Friday, June 27, 2008
Although the 9-11 overt war-strike against the United States by the Islamics appears to have been absorbed by us--the "resilient giant"--the economic woes resulting from this attack are still with us, wounds that are festering and eating into the collective health of our economic body.
Unable to repeat the success of 9-11--and not for lack of trying--the Mujahideen (Moslems engaged in jihad-war against us) are continuing their effort to cripple our economy while continuing the covert, the demographic, part of their 'holy" war by the silent invasion of Moslems into our country (abetted by a President in cahoots with them, pretending to ignore this "stealth jihad").
But what concerns us here is the economic jihad, overt symptons of which are the rapidly sinking U.S. dollar, and the oil-induced phenomenal rise in the cost of food, goods, and of course the fuel of our economy: refined petroleum products.
The "Mujahideen" Make No bones about It . . .
. . . in an article in the 26th issue of the GIMF's e-magazine Sada Al-Jihad (Echo of Jihad), recently posted on Al-Hesbah and on other Islamist websites.  The article, titled "Why the Dollar Collapsed and How America Controls the Price of Oil," discusses the factors that contributed to the devaluation of the dollar in recent years.
The author lists among the key factors the economic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina; the losses caused by the September 11 attacks; the cost of the war on terror and of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the U.S.'s persistent trade deficit and growing government debt; investors' growing faith in the Euro; the recent subprime crisis in the U.S.; and the fact that financial institutions around the world have started to reduce their dollar reserves, thereby flooding the market with dollars and decreasing the demand for this currency.
The author ends his analysis with the following threat: "The dollar can expect two additional blows that will break its back... [namely] the announcement of the return of the Caliphate..." and the reinstatement of the gold standard in international monetary trade.
First, to the declining value of the U.S. dollar. (Watch, and keep watching, the $'s performance against the Euro.)
Israel National News:
Muslim Terrorists May Be Trying To Sink the Dollar
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Mujahideen terrorist groups that operate in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries "have come to the conclusion that it is financial, rather than military, losses that will prompt the U.S. to change its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere," according to MEMRI.
And so to MEMRI - Middle East Media Research Institute:
Mujahideen Monitor U.S. Economy, Attempt to Undermine Dollar
Numerous postings on Islamist websites in the past two years reflect the mujahideen's growing interest in the state of the U.S. economy. As was argued in a 2007 MEMRI analysis,  many of the jihadists and their supporters have come to view their struggle against the U.S. and the West as an economic war. More specifically, they have come to the conclusion that it is financial, rather than military, losses that will prompt the U.S. to change its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Consequently, they emphasize the importance of targeting U.S. interests around the world, and of directing their military jihad primarily at targets that affect the U.S. economy.
"The Dollar Can Expect Two Additional Blows That Will Break Its Back"
The mujahideen's growing interest in undermining U.S. economy is reflected, for example, in an article in the 26th issue of the GIMF's e-magazine Sada Al-Jihad (Echo of Jihad), recently posted on Al-Hesbah and on other Islamist websites.  The article, titled "Why the Dollar Collapsed and How America Controls the Price of Oil," discusses the factors that contributed to the devaluation of the dollar in recent years. Continued . . .
Read on, be sure to read the whole thing at http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD196108
. . . and, let me leave you with this thought from the MEMRI article:
A recent posting on the Al-Ikhlas forum urges the mujahideen and their supporters to sell their dollars, if they have any, because Al-Qaeda is planning a strike inside the U.S. so that it will undermine the American economy: "[I advise you] to get rid of [your] American dollars... and buy gold instead... or real estate. The next attack inside the U.S. is imminent...
. . . empty rhetoric at an Islamic "forum?" Or the forecast of a three-pronged* death blow?
*economic, terroristic, demographic
Strangling Our Oil Supply
Thursday, June 26, 2008
[thanks to Jihad Watch]
Measuring Mohammed and Dhimmitude
by Bill Warner
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed's biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of our dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.
THE SIRA: The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Koran and following the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna is the actions and words of the perfect pattern of life, Mohammed. The Sunna is contained in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is half of the defining, foundational texts that determine the Sunna. The other half of the Sunna is the Hadith. The Islamic "Bible" is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.
The Sira is the life of Mohammed. There are three versions of the Sira given by three authors--Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa'd. They tell the same story, except for small details. Ishaq's Sira is the oldest and the most authoritative.
Ishaq's Sira is a large book that starts with a history of Arabia before Mohammed. The overwhelmingly important part of the book is the story of Mohammed as the prophet of Allah. He becomes a prophet on page 106, so that is where the story really begins. There are a 110 pages of notes at the end. The remaining 621 pages of text are about Mohammed as a prophet.
When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed's first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed's prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).
Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira's report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.
The Sira is not only a biography, but also a sacred text that contains the model for the perfect Islamic life. Again and again the Koran directs every Muslim to imitate Mohammed's every word and deed. The Sira contains Islam's grand political strategy.
There was peace for 2% of the Sira. That means that 98% of the Sira is devoted to ill will or with some form of argument, insults and curses against the kafirs. Put another way, 98% of the Sira is devoted to the suffering of the kafirs.
MOHAMMED, THE FILM: If the Sira were a 2-hour movie of Mohammed as a prophet, it would go like this:
Mohammed has his first revelation in the first scene. The first fight starts 2 minutes into the movie. After that it is plotting, shouting, arguing, threatening and preaching. Even when the scene is in Mohammed's camp, the backdrop is always the struggle with the kafirs. Then 34 minutes into the film, the first killing happens and killing continues for the next 1 ½ hours. Armed raids, assassinations, plots, spies, executions, torture, rape, battles, and on and on. Kafirs (non-Muslims) die and lose. Mohammed dies. Islam triumphs. End of film.
DO THE MATH: The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.
DHIMMITUDE AND JEW HATRED: Let's analyze a best-selling biography of Mohammed by Karen Armstrong. The Sira is the gold standard for Mohammed's life and we have measured what its focus is. Let's use the Sira to measure Armstrong's biography. Whereas, the Sira devotes 72% of its length to the jihad phase of Mohammed, Armstrong only allots 27% of her text to Mohammed's jihad. Her total material devoted to Mohammed as a prophet is 183 pages, out of which 49 are jihad. There should be 132 pages of jihad to match the Sira. She eliminated 83 pages of jihad in order to make Mohammed look less violent.
She does the same thing with the Jew hatred/jihad. In the Sira, 5.3% of the text relates to the destruction of the Jews-assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. This 5.3% only includes the physical harm, there are many other pages of Jew hatred that do not involve violence. In Armstrong's biography, the destruction of the Jews is 2.7% of the text. She omits half of the Jew hatred material.
Basically, Armstrong censors half of the Jewish destruction and two-thirds of the jihad in her biography of Mohammed.
The Sira contains two kinds of negative material about the Jews. I have mentioned the 5.3% devoted to physical violence, but there is much material that is a verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred.
Hitler's Mein Kampf devotes 6.8% of its material to Jew hatred, but no actual violence. If you remove that 6.8% of Jewish rants you are left with a political treatise that is no worse than any of the current political propaganda. With the right editing, Hitler was no more than a German politician. If you published a Mein Kampf without the 6.8%, you would be criticized. But Armstrong's book was critically acclaimed. Why is censoring the kafir/Jew hatred from Mohammed cheered, whereas the removal of the Jew hatred from Hitler would be condemned? It is simple, we think that European Jew hatred is evil, but that Islamic Jew hatred needs to be understood and ignored. What is astounding is that this argument is put forward by most Jews.
Of course, her bias does not stop with just censoring the material. Oh no, Armstrong cheers when the Meccan kafirs die. Every death of a kafir is wonderful, since it advances the glory of Mohammed. She justifies the destruction of the Jews and says that Christians have done worse.
Ms. Armstrong is a dhimmi. She is a loud and sympathetic cheerleader for Mohammed and insults the kafir Arabs. She represents the perfect dhimmi-centric writer.
TOTAL DHIMMITUDE: Now let's measure the dhimmitude of the Republicans, Democrats, professors and the rest. Armstrong deletes most of Mohammed's cruelty, but at least she is willing to show Mohammed to be a little evil. That is more than Department of Homeland Security, FBI, public education, Pentagon, ACLU or the local police do. You will search a long time to find a rabbi or pastor who knows nearly as much as Ms. Armstrong will admit. Almost all of our leaders are 100% dhimmi, since they deny all evil found in the doctrine of Islam.
Everyone hates Mein Kampf, without having actually read it, and will condemn Hitler and the Nazis, but try finding a kafir who hates the Sira and who will condemn Mohammed. Yet, the Sira contains 8.6% Jew hatred, Mein Kamph is 6.8% Jew hatred.
Do the math of dhimmitude. If those percentages were mortgage rates, everyone would understand the math because it involves money. But when it involves the survival of our civilization, we read the statement as--no problem with the Sira or Islam, but we need to talk about those Nazis.
As bad as Armstrong is-and she is dreadful-she is not as bad as the dhimmis in Washington, DC, the churches, synagogues, universities and the media. And the dhimmitude is the same in Europe, India, Canada and the rest of the world.
NOTE--POINT-OF-VIEW: There are always three points-of-view about Islam. The first is the believer-centric, Muslim, view. The second view is kafir-centric. A kafir has only one qualification-a kafir is anyone who does not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. There is a third view, the dhimmi-centric view. It is the believer-centric view except it is written by an apologist kafir.
This analysis is kafir-centric. Kafir-centric sees Islam from the standpoint of what happened to the kafir, how the kafir is treated. Today the history of the victim is popular fare for the colleges-African slave and native American history, for example. Kafir history is the history of the victim of Islam. When will this history be taught in our schools?
Signup for our weekly newletter.
copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.
Posted in HomePage , Newsletter / Make a Comment (1)
Our newsletter is unique. You will learn how the doctrine of Islam drives current events and why we react as we do.
View Shopping Cart
Mail Order Form
Become an Affiliate
© 2008 PoliticalIslam.com. All rights reserved.
Political Islam - News and Comments
Tears of Jihad
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Because of Mohammed Cartoons and the Film "Fitna"
Here's the Boycott Poster (in Arabic)
. . . and here's our answer to Jordan Times and the whole umma:
Buy all the products pictured!
Break the Boycott (of Danish goods, especially) by dropping in on our party and patronizing the providers catering this affair! (Except for Mecca Cola. Don't buy this imitation of the real thing!)
Go to http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2008/02/moslems-riot-in-denmark-again-history.html
Thanks to Jihad Watch:
Muslims' Danish-Dutch boycott designed to bring about "universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion
"The goal of the boycott, you see, is a "universal law" forbidding "defamation of religions" -- which in practice will mean forbidding honest discussion of the jihad and Islamic supremacism. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021510.php
The ultimate goal, according to campaign spokesperson Zakaria Sheikh, is to enact a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion, similar to the international legislation banning anti-Semitism.
Posted at http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/351/Default.aspx
Originally published by http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=8752&searchFor=zwanenberg
Friday, June 20, 2008
"Naming the Enemy" Reader comment on the article: The Enemy Has a Name by Daniel Pipes:
Submitted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg (Israel), Jun 19, 2008 at 09:10
With all due respect to Daniel Pipes, and although I understand his reticence, it is not sufficient to classify the enemy as "Islamism." Islamism is nothing less than Islam. The Quran, the Hadith, and Islam's murderous history make this crystal clear. But consider the judgment of two astute scholar-statesmen of uncommon urbanity:
Alexis de Tocqueville:
I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.
Winston Churchill said as much in 1899, but with chilling significance for Europe today:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Unlike Americans and Europeans, Muslim leaders name their enemies. They call Christians the "Sunday people," and Jews the "Saturday people." Ahmadinejad of Iran calls for a world without the United States and Israel, meaning a world without Christianity and Judaism. The same murderous hatred is preached in innumerable mosques in the United States financed by Saudi Arabia.
Muslims do not speak of "moderate" Christians or of "moderate" Jews—no more than we ever spoke of "moderate" Nazis. Intellectually liberated Muslims like Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan are strategically irrelevant. Indeed, the more we appease the enemy by refraining from calling him by his true name, the more so-called moderate Muslims will manifest their violent Mohammedan heritage. Even secular Muslims supported Saddam Hussein.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
VICTORY OVER ISLAM
HOW TO ACHIEVE IT
“No Substitute for Victory”
The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
by John Lewis
(with sections of the author's original text)
Two responses to Islam are possible:
The first has as its Goal:
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF THE ENEMY
Hit centers of power
choke off food
shatter people psychologically
Kill 1000,000 in firestorm in capital
Drop leaflets advising which cities will be next
Enemy responds with propaganda to his people that they are winning
Enemy population cowers defenselessly--American bombers level homes
We mass huge forces mass on enemy's borders
1000 bombers pulverize cities.
President issues ultimatum:
Nuclear bombs are dropped on cities.
Orders his soldiers to lay down their arms
Makes a political decision to cease fighting
American military occupies
WHAT THE ENEMY IS FACING
economic cartels dismantled
militaristic language effaced at all levels
constitution written and imposed by occupiers
Enemy told that they are defeated and that
we have no obligations to them.
People starve; told they brought it on themselves
Cost of occupation is charged to defeated Islamics
No aid arrives until complete surrender is demonstrated and
militaristic ideology is repudiated
A principled, all-out merciless offense brought us victory
ANOTHER TYPE OF RESPONSE
Precision bombing only
Avoid civilian casualties at all costs
Enemy allowed to flee to neighboring nuclear armed country
which is our ally
We don't cross their borders.
Enemy crosses over kills Americans (like from Iran or Saudi).
We set up--or try to set up--a democracy.
WHICH TYPE OF RESPONSE TO ISLAMIC ATTACKS?
Now, which of these two responses—the all-out, merciless, military offense, or the restrained, diplomatic, semi-military approach, should we choose? Let us evaluate them, according to several ideas widely accepted today.
In the second method of fighting, we fight:
War for the "good of others."
The only absolute is that we must NOT engage in focused, principled military action toward a firm, self-interested, pro-American victory.
This second, flexible, response is considered right—according to pragmatism.
Altruism leads to the same conclusion.
To fight for our own benefit—to elevate our lives over those of our enemies—
is almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus “immoral.”
A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak.
Again, their freedom must be our goal—their prosperity must be our mission—if we wish to be “good.”
An all-out offensive response, in this view, would be an utter disaster—
pragmatically because it holds to principles in defiance of constantly shifting reality,
and morally because it seeks the enemy’s defeat rather than his benefit.
On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the measured, proportional, restrained approach is our only option.
--STATE ISLAM--RULE BY SHARIAH
--IS ON THE RISE
While this cleric plots an Islamic State, people from countries where children are taught that Jews are born of pigs and monkeys, and that Israel is “occupied territory” and fair game for attack, rail against so-called anti-Muslim “prejudice.” Inside America, leaders of hostile countries give speeches to build “bridges of understanding” while building nuclear bombs overseas.Adherents of Islam claim to be victims of persecution, assertions they make on national television, from pulpits, and in tenured university positions.
In short, the second, pragmatic, altruistic approach has failed. In the five years since 9/11, the motivations behind the Islamic attacks have not been suppressed—and this is the real failure of these policies.
The reason for this failure is that every one of the ideas we used to evaluate our options is wrong. In every case, the opposite of today’s “conventional wisdom” is true.
* A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea—undefeated by America—would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.
* Poverty is not the “root cause” of wars. If it were, poor Mexicans would be attacking America, not begging for jobs at Wal-Mart.
* Democracy is not a route to freedom—not for the Greeks who voted to kill Socrates, nor for the Romans who acclaimed Caesar, nor for the Germans who elected Hitler.
* A culture of slavery and suicide is not equal to a culture of freedom and prosperity—not for those who value life.
* The world is not a flux of contradictions, in which principles do not work. If it were, gravity would not hold, vaccinations would not work, and one would not have a right to one’s life.
* Being moral does not mean sacrificing for others. It means accepting the American principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and living for one’s own sake.
History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral. It led us to our two most important foreign policy successes—the defeats of Germany and Japan in 1945—and to the permanent peace with those nations that we take for granted today. Such a course was practical and moral then, and it is practical and moral now—an affirmation, and a defense, of life and civilization.
Ayn Rand, in her essay on the nature of government, observed a vital relationship between man’s right to life and his right to self-defense:
The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.
If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.
We must defeat these enemies, and we can.
Only after we understand that we should defeat these enemies, can we ask how.
That we have the overwhelming capacity to defeat the Islamic Totalitarians militarily is beyond doubt. Yet far from elevating technology to the key issue in winning a war, this illustrates the unequivocal importance of the moral self-confidence—the state of mind that proceeds from an awareness of one’s own moral goodness and efficacy—that is needed to use this weaponry. This is what enabled us to overcome serious material deficiencies and to drive victoriously over the Japanese in 1945. The question today is not whether we have the capacity to win; it is whether we have the self-confidence, and the will, to do so.
The purpose of a proper government is to protect the rights of its citizens—each citizen’s freedom to think and act on his own judgment—by using retaliatory force as necessary against criminals and foreign invaders.
This requirement applies to Islam today. In regard to Japan, the job involved breaking the link between Shinto and state; in regard to Islamic Totalitarianism the task involves breaking the link between Islam and state. This is the central political issue we face: the complete lack of any conceptual or institutional separation between church and state in Islam, both historically and in the totalitarian movement today.
The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole.
Intellectually, we must state our intentions and reasons openly, without hiding behind timid diplomatic-speak. Physically, we must act decisively, and with all the force we deem necessary, to eliminate the Iranian regime as quickly as possible, and with the least risk to American soldiers. Only when the world sees this demonstration of American resolve will America begin to see peace and security.
We must not seek legitimacy for the removal of the Iranian Islamic State beyond the principle of our right to defend ourselves. To pretend that something more than this principle is needed would be to deny the sufficiency of the principle. To base our reasons on the alleged good of others, especially on any alleged benefits to the people of the Middle East, would be to accept a position of moral dhimmitude: the moral subordination of our right to life and self-defense to an allegedly higher principle.
If we accept the Totalitarians’ claim that we must submit to the will of “Allah,” then we cannot claim the right to exist. America’s “weakness of will” is the jihadists’ great hope—as it was the hope of Japanese warriors—but it is something they cannot impose on us. Their only prayer is that we will accept it voluntarily. The price for doing so is our lives and the lives of our children. We must not submit.
To remove this cancerous Islamic State loudly and forthrightly will have immediate benefits. We would avenge the thousands of American terror victims since the 1960s. We would reverse the pitiful image we projected when Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979, and when we fled from Mogadishu and from Lebanon—actions that the Islamic Totalitarians claimed as evidence of our weakness. We could even reverse a tremendous injustice by un-nationalizing the oil companies in Iran—stolen from their owners in 1951—and placing them back into private hands, under government protection. Certainly guarding those facilities from a surrounding civil war—a legitimate protection of private property, backed by a credible threat of crushing force—would be a far better use of our troops than guarding a few blocks in downtown Baghdad from its own residents. The pipeline of money into Islamic jihad would be cut.
Most importantly, by ousting the regime in Iran, we would send a clear message to the world: Political Islam is finished. Weaker states and groups would cringe in terror—as they did briefly after 9/11—and would literally retreat into holes in the ground. Anti-totalitarian forces across the world would be emboldened by the sight of a real defense of life and liberty. Allies we never knew existed would raise their heads with confidence and join the cause of freedom. The land of the free—rejuvenated as the home of the brave—would rejoice as the nation of the secure. We would truly be on the road to victory, freedom, and peace. By affirming the efficacy of reason and individual rights over incompetent dark-age theocracy, America could once again claim its place as a real world leader, and become a beacon for those who understand, and value, freedom.
Once this central task is complete, further intransigent policies toward Islamic Totalitarianism will be necessary. One pertains to state economic support for Islam, another to state-sponsored education. The 1945 telegram—again, with Islam replacing Shinto—addresses both of these points:
Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People [will] not be taxed to support Islam and there will be no place for Islam in the schools.
The Muslim world must be made to understand that any government that provides economic support to jihadists will be summarily destroyed. In order for this policy to be taken seriously, we must demonstrate its truth—by destroying the Iranian regime and stating why we have done so. Only the clear threat that “you will be next” can break the entangled network of Islamic economic support for jihad that masquerades as “economic development.” There can be no more playing games with Saudi apologists who speak smooth English and describe their work as “charity.” In 2003, the International Islamic Relief Organization, a Saudi charity, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle East—but it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Islamic books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of young children as “True Muslims,” trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming “Allahu Akbar” and dedicating themselves to jihad.13 Such “charity” means raising money to spread the ideas, and tactics, of Totalitarian Islam. It must end.
Ending this state economic support cannot occur without confronting one of Islam’s five pillars: alms. By separating church and state, alms can become something that it has never been in Islam: truly private charity. In the primitive society in which Mohammed lived, there was no concept of the separation of church and state. The religious leaders were the political leaders, and the payment of alms was a state-imposed taxation as much as a religious duty. Since then, nothing has changed within Islam. It is high time that all government involvement in so-called “charities” be ended. All states known to have sponsored terrorism against the West must be forbidden to impose taxes or provide funding on behalf of Islam.
Regarding education, the following will be imposed:
Islam as a state religion—National Islam, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Islam . . . The dissemination of Islamic militaristic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. Middle Eastern Governments will be required to cease financial and other support of Islamic establishments.
After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative. Until the U.S. demonstrates the nature of that choice, by serious retaliation against Iran, unambiguously connecting principled words to practical actions, there is no reason for any Middle Eastern leader to expect serious consequences. Until then, they are right to regard us as a paper tiger. Only the forthright destruction of the Iranian Islamic State can demonstrate the resolve needed for this task.
America needs a Commander-in-Chief today who can understand and state this simple truth: In war, there is no “right” to free speech on behalf of an enemy. The string of obviously false, contrived, and manipulated “news” by the supporters of jihad—the staging of civilians crying when a home is destroyed, and the throwing about of children’s dolls when a terrorist’s safe house is wrecked—are all part of the enemy’s war effort. In war, the psychological disarmament of the enemy, including the inculcation of terror through vicious propaganda, is part of the fight. American unwillingness to quash such propaganda is seen, by our enemies, not as respect for freedom of speech, but rather as a lack of will and as evidence of weakness. In the present situation, Americans must forcibly prohibit the dissemination of militaristic ideology and propaganda anywhere it rises. To make the point clear, Al-Jazeera—the fountainhead of Muslim taqiyya, or deception—must be shut down.
In summary, Political Islam, Militant Islam, rule by Islamic Law—and all the economic and intellectual support associated with it—must go. This means that Iran must go.
The removal of Islamic political states will not be the end of the task; many intellectual battles will have to be waged. Most importantly, Western intellectuals must present not only a negative—a repudiation of the Totalitarian Universe—but also a positive—a clear explanation to the world that the moral purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ rights to think and act on the judgment of their own minds, free from coercion by church, mosque, or state. But such battles cannot be fought by pretending that those who make death threats instead of arguments are offering anything but clubs in place of syllogisms.
This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the “will of Allah,” America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America.
Is it possible for a “moderate” form of Islam to become an alternative to the totalitarian world-view infecting so many Muslims?
It would mean an Islam that (like modern Christianity) is open to critical self-reflection, whose thinkers examine the Koran as a set of stories, compiled and interpreted by men—and not the infallible word of God to be spread by the sword. It would mean an Islam that allows apostates to make their own decisions, and that tolerates no death threats against them. It would mean the explicit rejection—by Muslims—of State Islam, Islamic Law, and the pursuit of jihad. Such “moderate” Muslims will support the obliteration of Totalitarian Islam. The rest must witness the defeat of this poisonous ideology, and grasp the hopelessness of supporting it.
Hiding the truth behind allegedly “prudent” language designed to obfuscate our intentions is of no use against an ideology with the directness of Islam. We cannot out-taqiyya the Islamic Totalitarians. We must state our end goal openly and clearly; we must identify the principled means of achieving it; and we must become people of integrity—people who act in accordance with their values and convictions. There is no substitute for integrity, and that means no substitute for victory.
How will we know when we have achieved “victory”? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy?
Involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.
The term “Unconditional Surrender” has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded “no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender”
We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran—and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth—to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights. Every Islamic cleric must renounce the goal of inciting his audience to jihad; he must proclaim, loudly and openly, his repudiation of Islamic law; he must state his intention to live under the laws of men in accordance with the requirements of man’s life on earth. Every Muslim intellectual must denounce the Islamic State as an aberration and a monstrosity, as being contrary to the requirements of life on earth. Immediate, personal destruction can be the only alternative.
If it is true that the majority of Middle Eastern people want a decent free life for themselves—as the vast majority of Japanese did after August, 1945—then they will rejoice over the excision of Totalitarian Islam from their midst.
If they do not, the unconditional surrender of Islamic Totalitarianism must be taken to mean its political defeat: There will be no negotiations over the place of Islam in government, for it has no such place.
We can do this. This is not some Platonic ideal, good in theory but unattainable in practice. We Americans can—and must—re-establish our integrity by re-uniting our ideals and our actions. History is on our side here. In relative terms, the physical forces facing America and her allies in 1941 were far more formidable than those we face today, and America then was far weaker militarily. In our own day, the technological and industrial superiority of the U.S. over the Middle East is staggering. Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years. Our overwhelming material advantage, however, will be of no help if we lack the will to drop a bomb—or if we use our forces to strengthen our enemies. As it was for Germany and Japan in the 1930s, so it is today: The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.
The need to understand the gravity of this situation—and our capacity to prevent a catastrophe—is particularly urgent at this moment in time. It is obvious that the defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 mid-term elections was a repudiation of President Bush’s policies in this war. But it is more important to understand that President Bush has not mounted an offensive strategy, and that an offensive strategy is not the reason why American troops are dying in Iraq. There has been no drive to victory, only a string of casualties and the progressive discouragement of the American people. As a result, our primary enemy has been strengthened, and allowed to address the world as a leader just a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. (Imagine Hitler being granted this privilege.) Bush’s war strategy of non-war has resulted in a functional paralysis caused by our self-imposed failure to identify and confront open and avowed.
What has been demonstrably repudiated by the actions of the Bush administration is not the first of the options I presented, but the second. What has been tried and has failed are the altruistic, pragmatic policies of an administration that is as desperate to appear tough as it is to avoid being tough. The Democrats—the party that won World War II by dropping two atomic bombs—have an opportunity to regain a position of moral stature before the American people. Should they not do so—should they choose to retreat—then their unwillingness to value the lives of American citizens over the lives of foreign enemies will be made clear, and the Democrats will be seen as no better, no more principled, no more courageous, and no more American than the RepublicansOur military capacities are not in doubt today. It is our moral self-confidence that is in question. What was it that stopped us from confronting Iran in 1979, except a lack of confidence in our own rightness, and an unwillingness to defend ourselves for our own sakes? Had we removed the Iranian regime in 1979, thousands of Americans would have been saved, and children across the world would not have grown up with sword verses rising in their minds as they give their lives to jihad.
[emphasis mine. lw]
Iran delenda est Delenda est Iran
Islam delenda est Delenda est Islam
Friday, June 13, 2008
Not to "The Government"
Americans! Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom
Col. David Crockett's Speech to Congress
stages of democracy and an interesting speech from 1835; stats on 2000 elections
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generou s gifts from the public treasury.'
[See the APPENDIX of this post : Colonel Davy Crockett's Celebrated Speech to Congress on the State of Finances, State Officers, and State Affairs in General
from http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm (now a dead link)]
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. >From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. >From spiritual faith to grea t courage;
3. >From courage to liberty;
4. >From liberty to abundance;
5. >From abundance to complacency;
6. >From complacency to apathy;
7. >From apathy to dependence;
8. >From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Square miles of land won by:
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If we the people get the government we deserve, then there's no time for lollygagging. Because, we are in danger of getting a real doozy!
But I'll take the best remedy for depression, I'll have me another banana . . . or two . . . or three . . . DEPRESSED BY WHAT'S GOING ON? Try a Banana!
and ponder a few thoughts . . .
"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it."
- Alexis de Tocqueville
“The will of men is not shattered (by the welfare state), but softened, bent, and guided. Men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, until each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville
“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Sun Tzu (500-320 B.C.)
Chinese Author and Military Strategist:
“All warfare is based on deception.”
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
[NOR FROM LOSING A WAR THAT IS BEING FOUGHT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS, NOT TO DEFEAT THE REAL ENEMY. lw. See Just War Theory, The Forward Strategy for Failure, What Real War Looks Like, and No Substitute for Victory - The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism]
Quotes in red from:
doozy: Something extraordinary or bizarre - http://www.bartleby.com/61/29/D0342900.html
Barack Hussein Obama
When Obama visited Kenya his praise of the Luo and Raila Odinga was so great that the Kenya government denounced Obama. They called him Raila Oginga's "stooge."
Luo is Odinga and Obama's African tribe. They constitute 13% of the population of Kenya. Odinga wants to be the president of Kenya but lost the election. His cousin, Obama is his inspiration. When he becomes president, Odinga wants all Kenyan Christians subjected to Sharia law. He has vowed to implement Islamic Sharia law if he becomes president.
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali’s son–Hussein Ibn Ali.
"I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam," he wrote
Obama does not need to deny he is a Muslim. The mass media consistently denies it for him as they wet their pants in excitement over finally assuaging their white guilt. White liberals and 90% of African-Americans will not be enough to elect him unless the money and the TV and radio pundits do it for him. If this is the plan, here we go. We're almost there. All that remains is to change our name to AMERABIA.
Muslims want Obama to become the American president. The US-Islamic forum in the Gulf backs Obama. Delegates to a US-Islamic forum on Feb 18, 2008, in a mock election by more than 200 of the American and Muslim delegates at the US-Islamic World Forum in Qatar [were flat out for Obama]. About 280 public figures and academics from 32 countries, which included Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the US ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, attended this fifth edition of the forum.
As the Investor’s Business Daily has reported, Obama's half-brother Abongo ‘Roy’ Obama is a Luo activist in Kenya and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must ‘liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture’ and urges Barack to embrace his African Muslim heritage.
Odinga is an Islamic Jihadist. Obama has questionable ties to his cousin. They speak often over the telephone. Are we to believe that is all there is to it?
Obama supporters claim there is NOTHING to it. But they are not thinking rationally. Obama family in Kenya is Muslim.
They embrace Sharia law. They embrace the customs of Muslims and we can see the intolerance demonstrated everywhere where Muslims live. Are we ready for a visit to the White House by his Muslim family from Kenya? You know it will happen if he is elected president. Will they sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?
Jihadwatch on Obama's pal Odinga
In two books that he wrote--Dreams of my Father and Audacity of Hope--Barack Obama made some revealing statemnents:
Dreams of my Father: "The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam."
Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race".
Dreams Of My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".
Mr. Obama, most of America doesn't believe you. We believe you have lied to our faces to cover your butt. You probably would have gotten out of this with less damage if you would have admitted that you knew about some of the hate filled crap that your pastor was spewing, but then tried defending him on his positive points that I've heard about him, like being a U.S. Marine, or the work that he and your church tries to do in the Chicago community.
from "An Open Letter to Barack Obama"
by Dustin James
It is clear now Mr. Obama, that you could only keep this charade up for so long. Nearly all the comments on the news message boards are things along these lines:
"My feelings for Obama have definitely changed. I really think the people of United States have an obligation to research Senator Obama and what he believes before they give him an office to lead all the people in the country."
"Obama must be the only church goer who does not know what his preacher preaches. With this sort of attention to main themes I dont think he should run for office any longer."
"I found Mr. Obamas responses to be questionable. My support for Obama is in jeopardy. It is very hard to belive that after 20 years Barack could be surprised by the Pastors comments."
I could go on, but you can go on to ABC News, CNN, and MSNBC and read them for yourself. They are overwhelmingly distrustful of you and your statement. And this is from the internet community who traditionally is your best demographic; who has defended you to the end on past issues.
It is now clear Mr. Obama, that the jig is up, and you have let your candidacy be permanently damaged. You have provided overwhelming fodder for Republicans in the general election. This lie, Mr. Obama, has ended any chance of myself or most Americans being able to support you. It is not the racist statements of your supporter, Mr. Obama, it is this lie that you have told with self-conviction that you did not know your pastor said any of these statements
Instead Obama compounded his original sin by hiding it and then lying about it. He pretended that his church was a mainstream church. Then he pretended that Reverend Wright did not make the sort of ghastly sermons that evidence later showed that he did. Then Obama pretended that he never attended the church when Wright made one of his hate America and hate white people sermons.
Obama did have a way out of his moral crimes. He could have said something like this: Yes, I did attend a church that preached hatred of whites and hatred of America. Yes, what I did was wrong. It was also wrong of me not to tell the American people about my relationship with this church before I ran for president. I will not try to excuse what I did, I simply admit that what I did was wrong. I have learned my lesson. I will never allow myself to be morally compromised like that again.
At every step, instead of coming clean with the American people and asking forgiveness, which is what he should have done, Barack Obama tried to trick the American people and to finesse his own moral shortcomings through his undeniable charm and eloquence. But America does not need charming, eloquent liars in the White House. America does not need morally flawed leaders who are quite unwilling to admit their moral flaws, almost adamant even when confronted with those flaws that the flaws themselves do not exist.
(Obama) "flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at ground zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?" (Charles Krauthammer, Columbia Daily Tribune - April 1, 2008)
Charles Krauthammer says this about Obama's racism speech: "This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination." (Krauthammer)
"I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam," he wrote
. . . as President of Kenya, Raila [Odinga] agrees to 14 actions, listed a) through n) on page two. Read them all, and be sure you're sitting down.
Here's a sample:
b) Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.
c) With immediate effect dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenyan Muslim community.
g) Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. [Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in "Muslim declared regions."]
Jihadwatch on Obama's pal Odinga
IT'S UP TO US!
DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING FROM THE GOVERNMENT
"Not Yours To Give"
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
Provided as a courtesy by US Rep. Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/)
"Not Yours To Give"
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.
"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?
"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'
"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.
"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to the stand and said:
"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Col. Crockett later died defending liberty in the Battle of the Alamo, in the War for Texas Independence.
Remember the Alamo!
American Minute with Bill Federer: Remember the Alamo!
The Alamo mission at San Antonio was in its 7th day of being assaulted by thousands of Santa Anna’s troops. By the 13th day, Santa Anna’s “take-no-prisoner” policy had all 189 defenders killed, including Jim Bowie and former U.S. Congressman Davy Crockett. The only Texas army left in the field was Col. James Fannin’s. It departed Goliad to rescue the Alamo but was surrounded in open ground and captured. Santa Anna ordered all 350 prisoners executed. When the Mexican officer hesitated, Santa Anna sent another officer who carried out the order. Had Fannin’s troops been left in prison, Texas would have been disheartened, but instead Santa Anna’s cruelty aroused world outrage. The Texas Declaration of Independence, signed MARCH 2, 1836, stated: “General Antonio Lopez Santa Anna…demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense-the rightful property of freemen-and formidable only to tyrannical governments…has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers…We fearlessly…commit the issue to the…Supreme Arbiter of the destinies of nations.”
Davy Crockett using "Old Betsy" musket as a club at the Alamo.
Stiff Right Jab contributing editor, William J. Federer, is a best-selling author. His latest book is “What Every American Needs to Know about the Quran: A History of Islam and the United States.”
“Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West“
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Big Trouble in Obamaland
And be sure to
scroll down to COMMENT by Hank Roth @http://paganpower.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/big-trouble-in-obamaland/#comment-553
Hank Roth writes @ http://inyourface.info/ArT/Delta/AMer.shtml:
Barack Obama has not always been a Christian, if he is even one now - for which I have my doubts. He is deceitful. He has lied about his many associations with known criminals, with pro-Palestinian Arabs, with terrorists (like Ayers). The Islamists have been saying they will destroy America from within - for as long as Hitler said in Mein kampf he would murder the Jews. We all know how that turned out. Obama does not need to deny he is a Muslim. The mass media consistently denies it for him as they wet their pants in excitement over finally assuaging their white guilt. White liberals and 90% of African-Americans will not be enough to elect him unless the money and the TV and radio pundits do it for him. If this is the plan, here we go. We're almost there. All that remains is to change our name to AMERABIA.
Hank Roth continues with:
Daniel Pipes . . . wrote in the Jerusalem Post on May 1, 2008, an article: "Did Barack Obama have a Muslim childhood?"
"As Barack Obama's candidacy comes under increasing scrutiny, his account of his religious upbringing deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate's integrity. Obama asserted in December, "I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam," he wrote.
"In February, he claimed, "I have never been a Muslim.... other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion."
"Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim.
Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half- sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of The New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, The Banjarmasin Post, reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims."
Obama's Catholic school in Jakarta: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of The Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school."
The public school: Paul Watson of The Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended." Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim.
Barack Obama's public school in Jakarta, Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koran studies. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent."
Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims).
Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he "didn't practice [Islam]." Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam." OBAMA'S HAVING been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.