The Grim Milestone of Blogs "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational" - Prince Charles "Nuts" - Gen McAuliffe America: Saving idiots from themselves since WWI

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

"Muslim land" - Why Islamic Immigration to the West MUST be Stopped

Yeah! I have my very own personal Muslim troll. He's mine. You can't have him.

Can anyone name a religion which claims land as its own? Buddhism? Nope. Christianity? Not any more. Hinduism? Nice try. Any of these guesses would have been correct a thousand years ago.

Only Islam consistently practices relgious apartheid in today's world. Saudi Arabia is the best example, among many others. Jews and kuffar are not allowed to even set foot in much of Saudi Arabia. Jews can't visit any part of Saudi Arabia.

Muslims, and my troll is one, still believe land can practice a religion. Once land is captured by Muslims, they claim it for all eternity. This directly contradicts all modern notions of land ownership, and violates every anti-discrimination law in the West. Yet we tolerate this medieval view of land ownership from Islam. Jews must leave the "occupied territories" while Arabs are supposed to have free reign in Israel. Hypocrisy much?

REMEMBER: to the western mode of thought Islam is not just religion, but law, government, and morals police all wrapped into one entity. One can't fart without consulting an imam.

This "Muslim land" phenomenon creates a situation where "Muslim land" can only expand, bringing dhimmitude, backwardness, beheadings, and misogyny everywhere it goes. Have fun, Europe! Enjoy, Hamtramck, MI! Listen to the troll. Muslims are playing for keeps. Nothing touches me more than listening to another 'moderate' Muslim defend Osama.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Sorry about the difficult format / One Last Chance for the Future Subjects of EU Elites

I'm no good at HTML, and organization is an interesting concept I've seen used by other people with great results. To my reader, I'm very sorry about the dark background. I wish I could change it without having to edit or change my template. Editing a template might be child's play, but sadly I'm not a child. Anyone know any sixth-graders who need candy money? That last sentence didn't come out very well, did it? Maybe the Girl Scout who is bringing my cookies can fix my template. It's worth a try.


I do mean "subjects" of the EU, not citizens. Citizens consent to be governed and have clear-cut individual rights which trump absolute power of government, which Mao correctly noted "flows from the barrel of a gun". Citizens know what they can and can't do because the law is clear and does not contradict itself. Yes, these are ideals. Some systems attempt to approach ideals, while others obfuscate or ignore them.

The EU Draft Constitution is facing an uphill battle. The will of the people, though inconvenient to the elite, self-aggrandizing, and intellectually tyrranical power-brokers, should be followed if democracy and freedom are respected norms in society.

There are many problems when a constitution approaches the Internal Revenue Code in complexity and appeal to special interests.

Constitutions should briefly describe the basic structure and principles of governance. Individual rights must be protected. A judicial system must be created. Separation of powers, best defended by John Locke in the 17th Century, should be a primary objective. Constitutions are the, say it with me, supreme law of the land. The only law higher than a constitution might be the grundnorm hypothesized by the great, verbose, and often cryptic philosopher of jurisprudence, Hans Kelsen. Like many great men, his greatness seems to be based in part on the inability of most people to understand what he's trying to say. However, the grundnorm is by definition without substance and difficult to define in any legal system. From the above link:
Put simply, Kelsen had come across the idea that legal systems are based on a given perception held in the minds of the supporters of the system. Kelsen called the perception the Basic Norm (in this note referred to as “the Grundnorm perception”).

In the United States, I would argue the grundnorm is something like "The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be obeyed." Evidence for this is contained in the Presidential Oath of Office and many similar oaths. Since 'the' grundnorm is actually a collection of opinions, your big norm might be just as big as my big norm, thus the confusion.

Contrast this viewpoint with the Spanish jurist, who should know better, mentioned in Charles Moore's Daily Telegraph (UK) op-ed:
According to the Spanish justice minister: "You don't have to read the treaty to know it's a good thing."

If good means important, the Spanish justice minister is onto something. On the other hand it appears as though they are trying to create a grund-disaster by realizing the importance of a constitution in binding a political entity together, without the equally-important realization that the success and utility of the supreme law of the land most assuredly depends on the content of the constitution. The Soviet Union drafted an interesting constitution. If you lived in a cave and someone airdropped you a copy, you'd think the Soviet Union was a utopia, not an Orwellian distopia. The Soviets were experts at weasel-wording. I must say, the EU drafters have given the Soviets a run for their money.

I'll discuss examples, and other issues, in later posts. It should be obvious to anyone with a legal background, the word "shall" should not be followed by unclear, politically-charged rhetoric designed to appeal to special interests. If you take the time to read the draft EU Constitution, there are many examples. Legislatures should make policy, checked by other branches of government. When what should be statutory is included in the supreme law courts will be 'forced' to make all the important decisions. Judges, like most people, will take absolute power if you hand it to them with no complaints or debate. Perhaps this puts the Spanish justice minister's comment in context.

Friday, February 18, 2005

Deepak Chopra: "Europe won't have any wars"

Deepak Chopra, on the Dennis Miller Show, just blamed all war on nationalism. This view is prevalent in Europe, where the last two centuries were consumed by nationalistic wars.

Let me go out on a giant limb with steel support beams and suspension wires here, Europe will have wars, if they are not involved in a war right now. Mr. Chopra does have a point in that Germany and France are unlikely to fight a war in the near future. If one looks at history through the blinders of WWI and WWII, this could constitute the end of all war.

Mr. Chopra has conveniently forgotten wars of religion, ethnicity, trade disputes, those caused by a sudden change in leadership, and more. This list could stretch for pages and pages, of small print.

A good argument can be made that Europe is involved in a war right now, against militant Islam. The radical Muslims (Osama, Takfir, Wahhabi) desire a global Islamic caliphate, regardless of national boundaries. This caliphate is to be accomplished through political divide-and-conquer, immigration, terrorism, propaganda, political activism, and targeted assassination of those who dare to speak out (Theo VanGogh being a good recent example). Critics of Islam from Robert Spencer to Coptic Christians in New Jersey are under the constant threat of death. If wars require armies wearing uniforms flying the colors of their nation-state, then the global jihad does not qualify as a war. On the other hand, if this is the case, it's time for the mainstream media to quit referring to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars, examples Mr. Chopra uses himself. French Muslims are fighting and dying in Iraq, but not under the French flag. These semantic distinctions might make the Europeans feel better. Once again, Europe has achieved "Peace in Our Time".

Wars are dependent on group identity, otherwise violence is just a fight between two people. One might identify with a nation-state, tribe, gang, religion, political party, ethnicity, economic interest, and many other human phenomena. Wars need not be large-scale set battles between armored divisions funded by nations. Sometimes we refer to social policy as warfare: war on drugs, war on poverty, war on illiteracy, and so on. Senator Barbara Boxer recently termed the dispute between Democrats and Republicans as war. Howard Dean is the cheerleader for such militant demagoguery when he said he hates Republicans and everything they stand for.

Bomb-throwing rhetoric brings to mind one other sort of war which I haven't mentioned: civil war, or "The" Civil War in the United States. Mr. Chopra, perhaps you can fit the Civil War of the United States into your nationalism-is-the-root-of-all-war meme, but it will require a great deal of intellectual elasticity, not to mention heroic disingenuity.

As the EU tries to force the Israelis into national suicide, per EU Middle East policy, and to counterbalance the power of the United States, for the first time since the Roman Empire Europe may find itself in a war fighting on the same side. Perhaps this is what Chopra means. Europe, represented by the EU, is unlikely to fight a civil war in the next 20 years. Mr. touchy-feely Chopra might do wonderful things for troubled minds, but he should stay far away from geopolitics and military history.

Virtual Cigars for Everyone! February 17th 2005, a life-changing experience


My son was born yesterday, induced due to distress. This was our third, and possibly last, attempt. Nothing was easy. We have enough sonograms to make a film about child development. Due to his slow growth after the sixteenth week or so we've heard every worst-case scenario physicians and specialists can come up with, which is a lot by the way. As it turns out, his umbilical cord wasn't up umbilical cord specs.

Don't judge him based on what I'm about to tell you. I was born smaller with some health problems and I'm six feet tall, 190 pounds. Moreover, I'm only sick in the head.

Alexander was born three pounds, nine ounces. The nurses noted his "big feet and hands" and you know what that means. ;-)

He shares a birthday with, of all people, Paris Hilton (wtf?) and Denise Richards (Rowr!).

Needless to say, blogging, and posting on LGF, Jihad Watch, and Faith Freedom is going to slow down a great deal.

I'm running back to the hospital in a few minutes, after I have some coffee.

This is what it's all about.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Everyone is a Nazi...

...except anti-Semitic socialists. "Red" Ken Livingstone, the crazy (but not in a good way) Mayor of London will not apologize for likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi death camp guard. Yes, Red Ken compared a Jewish journalist to a death camp guard. I don't have to explain why that is completely unhinged, do I?

What are we to make of the use of "Nazi" as a generic insult for anyone who disagrees with a Leftist? I touched on this subject several months ago. Even former astronaut-Senator John Glenn compared George W. Bush to a Nazi late in the presidential campaign. The use of Nazi has become a cultural phenomenon. I was termed a Nazi today for disagreeing with the insane (hat tip, LGF) 'professor' of 'journalism' Robert Jensen at the University of Texas.

I just Googled "Bush Nazi" and Google estimates one million five hundred thousand hits. Not every hit equates Bush with a Nazi of course, but the vast majority do. Why do people even make the comparison? I have many theories. Rather than try to prove a particluar theory, why not just list them and see what you think?

1. Prescott Bush had contacts with Nazis.
If this method of analysis is used consistently, every German is a Nazi. Most Arabs are Nazis. All Italians are Nazis. Some Americans are Nazis. The majority of French are Nazis. For that matter, Europeans of all nationalities, especially Austrians, are Nazis. All Japanese are Nazis. That's not a comprehensive list.

2. Many people only know enough history to name one or two significant historical figures. Hitler is the archetype for bad, so anything bad is Hitler.

3. Propaganda works, especially Communist propaganda. Stalin and Mao (like Hitler, socialists) actually killed more people. Yet very few people use Mao or Stalin in a similar way.

4. Socialists who hate Jews must diminish the real Hitler to justify their views which are not only analagous to Hitler, but exactly the same.

5. This relates to points two and three. Higher education is a joke, but I'm not laughing. There are whole departments of crapthink. Peace studies comes to mind as the best example. The Middle East study departments with their Saidist, totalitarian-apologist, and Islamist tendencies are close in craptacularness. Yes, craptacularness isn't a word, but it should be.

What happened to military history? When I was in school there was exactly one course devoted to war, pitiful then, worse now. That was a two-part slavery and the Civil War class. If the so-called smartest among us don't learn that war is the normal state of affairs for the entirety of human history, and they've only a passing familiarity with World War II, perhaps a president becoming involved in war seems just like Hitler. The syllogism would be:

Hitler was involved in war.
Bush is involved in war.
Bush = Hitler.

6. It's holocaust denial wrapped up in the pretension of caring about the world.

7. Some people believe the global jihad will suddenly evaporate if they sacrifice the Jews to the Arabs.

8. Children are taught that there is no right and wrong, that no idea is superior to another. Competition of any kind is frowned upon in many public schools, for example. When challenged intellectually the adult victims of this indoctrination liken it to warfare.

9. Mental illness is rampant throughout society, and drugs aren't helping.

10. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo constitute the systematic extermination of European Jewry.

All of the above?

I've tried to come up with legitimate justifcations for comparing Hitler to George W. Bush, but nothing withstands the slightest scrutiny. Comparing the temporary detention of illegal combatants, where everyone comes out alive and unscarred, to death camps is just another example of diminishing the holocaust.

Please remember, as I've mentioned before, the al Qaeda training manual, lesson eighteen.

You will NOT hear this mentioned by any mainstream media outlet. They are too busy believing and disseminating the techniques mentioned in lesson eighteen, telling us about Paris Hilton, discussing the Michael Jackson trial, making up stories about the U.S. military killing journalists, or forging documents relating to GWB's TANG service.

Osama bin Laden is a bastard, but he's a smart bastard. Jihadists, their MESA, CAIR, and MPAC allies play the media like my German shepherd plays with a basketball.

UPDATE: Gore Vidal (hat tip: The Sanity Inspector at LGF) while not comparing Bush to Hitler, gives me some insight into this phenomenon. Gore Vidal knows enough history to know better. His logical mind has been overwhelmed. It's a hatred for GWB which goes beyond reason into the dangerous, irrational, depths of insanity. It's more than a bit ironic "The Sanity Inspector" posted the article just as I was finishing this post.

LATE-BREAKING UPDATE: VDH weighs in on this question in his usual inimitable and brilliant style. VDH argues the stupidity angle.
One explanation is simply the ignorance of the icons of our popular culture. A Linda Ronstadt, Garrison Keillor, or Harold Pinter knows nothing much of the encompassing evil of Hitler’s regime, its execution of the mentally ill and disabled, the systematic cleansing of the non-Aryans from Europe, or mass executions and starvation of Soviet prisoners. Like Prince Harry parading around in his ridiculous Nazi costume, quarter-educated celebrities who have some talent for song or verse know only that name-dropping “Hitler” or his associates gets them some shock value that their pedestrian rants otherwise would not warrant.

Ignorance and arrogance are a lethal combination. Nowhere do we see that more clearly among writers and performers who pontificate as historians when they know nothing about history.

On occasion, those who are tainted, sometimes unfairly, with past charges of rightist extremism, find some psychic release in calling an American democratic president or his conduct Nazi-like. Thus, a German politician, who de facto unfortunately operates under the suspicions of the post-Nazi world, gains the moral high ground and moral fides by gratuitously deflecting attention to an American — not as the descendant of the liberators of the Europe, but as the true inheritor of the German Hitlerian mantel.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Ward Churchill torture on C-SPAN

I wanted to see what great insights the latest Leftist-mystic with a cult of personality has to say. Unsurprisingly, I've heard it all before.

First, George Bush should send Ward Churchill a thank you card. Churchill claims that the UN sanctions on Iraq caused the attacks on the World Trade Center. There's the link between al Qaeda and Iraq the Left claims never existed. As a tenured professor-cult leader, Churchill isn't limited by boring facts.

Of course, this is absurd. Osama Bin Laden was angry at the United States for protecting the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia* from Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. When U.S. satellite photography of Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border was shown to King Fahd he chose the United States over Osama Bin Laden and his band of 20,000 mujahadeen to protect the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia*. A wise choice. Osama Bin Laden took this to be a grevious insult, one for which he's never forgiven the Saudi royals or the United States.

Osama has offered dozens of rationales for his terrorist activities. The simple explanation is the centuries old doctrine of jihad, which every Muslim is obliged to participate in once a year. But Osama is wily. Using the shotgun approach for justification, from restoring the Caliphate, to killing the infidels, killing the Jews, ending the Israeli-Palistinian dispute, Iraq, getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, off the Arabian penisula, out of the Middle East, out of Africa, and many more, he encourages more people (like Ward Churchill) to rally to his 'cause'. But the fact remains, Osama is personally upset the Saudis chose the U.S. over his ragtag army to defeat Saddam Hussein. This is why his first fatwa written in 1996 focuses almost exclusively on the 'infidel' presence of American troops in the 'holy land' near Mecca and Medina. Osama pays lip-service to the Iraqi people, but he would have killed those same people in 1991, had King Fahd taken him up on his offer.

The starvation in Iraq, of course, is not so simple as Churchill makes it out to be. Saddam Hussein used starvation to control the Shia population. There was no starvation in the Sunni areas like Fallujah or Tikrit. Saddam was building gold-plated palaces, rape rooms, medieval torture dungeons, oppressing the Kurds and Shia, and buying arms on the black market while 'his' people were starving. I put his in quotations because to Saddam the Shia and Kurds are not his people, but subjects to be controlled or liquidated.

Starvation was Saddam's best technique for turning the world against the United States and having the sanctions lifted. Saddam had no interest in feeding Iraqi children unless they were in his tribe, his party, or his branch of Islam. By bringing in the already anti-American media and feeding them a steady diet of pictures of starving children, he masterminded one of the great financial scams and propaganda coups of my lifetime.

Eventually, with oil-for-food, Saddam continued to use starvation as a propaganda tool, line his pockets with billions, influence the United Nations Security Council, bribe UN officials, enrich French banks, Russia, China, oil companies worldwide, gained supporters all over the world (including Scott Ritter who was bought for $400,000), and Kofi Annan's son. The money trail is so long, investigations will never reach the end. One final destination not worth looking into is starving Shia children. It's obvious the money didn't go there.

Ward Churchill uses the hackneyed, though admittedly true, statement that the United States is the only nation to use nuclear weapons, specifically on 'civilian' targets. That's true, but for his conclusion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets. Japan distributed its war production out into small businesses all over every Japanese city so U.S. bombers would not have large targets, simple to find and destroy. Hiroshima contained many of these small military cottage industries.

Moreover, does anyone doubt Hitler or Imperial Japan would have used nuclear weapons had they acquired them first? Both nations had wartime nuclear programs. The rape of Nanking, the Holocaust (which Ward Churchill denies), Japan's Unit 731, V-1 and V-2 rockets on London, and so many more examples, militate against any mercy from the Axis. Moreover, human beings change after protracted war. Any sympathy for the enemy evaporates as the casualties pile up, and an overwhelming desire to end the war with the fewest additional friendly casualties becomes the only goal.

Churchill (of course) never mentions the Baruch Plan of 1946. This was rejected because Stalin, Mao, France, etc., all wanted to be members of the nuclear "club". That club is very overrated by the way. I want a mine shaft.

Excerpts from the Baruch Plan, written when the U.S. was the world's ONLY nuclear nation:

In that desire the United States shares ardently and hopefully. The search of science for the absolute weapon has reached fruition in this country. But she stands ready to proscribe and destroy this instrument - to lift its use from death to life - if the world will join in a pact to that end.

.....(a) For extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;
(b) For control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;
(c) For the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction;
(d) For effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions.

The world, Stalin in particular, was not the least bit interested. But Ward Churchill would never say an untoward word about Communism, the Holy Grail of academia in the United States. What gulags? What purges? Those inconvenient statistics which show tens of millions killed might get in the way of a good anti-American rant.

Stalin had several Americans, including the Rosenbergs, more than willing to help enemies of the United States acquire weapons - very much like Ward Churchill and his ilk today.

Churchill makes some good points about Indians living in poverty. Too bad he is above offering solutions other than blowing up the World Trade Center. That's the great thing about being a professor, you can yell all day, but do nothing of consequence.

I could parse every argument he made, but they are the same tiresome arguments you hear from every America-hating Leftist.

Overall, Churchill is a demagogue. He knows his facts, but ignores the complexity of every issue. As a professor, he obviously lords over his classes with an iron fist. Other than being physically imposing, it is clear he is not interested in both sides of the argument. One might be left with the impression the United States started WWII by firebombing Tokyo, if Ward Churchill's 'lesson plan' is the only information available. Nothing he says is particularly controversial really. If you've seen one ANSWER or IAC demonstration, you've seen them all. It's Churchill's simmering, to boiling over, anger which makes him a cult hero of the radical Left. Combined with his retro-70's look, and faux-Indian style, he's probably irresistible to people whose lives peaked at Woodstock. I find it hard to believe any university hired someone so loose with the facts, so uninterested in intellectual balance, emotionally unbalanced, and so overtly hostile to the United States.

Actually, I don't find it hard to believe. The radical Left has closed the academic shop. Diversity only extends to skin color in the modern American university. When your son or daughter, a proud graduate of the University of Colorado, asks you why the United States attacked Japan in WWII, don't be surprised. At least he or she has a piece of paper which purports to signify an education.

*Only male Muslims have rights in Saudi Arabia.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

When news breaks, I Super Glue it together

Don't kill my Hubble Telescope, you bastards!

Nothing in the history of modern science has been more up and down than the Hubble. First it was fuzzy. Then it was fixed with a spectacular history-making spacewalk. Next it revealed more about our universe than the last three thousand years of astronomy. Now it's fate is up to Washington beancounters. Hey, I know, why not go check the couch cushions at the Department of Education? I'm sure they could scrape up the two billion there.


In case best-selling videotaped beheadings over the screeching soundrack of "Allahu Akbar" aren't enough, if being called an "infidel-Crusader-Jewish-imperialist" (whether you are actually Jewish or not) doesn't do it for you, here's an article on Understanding Jihad. Too bad the last paragraph is wishful thinking:
In the longer term, there is hope that Muslims in the West will work towards the generalization of their religious precepts into more abstract moral principles, principles capable of problematizing certain of the precepts. Muslims living in the West, in Europe and North America, can have no realistic hope of establishing Islamic states to rule the majority of the population. Perhaps, in this circumstance, they will work to accommodate Islam to the civil religion we find, for example, in the United States. In this civil religion, moral precepts from many denominations are found, but they are generalized from the denominational precepts that may be in force for believers, precepts that are not enforced politically. The resources for such an accommodation can be found in Islam, in its concern for equality and social justice. If this accommodation occurs, perhaps it will have an effect on the larger umma. Until then, it is clear that one of the Islamists’ motivations to act stems from their understanding of their religious tradition, and it is just as clear that that tradition provides the resources to legitimate their actions.

The whole paragraph is wishful thinking up to the last sentence. I share in this wishful thinking. If there is no validity to it, what options do we have other than total, seemingly unending, warfare? In the highlighted passage, the author is placing hope over demographics. European nations have birthrates under two children per family, some almost as low as one. Muslims reproduce geometrically in most cases.

Another in-depth analysis for those of us who "don't really understand Islam". CAIR and MPAC always claim that learning more about Islam is necessary to prevent "Islamophobia". Funny, the more I learn about Islam the more it scares me.

The Netherlands has released a hard-hitting report which faces reality in ways unheard of until recently.
The Dutch report places the blame for the origins of the problem squarely on the deeply-rooted ideology of fierce opposition to the Western way of life among certain Muslim groups. It does not claim that the problem of radical Muslims would disappear if there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel and Jews are not mentioned in the report.

Muslims don't hide this antipathy for the West. The mainstream media in the West ignores it. "There can be no end to jihad." -- Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad (hat tip Jihad Watch)

I've come to the conclusion mainstream media, in most cases, would rather use wishful thinking to magically make the problem of jihad go away than deal forthrightly with the actual facts on the ground. It's a modern version of "peace in our time". Don't underestimate media cowardice or the modern tendency towards multi-cultural, politically correct, appeasement. The few exceptions include the Daily Telegraph (UK), The New York Sun, and the Washington Times.

Being tolerant of the global expansion of intolerant Islam will not work. Islam is not a religion in the Western sense. It is a political (caliphate), legal (shari'a), economic (jizya), war-fighting (jihad) ideology with deception (taqiyya) as a core principle.