My Photo
Location: Montgomery Area, Alabama, United States

Former BUFF driver; self-styled military historian; paid (a lot) to write about beating plowshares into swords; NOT Foamy the Squirrel, contrary to all appearances. Wesleyan Jihadi Name: Sibling Railgun of Reasoned Discourse

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Christian Carnival LXXX

This week's Christian Carnival is up at Daddypundit. Haven't had time to peruse it yet in detail, but I do note a certain amount of anti-war prattling in certain Christian circles, as evidenced in posts like this one:

We’re being treated, yet again, to the Press conflating two issues that have little to do with one another but that sell newspapers – terrorism and asylum. At least two of the tabloids today have front-page headlines about one of the London bombers apparently having arrived in Britain as a boy, as part of a family that was granted asylum. How, the papers ask, could he have done this to us?

A better question, though, is how did we fail this family to such an extent that their son did this to himself, to them and to the country that was supposed to protect them all?

An even better question is, what about the rest of the bombers? Most of the London bombers were born and brought up in Britain. They were British. How has this country so failed to include its own people that they feel as these young men did – closer to their fellow-religionists in the Middle East than to their neighbours in Leeds and London? The current media trends, of demonising muslims and the now-traditional targets of immigrants and asylum seekers, will only make this worse. They will only further divide our people when what we need is to draw closer together, to break down the walls of ignorance and prejudice (on all sides) and to learn more about one another.

If we can learn the truth about one another, it might be difficult, it might even be ugly, but at least it will be the truth.

Being in the profession of arms, I find it hard to be patient with this attitude. We did not fail that family. Even the parents did not fail their son. He was given every advantage of a Western middle-class upbringing. Most of the West's homocide bombers are well-to-do and well educated. The young man chose to follow an evil path that led to his own death and the deliberate killing of innocent bystanders. And if he'd been shot dead before detonating the bomb, the shooter would be a hero.

Nolan Dynamite enjoins us here to remember that Christ says to love one's enemies--and his point is well taken. I often let my enthusiasm, shall we say, for the task set before those in my profession get the better of my judgment, especially when spouting off into the blogosphere. But I do not hate muslims or islam. If I did, I would find a way to make myself stop, because such hatred, quite aside from being un-Christian, would inhibit my ability to defeat them , which is an aim that every member of the profession of arms within the Anglosphere shares. Actually, I admire much of islam's history and culture. And I think Arabic is a beautiful language.

But understand this: we are at war with a brand of extremist, fundamentalist islam that is a natural product of that religion, just as monastic asceticism and certain types of socialist liberalism are inevitable products of the Catholic understanding of Christian doctrine, and just as a degree of narrow-minded, intolerant emphasis on outward display of faith is an inevitable product of certain types of fundamentalist Christian practice. These aberrations don't condemn those brands of faith; they are just errors that their structures naturally incline them toward. Unfortunately, jihad, as interpreted today by Wahabbi Sunni and fundamentalist Shia alike, is a similarly inevitable outgrowth of islam's encounter with secular modernism. Equally unfortunate is the fact that islam will eventually have to grow past this phase or face much worse consequences in its relations with the rest of human civilization.

When I am not bloviating in my blog I can still tell a hawk from a handsaw, and I know that the only really humane outcome is complete victory for our cause, on our terms--and that means the effective eradication of militant islam as viable ideology (a la communism and fascism); or, at worst, permanent and total separation, backed by tremendous force a la the Cold War. Our system and thiers cannot coexist peacefully.

I do not have to hate my enemy to plot ways to bend his will to mine, or, failing that, to rid him of his means of resisting me, or, failing that, to kill him and destroy what he values outright. In fact, hating him gets in the way of doing this most effectively and efficiently.

I owe Nolan a longer response specifically dealing with his points, but it will suffice for now to remind all of C.S. Lewis' statement in Why I Am Not A Pacifist:

Pacifism practiced would be the straight road to a world in which there will be no pacifists.


Read more
<< Home

Izmud Checks In

Correspondent Izmud hasn't been heard from in awhile because he's, y'know...actually been working for a living & stuff.... He weighs in on our ongoing "suffer not a traitor to live" theme:

Howdy all--haven't checked in with you in a while--mea culpa, maxima mea culpa. I must say that the incredible and growing vehemence of the Lunatic Left you've depicted here and seen elsewhere (did you see old Jane Commie Fonda is now out against the war?) is scary. However, there are those of us prepared to take as much direct action in response to theirs, as is required, to ensure the safety and security of our nation, not to mention our friends and family. No one is going to burn flags under cars in my neighborhood, or march with a banner like that through my neighborhood without getting some rather strong counterpoint from me.

Working at the Pentagon is rather amusing at times because we have our monthly show of protestors--sometimes only 2 or 3, other times 10-15. Now that I'm not in uniform I feel quite free to go up to them and tell them what small minded or deluded people they are, and how ridiculous most of their banners really are. Quite a liberating feeling actually, especially when they are young women who are not used to people talking frankly to them. The Socratic Method is also useful in this situation, leading them down the path.

Monk--love the new flag overlay--where's the Aussie part?

PS: I'd like to contribute to the legal defense fund for any UC student who "frags" a certain UC Professor. Any others?


Great to hear from you, bro. Let's start at the end, shall we?

- No...keep them around. They're doing too much damage to their own cause right now for us to want them to suddenly become sane, decent citizens. If anyone on our side actually gets fragged, of course, then the gloves come off...

- I found the flag online and pasted it in. Just haven't found one with the Auzzie part yet. Perhaps I'll build one--shouldn't be that hard. "Battle Standard of the Angloshpere." I like it!

- Back when I was but a lil' tyke and my Mom worked in the Pentagon, protesters were a fixture, even during Democratic administrations. They were always the same people, too. I spent a lot of time in the building back then and came to recognize them individually. Most were members of groups like Fr. Philip Berrigan's Atlantic Life Commune (still in existence as the "Atlantic Life Community" and apparently still protesting at the Pentagon). They'd come, shout at people walking to work on the concourse, work themselves up to a blood-throwing dénouement, get arrested, and be back in Baltimore by sunset. The Pentagon guards knew many of them on a first-name basis. (Those were innocent times: there was a bus terminal underneath the entire southern part of the building that disgorged onto the concourse, which at that time was completely open to the public. Protestors had free reign there. Only the threat of islamic terrorism in the late 70s led to closure of the bus lanes.)

The Pentagon wouldn't be the Pentagon without the fringe-group protesters. Impwob, Red Leader: any good anecdotes from "back in the day?"

I'm very happy to hear that you're engaging them with the truth. Go get em', Socrates!

- You have the right solution to antiwar a$$hattery, I think: confront them forcefully (not violently except in self-defense, of course) with the truth everywhere you encounter them. The implication of force--making it clear that escalation on their part will be met with greater force--is expected and condoned. I too am ready to take whatever action is necessary, however, to see that this country does not turn back into the Birkenstocked-and-Beatled Vet-trashing Hippie Heaven it was in the 70s.



- Izmud's Hanoi Jane comment refers to her recent proclamation that she would return to political life ("it's ALIVE!!") to protest the war:

Jane Fonda is ready to exercise her political beliefs once again. The actress announced her plans to embark on a cross-country roadtrip to protest the war in Iraq...

"I've decided I'm coming out," she told the audience members, hundreds of whom cheered in support.

This time around, Fonda will be traveling aboard a vegetable oil-powered bus, accompanied by her daughter and the families of Iraq war veterans.

Love the Magical Mystery Tour bus idea! Safflower Power, Baby! Yeah!!

The reaction to her is a bit different this time around, however:

In April, one veteran decided to remind Fonda that he hadn't forgiven or forgotten the incident by waiting in line for hours at a Kansas City book signing for the sole purpose of spitting a mouthful of tobacco juice in her face.

Another veteran made his anti-Fonda stance clear in May, when he refused to screen Monster-in-Law at either of the two movie theaters he owns in Kentucky.

Paybacks are hell, Jane. To borrow a page from the typical Western imam's media talking points, "I cannot condone such violence, BUT certainly one can understand the conditions that led to it..." Should she come my way, I'll borrow a page from Archduke Mikhail Romanov, who, when Rasputin asked to visit Tsar Nikolai at his forward military headquarters in late 1915, replied, "do come. I'll hang you."

I was preparing a post I tentatively called "Shite-stank, Maggie, & Jane" that discussed some of the latest developments in the Fever Swamp, including HJ's "coming out" and some hilarious (and Hillary-ous?) bourkha-clad musings from America's favorite terrorist lover, Lil' Maggie Cho, who visited Egypt recently. The post, however, was too full of gall and rancor even for me. I must restrain myself, as the Right Reverend Nolan Dynamite reminds me here. More on both Maggie and Nolan soon.


: Howard Kurtz of the WaPo, one of the Establishment Left's more reliable stooges, foams at the mouth about right-side bloggers' reaction to Jane's "coming out" here. The article is wearily predictable, but does link to Tigerhawk's wonderful new name for Barbarella:

"Jihad Jane."

Love it! Don't know why I didn't think of it. That is how she shall be known henceforth. So let it be written; so let it be done.

And while we're on the subject of wonderful new names, what price this one (from Lileks):

There’s a paragraph that will show up, read in a nasally voice by some ichabodnik on that documentary. (An “ichabodnik” is a thin, unattractive humoreless lefty nut. Just made the word up. Feel free to submit righty versions.)

Outstanding! A perfect name! You know the type:

Now all we need is a likewise-perfect name for those leftists on the other end of the morphology scale. For illustration purposes, here is the female:

And the male:

And here are both morphological types side by side, for anatomical comparison:

Birkensloths? Corpuleftists? Red (or Yellow, or Pink) Walruses? Terror-Tubbies? I leave it to you, gentle readers, to come up with that perfect name. A one year free subscription to Vita ab Alto for the winner!

Read more
<< Home

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

The Limits of Civil Speech, Part 1 of ??

"I swore to myself that I would not let them down. They sacrificed and gave to me something that I could never repay; freedom."

- Staff Sergeant Joe Goodrich in an email to his wife from Iraq

I know that the blogosphere, Fox, et al, have beat this one to death, but...
I didn't learn of it until yesterday and just feel an urgent need to waste some invective on the moonbat Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, Catherine Baker Knoll, who showed up uninvited to the funeral of a Marine who was killed defending his country and its ideals. She passed out cards, introduced herself to family members, pandered for votes a bit, and then, to quote the Pittsburg Post-Gazette,

Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war.'"

The family, as you can imagine, was aghast:

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

For the first two days following, Knoll "could not be reached for comment." An aide issued a statement that said,

"The family members of fallen soldiers are in our hearts and prayers. Our prayers go out to their loved ones in their hour of grief."

Asked to comment on Goodrich's complaints about Knoll's conduct at the funeral, the aide said that "would be inappropriate."

No apology, just standard liberal grief-mongering. She felt their pain. The family then contacted the Governor and demanded an apology, which he gave, but only grudgingly:

"It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war," Rendell said during an appearance in Mt. Washington.

In other words, he only spoke of it when asked by the press and made it clear that his Democratic administration opposed its own national government's conduct of the war. May I presume that he and his lieutenant were elected on a states' rights platform?

Under whithering pressure over the next several days from press and protesters, the governor forced Knoll to write a letter of apology to the family:

Sergeant Goodrich’s service was beyond the call of duty. If my regard for his family’s grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology.

I will continue to support our troops in my role as Lt. Governor and support our President as an American. That I somehow conveyed an impression that was interpreted as other than that will forever be saddening and upsetting to me.

Classic! Typical lefty weasel-words, worthy of Turban Durbin himself! Note the passive voice: "it is regrettable...receives my most profound apology...was interpreted as...will forever be saddening..." I hope I use words as carefully in writing military doctrine!

Close reading shows that Knoll is not actually apologizing; she is blaming her audience for interpreting her words wrongly. It was their fault! Never does she say simply, "I'm sorry...I regret...I spoke wrongly..." She comes close twice, but never quite gets there.

This is so typical of the leftist mentality. These types have no lives outside of their political identities (or other public poses); admitting outright they are wrong is the equivalent of a Christian being asked to publically denounce Christ.

Michelle Malkin is absolutely right: This is not good enough. We need a good, publicly humiliating bootlicking from both her and her master if they expect to survive this.

Meanwhile, closer to ground, incidents directed against the families of soldiers are on the increase:

American flags, lining the lawn of the mother- and father-in-law of fallen U.S. Army Pfc. Timothy Hines Jr., were heaped in a pile early Saturday and burned under a car parked in front of the home - less than 24 hours after Hines was buried in Cincinnati's Spring Grove Cemetery.

The flames totaled Sara Wessel's car.

Hines, 21, was buried Friday after more than 400 people mourned his passing and celebrated his life at the Vineyard Community Church in Springdale. He was buried with full military honors, leaving behind a pregnant widow who expects to give birth in about two weeks and a 2-year-old daughter.

Hines died last week from injuries suffered when a roadside bomb exploded June 19 in Baghdad.

The 20 flags were replaced with more than 200 by Saturday afternoon. The flags came from family, friends and neighbors.

"We have a great neighborhood," Wessel said.

Cap'n Ed summarizes things admirably:

This doesn't constitute protest or political speech; it reflects madness. America-haters have come unhinged. When displaying our country's flag makes a dead soldier's family a target for political violence -- and there seems to be little doubt of the nature of this attack -- something terrible has gone wrong with the Left.

Quite right. This type of thing goes far beyond anything crazy the right did during Clinton's Time of Troubles or the 2000 election. Unfortunately, I believe the left is showing its true colors now. We will see more, not less, of this kind of thing in American public discourse as "all the poison that lurks in the mud hatches out."

Unfortunately for the left, we in the "silent majority" will not remain silent this time around (like we did the first time around, during Vietnam). If this sort of thing does continue, many on the left will live to regret it.

That's not a threat...that's a promise.


Read more
<< Home

Friday, July 22, 2005

Got One? Oh Well.

Following the news only intermittantly--the Monk clan has moved for the weekend into a cave in the vicinity of Gatlinburg TN that has cable, a huge plasma TV, and wifi. My kind of "camping!" Photos will follow soon.

I do see that the Brits, who issued a "shoot on sight" order for suspected terrorists yesterday, shot and killed one on the tube this morning. Jolly well done, boys!

I'm sure this policy violates certain rights the "bombers" (as Auntie Beeb calls them), or "suicide bombers" (as MessNBC and the Christian-bashers with Negative News have it--as if the terrorists just couldn't stand the world's nonsense anymore and resolved to end it all with an angst-ridden final statement of explosive performance art (how's that for mirror-imaging?)), are entitled to as British welfare recipients, but it will spare them the Horrors of Gitmo or some similarly sinister right-wing internment facility, as well as the psychological stress involved in a long trial, where details that would doubtless harm the fatal performance artists' self esteem would surface.

Kill them all; let God sort them out.


Update, 25 Jul 05
: Okay, not really. I was doubtless the last person who reads this blog to learn, but the gent shot on Saturday wasn't a roachlamist terrorist. He was a Brazilian, one Jean Charles Menezes, 27, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing the wrong thing when confronted by police.

Very, very sad. Nontheless, the actions of the London anti-terror cops was understandable and justifiable. This is war. Killing someone suspected on reasonable grounds of being an enemy combatant, who refuses to surrender when confronted is not only understandable, it should be expected and condoned. If a few innocents die as a frictional result of combat activity, that is regrettable, but justifiable.

Of course, we warriors should make every reasonable effort to avoid such collateral damage, within the constraint of still achieving valid military objectives, because, if the objectives are properly conceived, they will be logically tied to the entire hierarchy of military and national objectives above them, including the broad political objectives set by the military's civilian masters. Obviously, those political objectives include protecting innocent civilian lives (why do Western nations usually chose to use military power in the first place?). Had this man been a terrorist, the act of killing him would have served the cause of saving innocent civilian lives--the lives of his targets. The fact that he was probably not a terrorist does not mitigate the fact that he gave reasonable indication of being one at the time he was shot.

We civilians (as I have become again fairly recently) must keep in mind that the earliest possible achievement of our war objectives is the most humane solution to the whatever problem it is we've told military power to deal with. This may sometimes entail the use of means that seem inhumane or even barbaric, but in war, unlike most other endeavors, the ends almost always justify the means. And the closer war becomes to 'total war,' or Eigentliche Krieg, the less restricted the use of means becomes. Our enemies slice throats to the bone for on camera for fun, blow up crowds of children for accepting candy from American pig-dogs, kill innocent muslim tourists in the hundreds because they (rightly) see tourism as a soft-power form of infiltration. They kill us in dozens and hundreds, not in millions, because they lack the means to kill more at a time, not because they lack the will. I may not understand much in this life, but I do understand war and I do understand our enemy. I understand that most will submit only unwillingly when the Western knee is on the muslim chest and a big, bloody, serrated Western knife is at the exposed muslim throat--and that will work only after the ten million most-committed of muslim radicals--in our society and around the world--are turned into smoking meat hunks. The only real danger to the civilian population posed by this mistake is that the Brit police will now ask questions first and then shoot. Stick to your guns, boys (& girls)!

Fortunately, the Brits seem to be all taking this with a bit more stiff-upper than we would. Had this happened in the US, even many on the right would be screaming bloody murder and the leftist press would be having a field day at the Administration's expense. The Brits--even al-Beeb--seem to be saying, "oh well. Too bloody bad, but he shouldn't have run..." That is the correct answer. The Brazilians do want an eye for an eye, of course. Blair should politely tell them to get bent. The Muslim Association of Britain has bemoaned that the victim "was a human being too" and warned Blair about further violence 'if this sort of thing continues' (or words to that effect). The MAB, often a sounding board for radical islamist rhetoric despite its new-found respect for human life, should be arrested to a man and be sent packing off to Paki.

This should also be an object lesson to the hordes of immi's that the Brits, in their multicultural fervor, have invited into their country without check for the last 20 years: Learn a smattering of the language of the country you work in (Menenzes still didn't speak a word after working two years as an electrician); if you feel inclined to wear a Neocoat with wires sticking out of it in the middle of July because it "looks cool" or "makes a statement" or whatever, re-think your fashion priorities; and if confronted by grim men with badges and drawn guns, cooperate--don't run. If you do, expect to die. And we'll let God sort you out.


Update 2, 25 Jul 05
: According to Capt Ed, Menenzes had been in Britain for three years, not two, and spokee dee Eeenglish very very weeel (he leearn eet from a booook). I hereby posthusmously grant him the Darwin Award for 2005. Great work, genius!

Read more
<< Home

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The Limits of Free Speech -- An Update

Several weeks ago, I noted that Ward Churchill was a pretty reliable bellwether of where the DKos-and-tinfoil-hat segment of the left is headed.

Today I have an update. Ward's latest meme is being picked up by a number on the left. Here's one, courtesy of Michelle Malkin's examination of "why the FBI watches the left."

It looks like Ward's advocacy of fragging is catching on. A few choice morsels:

At the height of the Vietnam War, fragging became an anarchic epidemic. Over a thousand fragging attempts were made throughout. In 1969, there were 126 successful assassinations. In 1970, 271. In 1971, there were 333. After that year, the military stopped keeping count.

Recently Ward Churchill pointed out that the assassination of military officers does a hell of a lot more to stop war than conscientious objection. Ken Blanchard and Jason Heppler, in response, are expressing outrage at the suggestion that such mutinous behavior be propagated to subvert the war.

It's obviously a very frightening development for those Americans behind the rape and pillage of Iraq, but the numbers show it makes some sense for the common soldier. Warmongering flag-wavers might not approve, but you better believe there's a reason for fragging. The US invasion of Iraq ranks with the Nazi invasion of Poland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as one of the most despicable war crimes in recent history. Thank the Lord that the American military and "intelligence" services are so brain-dead that rag-tag bands of rebels armed with homemade bombs are kicking their asses a la "Red Dawn."

Good officers don't get fragged. Fascist, asshole officers get fragged. If you don't like that, Uncle Sam, than you should train your officers better, and pull your prick out of defenseless third-world nations.

This invasion isn't just a mistake-its the most evil atrocity of the new millenium. Only a fool would think there wouldn't be hell to pay (how could we learn so little from 9/11?). If you supported the American invasion, if you rape and pillage and murder innocents, if you benefit from this occupation, you better believe you have it coming.

One last comment: I DARE YOU TO DRAFT THIS GENERATION! If you think the Vietnam-era hippies were mutinous, you haven't seen nothing yet!

This has moved past the point of over-the-top "humor." I believe these folks are (or are becoming) serious.

These people need to realize several things:

1. This is not your daddy's army. The US military in 1971 was an industrial age relic. The surface forces were full of disaffected, poorly trained and poorly led youth drafted mostly from social classes that could not afford to dodge via college or other deferment. Today's military consists entirely of volunteers for whom the profession of arms is more a vocation than an occupation. There were folks of this type in the armed forces in Vietnam, but they were a minority; not today. You will find the enthusiasm for fragging, shall we say, somewhat lessened today, even in the land forces' enlisted ranks. (PS: No chance of a draft; we have no use for such people in a professional force.)

2. Many who take on the "vocation" of arms today do so partly in reaction to the treason, chaos, and weakness in the face of barbarism they experienced as youngsters in the US during Vietnam. Many--myself included--joined the military in part as a statement against everything the Baby Boomers and their sick, decadent, over-pampered generation stood for. Many--myself included--(regardless of whether they thought the Vietnam War was a good idea or not) vowed to fight any repeat of the treasonous Vietnam-era incitement that undermined that war and to see any repeat of things like fragging, spitting on veterans, terrorizing their families, etc., were punished appropriately.

3. We are trained by the finest military machine in history--which we had a large stake in creating (it certainly wasn't in 1971). We understand far more about the subtler uses of force than any military ever has before--we don't have to kill you to get what we want. We are strong believers in the real reason for the Second Amendment (that high-quality weapons in the hands of citizens makes the government more trustworthy) and most of us are familiar with a wide variety of weapons.

4. We are patient people, with full lives--not dessicated vegan fruitbats or sad, pimply teens acting out their angst in the comment pages of dKos. We are very patient. (We have to be, since politicians are our lawful masters.)

But our patience is not infinite. And if it wears thin, you don't stand a chance.

Think it over.


Read more
<< Home

SCOTUS Campaign -- Battle Lines are Drawn

Apparently President Bush....oh, excuse me--liberal readers will not recognize that title and name--Chimpy the AntiChrist....has read the captured dispatches and come to the correct conclusion: A large battle is coming no matter what he does to prevent it, so he might as well throw himself into the fray--strike quickly and decisively, trying to dislocate the enemy.

Last night, he announced John Roberts as his choice to replace Sandra Roe O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Roberts is young, articulate, legally brilliant, widely respected, and staunchly conservative. He is probably the best choice the President could have made. There is extensive coverage of his background and prospects over at Prof. Reynold's place. SCOTUSBlog also has an excellent four-part series on Roberts and Hugh Hewitt has fine coverage based on personal knowledge of the judge.

The armies that will contest the nomination are arraying themselves. The customary units line up on the left: The Naral Valkyrie Corps already has an anti-Roberts petition up on its site and the PFAW Division had a condemnatory "preliminary report" up even before the President announced the nomination last night. The report is remarkable: It's hard to believe something so heavy with tendentious rhetoric (first words of overview: "Robert's record is a disturbing one") could be held by such a thin tissue of facts.

The president has moved with admirable swiftness--none of the foot-dragging delay of a McClellan. The opposition may be in disarray; let us hope the President can keep the momentum he's created--blow through the gaps in South Mountain, as it were, and join battle near the riverbed to the west before the rebel forces have time to assemble. A major victory here could be a decisive blow in the larger war against the culture of leftism.

As usual, IowaHawk has the funniest take on the matter:

He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court

Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress

For Immediate Release

The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.


First, write your newspaper and/or Senator and let them know that you will not stand by idly while Bush and Company install a pseudo-" ___WHITE MAN___" like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the nation's highest court. Here's a letter to get you started!

Dear Senator __________

As a constituent and a voter in our great state of ___________, home of the famous ___________, I am proud that our state enjoys the the nickname of "Cradle of ____________s." This is why I must strongly urge you to oppose the nomination of ___JOHN ROBERTS___, a dangerous extremist whose legal rulings threaten to endanger our state's beloved ___________, making us no better than Mississippi.


Your Name Here

Be polite and remember to fill in your Senator's name and pertinent facts about your state. If you are from Mississippi, replace "Mississippi" with "California". Also, replace "Your Name Here" with your name, unless your name is actually "Your Name Here."

Another thing you can do to help is to find more information about ___JOHN ROBERTS___ . The people who know ___HIM___, what do they say about ___HIM___ ? Was ___HE___ ever in trouble with the law? Frequently, ___WHITE MEN___ like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ have arrest records in their youth. If you are near ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's hometown of ___UNKNOWN___, try searching in the local police archives for the ___JOHN ROBERTS___ name or possible aliases. Also, think hard -- are you certain that you have not been personally victimized, or assaulted by ___JOHN ROBERTS___? Search your recollections carefully. Scientists tell us that millions of us suffer from Repressed Memory Syndrome -- a debilitating psychological problem where victims are unable to recall a painful physical or emotional trauma, such as being physically violated by ___JOHN ROBERTS___. If you do not remember this happening to you, please call us and we will get you the help you need to recover your mind and start the road to healing....


: The Kossaks are at it already. A randomly chosen entry from the Daily Kos comment section (Where the Fever Swamp Lives!):

He has to be a pervert,

time is short to find out which prevision. Let's hope it's an illegal one.

The public understands sex, the more deranged the better. This guy is prime for strange attractions. He is way too old to have toddlers, why did he delay marriage? The one thing that these out to lunch types have in common is their contempt for women it's manifest in their decisions, but eventually disclosed in their disturbing attractions.

Remember, turn about is fair play.

by EasternOkie on Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 15:22:40 PDT

...Showing once again why this analysis is so cogent.

Update 2: Senator Ted Kennedy, America's greatest underwater escape artist, waded into the fray even before the ink was dry on the President's statement:

...The Supreme Court is often the last line of defense for the freedoms and liberties for hundreds of millions of Americans.

Often, but not always. For one in your company some years ago, Senator, the guardrail over Chappaquiddick Bridge was the last line, but she still lost her right to life and liberty...

...Few responsibilities of the Senate are more important than reviewing the qualifications of nominees for the Supreme Court.

If they're sober enough to read the qualifications, that is...

...Every American ought to be asking some tough questions right now about whether Mr. Roberts is fit to serve on the highest court in the land.

A bit tougher than the questions Massachusetts voters asked when they elected you to the highest legislative body in the land, one would presume...

...Will he separate his personal ideology from the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, not just the powerful or the wealthy[?]

Thus you think his "personal ideology" makes him opposed to "the rights and freedoms of all Americans."

Justice O¹Connor set a high standard. She tried to bring the nation together, and she respected the Constitution. She was a mainstream conservative who used her ability and respect for the rule of law to find solutions that would strengthen us as a nation, as the Constitution intended.

Is it really possible to stand so far out in left field that Sandra O'Connor looks likes a "mainstream conservative?" I think you have to be way up in the bleachers at the far end of the third base foul line, if not out in the parking lot.

Or does "mainstream" really just mean "milquetoast?"

...Mr. Roberts must demonstrate that he meets that standard before the American people, and he will have an opportunity to do so before the Senate Judiciary Committee before the coming weeks.

By which the Senator means, "we will flay his skin with shards of glass, accuse he and his maternal grandmother of carnal relations with dogs and goats before the world press, subject his wife and toddler children to the threat of travelling to their next vacation in a car with me, and wind up by sewing him inside a wet cow hide with a colony of fire ants and leaving him out in the sun..."

"Oh....and filibuster his a$$."

...No nominee, especially a nominee who is well known to have argued ideological positions on issues important to the American people, should be confirmed without full and candid disclosure and discussion of those positions and their importance to him.

By which the Senator means, "No nominee...should be confirmed..."

I welcome the opportunity to question Mr. Roberts, and believe that the American people will know at the end of this process whether he should advance to the Supreme Court.

I bet you do, Senator. I know you and your ilk want to drown his candidacy and all others Bush sends your way. But then, you know all about drowning, right Senator?

Senator Kennedy delivers his
statement to the press yesterday

Update 3: Democratic Underground has a good rundown of leftie sites' reactions to the nomination. All the usual suspects.

Read more
<< Home

Monday, July 18, 2005

Iraq in Microcosm

Here, in two links, is our entire current campaign in Iraq writ small.

In the first, a video clip, Army PFC Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, is shot square in the chest by roachlums who begin the ritual incantation to their insect god when they see that they've hit him.

Thank the Real God for the American inventiveness that gave us body armor, however: Tschiderer gets right back up and takes cover. In the last few frames of the video, the camaraman interrupts the sniper, who is rocking ritualistically back and forth on his haunches. One can imagine the exchange in English:

Sniperroach: "Allahu akhbar, Allahu Akh...."

Cameraroach: "Oh Shiite, Abdul, he just got up!"

Sniperroach: "What th' Allah!?"

The Rest of the Story is not shown on the video: Tschiderer's team located the sniper and shot him. Tschiderer tracked him down by his blood trail, handcuffed him and treated his wounds.

Once again, our moral and material superiority over the enemies of civilization is proven...

And while we're on the subject of the moral superiority of sacrifice over Roachlam and all the other manifestations of insect worship, consider Ben Stein's (as in "Win Ben Stein's Money") column from yesterday's NYT (which helps explain why he's my favorite UberKapitalist) :

Remember that it all depends on the fighting men and women, not on the people in finance. It depends on the guys whose names you will never know, guys who come home and work - not at jobs in which helicopters ferry them to secret-deal meetings in New York or London, but at jobs in places like a car wash in Burleson, Tex., where one of the men who captured Saddam Hussein is working without complaint and with barely mentioning that he was in Iraq.

That is, if they come home with all their limbs - or if they come home at all.


Read more
<< Home

Final Word on the Plame "Scandal"

Mark Steyn at the ChiSun says all that needs to be said on the matter:

In the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic ''fact-finding mission'' that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found.

Read all of it.

{Bow to the Instapundit}


: Chefjef asks, "you don't really believe that, do you?"

To which I say, "yes, of course."

Rove's "outing" consisted of "revealing" that Plame was a CIA analyst; there is nothing that points to his having known that she was (at one time, though not at the time of the "outing") a covert operative. Looks now as if Rove heard even this tidbit from the press itself--which seems as likely as any alternative; the President's political strategist hardly has the means or the "need to know" to have any working knowledge of the CIA's covert operatives and his "outing" a spook to a potentially-hostile press would be a stupid move hardly worthy of the dark genius the left ascribes to Rove.

And both Plame and her insect of a husband were blatantly partisan lefties--enemies of the Bush Administration by their own open admission. Which points out one of the principle problems with the Agency today, one that the new DCI is trying to fix--the prevalence of Plame's type of openly partisan, tendentious "analysis" and open "CYA-ing" in place of reliable intelligence gathering and analysis.

I know somehting about this. I have worked with the Agency before as well as with many in the miltary who have much more extensive experience with it. While there are still many fine analysts with deep area knowledge, the Agency as a whole is a laughing stock in the intelligence community and has been for many years because of its problems and insight-ignoring, cover-your-a&& consensus-buidling
approach to analysis.

My own professional intuition, grown over two decades of experience, tells me, even if nothing else does, that Steyn is correct.


Read more
<< Home

Friday, July 15, 2005

Bring It On...

Well, since I'm in a "kill them all and let God sort them out" mood anyway, I might as well tackle this topic:

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

So...let me get this straight: if the US uses "position-guided munitions" (by which I assume he means, "precision guided munitions") against its ships and planes crossing the straights of Formosa, the PRC would use nukes in retaliation.

I have only three short words in response:




Do you fell lucky, General Zhipperhead? I hope so, because the moment you try this, Osama will be saying to his buds, like the US pilot Col Andy Tanner to "Jed" in Red Dawn:

[Jed:] "Well, who is on our side?"
[Tanner:] "Six hundred million screamin' Chinamen"
[Jed:] Last I heard, there were a billion screamin' Chinamen."
[Tanner, throwing his cup of moonshine on the campfire and causing a huge flame-up]: "There were."

Once again we learn the lesson: weakness in the face of evil engenders more evil. China would not be making bellicose pronouncements of this sort if our own fifth column at home would shut up and the US and its allies would present a united front against islamic terror. Sooner or later, we will be forced to make our enemies here at home shut up....


Read more
<< Home

More on Strength and Weakness

Australian Prime Minister John Howard admirably sums up the issues Chefjef andI have been discussing these past few days:

MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?

JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people

The same day that Mr. Howard made that remark, Max Boot published a brilliant piece that warrants quoting in its entirety:

Then and now, evil always wants more

The London bombings have occasioned many comparisons with the 1940 Blitz. This is usually cited as evidence of British fortitude — the attitude exemplified by cockneys in the heavily bombed East End who told Winston Churchill, "We can take it, but give it 'em back." That is indeed the dominant British (and American) attitude, then and now, but it is important not to ignore a streak of timidity there (and here) that may get stronger in the years ahead and that was present even when civilization faced an existential threat from Nazism.

Appeasement did not end with the German invasion of Poland in 1939. Even afterward, many in Britain (and even more in the U.S.) opposed active resistance. Conservative worthies like Lord Halifax sought a negotiated settlement. Fascists like Sir Oswald Mosley sought to bring Nazism to Britain. And communists and their fellow travelers opposed fighting Stalin's ally until Hitler invaded Russia.

Even in January 1942, when German armies were at the gates of Moscow, George Orwell wrote in Partisan Review that "the greater part of the very young intelligentsia are anti-war … don't believe in any 'defense of democracy,' are inclined to prefer Germany to Britain, and don't feel the horror of Fascism that we who are somewhat older feel."

As if to illustrate Orwell's point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage wrote a reply in which he explained why he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.' " Savage saw no difference between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both were imposing totalitarianism: "Germans call it National Socialism. We call it democracy. The result is the same."

Savage naively wondered, "Who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" Savage thought the real problem was that Britain had lost "her meaning, her soul," but "the unloading of a billion tons of bombs on Germany won't help this forward an inch." "Personally," he added, with hilarious understatement, "I do not care for Hitler." But he thought the way to resist Hitler was by not resisting him: "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."

When applied to the embodiment of pure evil, the usual liberal tropes about "understanding" not "condemnation" have an air of Monty Python about them. Yet there are uncomfortable echoes of Savage's sermonizing in the attitude of many modern-day intellectuals toward the Islamo-fascist threat.

The BBC now refuses to refer to the London terrorists as "terrorists." They are to be known by the more neutral term "bombers," lest the public be deceived by "the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments." Value judgments about blowing up innocent commuters? How gauche!

Enlightened opinion ranging from Amnesty International to Dick Durbin joins in this moral relativism by suggesting that the United States has become no better than its enemies through the actions it has taken to prevent terrorism. Just as 1940s pacifists could see no difference between Nazi concentration camps and British wartime curtailments of civil liberties, so today's doppelgangers equate the abuses of renegade guards at Abu Ghraib with the mass murder carried out by Stalin or Pol Pot.

There is also an enduring tendency to blame the victim. George Galloway, Saddam Hussein's favorite member of Britain's Parliament, suggests that Londoners "paid the price" for their government's "attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq." The implication is that Al Qaeda has reasonable grievances and if only we could satisfy them — by, for instance, exiting Iraq — we would have peace. The same thing was said about Hitler, who complained that Germany had been wronged by the Treaty of Versailles.

The problem was that Hitler's stated demands were a pretext for his maniacal ambitions. He was unappeasable. So is Osama bin Laden, who wants to avenge centuries of humiliation supposedly suffered by Muslims at Christian hands and who dreams of establishing a Taliban-style caliphate over all the lands once dominated by Muslims, from western China to southern Spain. Pulling out of Iraq would only whet his insatiable appetite for destruction, just as giving up the Sudetenland encouraged Hitler to seek more.

Orwell's words, written in October 1941, ring true today: "The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality."

Indeed. The culture of appeasement is as much an enemy in today's war for civilization as the islamofascists themselves are.


: Ol' Auntie Beeb persists in her perpetuation of the CoA by steadfastly, John-Bullishly, stiff-upperly refusing to use the term "terrorist" when referring to London's attackers last week. Laura Ingraham had great fun with this yesterday. "Terrorist," you see, would involve a "value judgment" ("careless use of words...carr[ies] emotional or value judgments") and that, as we all know, would be Wrong. But then, Auntie Beeb has thought it important to present "both sides" in conflict between the Mideast and West for some time. That makes the Beeb roughly the equivalent of our German-American Bund (which, instructively, was outlawed in early 1942).

Read more
<< Home

Christian Carnival LXXVIII

This week's Christian Carnival is up at A Ticking Time Blog. I particularly like this post from Dory at Wittenberg Gate:

"Momma, if God can do anything He wants, just by the power of His word, why does He call us to work for Him?"

"Do you remember when you made chocolate chip cookies all by yourself for the first time?"

Sound like glurge? It's not. It makes a profound point very well. Read the whole thing & enjoy!


Read more
<< Home

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Strength and Weakness, Continued

Chefjef responds to this post from yesterday:

The European attitude is not leftist; it is common among the right as well, who seem just as content with the socialist-pacifist society the Euros have willfully created. There are some exceptions, of course, particularly the growing neo-nazi/white supremacist movement within the extreme far right in many European countries.

And what's up with comparing quarter pounders to terrorists? Quarter pounders: They are an American Icon, worthy of nothing less than adoration and praise. Shame on you! You should apologize profusely. But whatever you do, DON'T supersize.

Seriously though, I was pleased to see the Brits get some good suspects. Further, while I suspected (though didn't presume) they would be islamic extremists, the fact that they were British-born Pakistanis, as opposed to immigrants, made it more disturbing.

How does an open society purge itself of such creatures without abusing and alienating the entirety of it's Middle Eastern/muslim population, thereby running the risk of creating a larger "aggressor" group (as a result of a perception of being attacked)? That approach would seem to be destined to result in, eventually, an "us versus them", all out conflict.

On the other hand, a purely "law enforcement" approach cannot possibly identify and excise the vermin - and their sympathizers - at a rapid and thorough enough rate to prevent deadly attacks or inflict a sufficient degree of attrition amongst the evildoers to significantly reduce their offensive capabilites. And, the "create a democracy in Iraq and watch it spread" idea is about as successful as "create a communist state in Vietnam or Afghanistan and watch it spread" turned out to be.

So, what other options are there? What's the answer to dealing with that s***head Bouyeri?


Please forgive the unintended desecration of that most-holy Icon! I meant only a comparison of relative productivity, not to insult the Quarter Pounder, Peace Be Upon It, by comparing it to a muslim! I assure you I keep my Quarter Pounder (SAW) safe in a silken bag above my bed and let no mongrel or infidel (especially mongrel) despoil it!

You may be right about left vs. right in Europe. France's current administration is ostensibly "conservative," but I see no significant difference between its governing philosophy and that of an ostensibly left-wing government like Germany's. Britain has always been different than the Continent and its politics more closely aligned with ours, but Blair's Labour government seems indistinguishable from a US Republican administration on all but a few issues. Still, when I think of "right wing" vis Europe, I think mostly of the skinhead crowd.

As for what to do: I agree that a law enforcement alone approach will be ineffective, although LE is a vital part of the defensive response. Still, "force protection" just preserves resources, it doesn't win wars. Only the offensive wins and that is why Iraq and perhaps half a dozen other like campaigns are and will be necessary before this war is over.

Unfortunately, taking the offensive probably means doing something very undemocratic with our indigenous muslim populations. The only way an open society "purges itself of such creatures" is by purging itself of them. Sending them packing for....wherever, just not here. We gave them the best our society could offer, including great educations; when they go, it will be their turn to pay the world back by building just societies within Dar al-Islam.

Will this "further alienate them?" Of course, but who give a muslim's a$$? They are already fatally and finally alienated, as Britain's homegrown "bombers" demonstrate. The ideals of the society they want and the society they live in are fundamentally incompatible and cannot continue to exist together, unless we are willing to accept their slaughter and barbarism as a commonplace within our society.

There are some on the left and right (Pat Buchannan, anyone? John Kyl on the Native Hawaiian bill?) in this country who would like to see the ethnic and tribal Balkanization of the US that would be required to accommodate muslims on their own terms. It's easier to divide and conquer, after all, if your only goal is power. And a representative can "represent" any constituency, however odious, as long as the voters vote them a comfortable life (as Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Robert Byrd, et al daily prove). I, however, am unalterably opposed to this. It would mean the death of the America we know much more surely than would any mass action against muslims alone. We're not yet far enough into this conflict to take action on permanent mass deportation (thank God), but I believe we may eventually be driven there by enemy action and we need to be mentally prepared for it.

Can we do such a thing and remain a free society? Of course--at the risk of a certain amount of reality-based hypocrisy; but I'll live with the guilt of that if my children and the children of the people from the rest of the world who come here are safe because of it. We banned communists during the Cold War and Nazis during WW II and yet our republic survived. "These weren't religions and the Constitution protects religions," you say? I say: BS! If that's the case, we need to redefine our understanding of "religion." They were every bit as much religious movements as was the hij'ra--were every bit as dangerous as jihad--and can be banned on grounds that are just as practical.

As to roaches like Bouyeri: suspend the rules. They don't recognize or play by our rules, so we have no obligation to follow those rules in dealing with them. Torture them--and I don't mean "make them wear panties;" I mean real Hanoi Hilton stuff--until the last bit of useful information is extracted, then shoot them in the back of the head and throw their bodies in dumpsters somewhere.

"If we do that, we surrender the moral edge." you say? BS. This is a war, not a lady's Wednesday afternoon tea and debating society. Same-same Gitmo. We should do anything and everything we must in order to win, because OUR SIDE WINNING is the only truly moral outcome. We are rapidly approaching Clausewitz' Eigentliche Krieg ("war as it actually is") and he rightly warned us 200 years ago that self-imposed restraint in such war is counterproductive, wasteful of lives, and ultimately futile. (We must only look 30 years into our own past for empirical proof of this.) We have had substantial reasons for restraint so far, and will continue to have in dealing with subjugated peoples (don't kid yourself--that's what they are), but in dealing the the enemy's combatants, such restraint just makes us look weak in the enemy's eyes (and thus encourages him) and gives the enemy exploitable opportunities. We must be (as the muslims of the hij'ra were) ferocious in combat, merciful to the subjugated. And as Bouyeri demonstrated by his contempt in court, he is not subjugated--he is very much still an enemy combatant and will remain so until he dies.

"We didn't have to do that to win previous wars," you say? BS. In fact, we did--we just didn't advertise it to every "congressperson" who was running a gay bordello out of his apartment or every Campari-sipping leftist reporter in the country when we did. Were the firebombings of Dresden and Japanese cities any more "moral?" No, but they were justified by the intent of helping shorten a total war; rightly condemned if and only if all the civilian slaughter they entailed did not shorten the war.

"If we do that they'll do the same to us," you say? BS. Can you say, "Nick Pearl?" Can you say, "Theo Van Gogh?" Can you say, "the Fallujah bridge?" I knew you could.

The jury is still out on creating a democratic state in Iraq and watching it grow. We are not beaten there yet by any means, despite what the suckerfish and moonbats say on the subject, and despite the MSM's deliberate spikings and tendentious distortions, but we must be prepared for the next step if our attempt there is ultimately unsuccessful. I am cynical enough about the world to believe that we may have to ratchet the conflict up to "the war of everyman with everyman" eventually. After all, the enemies of our civilization have an overwhelming incentive to make it so.


: This is revolting, but hardly surprising:

The transformation of four young British men into terrorists appears to have taken place at a government-funded storefront youth centre in Leeds that, according to youth workers, was a hub of radical Islamist activity.

The centre was sealed off and searched by police yesterday after three of its workers said in an interview on the street outside that at least two of the suicide bombers had been "very regular" visitors at all hours to the Hamara Youth Access Point, and a third had been seen there occasionally.

"It had become so radical and so hateful that I asked if I could stop working there," said one of the workers, who along with two others described the storefront drop-in centre as a hub of radical Muslim politics and a hotbed of Islamic organizing, routinely hosting mysterious figures to speak about extremist politics.

Family and friends of the young men repeatedly said yesterday that they had seen no indication that they had adopted such influences. Although they had become more devoutly religious and travelled to Pakistan for study trips, it is not uncommon for naturalized children of immigrants in this part of England to become more devout than their secularized parents.

This report shows the nexus between radical islamic terror and the government-aided culture of poverty. It's significant that Bouyeri was also on government aid, as was Mohamed al-Gerbouzi, the dude the Brits suspect was a mastermind of the London attacks. I think if we looked closely at our own inner cities and other poor areas we would see a similar picture. Recall that the DC snipers were both radical muslims. All these homegrown terrorists accepted their checks with the same contumely that any crack dealer would from his stable of "bitches."

There is an intimate connection here that warrants futher exploration.

Read more
<< Home

The HuffPo Guide to Good & Evil!

This wonderful bit of satire comes from within the far-left-trying-to-sell-itself-as-moderate Huffington Post. I suspect Ariana didn't read it too closely before it was posted. It touches on two of my favorite topics: moral relativism and

Thank God for the Huffington Post.
I now know how to respond to evil.
And you can too!
(cue music)

“With an irresistible mix of moral relativism and false consciousness, THE HUFFPO GUIDE TO GOOD AND EVIL helps me handle any debate involving terrorism - or any subject dealing with evil!” - Greg Gutfeld, 40, writer, pet owner and part-time Pilates instructor. “Passing judgment is so expensive! This seminar teaches me how to make everything relative - so I don't have to defend my country - or my relatives!”

So far, I've learned so much from Deepak Chopra! Like, when faced with one act of terror, simply equate it to an act of non-terror!

“Why is killing a person in uniform more acceptable than a person in civilian clothing? Who makes the rules about "civilized vs. uncivilized" killing? Can we begin to question these rules?”

Thanks to Deepak, we can pose such questions! But we can't answer them, because there are no answers! As Chopra explains - no one is right, and no one is wrong!

"This is the bias that of course 'we' are good and mostly right while 'they' are bad and mostly wrong. It's on that basis that unacceptable slaughter continues on all sides."


Read more
<< Home

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Strength, Weakness, & the Dhimmization of Europe

Two of my most-frequented subjects run together today: the congenital spinelessness of our European "allies" and the strength of our enemies in the current War Against Civilization.

West, meet Middle East...again:

The gulf between the West and radical Islam was on painful display yesterday when a young Muslim went on trial for the murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh but refused to recognise the court's authority.

Dhimmis, meet your future master...

Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with joint Moroccan and Dutch nationality, limped into court with what appeared to be a large Koran under one arm. Wearing a black, collarless gown and a black and white Palestinian-style headscarf, he smirked at the panel of three black-robed judges.

He offered no defence, instructing his lawyer to tell the court that he acknowledged only Islamic law.
Fair enough. Perhaps we should grant his point and impose the penalty sharia law would require had his crime been committed within the Dar al-Islam:

Bouyeri displayed contempt for the judges, prosecutors, psychologists and police. He yawned, stroked his beard, prodded his face with a pen and played an imaginary piano on his thighs.

Despite his bushy beard, Bouyeri appeared more like a sulky adolescent than a terrorist killer with links to Islamist cells in Germany, Madrid and beyond, portrayed by the prosecution.

That he's a "baby-faced" 27-year-old is significant. The kind of certitiude that leads one to yearn to die for a cause tends to reside mostly with the young. (The willingness to kill for one's cause tends to stick around a bit longer.) The average age in the part of the world that feeds our enemy its human fodder is under 25: uneducated, inexperienced, rootless; but strong, ardent, trainable, and easily swayed. Demographics alone tell us that we in the West must keep our decisive edge in the ability to kill people "efficiently" (for the least cost to us in terms of lives, treasure, time, and/or opportunities). Europe--for several very good reasons, mind--long since gave up the ability to do anything militarily other than file labor grievances. As always, if a miitary solution is required, it will become the responsiblity of the United States' armed forces--or, should I say, of Red State America's armed forces, since the People's Democratic Parenthetical Republic of Blumurka doesn't like folks in uniform (other than that really cute police dude in the Village People) and doesn't contribute meaningfully to its sustenance.

He "appeared more a sulky adolescent than a terrorist killer..." is stated as if these two things are somehow incompatible. Far from it. We have a few like him: Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold... Its just that they are abberations in our society, but the post-feudal / pre-industrial, bachelor-herd, attain-your-own-salvation-if-you-follow-the-rules, death-to-all-infidels culture of islam produces them like McDonalds produces Quarter Pounders. They are islam's primary export commodity.

Prosecutors said that Bouyeri shot Mr van Gogh on a busy Amsterdam street as the film-maker cycled to his office. Wounded, Mr van Gogh pleaded: "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it."

Mr. Eurosquishy Liberal, meet Mr. Apresvouz Le Deluge. Here is the archetypal encounter between Europe's fern bar-and-legalized-drug-softened Anythinggoesism and the lean and hungry barbarians from the rest of the world. We saw this look (shock and horror finally breaking through the crust of world-weary cynicism) on your face back in the 400s when those dudes in the wolf hides showed up at the city gates. You've just forgotten about it.

The court was told that Bouyeri shot his victim six times then slit his throat with a kitchen knife, severing Mr van Gogh's neck down to the backbone before impaling to his chest with the knife a five-page note threatening other public figures.

Horrible? Get used to it. Someone (I can't remember who and Dr. Google refuses to tell me) once said something like "a child's virtue resides in the weakness of its limbs, not the goodness of its heart." That proverb applies to our muslim friends. The only thing that really distinguishes this from this is the fact the West still has the power to restrain Dar al-Islam from carrying out its plans for us. Should we lose that power, their killing will become much more "efficient" and the images will become much more Treblinka-like.

Witness statements read in court described how he reloaded his gun then walked around a park before firing on a police vehicle, allegedly in an attempt to provoke a gunfight and die a martyr.

Unfortunately, they didn't let him fulfill his ambition. Still, we see the ardor to die from a young adherent whose religion rewards such "martydom." His was not the act of wild fanatic, just that of a man who truly understood the principles of his faith. Christian martyrs died at the hands of persecutors, unresisting, blessing their executioners. Muslims earn goddie-points for dying in the act of killing and maiming "infidels."

The murder shocked the Dutch public, still reeling from the 2002 assassination of Pim Fortuyn, a flamboyant, populist anti-immigration politician. The killings proved to many that Holland's multi-cultural society, based on tolerance and consensus, was in terminal crisis.

Well, yes. In a society of sheep, the lone wolf rules.

Further evidence of Europe's probably-terminal wimpness comes from our wonderful muslim-loving friends at the Beeb:

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Can a people so cowed by the thought of political incorrectness really defend themselves? Or is the Beeb just a fringe haven of leftist internationalists and enemy sympathizers, and not representative of Brits in general? The latter, I pray. And even though Britain has significant problems, I feel there is still hope for John Bull. However, I also fear that much of the rest of Western Europe is too far gone to help. I look at the prospect of America-hating France and the Uberleftist Netherlands becoming muslim suzereinties (as Spain--excuse me: al-Andalus--almost is already) with some sense of Schadenfreude, but I know this will be a disaster for the cause of civilisation.

Eastern Europe will stand with us for awhile because even former enemies like the Russians and Serbs understand the nature of the war we're in (and that we're on the same side), but their militaries are in even more pathetic shape than Western Europe's. In its heyday, the entire weight of the Soviet Army couldn't do what it took a handful of US special forces and aircraft to do in Afghanistan. Today's Russian army is well past that peak and it's the best in the region.

There are tens of millions within Dar al-Islam that hate us with the same ferocity as Bouyeri and hope every bit as much to gain immortal pleasures by slaughtering the rest of us the way Bouyeri slaughtered Van Gogh. Past a certain point on an adversary's spectrum of human nature, there ceases to be a "turn the other cheek" option--at least if we take our responsibility to ensure social justice seriously. Gentle suasion will not turn such people from their hate, nor will stern woes. We haven't the faith or the institutional ability to cast the demons that haunt these people into swine where they belong and turning over their counting tables is not enough. That leaves only one option. If we are to protect those weaker than ourselves--including our brothers, sisters, and "siblings" in Blumerka and the People's Vogonish Republic of Europe--we in Red State America--the world's only demographic with the consistent will and ability to subdue our enemies--must not shrink from that option.


: Not surprisingly, the four homocide bombers who attacked London last week were homegrown--"Shazzy" Tanweer, as his English friends knew him, was

They were a close-knit family of good Muslims, respected in a local multi-ethnic community of whites, Africans, east Europeans, Pakistanis and Bengalis.

...he was a quiet boy, and good in school... I like that, "whites...East Europeans..." East Europeans are about as white as they come. For that matter, so are Pakistanis and Bengalis, technically--they're as much members of the caucasoid race as any Anglo-Saxon or Russian. So much for the liberal press' vaunted racial tolerance. That sentence could have come out of the Richmond Times Dispatch circa 1903.

If ever there was a family of model immigrants, it was the Tanweers. Originally from Pakistan, they had made a good life in Britain, running their Leeds fish and chip shop and living in a large detached house in the city's Beeston area, with two Mercedes cars parked outside.

"And yet the ape, tho' well behaved, at best was just a monkey shaved."

Hey! They call us pigs & monkeys! Seriously, this points out that one can attach as many trappings of civilized life as one wishes onto muslims--many of them will still come out, well....muslim. And that inevetably and ineluctably leads at least to a willingness--whether the ability is there or not--to mutilate a face beyond recognition with a serving fork for religious "infidelity," kill one's own sister for a supposed "honor" violation, beat one's wife to within an inch of her life as a religious "duty," take multiple wives as an expression of the same, set off dynamite strapped to oneself on a crowded double-decker bus, blow up a pizza joint crowded with teenage girls, severe the head of a helpless captive and broadcast it worldwide on the internet, nearly severe the head of another helpless victim in broad daylight on a Dutch street as the victim pleads for mercy, set off an IED in a crowd of Arab children in order to kill the US Marine standing in the center of them giving out candy, paint the genitalia (and only the genitalia) of the statues outside one's multi-million-dollar Beverly Hills mansion, host websites openly advocating the murder of "Jews and dogs" in one's comforatble middle-class European home at the age of fourteen....need I go on? I could....pretty much indefinitely.

God help me! I'm finding "turn the other cheek" a very hard teaching right now. Just now, I would like a hundred million or so of these cockroaches in human guise to turn their other cheeks toward the sky and see big, cobalt-salted B-53s descending toward them....and have to time only to think, "oh shi......." in Arabic.


Read more
<< Home

Monday, July 11, 2005

Debunking Eight Myths

Real quick--am at work, so cannot blog at length, but here's a link to a well-resoned, cogent, and link-rich debunking of eight common myths regarding the war in Iraq. I've seen few this good. For conservative friends, it'll reiterate those points you've been trying to drill into numbskull liberal friends and co-workers for a couple of years now; perhaps even give you fresh ammo. For liberal friends, it will be a rare glimpse of the truth in a sea of media BS that's as accurate on the war as it was on Hurricane Dennis' winds.

Read the whole thing.


Read more
<< Home

SCOTUS Campaign -- The Forces Muster

As the WaPo reports today, Anti-Bush forces are mustering around campfires across the Bluerentheses. Even WaPonik Hanna Rosin gently makes light of the MoveOn-dot-foilhat crowd in her Style Section first page story:

Call Up the Troops, Then Clean the Grill
Summer's Hottest Social Issue: The Supreme Court in Flux

"It's like the Howard Dean days," says a lady who is standing over by the pool, eating a piece of sushi. And in form, at least, it is: groups of strangers meeting in suburban back yards or tiny downtown apartments on a Saturday night, telling stories of "how I got involved," resuscitating that common enemy from the heady pre-election days, known in these circles as "the fascist government" or "the people destroying this country" or sometimes simply "Them."

Like the sushi. Nice touch. Rosin is as lefty as they come ("they are human"), but she realizes how that line will play: "hmmmm...we eat steak and hotdogs when we grill out. What kinda mango-kiwi fruit cocktail eats sushi at a cook-out?" Rosin either finds these kinds almost as amusing as I do, or she's the most tone-deaf writer alive. Subtle digs abound:

This one is in the backyard of Chuck Fazio's house in Mount Vernon, a lovely spot on the site of George Washington's pig farm, overlooking Dogue Creek on one side and Fazio's pool on the other. The pool is decorated with what he jokingly calls his "tiki luau masks."

Hmmm. House with a pool in Mount Vernon? I wonder what Mr Fazio's income is compared with the Army NCOs who live on Belvoir across Dogue Creek from him? Bet they can't afford the luxury of being Democrats.

Then came that black post-election phase when people at the party recall feeling "pretty depressed" or "burned out" or "drained" or "exhausted." "Let's just say I suffered quietly" are Fazio's words. He moped along, feeling helpless and frustrated, watching a lot of Fox News and throwing boxes of Cheerios at "Hannity & Colmes." Then came the fateful day of The Surprise Resignation.

Fazio was working in San Francisco when his partner, Genny Morelli, text-messaged him.

"Did you hear?"

She didn't have to fill in the details. He knew, and she knew he would know.

"Oh. My. God. We're in deep (expletive)," is what she remembers him saying.

"Gen, this is the worst freakin' news I could ever imagine," is how he recalls it.

And the future suddenly took shape. No more aimless Cheerios-throwing. Genny would come home from work every day and say to herself: "Chuck is energized."

I love this stuff! "His 'partner?'" Throwing cheerio boxes at Fox? Classic.

Eighteen miles away in a Woodley Park apartment, Vijaya Thakur, 20, is holding her own house party. She's called it the "Progressive Love Fest," because "there's a Republican in my office who was making fun of the MoveOn parties and calling it that."

Thakur is a student at Bryn Mawr and works at the Genocide Intervention Fund.

Thakur? Is this a Rob's list name, or is the young lady from the Middle East? Which leads to this question: Is she against genocide or for it?

The 30 or so people who've shown up are mostly young singles. The apartment is dorm-ish and looks like it could be packed up in an hour -- a mattress on the floor and a few mismatched chairs, two old desks covered with bags of Utz pretzels and potato chips, an old TV with a turn dial, nothing on the walls.

Well, she's gotta be able to get away quickly when her brother calls from the Madrassah in Pakistan and says, "It is time to leave, little one. Travel west and do not look back."

Meanwhile, cryptic signals have been received from Planet Wimp. Spokesthing ("man" somehow just doesn't seem to fit) for "moderates," Arlen Specter (""'R'"" PA) revealed on Face the Nation yesterday that he and a "number of senators" have approached retiring Justice O'Connor about staying on if she's offered the position of Chief Justice.

What species of worm dominates your home planet, Senator, and how does it create its perception of reality? Here on Earth, this is probably the most tone-deaf political move since Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd first tried to sell himself as a liberal Democrat. This would be absolute political seppuku for president Bush. There are plenty of social conservatives in the country who were and are lukewarm about his presidency, but who voted for him anyway specifically because he might have a chance to apppoint one or more SCOTUS justices and redress the court's liberal activist imbalance. The prospect of specifically retaining an unfavorable court balance and replacing the ailing, but genuinely conservative, Chief Justice with a squishy, fern-loving, moderate fence-sitter as head of the court is one that would keep hundreds of thousands of Red Staters at home come the 2006 elections--perhaps enough to upset the congressional balance of power. These people will feel betrayed. And rightly so. Of course, O'Connor as Chief Justice is possible. After all, the Kleagle did eventually manage to sell himself to the Teddy Kennedy crowd. And Arlen the Clown is the chairthing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And Specter thinks CJSDO'C is an absolutely smashing idea:

"She has received so much adulation that a confirmation proceeding would be more like a coronation, and she might be willing to stay on for a year or so."

Well...yes, Senator, it would be like a coronation. That's precisely the problem.


: Nan Aron, President of the "Alliance for Justice," who consults regularly and closely with Democratic senators concerning White House judicial nominees, spoke with Hugh Hewitt yesterday and let the feral cat out of the bag:

HH: Nan Aron, is Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, acceptable on the Supreme Court of the United States to you?

NA: ...I will tell you this much. There are a lot of concerns in his record, going to his role in authorizing torture in prisons around the world...

HH: Judge Emilio Garza has also been mentioned. Do you expect you would have to oppose Judge Garza?

NA: ...From what we know of Judge Garza's record at this particular point, there's some very troubling cases on privacy and other matters...

HH: Judge Alito in the [3rd Circuit], could you see yourself supporting him?

NA...think the same is true with Judge Alito. He's also got a troubling record that raises many questions about his commitment to individual rights and freedom...

HH: How about if he brings back Miguel Estrada, to promote him?

NA:...Miguel Estrada appeared before the Senate Judiciary Commitee, and answered very, very few questions put to him by the Senators. I thought that situation was deplorable...

HH: Now, of course, Janice Rogers Brown was just appointed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench...

NA: That's correct.

HH: So she could probably get through with your approval, because she's already met the test of the gang of 14, right?

NA: No, no, no. She has not.

Aron goes on to explain that the Gang of 14's "horse trading" did not involve any deal to approve future appointments for the judges involved in the deal and that all three would be "unacceptable."

Surprise, surprise. They'll oppose and filibuster anyone Bush nominates to the court, no matter how "moderate." This is an opportunity for Bush, however: since they'll be agin' anybody, go ahead and nominate real conservatives for every vacancy. Enforce the party line, invoke the nuke option, and exact a painful price for failure to comply. This may cost Republicans the Senate in 2006, but who cares? If they can't get conservatives on the court, what difference does having a Republican majority make? Right now, it just seems to exist to give Arlen the Spectre a venue from which to lobby future-President Hillary for a top cabinet post.

This is the most important domestic issue Bush will face during his Presidency. If he fails to deliver, we--the Republican rank and file--will gladly hand the country back over to the opposition so they can trash it and the world for four years and we can then get a real conservative in 2012. Comfy, collegiate cigar-puffers in Congress--on both sides of the aisle--shouldn't kid themselves: the next four election cycles (at least) will hinge on how completely Republicans can get out their Red State vote. Red Staters who are lukewarm about the Republicans will stay home and this is the only way the party of Howard Dean will win anything. We are willing to stay home and let them win, too, if this President disappoints us and if, in so doing, we can force the next Republican president to listen and can purge the party of clowns and wets like Arlen Specter.


Read more
<< Home

Book VII: Harry Potter and the Appeasers of Kaboom

"...or, JK goes PC"

Iowahawk strikes again:

"Quickly, Harry, use the banishment spell I taught you! Quickly, before [Voldemort] gets back up!"

"No, sir," said Harry quietly.

"What... what do you mean, Harry?" asked Dumbledore, dumbfounded.

"I mean sir, maybe the Dark Lord and Professor Galloway and the Al-Dementor insurgents have a point. I mean -- we obviously have made them angry, what with all their bombs and soul-eatings and dismemberment spells. Maybe we have oppressed the dark magicians. Maybe the Sorting Hat does unfairly discriminate against Dementor students. Maybe the Muggles have stolen their lands. Maybe knee-jerk retaliation against Voldemort is exactly the sort of thing that will cause them to react with more and more spells."

Dumbledore looked at Harry in silence.

"And so maybe, Professor, just maybe... we should sit down with Voldemort and Professor Galloway to talk about how we can end all this sensless bombing and spell-casting, and start a real dialog between us and the Dark Arts community, and build real diversity and understanding here at Hogwarts."

"Now you're finally talking sense, my boy," gasped Voldemort, painfully rising to his knees.

Brilliant! (As Hermione would say.)


Read more
<< Home