washington Times editorial asked: is the Bush administration's proposed diplomatic solution for Lebanon an attempt to secure "Peace in Our Time?"
---Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg picks 1939, wondering if Israel will fall to a Sunni-Shiite pact, just as Poland fell to a Nazi-Soviet pact, while John Batchelor, writing in the New York Sun, is more ecumenical, citing analogies to 1936, 1938, 1939, and even America in 1941.
---British commentator David Pryce-Jones, in his blog at National Review Online, sums up the general sense of things:
---I have often wondered what it would have been like to live through the Thirties. How would I have reacted to the annual Nuremberg Party rallies, the rants against the Jews, and Hitler’s foreign adventures which the democracies did nothing to oppose, the occupation of the Rhineland and Austria, Nazi support for Franco in the Spanish civil war, and the rest of it. Appeasement was then considered wise, and has only become a dirty word with hindsight….
---Now Iran is embarked on foreign adventures in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon. It is engaged on all-out armament programs, and is evidently hard at work developing the nuclear weapon that will give it a dimension of power that Hitler did not have…. Appeasement is again considered wise.
---What these commentators are picking up is not an exact parallel to any one event of the 1930s—hence their scattershot of historical analogies. Instead, what they are picking up is a sense of the overall direction of world events: we are clearly headed toward a much larger, bloodier conflict in the Middle East, but no one in the West wants to acknowledge it, prepare for it, or begin to fight it.
---The phrase that best captures this sense of foreboding struck me in a long and interesting account of wartime Israel by Bernard-Henri Levy.
---Zivit Seri is a tiny woman, a mother, who speaks with clumsy, defenseless gestures as she guides me through the destroyed buildings of Bat Galim—literally “daughter of the waves,” the Haifa neighborhood that has suffered most from the shellings. The problem, she explains, is not just the people killed: Israel is used to that. It’s not even the fact that here the enemy is aiming not at military objectives but deliberately at civilian targets—that, too, is no surprise. No, the problem, the real one, is that these incoming rockets make us see what will happen on the day—not necessarily far off—when the rockets are ones with new capabilities: first, they will become more accurate and be able to threaten, for example, the petrochemical facilities you see there, on the harbor, down below; second, they may come equipped with chemical weapons that can create a desolation compared with which Chernobyl and Sept. 11 together will seem like a mild prelude.
---For that, in fact, is the situation. As seen from Haifa, this is what is at stake in the operation in southern Lebanon. Israel did not go to war because its borders had been violated. It did not send its planes over southern Lebanon for the pleasure of punishing a country that permitted Hezbollah to construct its state-within-a-state. It reacted with such vigor because the Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel to be wiped off the map and his drive for a nuclear weapon came simultaneously with the provocations of Hamas and Hezbollah. The conjunction, for the first time, of a clearly annihilating will with the weapons to go with it created a new situation. We should listen to the Israelis when they tell us they had no other choice anymore. We should listen to Zivit Seri tell us, in front of a crushed building whose concrete slabs are balancing on tips of twisted metal, that, for Israel, it was five minutes to midnight.
---It is, indeed, "five minutes to midnight"—not just for Israel, but for the West. The time is very short now before we will have to confront Iran. The only question is how long we let events spin out of our control, and how badly we let the enemy hit us before we begin fighting back.
---We can't avoid this war, because Iran won't let us avoid it. That is the real analogy to the 1930s. Hitler came to power espousing the goal of German world domination, openly promising to conquer neighboring nations through military force and to persecute and murder Europe's Jews. He predicted that the free nations of the world would be too weak—too morally weak—to stand up to him, and European and American leaders spent the 1930s reinforcing that impression. So Hitler kept advancing—the militarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the Spanish bombing campaign in 1937, the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, the invasion of Poland in 1939—until the West finally, belated decided there was no alternative but war.
---That is what is playing out today. Iran's theocracy has chosen, as the nation's new president, a religious fanatic who believes in the impending, apocalyptic triumph of Islam over the infidels. He openly proclaims his desire to create an Iranian-led Axis that will unite the Middle East in the battle against America, and he proclaims his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," telling an audience of Muslim leaders that "the main solution" to the conflict in Lebanon is "the elimination of the Zionist regime." (Perhaps this would be better translated as Ahmadinejad's "final solution" to the problem of Israel.)
---Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad regards the free nations of the world as fading "sunset" powers, too morally weak to resist his legions of Muslim fanatics. And when we hesitate to kill Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, when we pressure Israel to rein in its attacks on Hezbollah, when we pander to the anti-Jewish bigotry of the "Muslim street"—we reinforce his impression of our weakness.
---The result has been and will be the same: Iran will press its advantage and continue to attack our interests in the Middle East and beyond. The only question is when we will finally decide that Iran's aggression has gone too far and its theocratic regime needs to be destroyed.
---But the delay has been and will be costly. When the wider war comes, Lebanon won't be the only nation plunged into turmoil. Iraq will also get much worse, since Sadr is almost certain to lead a Shiite uprising against American troops in support of his masters in Tehran. And the terrorist plot uncovered today in Britain should cause us to recollect that Iran has a long-standing global terrorist network that it could use to strike in Europe and even in America.
---Writers on the pro-war right (along with a very small number of pro-war liberals) sense that this war cannot be avoided, and they are beginning to prepare themselves—and their readers—to fight. Few of them are yet prepared to say that we need to strike immediately at Iran, though a few are beginning to contemplate this necessity. (See Joel Rosenberg in today's National Review Online.)
---The left also senses the impending war, but they have a very different reaction. Their favorite analogy is not the prelude to World War II, but the beginning of World War I.
---It is widely acknowledged that World War II was made far more horrible by the years in which free nations appeased Hitler, allowing him to strengthen his armies before he took over Europe. That analogy lends itself to one conclusion: the sooner we attack Iran, the better.
---World War I, by contrast, is largely regarded as the result of a giant, tragic mistake, a failure of diplomacy in which the great powers of Europe, seeking a network of alliances that would guarantee a "balance of power," instead trapped themselves into a senseless war. This is the use made of the analogy by Henry Porter in The Guardian.
---With a shudder, I realise I am writing this on 4 August, 92 years to the day that my grandfathers, both serving officers and in the same regiment, learned they would probably be going to war. I do not know how long they thought they would be fighting for or if they expected to survive (both did), but I am fairly sure that neither had an exact idea of the complex forces that brought them to France and Mons by the end of month.
---Few people in 1914 saw things as clearly as we do now...the building of alliances, the accumulating tension in Europe, and the setting of numerous invisible hair triggers across the Continent and the colonies. Without being alarmist, I wonder if, in future, students will look back on 2006 and observe similar developments and point to some of the same drift, blindness, and ambition that characterised the beginning of the last century.
---Porter literally ignores the role of Iran in driving this conflict and instead blames the looming regional war on the alleged tendency of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to view the conflict as a "struggle between the values of democracy and the tyranny of violent fundamentalism: a vision of a primordial conflict between the forces of light and darkness." Instead, Porter advocates that we drop the dangerous guidance of morality in favor of a "huge diplomatic effort with all concerned taking part."
---In today's Washington Post, Richard Holbrooke, US ambassador to the UN under the Clinton administration, uses the same analogy for the same purpose:
---Barbara Tuchman's classic, "The Guns of August,"…recounted how a seemingly isolated event 92 summers ago—an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb terrorist—set off a chain reaction that led in just a few weeks to World War I. There are vast differences between that August and this one. But Tuchman ended her book with a sentence that resonates in this summer of crisis: "The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit."
---Preventing just such a trap must be the highest priority of American policy…. Every secretary of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright negotiated with Syria, including those Republican icons George Shultz and James Baker. Why won't this administration follow suit, in full consultation with Israel at every step?... The same is true of talks with Iran, although these would be more difficult….
---Containing the violence must be Washington's first priority.
---Note that the idea that we can settle all of this just by sitting down and talking with Iran and Syria—with no reference to the ideas, statements, goals, and actions of the Iranian regime—give the left's pronouncements on the coming war an air of unreality.
---That is most striking in a recent article by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, an ersatz "liberal" who specializes in expressing grave concern about genocide and oppression, while counseling America against any military action to stop the killers and tyrants.
---Responding to the question, "How can one negotiate with those who would destroy you?," Kristof blithely answers:
---France is showing leadership in pressing for such a lasting deal, and Mr. Bush should push that diplomatic effort with every administration sinew.
---Terms of a genuine settlement might involve an exchange of prisoners, Israel giving up the Shebaa Farms area (if not to Lebanon, then to an international force), and an Israeli promise not to breach Lebanese territory or airspace unless attacked. Hezbollah would commit to becoming a purely political force and to dismantling its militia, with its weaponry going to the Lebanese armed forces. Israel would resume talks with Syria on the Golan Heights, the US would resume contact with Syria, and Syria would agree to stop supplying weaponry to Hezbollah (or allowing it in from Iran). Syria and Hezbollah would then pledge cooperation with a robust international buffer force along the border. Some of this may have to come in stages: for example, with Hezbollah first leaving the border area and then giving up its weaponry….
---So let’s stop the killing and start the talking.
---All of this is obviously a fantasy. Kristof offers not a single piece of evidence that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah—who together conspired to initiate this war—would simply agree to stop arming and plotting against Israel.
---Over on HBL, Harry Binswanger mentioned this passage and started a discussion trying to explain how Kristof could engage in such a massive, open evasion. He came to some good conclusions, but I don't think anyone has yet put together the big picture. This small evasion is just one tiny appendage of a much larger evasion.
---The larger evasion is this: the left senses that a regional war is coming, that Iran is hell-bent on starting it, and that there is no way to avoid it. But all of this runs directly counter to their whole world-view. Rather than questioning that world view, they simply assert that this can't be happening. They have to believe that something, anything—no matter how implausible—will stop it from happening. If we just get everyone together and talk, and we keep tinkering with diplomatic solutions until we find something that works, surely we can find a way to avoid a regional war in the Middle East. Can't we? Please?
---And so the left confirms the right's sense that the appeasement of the 1930s is the best historical precedent for the current era.
---Fortunately, George Bush is not Neville Chamberlain. He has already waged two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine if, during the 1930s, the Allied Powers had already joined forces to defeat the fascists in Spain, then invaded Italy and overthrown Mussolini's regime. It would have made the coming conflict easier—but it would not have defanged our most dangerous enemy.
---Unfortunately, George Bush is not Winston Churchill. It is as if, having suppressed fascism in Spain and Italy, we were still appeasing Germany and subordinating our interests to a wobbly consensus at the League of Nations. Just as Germany was the central enemy in the European theater of World War II, so Iran is the central enemy in the Middle East today.
---Observing the events of today—the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution—I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.
---Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq—a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
---The good news, such as it is, is that the air of foreboding about this new war is somewhat exaggerated. Yes, the conflict will become larger and bloodier—far bloodier than it would have been had we acted earlier. But Iran is not Nazi Germany—a large, united, economically and technologically advanced nation that could nearly equal our military capability. Iran is a poor, backward nation with a large, restive dissident movement. Its military bluster is a hollow shell hiding its underlying weakness. It's time to break that shell and kill the monster inside—before it grows any bigger and more powerful.
---We can all sense that the war is coming. It is vital for America to seize the initiative and fight it on our terms, when we have the maximum advantage.
---It's five minutes to midnight. The time to strike Iran is now.

The Main Enemy Facing The West In WW III Is MULTCULTURALISM!

Well said, Comrade West!

Jewish World Review July 18, 2005 / 11 Taamuz, 5765
Burnt offerings on the altar of multiculturalism
By Diana West
--Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail.
--It's as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.
--I'm not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, even train conductors, who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for civilization abroad and at home. Instead, I'm thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of "no surrender" even as they flinch at identifying the foe. Four years past 9/11, we continue to shadow-box "terror," even as we go on about "an ideology of hate."
--It's a script that smacks of sci-fi fantasy more than realpolitik. But our grim reality is no summer blockbuster, and there's no special-effects-enhanced plot twist that is going to thwart "terror" or "hate" in the London Underground anymore than it did on the roof of the World Trade Center. Or in the Bali nightclub. Or on the first day of school in Beslan. Or in any disco, city bus or shopping mall in Israel.
--Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that be. These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to identify retinas and fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals — ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.
--Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables or "extremistly" advances jihad — with the West. Am I right? Who's to say? The very topic of Islamization — for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe — is verboten. A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against "expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism" (another one of those amorphous terms) because "many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith." Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times' Simon Jenkins wrote, "The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident."

--In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action — stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, just for starters — means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that's the greatest apostasy.
--And while the penalty is not death — as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law — the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.
--This is the lesson of the atrocities in London. It's unlikely that the 21st century will remember that this new Western crossroads for global jihad was once the home of Churchill, Piccadilly and Sherlock Holmes. Then again, who will notice? The BBC has retroactively purged its online bombing coverage of the word "terrorist"; the spokesman for the London police commissioner has declared that "Islam and terrorism simply don't go together"; and within sight of a forensics team sifting through rubble, an Anglican priest urged his flock, as The Guardian reported, to "rejoice in the capital's rich diversity of cultures, traditions, ethnic groups and faiths." Just don't, he said, "name them as Muslims."
Their faith renewed, Londoners soldier on.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006


Now that President George Bush has declared Hezbollah defeated by its acceptance of the terms of a U.N. cease fire in Lebanon, the United States today will press the Security Council to grant it a similar ‘victory’ over al Qaeda.

The U.S. proposal would call for “an end to the violence” between al Qaeda and its enemies around the world, including the U.S., and the creation of a 15-mile buffer zone, manned by U.N. troops, around every nation that al Qaeda chief Usama bin Laden wishes to destroy.

Like this week’s agreement that brought “a just and lasting peace” between Israel and Hezbollah, the ‘War on Terror Cease Fire’ proposal will allow al Qaeda to keep its weapons and supply channels intact, and to escape punishment for its previous acts of aggression and murder.

“This will teach the Islamic terrorists a lesson,” according to an unnamed State Department source who worked through the night crafting a resolution acceptable to both al Qaeda and its enemies. “If you attack us, kidnap our soldiers, blow up our towns and murder our people, you will pay a price. These cease fires will cause significant delays in the radical Muslims’ plan to rule the world. It’s a major hassle for them that sends a clear signal.”

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Comrade David Limbaugh of the Outer Party speaks....

Democrats' gloating is premature

By David LimbaughTuesday, August 8, 2006

While liberals are licking their chops in anticipation of the demise of conservatism, Democrats are proving they are incapable of capitalizing on any electoral difficulties Republicans might encounter in November.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne recently argued, "that this is the week in which conservatism reached the point of collapse." He said the Republican's hypocritical support of an increase in the minimum wage was symptomatic of "profound fissures within the right." He listed differences among conservatives over Iraq, immigration, stem cell research and federal spending.

Dionne said, "Between now and November, conservative leaders will dutifully try to rally the troops to stave off a Democratic victory. But their hearts won't be in the fight. The decline of conservatism leaves a vacuum in American politics. An unhappy electorate is waiting to see who will fill it."

I believe Dionne makes some valid points about certain internecine struggles on the right. But he misdiagnoses the basic problem, overestimates its significance and completely ignores the left's deeper internal difficulties.

Most problems on the right are not due to a failure of conservatism as an effective ideological approach to policy and culture, but to the Republicans' failure to govern as conservatives.

While conservatism's image might be suffering, conservatism itself is hardly declining and remains alive, well, and anxiously waiting for its party to return. As Karl Rove correctly observed, the country remains mostly "center-right." Neither inept Republican politicians nor an unpopular war change that fact.

Admittedly, the political right's "big tent" is under strain on certain important issues. A schism has developed between open borders advocates and those favoring stricter immigration law enforcement. And Libertarians, ordinarily strong allies of conservatives, are increasingly disenchanted with the war and with social conservatism, though their myopic focus on economic issues militates against their abandoning conservatives, since liberals are irredeemably worse on economic issues.

But modern conservatism has never been about only economic issues. Social issues have always been vitally important. And while we enjoyed a seeming respite from consuming foreign policy concerns following the Cold War, it was only a matter of time before a new enemy bent on world domination would fill the void left by the implosion of Communism.

It might take some time for those in denial about the evils and prevalence of radical Islam to wake up to the nature and unavoidability of our enemy, but most Americans will eventually rally around these truths. This could involve some shifting in political alignments, and some will probably be holding their noses in joining with conservatives against this menace, but the ineluctable forces of history will pressure them to do so. Even Neville Chamberlain finally awakened to Hitler's global designs.

Yes, there are also differences among conservatives on the war and overall foreign policy, with the sharpest disagreement being between so-called neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. Though these labels are oversimplified and even misleading, philosophical differences indeed exist.

Some put more faith in the civilizing capacity of democracy than others. But even many of those agnostic about the ultimate compatibility of Islam and democracy believe we had to remove Saddam Hussein despite our inability to guarantee that Iraq would be a stable and reliable ally in perpetuity.

Any attrition in conservative ranks due to the war will probably be more than replenished by those dissatisfied with the political left's growing anti-war extremism and with the Democratic Party's continuing impotence at crafting an alternative policy agenda -- about anything. So before E.J. Dionne and his colleagues take their victory lap they need to explain how the anxiously anticipated "decline of conservatism" can result in a windfall to a Democratic Party that can't agree whether to come back to the real world or surrender completely to its fringe crazies.

Newsbusters blog noted that on ABC's "This Week," former co-host Cokie Roberts stunned George Stephanopoulos with her observation that if Ned Lamont defeats Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut, it will be "a disaster for the Democratic Party."
Roberts said, "pushing the party to the left is pushing the party to the position from which it traditionally loses." If other Democratic senators read a Lieberman defeat as a prescription to "play to your base," you will "get just a total chaos."

What Cokie seems to recognize is something E.J. Dionne has yet to grasp: No matter how tough things get for conservatives, Democrats are inescapably hostage to their militant base and otherwise ill-equipped to lead the world against the global Islamofascist jihad -- facts not lost on most voters.