By Robert Farrow

Once again the GOP is licking it’s wounds from another election loss. Recovering from this loss has been the focus of conservative politicians and pundits. But what many pundits do not realize is that there is another battle raging in the country that the GOP has been losing for decades. The battle has been over the culture of America. And if you think the two battles are not linked, think again.

Conservativism and the Religious Right has been effectively demonized in the popular culture while liberalism has effectively been mainstreamed into our TV sets and newspapers. And politics is nothing but perception. The real battle is not in the polls but in the courts, schools, media, and popular culture. And the Republican party has surrendered too many of these battlefields to the enemy. This does nothing but help us to lose elections.

The Problem: Politics vs. Perception

To the surprise of many conservative Catholics, twice of many Catholics voted for obama then McCain, despite Obama’s very pro-abortion record. This trend, if it continues, could spell death for the Conservative movement. And why is this the case? Well, the image of conservatives have defectively suffered. It’s leadership has lacked the ability to define itself, and thus allowed the liberals to do it for them in a negative light and thus claim the moral high ground, This is relatively the same as having Saddam Hussein sit in the Human Rights commission. (which is not too far off from others that have been in that seat) So what is a good conservative to do?

First, we must recognize that your neighborhood Pravda media outlet is just as important as the electoral college and just as much as an opponent as the Democrats. Again, the image of the party has suffered at t it’s own hands, thanks to people like Foley and the abandonment of it’s Conservative principles. But does dealing with an organization whose primary goal is your failure really in your best interest?

And since we can’t force all the libs to Canada and give them weekly rations of granola and John Stewart we must get back to the grassroots and take back our schools. media, and even TV. How is easy. Ask Ron Paul, or Dean, or even Obama. The libs have shown how to do this for decades. Conservatives need to not be afraid to speak out, and need to get involved in their neighborhood schools and communities. And they need to start mentoring conservatives in the judicial and journalistic communities. Only thorough the grassroots will we rebuild our party. And then, and only then, can we make them defend their values and messed up logic. Let’s make them defend how taking money away from business owners helps the economy, or how murderers deserve more protection then the unborn., or how weakening our military or our values makes our country stronger or safer. Ignorance is strength. Most people know that classic line from Orwell. But how many of them recognize this present day doublethink?
(more…)

These days it is a safe bet guessing someone’s political affiliation by counting the number of stickers on the back of their car. A Conservative might have two or three, but it is almost always the liberals that have more stickers on their car then Imelda Marcos has shoes. And as the teletubbies only makes sense to a 2 year old and is incomprehensible to an adult so liberal pride themselves on stickers that would shock and confuse anyone with a decent value system or a rudimentary intelligence. One of my favorites is “I am already against the next war.” It is difficult to think of a stupider statement then that. So no matter what transpires to this country, these jellyfish will stand idly by and let the country burn. So if someone wants to take away our right to vote or worship as we choose, or take away all rights of women, they will not stop them. Yes, I know liberals might find it hard to believe there are groups out there like that. So perhaps a better sticker would be ‘thank you for dying for my freedom, because my cowardly ass will not fight for crap.” This goes along the lines of “War never solves anything;” a phrase ignorant on so many levels. A more accurate bumper sticker would be “War never solved anything, Save slavery, National Socialism, Genocide, etc.“ Hell, our nation, a nation dedicated to Democracy and religious freedom was founded by war…. dummy.

Another favorite is “Stop climate change now.” I am not sure where to start with this one. Anyone, and I mean anyone with a basic understanding of climate knows that the one thing the climate does is change because,…shocker, it is suppose to change. Remember Ravi Shankar, yeah, I know I just dated myself. Most everyone hated listening to him, but you listened to him because everyone else was. That is how liberalism is. It does not matter that an idea makes sense, but hell, everyone else is drinking to Kool-aid, so pour yourself a glass. Because if you don’t drink some, you aren’t ever going to score with the hot girl from the Green Party. (Sadly, they have the hottest girls, even if they all do not shave.) I saw an anti growth sticker the other day. It makes me wonder what these capitalist haters do for a living, for unless you live on a farm, you might actually want the economy to do well so you get a bonus and a big raise so you can buy some new shoes for your best friend on the commune.

I love “Hate is not a family value.” Ignoring the fact that just because you do not disagree with a philosophy or lifestyle does not mean you hate them, I just find it amazing that there are people that truly believe that by weakening the definition of a particular institution, you do not hurt the institution. (see family: urban culture.) And for anyone who was seen pictures of a gay pride street show in San Francisco, please tell me how that has anything to do with family values? I guess it makes sense to the same group of people that thinks increasing taxes on anyone actually helps the economy, or a smaller military makes the country more secure, or that you can trust a deal or negotiate with a dictator, or that by not building refineries and oil wells you can solve the countries energy needs. (Sorry about the run-on.) Pass around the Kool-aid. The list goes on and on. But without the bumper sticker loving Kool-aid drinkers, a good looking, mumbling, terrorist befriending Marxist who goes to a racist church with a political resume as long as a toilet paper square would have no hope of being president. (more…)

By Robert Farrow

Often times, the question not asked speaks more about a person’s beliefs and values then the questions asked. Likewise, the lack of questions and concern regarding the current state of affairs in the world not only speaks volumes about the current state of the Democratic Party but also of the current state of this country. One would think honor killings, beheadings, suppression of all women’s rights, and suppression of democracy and freedom of religion by al-Qaeda, terrorist groups, and radical Islamic governments are not occurring judging from the lack of concern, but they are. You would think people are not being killed for being Christian, but they are. One would not think that we are in a war with an enemy for the survival of Democracy. Freedom of Religion, and Women’s Rights, but we are. N.O.W. cares more about killing babies and gay marriage then the everyday abuses of women by radical Islam. How sad is that? So where is the concern here for these issues in this election, Mr. or Ms. Democrat? Right now the price of gas continues to climb higher and higher, but few talk about a long term energy strategy. When was the last time a power plant, oil well, or refinery was built? Take a guess? It’s been a while. But there is another question that is not being asked that I find the most disturbing of all, and that is what I want to focus on, and it concerns the current leader of the Democratic Primary.

I am not sure what I find more disturbing, that there is a man with a long history of association with racists, America haters, terrorists, and crooks, or that there is a large number of Americans willing to make excuses for his behavior. Of course some kool-aid drinkers believe Wrights quotes were taken out of context. To quote one joker:

“

I call BS on your premise, which relies on an unfair and untrue caricature of Rev. Wright. You seem to believe that an accurate portrayal of Rev. Wright can be seen in a carefully constructed video montage that takes only the most shocking single sentences from years of sermons, divorces them from their context, then strings them together back to back. Now I don’t know if you attend worship somewhere, but I’ll bet I could employ the same techniques to any prominent preacher and get the same results: a vastly skewed caricature of the person that is an unfair portrayal of who s/he is. One need only watch Rev. Wright in context to see how unfair and untrue that media has been in presenting Rev. Wright in this manner. If nothing else, I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to have higher standards for what we blindly accept from the media, rather than just believing whatever we’re spoon-fed.”

Okay, so those jerk conservatives took the quotes out of context. Is that true? Lets see a larger excerpt of the speech and see if Mr. Wright looks any better.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Charles Krauthammer is looking at the events going on in the Middle East regarding the Israeli airstrike on Syrian nuclear sites and sees the beginning of a erupting volcano:

Apart from the usual suspects — Syria, Iran, Libya and Russia — only two countries registered strong protests to the Israeli strike: Turkey and North Korea. Turkey we can understand. Its military may have permitted Israel an overflight corridor without ever having told the Islamist civilian government. But North Korea? What business is this of North Korea’s? Unless it was a North Korean facility being hit.

Which raises alarms for many reasons. First, it would undermine the whole North Korean disarmament process. Pyongyang might be selling its stuff to other rogue states or perhaps just temporarily hiding it abroad while permitting ostentatious inspections back home.

Second, there are ominous implications for the Middle East. Syria has long had chemical weapons — on Monday, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported on an accident that killed dozens of Syrians and Iranians loading a nerve-gas warhead onto a Syrian missile — but Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Syria.

Tensions are already extremely high because of Iran’s headlong rush to go nuclear. In fending off sanctions and possible military action, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has chosen a radically aggressive campaign to assemble, deploy, flaunt and partially activate Iran’s proxies in the Arab Middle East:

Meanwhile the WaPo writes that Israel shared the information they had gathered with the US, that information put North Korea nuclear personnel inside Syria:

Israel’s decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, U.S. government sources said.

The Bush administration has not commented on the Israeli raid or the underlying intelligence. Although the administration was deeply troubled by Israel’s assertion that North Korea was assisting the nuclear ambitions of a country closely linked with Iran, sources said, the White House opted against an immediate response because of concerns it would undermine long-running negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Ultimately, however, the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid, which hit the Syrian facility in the dead of night to minimize possible casualties, the sources said.

Charles again:

Three days earlier, a freighter flying the North Korean flag docked in the Syrian port city of Tartus with a shipment of "cement." Long way to go for cement. Within days, a top State Department official warned that "there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment." Three days later, the six-party meeting on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear facilities scheduled for Sept. 19 was suddenly postponed, officially by China, almost certainly at the behest of North Korea.

Tie all this with Iran’s headlong rush to get the bomb and we have a large powder keg set to go off.  Syria was trying to the get the bomb and was bombed.  What do you think the chances are that Israel will allow Iran to get the bomb now?  And there is no chance that the nut Ahmadinejad will back down.

This is what happens when the world community takes it easy on a nation that is so obviously bent on destruction.  Iran wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth and then does everything in its power to get a nuke.  What does the world community do?  Shrug and say "what can we do?"

I think Isreal understands what must be done and Iran won’t like it.

It seems smiling Al found another story to milk today as thousands of chanting demonstrators filled the streets of little Jena Louisiana town in support of six black teenagers initially charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate.

Ahhhh, wherever there is a race card to play, you can count on smiling Al Sharpton to be there to play it. I have long critiqued N.O.W. for caring more about killing babies and gay marriage then caring about actual abuses of women in the Muslim World, I find myself feeling similarly about the Civil Rights movement. Like N.O.W., it has devolved from its original mission and become so liberalized and politically correct it might have outlived its usefulness. Is there something to be mad at in Jena? Yes. However, the utter lack of outrage over the much more prevalent black on black crime and other major issues says volumes about the current state of the civil rights movement.

Are there two sets of standards of justice? Absolutely. But that runs both ways. I guarantee had this been a black guy been the victim here, this would be a hate crime. (Hate crime laws are by themselves discriminatory, as they assume crimes against certain groups are worse and deserve more punishment then others. The crime should be weighed the same in the eyes of the law, anything else is nothing but discrimination.) And now, these kids, the “Jena 6” have their pictures in the paper like they are role models. Has anyone condemned these kids for beating a guy until he was unconscious? Nope, liberals and civil rights groups don’t care about that detail. ( Should someone not serve some jail time? Had I did it, I would be in jail.) Now Sharpton wants to march on Washington. What about all the tens to hundreds of thousands of black kids being killed by other black kids in our city streets? Who cares, because there is no race card to play as the crime is black on black. And what issue affects the black community more and would be a better use of the resources of liberal and civil rights group? Don’t’ ask a liberal or Sharpton, because they don’t consider the tens of thousands of blacks being killed by other blacks as an issue worthy of their attention. And to be only angry when discrimination, violence, and injustice is white on black and not black on white and black on black is by itself bigoted and a form of racism.

And now the whole whole town is being labeled as racists, because of what seems like a schoolyard fight, some dumb kids, and an overzealous (and possibly bigoted) prosecutor. Like the OJ murders and the Vick case, they are defended by the bleeding hearts simply because of the color of their skin. If the victim and perpetrator’s skin color was reversed, liberals would hardly bat an eye. Most in the black community defended OJ, and still have not apologizes for supporting a murderer. Many African Americans cheered when he was found innocent, and had zero sympathy for the almost decapitated victim, Nicole Simpson. This alone has brought about some resentment in the hearts of many whites. Was the original sentence in Jena excessive? Yes. But that is not my point. Both sides seem to have been influenced by race, and this in the end does neither side any good. Until people think about right and wrong irrelevant of the issue of black and white, racism will be a problem.

And the groups themselves are part of that problem, Sharpton is silent on the issues of the death of the black family, (thank you liberals) the devaluation of education in the urban community, and the negative influence of gang culture. Only Bill Cosby, a comedian, has been brave enough to tackle some of the real issues facing the black community. Sure, racism exists and it is a problem, but it is not just race guys. Racism was a lot worse decades ago and blacks were not killing each other by the thousands and they most likely had a dad in their family. And they were not incarcerated at the present rate. And don’t talk about slavery, because that was a lot closer to the age of slavery and again, the black on black killings, and the incarceration was a lot lower and more families had fathers. But don’t look for Sharpton to say much on that subject.

Even worse, by their very nature, I believe these groups contribute to the very problem they claim they were created to prevent. When you start off by doing (discriminating, in this case against whites by affirmative action) what you claim to be opposing (discrimination) you do nothing to solve your problem in the long term. I am tired of two sets of standards for two different groups. According to liberals, discriminating against whites and Christians is not so bad, (as we have it coming, see) but discrimination against gays Muslims, and minorities (some of who are the majority now) is much, much worse. You can’t have it both ways, it is either bad to discriminate or it isn’t. This is the same logic that makes liberals more outraged when a white guy beats up a black then when a black kills a black. This is the same logic that allows N.O.W. to march for the rights to kill babies and for gay rights but stays silent on actual abuses in the Muslim world. This is the same logic that allows liberals to march to support a relatively minor event when their own young are being killed by the tens of thousands every year. Which event hurts the black community more? But that is black on black, so Sharpton does not care. It only matters if race plays a part, for there are no political points to gain on black on black crimes. And my friends, is why liberals never fix anything and often are more destructive then any white bigot to the black community. They won’t confront any real problem that violates their simple, politically correct view of the world.

Until the groups like the NAACP find the courage to fight the root causes of the plight of urban community, the current start of the black family is unlikely to get any better. All this just further illustrates the utter lack of any core principles in liberalism as racism (and discrimination, terrorism, violence, and oppression) is only bad in the liberal eyes if whites and Christians are practicing it. In the end, racism will never go away until both sides are held to the same set of standards. And as long as one side is allowed to discriminate freely, as long as the standard of right and wrong is influenced on both sides by the color of the skin, it just sows the seeds of hate for a different generation. Dr. King had it right. People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is the only thing that will end racism. And for both sides it remains a dream.

By Robert Farrow

Basic science and liberals, never the twain shall meet. Curt at Flopping Aces has covered the story regarding bad temperature data from Hansen’s Y2K error and the change in the U.S. leaderboard. However, there is a more basic error with the global warming cult that I would like to address. Remember the dire predictions for Europe following Chernobyl and the Iraqi oil fires causing a nuclear winter? All were in error. The fallout area in Chernobyl was much, much less then predicted and the suggestion by Carl Sagan that the Iraqi oil fires would generate a small scale nuclear winter was an embarrassing blunder. Why did intelligent men commit such major errors? One, they drifted outside of their error of expertise. For instance, a man who designed nuclear bombs may not be the best scientist to predict fallout. The second area is that they allowed science to become politicized. Thus, it was no longer science.

This politicization has allowed the libs, who are never as smart as they think they are, to miss some basic points about the climate. First of all, what drives the climate?

What causes the Earth’s climate to change?
Climate change is complex—there are many dynamics involved. A major factor may be the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (1879 – 1958) studied the variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. He theorized that these cyclical changes and the interactions among them were responsible for long-term climate changes.
Milankovitch studied three factors:
1. Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis;
2. Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
3. Precession: changes in how the tilt of the axis is oriented in relation to the orbit.

the source is here.

The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s
the source is here.

Funny how these facts never make Al Gore’s talking points. But of course there may be a simpler explanation for climate change. It is not the rotation or aix or orbit around the Sun, it may be the Sun itself.

Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
“Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,” Willson told SPACE.com today.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

So, in another words, climatology is a subject better left for astronomers then biologists and environmentalists. Thus environmentalists may not be the best scientist to predict climate change. But it actually gets more confusing then this, as plate tectonics may also play a hand in climate change.

So the Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, Precession, plate tectonics, a change in the Sun’s output, (words liberals never use in any of their articles) and co2 emissions all may play a part in the earth’s climate. But according to the liberals, it is all man made CO2 emissions and it is all proven.

Stick with one factor, ignore all the others, and beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees.

That is Al Gore. That is liberal science.

I am not saying CO2 emissions play no part in climate change. What I am annoyed with is that the scientific community has allowed itself to become politicized and thus may be missing some important data on our climate. I would even support Kyoto if it was a fair agreement that did not exempt the third world and was not so destructive to our economy. For I still believe the environment and economy are not mutually exclusive concepts.
But the blame America first crowd once again shows they lack any ability to think outside of current liberal thought.

The danger here is not just that by focusing on just CO2 emissions and burning at the stake anyone who disagrees we may be missing other important signs concerning our climate, but that real danger is that the scientific community will continue to be politicized and will give us more global warming, nuclear winters, and other ideas that are based more on politics then science.

What we need is real, un-politicized science, not this.

And I am not willing to destroy our economy and put hundreds of thousands out of work because of bad politics and not science.

By Robert Farrow

“Israeli troops could have marched into Cairo if they wanted to.”

Abdel Nasser

Following the 6 Day War and again, after the stunning reversal of the War of Atonement, Israeli troops utterly and completely defeated the Egyptian Army (and with them the army of Syria, Jordan, and troops from Iraq.) Israel had doubled the size of its country, put its cities out of artillery range, and opened up Jerusalem, which had been forbidden to them. But rather then revel in their victory, Israel later gave up most of this territory for the promise of Peace with Egypt in the Treaty with Sadat.

So, in the three decades after Sadat’s Peace Treaty with Israel, what has Israel gained after giving up all that land? What does peace with Egypt look like? Sadly it is regarded best as a cold peace because relations between the two peoples have not significantly improved. Trade and tourism are primarily in one direction-from Israel to Egypt. The government press and the schools have remained hostile toward Israel and anti-Israeli cartoons are published routinely. Though present Egyptian President Mubarak has been an active participant in the peace process, more often than not, he has contributed to the hardening of Arab positions. He has also refused to visit Israel. Even worse, Egypt also allows terrorists to smuggle weapons across their borders and attack jewish targets, in effect, making Egypt a base for terrorists. This is what Peace is for Israel. This is what they gave up half of their land for.

Again the Arabs, this time the Palestinians, were offered land for peace. But the Arabs wanted the right of return, which means Israel would no longer be a Jewish State. NO country in the world would have accepted such conditions, and Israel naturally rejected it. Even after Israel offered to give up all of its territory for peace it still lives with neighboring countries that attack. Or threaten to attack it regularly. Israel still suffers from men, women, and kids that strap themselves with bombs and blow up Jewish civilians. And now Israel suffers a nuclear armed neighbor that threatens to finish what Hitler started. Increasingly, Israel has become pessimistic towards peace. Why would they, when Peace does not really mean Peace. For in Israel, Peace looks little from War.

What is peace? When Liberals talk of peace they never stop and wonder what peace would really look like? Liberal philosophy seems to assume everyone will do good in the right situation, and if they are not doing good, then it is the situation or circumstance and not the person that is at fault. Liberals, like Chamberlain before him, naively assume if Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and we left Iraq and Afghanistan, there would be peace. Well, it did not work in Munich, and it would not work now. Liberals simply do not understand the capability for evil in mankind, and always assumes people will work to do what is right when in the right situation. (Paradoxically liberalism likes big government (like some republicans) so thus assumes people can’t make decisions on their own without the government behind them so might not trust people as much as thought.)When the base of the philosophy is wrong why would the rest of its doctrine make any sense?

Liberals think peace is the absence of war. Wrong! Peace is not just an absence of war. Peace is allowing other countries to exist with dialogue, trade, travel and normal diplomatic relationships between the countries without hostile intent and threats. If this definition is accepted then Israel has never had peace, and is not at peace with Egypt now. The same is the case for this country as is if we leave Iraq and even Afghanistan tomorrow and drop our support for Israel we will not have peace. Even countries we consider allies are filled with people that consider our country evil. Several countries even fight us by proxy and the stupid liberals buy it and visit their countries and leaders in their capital as they are killing our soldiers. (more…)

(reposted from 4/3/07)

by Robert Farrow

The universe is full of magicals things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.

Eden Philpotts.

Imagine a world called flatland, where there is length and width but no height. The world is infinitely flat. Say one day a strange visitor called a Mr. Ball decided to pay the residents of flatland a visit. To the residents there, the visitor would appear as a slice of a circle whose dimensions constantly changed in size. If the ball picked up one of the residents, he would appear to his flat friends as magically disappearing, and would magically reappear when returned. Does Flatland sound strange? Well, in a way we may already be living there.

If today’s scientific community is right, we may live in a multi-dimensional universe. And since we only inhabit three of what might be many dimensions, whole sections of the universe may not only be beyond our present understanding, but may be beyond what we can understand. As Shakesphere once said “There are more things in heaven and earth then is drempt in our philosophy.” If that is the case, is our understanding of the universe may be no better then a child’s tale, grasping for things beyond our perception.As a flatlander is not only unable to see the whole of the ball, but also unable to even percieve the real form of the ball, so also may our understanding of the universe be similarly faulty, and in some ways a myth. And if that is the case, how does that change the never ending debate between science and religion?

The Myth of Our World?

Imagine you are an intelligent carp living in a pond. Also imagine you are a scientist. You know nothing for certain of the world beyond the pond and the water’s edge. Many other carp scientists have wondrous theories, but alas, nothing concrete. Perhaps one day it rains, and the carp scientists see lilies on the pond mysteriously move around all by themselves, unaware of the raindrops influence.

When I was younger I use to believe that through physics that man would best understand the mind of God. I did not, and still do not see anything contradictory between physics and religion. On the contrary, various aspects of physics actually confirm the existence of God for me. But as I delved deeper into the strange world of physics, I realized that the world is not only stranger then I imagined, it is stranger then I can imagine. For instance, the subatomic world is filled with ghostly phantoms where it is impossible to know exact details. Time and length changes as you speed up and slow down. And the universe may be made up of strings and filled with more dimensions then one can imagine. But it gets even weirder. Try to imagine a particle breaking up into two fragments, and imagine later they are even separated by great distances. Any observation on one of the fragments instantly affects the reality of another fragment. Another interesting fact is that light also has both the properties of a particle and a wave, depending on the observation. Also, light acts like a wave through a vacuum, despite the fact there is no medium to carry the wave. Some of these facts come from a theory the Quantum theory, and Einstein hated it. His celebrated retort “God does not play dice.” is a rejection of the randomness and fuzziness of the Quantum world. Quantum mechanics has been tested for almost a century, and is quite correct. But is it misleading, because our reality is misleading because we too are trapped in a pond?

Perhaps the ghostlike action at a distance and light duality is the result of viewing a multidimensional world while stuck in three dimensions. Let us go back to flatland and their science. It does not take a genius to realize the physics in a two-dimensional world will be different then ours. Like carp in a pond, the universe they live in utterly affects their science and their life. Physicists realize this and try to probe into the hidden borders of this world. However, to test most of their theories require energies well beyond the dreams of man for perhaps centuries. These Plank energies are quite unreachable, which begs the question, “Is it really possible for man to really understand this grand and amazing Universe?” Besides, at least to me, what happened before the big bang seems just as much a question of faith as where did God come from.

I have found it amusing the many predictions from amateur scientists predicting one day mankind will one day solve the “Theory of Everything” and there will be nothing left to ask. Personally, a Universe with no questions left to solve is a Universe with no mystery and quite a dull place to live in. I also think it is an underestimation of the grandeur of the Universe and an overestimation of the mind of man. History does not support this assumption. Many particle theorists are surprised and discouraged at the zoo of particles that have been discovered after believing the Standard Model was the end all of particle theory. There has been a plethora of Grand Unified Theories that are no closer to the goal then Einstein’s unfinished papers left on his deathbed in the 50’s. I expect this trend to continue, that deeper we go down the rabbit hole, the stranger and more wonderful the universe will become. (more…)

By Robert Farrow

“How horrible, incredible it is, that we should (be fighting) because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. The speaker of this quote had just met the leader who had sparked the quarrel, and of the leader, he said, “was a man of peace to the depth of my soul.” The speaker here, of course, is Neville Chamberlain, speaking to the press as he continued his policy of appeasement and stood by as Hitler swallowed Czechoslovakia. And the leader he was speaking about was (of course) Hitler.

Almost everybody knows the “Peace in our Time” quote made after the conference where Czechoslovakia was cowardly offered up to the Nazi menace. But few know it was the Czech tanks and armament industries that fell into German hands that led directly to the fall of France and the attack on Russia, as Hitler did not have the tanks and the factories to do the job beforehand. And even less know that the German Generals has succeeded in stalemating Hitler’s more aggressive plans until the Munich agreement seemed to confirm Hitler’s policies and increased Hitler’s power. Churchill said quite truly that this was : “The complete surrender of the Western Democracies”

And here we are again as once again many in the West wants to offer a country on the alter of appeasement thinking it might again appease evil. And the enemy, like Hitler before, views it as a sign of weakness.

Qaeda’s Zawahri says Iraq bill shows U.S. defeat

DUBAI (Reuters) – Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri said a U.S. congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was was proof of Washington’s defeat, according to a Web video posted on Saturday. “This bill reflects American failure and frustration,” Zawahri said. “But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.”

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the video, which comes four days after U.S. President Bush vetoed a $124 billion congressional war-spending measure that would have required a troop pullout from Iraq to begin by October 1.

“We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, so that we give the blood spillers in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson to motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system,” Zawahri said on the video, posted on Web sites used by Islamists. Zawahri denied that al Qaeda and other Sunni Muslim insurgents were stirring up sectarian strife in Iraq, blaming instead the Shi’ite-led Baghdad government

“The ones who have stirred up strife in Iraq are those who today are begging the Americans not to leave,” said the white-turbaned Zawahri, sitting next to bookshelves and an assault rifle. Zawahri mocked Bush for saying that a U.S.-backed security plan for Baghdad was showing signs of success.”The success is only for his pocket and Halliburton,” he said, referring to the company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The link is here.

Interesting how the terrorist talking points mirror the Democrats. But remember, according to the lying media, the Democrats support the troops. The Democrats and sadly some Generals claimed the debate and the bill is not hurting the troop’s morale. But that assertion seems almost absurd as it definitely has raised the morale of the enemy, as I have shown time and time again. . Perhaps one may think this was an isolated incident. Sorry, yet another rundown of the history of treason from the Democrats will convince the reader otherwise. (more…)

By Robert Farrow

Had the World been but a bit different, we might have already settled the stars. Had history changed but slightly, ships with Greek names might already circle Alpha Centauri, or Banard’s star, and settled some of the countless planetary systems that doubtless dot our corner of the Galaxy.

Hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, the Greeks had the basics of a steam engine, played with the building blocks of calculus, successfully measured the circumference of the earth, postulated the existence of atoms, established the first Democracy, and even toyed with the idea of women voting. But sadly, most of these ideas died stillborn, waiting 2 thousand years before their rebirth in the Renaissance. Why?

Now fast forward two thousand years to 16th century Europe. Here, Tycho Brahe was one of the most famous astronomers of the classical age. One day he was visited by the Baron of Rosenberg, and after drinking a large quantity of wine, refused to excuse himself to answer nature’s call so not to affront his famous guest. However, honoring the presence of his important visitor earned the famish Dane a urinary tract infection, which led to his untimely demise. His meticulous astronomical observations might have come to naught had he not made the friendship of Johannes Kepler, who after Tycho’s death, inherited Tycho’s stunningly detailed observations. And using these observations, Kepler formulated his famous laws on planetary motion. Newton’s revolutionary laws on Gravity are directly traced to Kepler, as Newton himself admitted when he stated “If I have seen farther then most men, it is because I have stood in the shoulders of Giants. Until Tycho found himself on his deathbed, he would not let anyone read his observations, so then Kepler’s laws and thus the laws of Gravity may in some ways be traced to an errant bottle of wine.

My point with this example is that sometimes bladders and colds have shaped the outcome of history. To state it more eloquently, history can be shaped by small and inconsequential events as well as very large events. History and it’s outcomes is a collection of chance and conflicts. Things need not be the way they are now. At various times throughout history countless civilizations have been more technology advanced then the West, yet in the end the West came to dominate the world. Many historians have said similarly and pointed out the potential events, even small ones, may have to change the course of history. But I think many miss the bigger picture. For yes, events like Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination, small events can have major outcomes throughout the annals of history, but even more important are the settings these events play out. Tycho and his accident benefited Kepler only because he was in a society that allowed him to publish his discovery and was open to new ideas. But it need not been that way. Had he lived in another culture or another time, no one now would know the name Kepler, and perhaps he himself would have drunk his way, like his mentor, to oblivion in frustration.

The main thesis of this article is that a culture’s technological skills and advancement is not as important as the cultural strengths and weaknesses that the technology is found in. For the Renaissance was fertile ground for scientific discoveries only because the power nobility was lessened and the Church had become more open; but now things have been curiously reversed. And now a new Dark Age threatens to once again to de-evolve history, though few seem to notice. In many ways societies and cultures are macro-organisms, and history does obey Darwinist principles. Cultures do compete against each other and the weaker die out as the stronger spread and survive. Like the Greeks and the Romans, we in the West are very much superior technologically to the culture in competition with us and with Democracy and freedom. But also too many of us demonize the founding values of our culture, hate our own country, demonize motherhood and kill our babies, and even worse utterly refuse to fight for our freedoms. The other side has no such weakness. (more…)

By Robert Farrow

The universe is full of magicals things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.

Eden Philpotts.

Imagine a world called flatland, where there is length and width but no height. The world is infinitely flat. Say one day a strange visitor called a Mr. Ball decided to pay the residents of flatland a visit. To the residents there, the visitor would appear as a slice of a circle whose dimensions constantly changed in size. If the ball picked up one of the residents, he would appear to his flat friends as magically disappearing, and would magically reappear when returned. Does Flatland sound strange? Well, in a way we may already be living there.

If today’s scientific community is right, we may live in a multi-dimensional universe. And since we only inhabit three of what might be many dimensions, whole sections of the universe may not only be beyond our present understanding, but may be beyond what we can understand. As Shakesphere once said “There are more things in heaven and earth then is drempt in our philosophy.” If that is the case, is our understanding of the universe may be no better then a child’s tale, grasping for things beyond our perception.As a flatlander is not only unable to see the whole of the ball, but also unable to even percieve the real form of the ball, so also may our understanding of the universe be similarly faulty, and in some ways a myth. And if that is the case, how does that change the never ending debate between science and religion?

The Myth of Our World?

Imagine you are an intelligent carp living in a pond. Also imagine you are a scientist. You know nothing for certain of the world beyond the pond and the water’s edge. Many other carp scientists have wondrous theories, but alas, nothing concrete. Perhaps one day it rains, and the carp scientists see lilies on the pond mysteriously move around all by themselves, unaware of the raindrops influence.

When I was younger I use to believe that through physics that man would best understand the mind of God. I did not, and still do not see anything contradictory between physics and religion. On the contrary, various aspects of physics actually confirm the existence of God for me. But as I delved deeper into the strange world of physics, I realized that the world is not only stranger then I imagined, it is stranger then I can imagine. For instance, the subatomic world is filled with ghostly phantoms where it is impossible to know exact details. Time and length changes as you speed up and slow down. And the universe may be made up of strings and filled with more dimensions then one can imagine. But it gets even weirder. Try to imagine a particle breaking up into two fragments, and imagine later they are even separated by great distances. Any observation on one of the fragments instantly affects the reality of another fragment. Another interesting fact is that light also has both the properties of a particle and a wave, depending on the observation. Also, light acts like a wave through a vacuum, despite the fact there is no medium to carry the wave. Some of these facts come from a theory the Quantum theory, and Einstein hated it. His celebrated retort “God does not play dice.” is a rejection of the randomness and fuzziness of the Quantum world. Quantum mechanics has been tested for almost a century, and is quite correct. But is it misleading, because our reality is misleading because we too are trapped in a pond?

Perhaps the ghostlike action at a distance and light duality is the result of viewing a multidimensional world while stuck in three dimensions. Let us go back to flatland and their science. It does not take a genius to realize the physics in a two-dimensional world will be different then ours. Like carp in a pond, the universe they live in utterly affects their science and their life. Physicists realize this and try to probe into the hidden borders of this world. However, to test most of their theories require energies well beyond the dreams of man for perhaps centuries. These Plank energies are quite unreachable, which begs the question, “Is it really possible for man to really understand this grand and amazing Universe?” Besides, at least to me, what happened before the big bang seems just as much a question of faith as where did God come from.

I have found it amusing the many predictions from amateur scientists predicting one day mankind will one day solve the “Theory of Everything” and there will be nothing left to ask. Personally, a Universe with no questions left to solve is a Universe with no mystery and quite a dull place to live in. I also think it is an underestimation of the grandeur of the Universe and an overestimation of the mind of man. History does not support this assumption. Many particle theorists are surprised and discouraged at the zoo of particles that have been discovered after believing the Standard Model was the end all of particle theory. There has been a plethora of Grand Unified Theories that are no closer to the goal then Einstein’s unfinished papers left on his deathbed in the 50’s. I expect this trend to continue, that deeper we go down the rabbit hole, the stranger and more wonderful the universe will become.

Again, part of the problem might lie with the fact we live in only three dimensions, and the universe might have as many as 26. This crazy scenario started with the discovery by scientists that many theories become unified when higher dimensions are evoked. For instance, Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations and Einstein’s equations are found in a theory called Kaluza- Klein, which has the 5th dimension curled up in a little ball. But this is one of the few successes. No one has unified Einstein’s gravity and quantum mechanics. This is the holy grail on physics. Solve this one and you never have to work again. But is it truly possible to understand the true nature of the universe or are we just carp in the pond? Is our understanding of this universe we live in a fiction, a myth, because we are trapped into a small corner of it, or are all the secrets of the universe available to us through the tools of science?Perhaps it is my romanticism, but I cannot imagine a worse universe then a universe with no mystery.

It is no suprise to me that there are so many unansered questions in science. Maybe the reason why light (a wave and a particle ) can travel in a vacuum and shares both the properties of a particle and a wave is that us humans are seeing only three dimensions of a multi-dimensional force. Perhaps one day we will know the answers to these questions, and then again perhaps not. I do think some things are beyond the mind of man, but not the mind of God. I am not saying, however, that the study of physics is a useless or hopeless endeavor. Interestingly enough, as I stated earlier, various aspects of physics do confirm the existence of God for me. So in some ways my beliefs are akin to the feelings of many of the great Renaissance Scientists, for I believe that it is through physics that we can better understand the Designer’s hand.

Seeing the Designer’s Hand

Atoms are mostly empty space, yet your hand does not slide through the coffee table Why? The repulsive force in all atoms. So what keeps atoms together? The world as we know it, the world that supports life, is full of forces that are everyday taken for granted. Few care why the Sun shines, or why the sky is blue, or that time actually slows down when you are traveling at high speeds or the fact that when you look up in the sky at night, you are looking back in time. Sometimes homo sapien is the least inquisitive species on the planet. The average person might not care about the strong force, the weak force, gravity, or electromagnetism; however, if these forces were only slightly off in value, the world as we know it would be unrecognizable.

I grew up in a Catholic family, but also had a deep love of science, and contrary to what some might think, I did not find these beliefs in contradiction. I have often heard many say, “If God exists, why does he not show himself and prove it to the unbeliever?” Perhaps he shows it to us every day, but like those of us that do not care why the Sun shines, we do not care to think hard enough to see it.
I know the average reader does not care about science, and a few might have already stopped reading, but again, the reason why things are the way they are is found in science. And some might find it interesting that the more I read about science, the more I think I have found evidence of the designer’s hand, evidence for the existence of God. Take for the example that all atoms have a repulsive force and an attractive force, and that except for atoms with high atomic numbers these forces are in balance. (It is in fact very difficult to overcome these forces, which is why fusion as a power source has been so difficult to realize) That these forces are in balance is taken for granted. But is that if these forces were not in balance, we could not exist in this universe. Even more, the fact is, if any of these four fundamental forces had a slightly larger or smaller value life as we know it could not exist. And there are other problems, such as the flatness problem. In short, a universe that is the product of randomness and one that also supports intelligent life seems to me to be a tall order indeed.

And there is the rub. That this situation could have happened by chance seems to me nothing short of miraculous. Scientists recognize that something odd is going on and quickly made up a number of theories so they would not have to utter the G word. There is a curious term known as the Anthropic Principle, which states that the universe must be one that admits life to exist. Another theory is the Many Universes Theory, which states that are a number of universes, so it is not surprising that one exists that supports life. This to me is really reaching, and is ignoring the obvious. Scientists have long feared uttering the G word, and the closest they will come is utter the phrase, intelligent design, but is really the same thing. I do not always believe the simplest explanation is always the correct one, but to ignore another explanation because it makes you feel uncomfortable is to me very unscientific. And in the end, who created God seems no more unanswerable then what happened before the big band. To me they are both questions of faith. The most likely scenario seems that we should not be here at all. Nevertheless, we exist.

The more I study the universe, the stranger and more wonderful it seems. The more I read of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the duality of light, of superstrings, and curved space, the more I realize just how amazing it is that we are here at all. To me the simple fact that we exist shows the hand of the designer, the hand of God at work. The universe is full of miraculous things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper. But the most miraculous thing of all is us. And there, more then anything else, is evidence for the designer’s hand.

( thanx to Michio Kaku for borrowing the Carp idea.)

The Democrats: A Terrorist’s Best Friend
(expanded and revised from a History of Treason Pt I and II.)

By Robert Farrow

But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day. “This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle,”
the president said.

And how do you think our enemies in Iran and Iraq took that message? The Democrats and sadly some Generals claimed the debate is not hurting the troop’s morale. But that assertion seems almost absurd as it definitely has raised the morale of the enemy, as I will show later. Perhaps one may think this was an isolated incident. Sorry, yet another rundown of the history of treason from the Democrats will convince the reader otherwise.

*Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Hussein Obama apologized yesterday for describing the lives of 3,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq as “wasted.” He called the remark “a slip of the tongue.”

*In November, Democrat John Kerry apologized for implying that U.S. troops were uneducated. He called his statement, “a poorly stated joke.”

*Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

*In June of 2005, Democrat Dick Durbin apologized on the Senate floor for likening U.S. troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings…” He called the comparisons unintentional, stating “I never ever intended any disrespect for them.”

*Also in 2005, Democrat Ted Kennedy called the U.S. military torturers. Reading from a prepared text, Kennedy said, “…we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management – US management.” Kennedy did not apologize.

*White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says: “I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost,” Biden said. “They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy — literally, not figuratively.” Joseph Biden

*Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) plans to introduce legislation designed to halt the Bush administration’s troop “surge” in Iraq by restricting military deployments – a move he is painting as one that will “support” U.S. forces.While he has been criticized by Republicans for advocating a “cut and run” strategy, Murtha has also received praise for his stance on the issue. In January 2006, he was given a “pink badge of courage” by the anti-war group Code Pink, and he received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award later that year.

There is a theme here, a theme that repeats itself over and over in the circles of leadership in the Democratic Party. It is a theme of defeat, appeasement, surrender, and failure. And this is the party charting the future for the United States of America. So is it any wonder that Australian Prime Minister John Howard said that terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Democratic hopeful Barack Obama to become U.S. president. Apparently, the terrorists agree. As the leader of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing gloated over forcing outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to flee the Iraqi battlefield, the speaker of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing said his group would not rest until it blew up the White House. He also said the Democrats’ victory at U.S. Congressional elections on Tuesday were a step in the right direction. A step in the right direction to what? Well, what does Al Qaeda want? That is simple, they want our defeat. Thus, according to Al Qaeda, the Democratic victory is a step in the right direction to our defeat. I must say I agree, as Democratic defensive policy of late seems to be primarily wishful thinking. And sadly, many Republicans seem to be following their lead. (more…)

(Updated and expanded from an earlier essay)

By Robert Farrow

By Robert Farrow

This is a world without America.

Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’
- George Orwell, writing about pacifists in Britain during 1942

If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
- George Washington

By Robert Farrow

I decided to revisit the philosophy of pacifism after reading a few comments on one of the blogs I write for, called Mr. Politics. Much of the time the comments on my various sites are quite negative: as with one who called himself “conservative” after he defended the horrendous foreign policy of jimmy carter (yes, I refuse to give carter the respect of capitalization, to hell with good grammar) and my critics comments consisted primarily of name calling. Another challenged my literacy as he defended a party led by a woman who actually thinks the terrorists will leave Iraq when we do. And people call Bush stupid. But that’s okay, as adversity builds character. Right?

Such comments do serve a purpose, as they remind me precisely of the type of philosophy I am fighting against. For I truly believe we are in the middle of the third struggle against Islam, and we will not win it without first defeating the philosophies of liberalism and pacifism. Lets start by remembering how the pacifists responded to the slaughter of thousands of innocents on 9-11.

‘War Is Not the Answer,’ Pacifists Tell Their Fellow MournersJoining a candlelight vigil near Greenwich Village, hundreds plead for a nonviolent response.
by Matea Gold

NEW YORK — The mementos of death are everywhere. Fliers showing the missing hang from the fences around Union Square Park; wax from hundreds of candles melts onto the stone plaza. Photos of the World Trade Center’s twin towers are pasted onto the lampposts, and piles of flowers wilt in the warm September sun. But in this park–which once offered a clear view of the two skyscrapers reduced to rubble in Tuesday’s attacks–mourning for the dead and missing mingles with yet another, more unusual sentiment: a call for peace. The base of the tall statue of George Washington is covered with such messages as “Pray for Peace.” Across the grass, a long cloth banner is strung on a wire fence: “Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but of justice lived–Gandhi.” In this park on the edge of Greenwich Village, one of the city’s most liberal neighborhoods, a loud chorus of dissent blends with the grief. Hundreds have flocked here to voice their pleas for restraint, fearful that the Bush administration’s vow to take action against both terrorists and the countries harboring them will lead to further violence. Debora Goldstein knelt on the grass Saturday afternoon and carefully penned a message on the banner: “Will no one hear us who are crying for peace?” “We cannot honor our dead by killing innocent people,” said the 33-year-old administrative assistant. “That is not the way to find justice.” These pleas for peace fall within a tradition of New York dissent. Nearly every American military action abroad has met here with protests of one kind or another. But in a city reeling from the worst terrorist attack in history–widely believed to be at the hands of militants whose goal is to destroy everything Americans hold dear–most New Yorkers are loudly calling for a tough military response. And so on Friday night, it was startling to see thousands of people pack Union Square Park for a candlelight peace vigil. To be sure, many came simply to mourn. But dozens wore fliers pinned to their backs that read: “Islam is not the enemy. War is not the answer.” Some say they are terrified that U.S. military action will only spark more violent attacks against Americans. Others argue that the U.S. needs to reassess a foreign policy they believe has fed a hatred of America. Many admit to confusion about what the U.S. should do to respond to Tuesday’s attacks, suggesting an international tribunal. They are resolute that bombing is not the answer. “There is a really forceful hand winding up to hit somebody, and I don’t know that it’s going to hit the right person,” said Kimberly Peirce, a writer and director holding up a large banner that read, “NYC wants Justice, Not Revenge.” “If we obliterate Afghanistan, who’s to say that’s going to make a safer situation?” she added. Published on Sunday, September 16, 2001 by the link is here.

In the health care field an inability to recognize and respond properly to danger is enough to legally declare someone incompetent. Apparently, the same cannot be said for the realm of politics. Despite the fact there has already been two invasions of Islam and over a thousand of years of conflict between Islam and Christianity, the conflict is somehow our fault. In fact, if it were not for the likes of men like Charles Martel, western civilization would have stopped existing some time ago. But such realities matters little to some, as the sickness of pacifism and liberalism continues to be a cancer of western civilization. For those who are curious, here is the original exchange from Mr. Politics that led to this article.

By the way, the original Christians faced some pretty serious terrorists themselves. Crucifixions, beheadings, killing people for sport, etc.

What did those original Christians choose to do in response to their terrorists and a threat to wipe out their civilization? (Hint: It didn’t involve voting, killing or nuking things, yet somehow they not only allowed survived the threat, they converted so many people by their response to the terrorists that they completely subverted and converted the terrorists’ base of supporters. Almost like that Jesus guy said it would. I know… go figure.)

Here was the reply of a more astute individual.

, Thanks for the clarity. You are a classic pacifist and I have no misunderstanding on why you have that view. Please understand that I profoundly disagree with that position in the context of government. What you choose to do as an individual guided by your moral code and religious devotion is not an issue. Your extrapolating to governments that they should not be abundantly prepared to use violence to defend, protect and secure is patently foolish and extremely dangerous. To tolerate pacifism, as a nation is to relinquish sovereignty and influence, peace at all cost, costs everything.

“If not the greatest evil, yet war is a great evil. Therefore, we should all like to remove it if we can. But every war leads to another war. The removal of war must therefore be attempted. We must increase by propaganda the number of Pacifists in each nation until it becomes great enough to deter that nation from going to war. This seems to me wild work. Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbor who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists. ~C.S. Lewis, “Why I Am Not a Pacifist”, The Weight of Glory (1949)

So when logic fails….why not use scripture?

So is defending yourself immoral?
No. But doing so with violence has been forbidden of Christians by Jesus.

How else will you defend yourself from the Bin Laden’s of the world without violence? Christianity is not a suicide pact. Christ’s example of turning the other cheek only extrapolates into happily walking into the gas chambers in Auschwitz from a mind not in touch with the realities of the world. I get tired people with an agenda intentionally misinterprets scripture. Usually it is a liberal whose main purpose is to warp doctrine to where it is little better then a feel good club one attends every Sunday whose main function is a self-defense mechanism for his or her lifestyle. After Jesus told the crowd that the person without sin should cast the first stone at the adulterer, he did not tell the women to go and keep on sinning, he told her to go and sin no more. But the Libs leave that out and allow Jesus’s words to support every liberal or hedonistic cause they could think of. Jesus also never said, do not defend yourself and lay down as people try to kill you. When Jesus had a point to make, like with the moneychangers at the temple, he made it very clearly. And when Jesus asked Peter to put away his sword, is because Jesus had to die to fulfill the scripture.

The American Thinker weight in with a very insightful article titled: Pacifism and the Sword that delves deeper into this apparent conflict.

The Bible is clear here: I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live – this lost world – means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.
- Francis Schaeffer

The 5th Column: How our own media helps our enemies.

By Robert Farrow

Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes. But the resulting stink in the blogosphere has barely wrinkled a nose in the mainstream press. The ethics-obsessed Poynter Institute seems to be oblivious to it.

[...]The AP, of course, has been delivering unbalanced reports about U.S. national politics for some time, as when President Bush, whom AP reporters despise, is barely allowed to state his case on an issue before his critics are given twice as much space to pummel him. The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn’t even recognize it has a problem.
from my friends at Flopping Aces

So we have a media that is openly using enemy propaganda as news sources. This is beyond sheer irresponsibility but actually very dangerous. It is in fact as dangerous as any action of the enemy. Why? The “news” is what too many Americans use to make decisions that directly affect the laws and leaders of this country. Is it any wonder why Jefferson once wrote:

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

~Thomas Jefferson
Stolen shamelessly from Wordsmith

So I ask again, how is this any different then how the media acts now as they knowingly give the lies of terrorists and enemies of the media and Democracy a voice in their paper? Journalism is dead……it has been for years….it lost us Vietnam and wants America to suffer another defeat by radical Islam. Again, if the MSM covered WWII, we would be speaking German. The times are very grave now….Personally, I think the times are as grave now then to Edward Grey in 1914 as the lights went out all over Europe. For we have a foe as dedicated, if not more so then the Nazi’s, who do not have a capital to take or a single leader to kill. This war will not end in 6 years, or even 60. And if we keep on listening to our defeatist media we all will be practicing Islam, whether we want to or not. Do you not think Bin Laden is not encouraged by our media? Giap was.

“We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn’t our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war.”

North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1990 interview with historian Stanley Karnow.

And how do you break the will of the people. You bombard them with negative news all the time. But they don’t need to worry about having to do this task themselves when they have our media working for them. If I were a terrorist, a sworn foe of democracy and of the media, then this is what I would have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. My manual of instruction for the terrorists would closely follow this wonderful Novak article and rely heavily on the media.

How to Defeat the US in Future Wars.

Today, the purpose of war is sharply political, not military; psychological, not physical. The main purpose of war is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about the war. Warfare is not, these days, won on a grand field of battle. Nor is it won by the force that wins series after series of military victories. Nor is triumph assured by killing far higher numbers of the enemy. The physical side of warfare no longer holds precedence.

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy’s public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public’s leaders.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed. Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather atthe precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists’ best friends. Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries–our band of brothers–wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write: Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline. Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

Even though our own forces (for nearly two whole years now) can no longer afford to fight in a single operation lasting longer than a few hours, our martyr-brothers cannot be prevented from committing daily acts of destruction–the more stomach-turning the better–which demonstrate a ferocious will and a determination to destroy. In such wars, my brothers, whichever party maintains the stronger will, along the most durable storyline, always wins. To defeat the United States, then, it suffices to demonstrate that their vaunted military, for all its awesome power and tactical bravery in the field, cannot halt daily “chaos.” To achieve this victory over America, it is not even necessary to create actual “chaos,” but only its appearance. This definition of chaos cannot be made on cerebral, analytic, statistical, or comparative grounds. (In October the Times of London reported, “An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France” this year, with 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services and nearly 3,000 police officers injured. We don’t need comparisons like this or comparisons with traffic deaths and violent crimes in individual U.S. states.)

Besides, brothers, there seems to be a psychological tic in the minds of American journalists, which prevents them from understanding that our terror is ultimately aimed at them. Today, yes, they think it is aimed at their government, and will cripple their political opponents within that government. Without qualm or fear, therefore, they do our bidding day after day. Willingly, gleefully, with much self-congratulation, they pump our storyline into the bloodstream of the Western public. This is far easier than anyone ever taught us. This is our new discovery, our contribution to the history of warfare. Before our very eyes, the West grows fainter and weaker every day.

Maxim # 2: Take heart, then, my terrorist brothers! Bin Laden is even more correct than we knew before the last two years. The West does not have the will to resist. Those elites among them who do have the stomach to fight back, inexorably, day after day, are being undermined by their own media. Now and in the future, the media will do our work. All we need are martyrs sufficient in number to keep a steady stream of orange flames and black smoke before their cameras, and to dump before them bodies that are stone-cold dead, and bear all over them the unmistakable blue marks of power drills and other disfigurements.

Of such martyrs, we need each day only a handful. In 365 successive days, we need fewer than one thousand.
This small band of brothers can defeat the most powerful army in human history. The path, my brothers, is to come to dominate the minds of their public, which they must suppose is supporting them, and in reality turns quite quickly into our best ally.
By Michael Novak

So…is this article accurate? Is the media and thus our political leaders mirroring the political aim and psychology of the enemy. Here is one easy example taken from a plethora of examples to choose from.

Al Qaeda No. 2: Bush must admit defeat in Iraq

(CNN) — An Arabic language news network has aired a video of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, in which he called on U.S. President George W. Bush to admit defeat in Iraq.

from the Communist News Network

which is mirrored nicely by…..

the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean

This sad display of terrorists talking points was roughly mirrored by Murtha, Kerry, a whole host of Democratic leaders, and most of the articles found in our media, almost on a daily basis. How many articles found in the press in WWII mirrored Hitler’s or Tojo’s talking points? Hell, Ernie Pyle today probably would have been kicked out of the White House press corp or fired from CNN. Very, very few article of dissent have appeared. Why? Roughly, this country is evenly divided between people who lean Democrat and people who lean Republican. In contrast, we get our news from a group of people who are overwhelmingly Democrat and liberal.

· 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
· In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
· In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
· In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
· In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
· Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.
· Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”
· “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”

from the Media Research Center

There are many articles that show the media is much more willing to write positive stories about Democrats rather then Republicans, and due to space, I will not list them. But this media bias has a dangerous affect on our economic, immigration, crime policies, and most dangerously, our military policies. All this because of the influence of group of people cut of from the average American and unable to notice his/her own bias because his/her peers share it.. And this bias and negative reporting towards Republicans led directly to the Democrat’s victory in the November election and lead to putting people like this fine person back in the drivers seat of our nation’s policies and future.

Rangel says men join the army only if they can’t have “a decent career”.

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Would this do anything but encourage our enemies? So is it any wonder why al Qaeda was pleased the Democrats won:

The leader of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing on Friday gloated over forcing outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to flee the Iraqi battlefield and said his group would not rest until it blew up the White House. The Democrats’ victory at U.S. Congressional elections were a step in the right direction, the speaker said.

A step in the right direction? To what? Well, what does al Qaeda want? You know what they want?

Our Destruction.

Shouldn’t doing what they want bother us?

……. apparently not.

Even wanna-be genocidal jew killers like Iranian nutjob Ahmadinejad recognize who his friends are.

Ahmadinejad Writes to the Left
We have another letter from Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this time directed to the “American people”—or more accurately, aimed squarely at the moonbats, leftists, and mainstream media: Iranian president: ‘U.S. governs by coercion’.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a letter to the American people on Wednesday, accused their government of “coercion, force and injustice” and urged the United States to pull out of Iraq. Ahmadinejad’s five-page letter also called on Washington to recognize a Palestinian state and cautioned the Democratic Party that, after gaining control of the U.S. Congress, they would be “held to account by the people and by history.The letter was given to Reuters by Iran’s Mission to the United Nations.

The Iranian leader, who wrote an 18-page letter to President George W. Bush in May that Bush never responded to, said he was now writing to the American people in friendship because Iran and the United States shared a responsibility “to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity.”
“Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the U.S. administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people,” he said. “It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice,” Ahmadinejad said.
On Iraq, he said that with a constitution and government now in place, “would it not be more beneficial to bring the U.S. officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical U.S. military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people?”

from LGF

And this is the same guy who said:

Ahmadinejad: Muslims Must Act to Eliminate Israel.

LGF also notes in a new article reviewing the book: Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age by Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech that gives further examples of “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.” Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.”

What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president’s themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.” from LGF again

By the end of the book, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” And in many ways, it is. For this is the danger of the 5th column, otherwise known as our media. The media, by selective reporting, by lie via omission, by bias, and by blatant falsification, affects the perceptions and beliefs of this country and thus it’s leaders. Both Giap and radical Islam realize modern war is psychological and political, not physical. It is imagination, not reality. It is won in the TV sets and in the headlines, not on the battlefield. It is public perception, not the soldiers morale. Actual victory no longer matters. And the media is so biased, so twisted, so arrogant, so removed from any other view save it’s own, that it exists only to serve itself and it’s own liberal agenda, which is detrimental to this country.

Attacking your country at every turn. Willing to trust terrorists before your own soldiers. Aiding the enemies of Democracy and freedom of the press. That is not only how you destroy your own profession but your own country.

By Robert Farrow

Anyone who has read any of my articles before knows I don’t hide my views on liberalism. I truly believe liberalism is a self defeating and destructive philosophy that in many ways leads to national suicide. There are many reasons for my belief. The liberal’s hatred towards their own country and military and embrace of our enemies has been well documented in my History of Treason series. I also think their views towards crime and punishment is also suicidal. Few have pointed out that beginning of the crime wave began around the same time of the liberalization of our values thanks to the 60’s movement. For you cannot destroy the family, (by making the definition of a family open to interpretation and ending the stigma of illegitimacy) take God out of society, replace it with nothing and expect some good to come out of it. Liberalism also weakened criminal codes, our societal values, and created a dependency society that did nothing to foster self-reliance. Thus, society went downhill in a hurry because the mentally thick liberals do not realize rewarding destructive behavior only leads to more of this behavior.

To me, the defining thread running through liberalism seems to be one of selfishness. Under the tenants of liberalism the family, society, and nation have become subservient to the whims and desires of the individual. This thought process does untold damage both to society and also to the individual. A good example of this is the relative average test scores and income of asians, whites, and blacks. Asians almost consistently outperform everyone else because I believe Asians, due to their culture, have the strongest family structure, and thus the best support network. In urban society African-Americans, thanks to liberal influences, have the highest percentage of babies born out of wedlock. Why would this not affect them economically? This attack on the family is not confined to race, or even one country. The Free Republic notes that in Europe wolves are taking the place of people as Europe will lose 41 million people by 2030 even with continued immigration. Worried European governments are crafting natalist policies to nudge couples to have more children, from offering better child care to monthly stipends keyed to family size. But why are these policies necessary in the first place? I used to date a liberal feminist who demeaned her sister who chose to be a stay at home mom and once whished her mom had not “wasted her life” raising her. Another N.O.W. worker I talked to bragged about having an affair with a married women. Such are the realities about liberal and feminist values. They are sacrificing society on an alter of choice.

Robertson: Europe committing “racial suicide”
Summary: Pat Robertson said, “Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate.”
During the February 6 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network’s (CBN) The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson said that “Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate.” Robertson blamed the declining birth rate on the existential philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, which, according to Robertson, “has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe” and has left Europeans without “a faith in the future.” from MediaMatters

Pat Robinson does go off on the deep end sometimes, but in this case he is right. And as much as I disagree with Pat Buchanan’s isolationist views, in a real sense this is a “Death of the West” if these trends continue.

European Birth Rate Declines

The natural increase in Europe’s population is slowing and may start a steep decline within a few decades, researchers say.

Researchers writing in the journal Science said European population growth reached a turning point in the year 2000 when the number of children dropped to a level that statistically assured there will be fewer parents in the next generation than there are in the current generation.

In effect, the authors say, the momentum for population growth in the 15-nation European Union has flipped from positive to negative and the trend could strongly influence population numbers throughout the 21st century.

“If the current fertility rate of around 1.5 births per woman persists until 2020, negative momentum will result in 88 million fewer people in 2100, if one assumes constant mortality and no net migration,” the researchers say. The EU population in 2000 was about 375 million.
from CBS News

The elevation of the individual over societal, cultural, and national needs creates an anything goes mentality, which is exactly why liberalism is so dangerous and why it destroys everything it touches. How can a philosophy that celebrates abortion rather then motherhood not be destructive? On an alter of choice more babies have been aborted since Roe then all the deaths in the Civil War, World War I, and WWII combined. One article suggests that since the start of the Iraqi war well over a million babies have been killed. And now too many women no longer choose to become mothers and wives because feminist values have devalued these institutions to the point where it has become secondary or looked down upon. These institutions are the pillars of society, and as they are under siege, the very survival of society is at stake. Under an alter of choice our society, our culture, and our nation hangs in the balance. But it is all about choice for the liberals

‘Abortions’ issue to hit newsstands

The feminist magazine Ms. will release its fall issue next week with a cover story titled “We Had Abortions,” accompanied by the names of thousands of women nationwide who signed a petition making that declaration.
The publication coincides with what the pro-choice movement considers a watershed moment for its cause. Abortion access in many states is being curtailed, activists are uncertain about the stance of the U.S. Supreme Court and South Dakotans vote Nov. 7 on a measure that would ban virtually all abortions in their state, even in cases of rape and incest.
“All this seems very dire,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which publishes Ms. “We have to get away from what the politicians are saying,” she said, “and get women’s lives back in the picture.”
Even before the issue reaches newsstands Oct. 10, pro-life activists have been decrying it. Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, wrote in a commentary that when she saw a Ms. announcement of the project, “the evil practically jumped right off the page.” from The Washington Times

A belief system that embraces killing babies and demeans motherhood and the family can only be viewed by any rational person as a policy of national suicide.We must reject liberal policies and return to the values that made our country great if the West is to survive at all.

Want to annoy liberals? Please check out my new site here.

By Robert Farrow

If one ever wondered what it was like to live in a one party system, they would only have to travel to Maryland, where apparently it is almost illegal to be both Republican and black. (not that white and Republican is much better.) In November African-American Democratic leaders including Maryland state senator Verna Jones said Republican Senate Candidate Michael Steele (who is black-for those who do not know Maryland politics) invited comparisons to an oreo and Uncle Tom because he is a republican. Recently Democratic opponent Ben Cardin brilliantly attacked Steele in an effort to try to link Katrina and anti-Republican sentiments, which of course has everything to do with Baltimore’s failing school system and high murder rate. Cardin also stated he would not use race in the senate race The simple fact that the candidates say they will not talk about race shows you how far we have to go in the issue of race.

Sadly, the latest Cardin Steele poll confirms the fact that too many blacks still view any black Republican as traitors. I have tried to have a rational dialogue on the various political merits of the different parties with many in that community, but with many politics have devolved into name-calling. More may be lost here then is first thought.
For when the ability is lost to consider new ideas and evaluate your own beliefs and values rationally, you have ceased evolving as an individual and a society. And as the old adage goes, an idea and a belief that cannot stand up to scrutiny is not a belief worth having. As I heard an African-American co-worker defend the oreo comment, I noticed that a culture that prides itself on diversity appears to be intellectually and politically discriminatory

For as much as a disagree with liberal Democrats I would never want their kind to disappear from the world entirely, as it keeps the Conservatives intellectually honest.
And there are real, valid differences between the parties that deserve real consideration and merit. But it is so much easier, and often more politically damaging just to say that republicans hate the poor, gays, blacks, or just insert your target group here. But again, there are real differences that too often get lost in the name-calling. For examples, the Democrats believe the best way to fight poverty is handouts and welfare programs, where the republicans think the best thing to do is create a business climate where the poor can get a job, car, house, and become the middle class. (After all, what has decades of social programs done for urban society?) Simply, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats think you cannot get by with them and the Republicans think you will do best if we just stay out of your way and let you keep all your money.
But they were not listening.

I could have also talk to them about the history of the GOP, and who was the anti-slavery party, or in what party the first black senator sat, or who voted in greater numbers for the civil rights act, or what party had the most people of color in positions of power, but no one was listening. I could point out that decades of Democratic rule in Baltimore city has only left whole blocks in rubble, and regardless of what O’Malley says Baltimore has the highest murder rate in the US and the second worse graduation rate. But still, no one is listening

And if you stop listening, you stop thinking. And if you stop thinking you stop evolving and you get taken advantage of. Welcome to Maryland, the closest one can get to a one-party system in American. Such is the effect of intellectual discrimination and a lack of political diversity

A system of one party, one thought, benefits nobody.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Oriana Fallaci, RIP, the Pope, and a Sad Age

Rarely has the death of a public intellectual affected me as much as the passing of Oriana Fallaci. I never met her, and only received a brief note once from her accompanying a copy of The Rage and the Pride. The story of her career is well known, but her death, at this pivotal time, was full of paradoxes and yet instruction as well.

Radical Islam is, among other things, a patriarchal movement, embedded particularly in the cult of the Middle-Eastern male, who occupies a privileged position in a society that can be fairly described as one of abject gender apartheid. Islamism is also at war with the religious infidel, not just the atheist—and, in its envy and victimhood, fueled by a renewal of the age-old hatred of the Christian.

But so far, with very few exceptions other than the lion, Christopher Hitchens, the courageous William Shawcross, and a few others, the Left has either been neutral or anti-American in this struggle. And few Christians in positions of influence and respect have publicly defended their faith and the civilization that birthed it.

Candor, after all, can get one killed, exiled, or ostracized—whether a Danish cartoonist, a Dutch filmmaker, a Wall Street Journal reporter, or a British-Indian novelist. So here, ill and in her seventies, returned Ms. Fallaci one last time to take up the hammer and tongs against radical Islam—a diminutive woman of the Left and self-proclaimed atheist who wrote more bravely on behalf of her civilization than have most who are hale, males, conservatives, or Christians.

Her fiery message was as timely as it was caricatured and slandered: Muslims who leave the Middle East to live under the free aegis of the West have a moral duty to support and protect the civilization that has welcomed them, rather than romanticize about what they have forsaken; Christianity is more than a religion, but also a powerful emblem of the force of reason, in that it seeks to spread belief by rational thought as well as faith; and that affluent and leisured Westerners, bargaining away their honor and traditions out of fear and for illusory security, have only emboldened radical Islam that seeks to liquidate them.

I wish she were still alive to scoff at the politically correct, the appeaser, and the triangulator, but alas she is gone, defiant to the last.

Bene dictum?

And what are we to make of poor Benedict XVI, the scholastic, who, in a disastrous display of public sensitivity, makes the telling point, that Christianity, in its long evolution to the present, has learned to forsake violence, and to defend its faith through appeals to reason—and thus can offer its own experience in the current crisis of Islam. And by quoting from the emperor rhetorician Manuel Paleologus—whose desperate efforts at strengthening the Morea and the Isthmus at Corinth a generation before that awful Tuesday, May 29, 1453 all came to naught—the Pope failed to grasp that under the tenets of radical Islam of the modern age, context means little, intent nothing, learning less than zero. If a sentence, indeed a mere phrase can be taken out of context, twisted, manipulated to show an absence of deference to Islam, furor ensues, death threats follow, assassins load their belts—even as the New York Times or the Guardian issues its sanctimonious apologies in the hope that the crocodile will eat them last.

We learned the now familiar rage with the Danish cartoons, Theo Van Gogh, the false flushed Koran story, the forced change of “Operation Infinite Justice” to “Enduring Freedom”, the constant charges of “Islamaphobia”, and a horde of other false grievances that so shook the West, traumatized in fear of having its skyscrapers, planes, trains, buses, nightclubs, and synagogues blown apart or its oil cut off.

So, yes, we know the asymmetrical rules: a state run-paper in Cairo or the West Bank, a lunatic Iranian mullah, a grand mufti from this or that mosque, can all rail about infidels, “pigs and apes”, in language reminiscent of the Third Reich—and meet with approval in the Middle East and silence in the West. But for a Westerner, a Tony Blair, George Bush, or Pope Benedict to even hint that something has gone terribly wrong with modern Islam, is to endure immediate furor and worse. In short, no modern ideology, no religious sect of the present age demands so much of others, so little of itself.

In matters of the present war, I have given up on most of the neoconservatives, many of whom, following the perceived pulse of the battlefield, have either renounced their decade-long, pre-September11 rants to remove Saddam (despite the 140,000 brave souls still on the field of battle who took them at their word), or turned on the President on grounds that he is not waging the perfect fight and thus is not pursuing the good war. The Paleo-right is as frightening as is the lunatic Left. My old Democratic party is long dead, their jackals trying to tear apart the solitary and stumbling noble stag Joe Liebermann, the old center taken over by the Kerry and Soros billionaires, and the guilt-ridden academic, celebrity and media cadres.

So we really are left with very little in these pivotal times—the will of George Bush, of course, the Old Breed unchanged since Okinawa and the Bulge that still anchors the US military, the courage and skill of a very few brave writers like a Hitchens, Krauthammer, and the tireless and brilliant Mark Steyn, but very, very few others. No, this is an age in which we in the West make smug snuff movies about killing an American President, while the Taliban and the Islamists boast of assassinating the Pope.

So long may you run, Ms. Fallaci, you who by now have learned that, yes, there is a soul, and, yes, yours was indeed saved for eternity if only for its singular courage and honesty alone. And dear Pope: clarify, contextualize, express sorrow over the wrong interpretation of your remarks, but please don’t apologize for the Truth—not now, not ever.

And France does what France does….surrended to the first aggressor who comes along…..it is difficult to imagine a stupider and more suicidal group of men……

Chirac Springs Into Retreat

No surprises here, just France doing what France does: Chirac calls for threat of Iran sanctions to be lifted.

President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme.

In a radio interview yesterday before flying to New York for the UN General Assembly, the French President provoked a diplomatic storm by backing Iran’s demand that the Security Council should halt its involvement in the nuclear dossier.
from LGF

The idiot also threatens a seperate peace with the little Muslim Nazi…..

I guess loosing their country to the original Nazi’s wasn’t enough for the French to get it…now they want to loose their country to the Muslim radicals…

….stupid, just stupid!

(And why non-Christians should care)

By Robert Farrow

Well, another day has passed and another incident of violence and threats by the Religion of Peace has occurred. In what would almost be funny if people were not dying, muslims have been inflamed to violence against Christians because a Christian quoted a text where someone has accused them of being violent. At around the same time a number of celebrities attacked Christianity on national TV. No one really noticed because it is almost routine to attack Christians on our TV and universities and campuses.

Are you a Christian and feel like you are under attack or under siege? Well, you are, and on both sides. And these conflicts are linked. However, I am getting ahead of myself, so let me start off with one attack at a time and link them up at the end….. let us start off with those happy members of the Religion of peace.

How many suicide bombers does the pope have?

As has been widely reported, Pope Benedict XVI has stirred up a bit of a kerfuffle with a speech offering some historical criticisms of Islam,

Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict’s remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam’s founder as “evil and inhuman,” Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests. . . .

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict’s remarks were either “the result of pitiful ignorance” about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion. . . .

“Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words,” Kapusuz added. “He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.”

the link is here.

Another AP dispatch quotes a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, Tasnim Aslam: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” Aslam’s view of Islam can be described, charitably, as passive-aggressive.

If Kapusuz and Aslam are so concerned about Islam’s reputation, why don’t they denounce those of their coreligionists who do evil and inhuman things in the name of their faith? Most likely because they are afraid of them. In the eyes of a jihadi, a moderate Muslim is something worse than an infidel: an apostate.To retaliate for Pope’s statements – two Churches in the West Bank have been bombed by the ROP.

And now we have a new threat from the religion of peace

An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the “worshippers of the cross” in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.
“We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya,” said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq’s branch of al Qaeda.

“We shall break the cross and spill the wine. … God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. … God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen,” said the statement

Now an innocent Nun, Sister Leonella, has been killed in Somolia by Muslims out to destroy anything that resembles freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and women’s rights. But who do the stupid liberals attack,
Catholics.

Tom Hanks decided to join the slime of Hollywood Babylon by making fun of Christianity, the Pope, and Jesus on Saturday Night Live over the weekend. All that was missing was a beheading.

On ABC’s The View, Rosie O’Donnell interrupted co-host Elisabeth Hallelbeck’s assertion that militant Islam threatens free people around the world: “Just a minute… Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”

Idiot. Most muslim countries would stone a lesbian such as herself. I guess honor killing, and female genital mutilations and a denial of all basic rights to women do not threaten her as much as Bush because she is a big freakin idiot. Really, Pakistan requires three witnesses for a rape conviction. Want to rape til your hearts content? Become a Muslim and move to Pakistan. Where’s CAIR’s outrage here?

Hell, one of the muslim countries even banned dogs.

Jeez……

Now why would Rosie worry about Christians in the face of daily attacks against almost the rest of the world by the religion of peace? Well, it is hard not to think so when liberals in the media have jumped on the anti-Christian wagon.

A good example of this is the fixation of the media on the Catholic Priest molestation scandal.

(As a Catholic, I am infuriated at the Church for attempting to hide the scandal) But I am even more angry at the liberals, media, and government for ignoring an even greater scandal. Ann Coulter analyzed data from the American Association of University Women’s Educational Foundation, and found that between 1991 to 2000, roughly 290,9000 students were subjected to sexual abuse by teachers. Comparing that to the 10,667 abuses by priests between 1950 and 2002, and inflating the numbers for unreported cases we then have teachers abusing over 30 times the number of kids as priests per year. Even taking account the larger number of teachers and errors in the numbers, we still have a scandal being covered up by the media. Funny how this statistic gets ignored by the media…..

Why??? Most liberals hate Christians and love the educational system. Result:

More bias: more anti-Catholicism. And boy does our educational system return the liberal love and Christian hate.

UVa. cartoonist pulls work off Web

RICHMOND — A University of Virginia student newspaper yesterday removed from its Web site cartoons featuring Jesus Christ that prompted a barrage of e-mails to the paper and school from people who thought the comics were blasphemous.

The Charlottesville university and the Cavalier Daily received about 2,500 messages about the comics, many of them form-letter e-mails that were overwhelmingly from people outside the school community.

The Jesus cartoons ran in the Cavalier Daily’s Aug. 23-24 editions and featured “Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane,” with the figure of Jesus crucified on X and Y axes of a mathematical graph.

Another, “A Nativity Ob-scene,” showed Joseph and the Virgin Mary talking about Mary’s rash, with her saying, “I swear, it was immaculately transmitted!”

The controversy began last week when the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded an apology from the Cavalier Daily.

The paper declined, saying that the comics didn’t violate any newspaper policy.

from the Washington Times.

This should not be a surprise, as there have been many similar cartoons and other incidents like students having their microphone turned off if they mentioned Jesus during a speech. You cannot tell me the educational system is not anti-Christian when one can mention muslims, gays, and Kawanza in our schools, but not Jesus or God. This is a calculated and pre-mediated attack on Christianity. And this is only one small example in a much larger effort, as I reported earlier.

Gay-bias ban in schools OK’d

The state Assembly approved legislation Monday designed to bar discrimination in public schools against gay, bisexual and transgender people, retreating from an earlier proposal that would have required schools to teach students about the contributions of prominent gay people.

Current law prohibits instruction, school activities and textbooks that reflect poorly on people on the basis of their race, sex, national origin and other characteristics. The bill, which passed on a partisan 46-31 vote, would add sexual orientation to that list

Some Republican lawmakers called the legislation an effort to promote homosexuality in schools. Public schools “are turning into institutions of social experimentation and it is dangerous for our young people,’’ said Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia. “We’ll no longer have prom kings and queens. Jack and Jill can no longer walk up the hill.’’

So why is censorship only bad when conservatives do it???? Does no one see this as a threat to free speech ???? (And by the way, there is no Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Go read it!) How can one say that the radical gay rights movements and other liberal groups are not hostile to Christian values. ……for if the law was interpreted strictly, one could theoretically ban the Bible……

And these forces are winning….even in my home state of MD.

Georgetown Kicks out Outside Ministries.

Imagine if they banned a gay group, it would be all over the MSM, not just the conservative papers……

This is not the only example, don’t forget the JOHNS HOPKINS story….

a further reminder of liberal dedication to free speech

so it appears someone has noticed the Johs Hopkins censorship……..

Student Newspaper Suffers Viewpoint Discrimination at Johns Hopkins University
BALTIMORE, June 12, 2006—Johns Hopkins University (JHU) ended this school year by engaging in shameful viewpoint discrimination and denying its students freedom of the press. First, JHU turned a blind eye to the theft of a conservative student newspaper, The Carrollton Record (TCR), then stifled its right to distribute in dorms while allowing other papers to continue distributing there. TCR staff members contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) soon after these administrative abuses began.

“Freedom of the press and the freedom to distribute literature are vital liberties that should not be denied to JHU students,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “Theft and confiscation of a newspaper threaten the very marketplace of ideas upon which a university depends and should be condemned, not accepted.”

TCR’s May issue contained an article objecting to a recent campus appearance by pornographic film director Chi Chi LaRue. The cover photo pictured LaRue along with members of JHU’s Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance (DSAGA) student group, which hosted the event. The pictured DSAGA members were apparently displeased to see their pictures on the newspaper’s front page, and some have filed harassment charges against TCR staffers.
(from Fire)

Didn’t liberals use to think censorship was bad? Again, this is not the only paper to be banned. And just to remind you of the attacks on Coulter’s book and the anti-Bible hate speech legislation in Canada. And who gave us political correctness, the modern version of newspeak?

The Bible as Hate Speech

Canada’s governor general, the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, signed into law yesterday a controversial measure opposed by religious believers and free-speech advocates who say it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

The bill, passed 59-11 by the Senate on Wednesday, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
The House of Commons passed the bill in September, 141-110.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents have feared if it becomes law, the Bible will be deemed “hate literature” under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

The bill’s sponsor, openly homosexual MP Svend Robinson, has insisted it protects religious expression, but opponents, such as the Canada Family Action Coalition, note recent court cases in which judges have favored homosexual rights when they clash with the rights of religious believers.

Some members of Parliament have called it a “dangerous” law that muzzles free speech, including Liberal Party member John McKay, who dubbed it a “chill bill.”

“Anybody who has views on homosexuality that differ from Svend Robinson’s will be exposed rather dramatically to the joys of the Criminal Code,” McKay said last fall.

Robinson, who recently in a tearful apology to supporters admitted stealing a $50,000 ring, has said fears that freedom of speech and religion will suffer are “a mask for homophobia for people who don’t want to be honest about the real reason why they don’t want to include sexual orientation in the law.”

So he basically admits that radical homosexual activists and liberals are not only anti-Christian, but against freedom of speech.

All these examples are meant to show a pattern. So, yes, fellow Christians, you are under siege. Perhaps it is a hot war on the Muslim side and a cold war on the liberal Democrat side, but nevertheless, you are in a war for the survival of your values and the survival of your religion as a meaningful force in society. And yes I will add the word Democrat to the liberal tag. Who does Tom Hanks and Rosie vote for? Did most ACLU members vote Republican or Democrat? Do more muslims in America vote Republican or Democrat? Who do you think Bin Laden wants in power? Try as they might to pretend they are not, today’s modern Liberal Democrat party is as hostile to traditional Christianity as the Muslims. And many recognize this, which is why over 2/3rds of those who attend Church regularly vote red. The amusing thing is that the Democrats have as much chance of defeating the Muslims and the French have of defeating the Nazi’s, and the liberals have the most to loose if the radical Muslims win. Not only will the modern Democratic party not fight to save their own country, they won’t even fight to save their own values. This is the weakness of secularism. The West has been invaded by the Muslims twice, and twice we have turned them back. But even though the nations of Europe fought each other regularly then, they were united under the sign of the cross. But thanks to liberal socialistic policies, this is no longer the case. And because of it, we are weakened as a people. So liberals might have pulled their own house down as they try to pull ours. However, that gives me little comfort.

So let me say to you, if you are Christian and Democrat, you are betting on the wrong horse. If the people attacking your religion and your values happen to vote the same way you are, perhaps it is time you rethink your allies and your party. (And don’t buy the current Democratic criticism on homeland security. Just because they are right on one issue doesn’t excuse the fact they have been wrong on the 99 others) And again, I ask the liberals, name me one thing the Democrats have done to fight radical muslims. Had Clinton did his job as Commander-in-Chief and actually respond to the USS Cole attack and other attacks, 9-11 might not have happened, but he was too busy messing with interns. And thinking Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror is even stupider, as Bin Laden himself admitted Iraq is the center of the struggle against the west. So I ask: How does retreat and appeasement make us safer?

It doesn’t

The Muslims and liberals are attacking Christians for very different reasons, but in the end the results will be the same. Liberal Secularism is doomed. They will either defeat the Christians Conservatives and fall to the radical Muslims, or be defeated by the Christian Conservatives. This is why it is so important that Christians around the country take notice of the struggle and stand up for their values and their religion.

Take note: For if we fail, others will fail with us.

Christians, be on notice, your religion and values are under attack, and the survival of the West may be on the line with it.