#2
not the liberalism that is actually libertarianism, but the liberalism that is freedom. Not least freedom of expression.
Is there a time that there was such a thing? Oh yeah, prior to 1950, I've heard that liberals were actually about liberty instead of speech codes, dysfunction, victimization, blame and making a government act as our nanny.
Hat tip Ms. Trailing wife and her WMD article for providing me the link, though I often read the Brussel journal.
Europes current problems are entirely self-inflicted. This does not mean, however, that the result will be less catastrophic. By subverting the roots of its own Judeo-Christian culture a process that started with the French Enlightenment (as opposed to the Scottish Enlightenment, which was not anti-religious) a religious and cultural vacuum was created at the heart of European civilization. The collapse of faith in its own values has, not surprisingly, led to a demographic collapse because a civilization that no longer believes in its own future also rejects procreation. Today, a new religion and culture is supplanting the old one. There is little one can do about it, but hope for a miracle.
Americas immigration problems pale in comparison with what confronts Europe. Americas major ethnic minorities Blacks as well as Hispanics are Christian, while the meanstream culture is also rooted in Christianity. In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one. The secularized culture is hedonist and values only its present life, because it does not believe in an afterlife. This is why it will surrender when threatened with death because life is the only thing it has to lose. This is why it will accept submission without fighting for its freedom. Nobody fights for the flag of hedonism, not even the hedonists themselves.
One could also put it in a slightly different way: Europe lacks what America still has, namely the so-called conservative reserves, or as the German sociologist Arnold Gehlen explained over 30 years ago, the reserves in national energy and self-confidence, primitiveness and generosity, wealth and potential of every kind. Every so often I travel to the U.S. to recharge my batteries, and I am not the only European Conservative to do so. From time to time one needs to breathe the air of freedom before submerging again in the stifling atmosphere of Europe.
Americas conservative reserves are far stronger than Europes, because America, unlike secular Europe, has remained rooted to a larger extent in traditional Christian values. I do not doubt that if these values continue to decline in the U.S., American culture will collapse as European culture and civilisation have collapsed. However, America can learn from the impending European catastrophe, and avoid a similar fate.
The old European civilization the pre-secular or the pre-post-Christian one will live on in the U.S. If it perishes there too, mankind will relapse into the dark ages that are now taking hold of Europe, the cradle of Western civilization.
I suppose one could feel sad about all this, but sadness is not what I feel. One can feel compassion for those who die in accidents, fall in battle or get murdered (like the countless unborn children that perish every day) but can one pity those who have killed their own future for the pleasures of the present? Europes predicament, I repeat, is entirely self-inflicted. Not Islam is to blame. Secularism is.
The coming decade will witness the war between the values of Islam and the secular values of the decadent, hedonistic post-Marxist Left. We have seen the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, last Novembers prelude to the French civil war, the Danish cartoon case. This is just the beginning of the beginning. I do not consider myself a pessimist, merely a realist. It is quite clear who is going to lose and whose fault that will be. My thoughts, *exactly*.
#1
I don't see it as Christianity fighting Islam here in the US, as opposed to atheism losing to Islam in Europe. Nor do I see the battle as being won by those believing in an afterlife,, and lost by those who don't. Eleven percent of Americans self-identify as atheist/agnostic, and they appear (if Rantburgers are any example) to be spread across the spectrum of American ideologies. Rather, this is a fight between those who firmly believe in colonizing the future in this life -- on one side with free individuals, on the other with the slaves of the nastiest version of Allah, with the nihilists gladly surrendering to slavery between the lines. Europe doesn't necessarily need to recover its Christianity, but its belief that it can make a future if it only reaches out its hand to do so.
#2
Warriors exist to fight for a future. The fight is always about what kind of future will happen. Those who have no interest in any future won't fight at all.
#3
Americas immigration problems pale in comparison with what confronts Europe.
Actually, its an advantage. You forget we took in all those that Europe tossed out, both in the 19th and 20th centuries. They had the motivation to make something of themselves other than wards of the prince or state that you offered them.
#4
Good point, GG. We get the self-motivators from the West, the go-getters, the make shit happen people. They get the self-boomers from Shitistan, the blow-uppers, the tear shit down cretins.
Long multi-parts Ali Sina (Faith Freedom.org, which I very much recommand) interview.
By Jarek N.
The following are answers given to Jarek's questions concerning the Muslim dilemma in Europe. This is a long interview. Every day I will publish a part of it.
Jarek N.
Dear Ali Sina: Thank you for accepting this Interview.
Sina:
It is my pleasure.
Jarek
Q01: You have often stated that Islam is a dangerous cult which promotes violence. Yet many Islamic scholars and officials say that this is only a misunderstanding, a bad picture of Islam made by few misguided terrorists. They say that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. In fact, the word islam actually means peace in Arabic. How can you explain this difference between their opinion and yours?
Sina:
Words can mean different things to different people. It is important to understand what people mean when they use a certain word. Lets make an example. Take the word gay. Fifty years ago, gay meant exclusively cheerfulness, lighthearted excitement, merry or bright colors. Today this word has a different meaning. You wont call a cheerful person gay because it could be understood as something else.
Just as the same word can mean different things in different times, it can also mean different things in different cultures. Islam does not mean peace. It means submission. The word peace for Muslims has a different meaning. Peace, according to Muslims, will be achieved when everyone submits to Islam. Muslims can't offer peace. They can offer truce. In their minds, peace will be achieved only when you are subdued and they are the masters. Any other arrangement is not Islamic.
Recently the newly elected leaders of Hamas, who have been surprisingly honest, have spelled the concept of Islamic peace eloquently. They said that they won't give up on their quest to destroy Israel but meanwhile, as long as they are weak and realizing that such dream is not yet possible, they are willing to work out a truce, to be broken when they feel strong enough to wipe out Israel from the map and establish the "peace" as it is acceptable by Islam.
Muhammad divided the world in two sectors. One he called Dar us Salam (House of Peace) and the other, Dar al Harb (House of War). All countries, where Islam is not the ruling authority, are Dar al Harb. It is the duty of the Muslims to wage Jihad in Dar al Harb, overthrow the governments and force people into submission. This is the only kind of peace that Islam recognizes.
The concept of Islamic peace is expressed in the verse 2.193 of the Quran.
And fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.
What is fitnah? Fitnah means sedition, perfidy or mischief. In Islamic terminology it means resisting Islam or disbelief. For example this site is fitnah.
All translators of the Quran have translated fitnah as oppression, tumult, persecution, etc. This is taqiyya. They have invariably lied to conceal the real meaning of the verse and fool the Western reader.
At the end of an article written to refute me, the author offers a prayer and asks Allah to "give all Muslims the strength to remain true to Your chosen path in the face of the fitnah inflicted upon us by the enemies of Islam." I have no means of persecution. Clearly, fitnah means disbelief and criticizing Islam and not persecution.
When we say the objective of Islam is to force people into submission, it does not mean that you'll be forced into conversion. It means that you'll become a dhimmi, a subordinate to Muslims. You work and pay the Jizyyah, an extortion fee, to the Muslims who would treat you as second class citizen. They become the master race and you, their virtual slave and the source of their livelihood. .
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) " Bukhari 4, 53, 388:
The good news is that you can change your status by converting to Islam. So in a a very sarcastic sense, there is no compulsion in Islam. You convert "voluntarily". But you are free not to convert by accepting subjugation, humiliation, discrimination and constant harassment. What can be more democratic?
This meaning of "peace" is understood by all the Muslims. However they know that the non-Muslims have a different understanding of this word. So, they deceitfully promote their religion as a religion of peace taking advantage of the fact that the root of both words Islam and Salam is slm. However one means submission and the other means peace. Rest at link (6 parts).
#1
Ali Sina is a brilliant fellow, a hard worker and a knowledgeable guy. And also he is brave since he goes on working despite getting dozens of death threats every day.
However, he does not mentally discipline himself. He frequently counsels people to have pity on muslims because they are exploited by Islam and sometimes he says Muslims are just inherently liars, mentally ill, etc.
Yes he is worth reading but remember that he uses analogies that he doesn't understand; he sometimes gets so angry at the muslim condition that he loses track of his own thoughts.
Via Instapundit: It was all plotted before the fall of the USSR.
Vladimir Bukovsky, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a monster that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state....
#1
Very good interview, this should have perhaps been posted more completely; by the way, once I've catched up a little on my severely out of hand stock of books yet-to-be-read, I do plan on buying and possibly even reading one day (who knows?) his book.
#2
To paraphrase a Net blogger's rant, AMERICA IS LEFTSOCIALIST NATION MOVING TOWARDS NATIONAL AND GLOBAL LEFT-COMMUNISM - GOD HELP US ALL, THE LEFTIES DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO TO STOP THE FUTURE/PENDING VICTORY OF THE LEFT. We need Stalin to save Fascist = Limited Communist Clintonian Amerika from Stalinism; Marx from Marxism, the United Socialist Republics [USR] from the United Socialist States of Amerika/Union of Soviet States of Amerika [USSA], etal. - dem dar wily Dick-Dastardly Fascist Comunists don't how to stop dem dar wily Dick-Dastardly Communist Fascists!?
Page 15 in the .pdf version; the front-page link didnt seem to work
President Bush now says his 2004 victory over Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who is mulling a comeback in 2008, was inadvertently aided by al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. And Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who steadfastly refused to defend Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth when he ran Bushs campaign, now calls them heroes who played a crucial role in vanquishing Kerry. For the first time, the president says he was helped by bin Laden, who put out a videotaped diatribe against Bush the Friday before the 2004 election. Bush said there were enormous amounts of discussion inside his campaign about the 15-minute tape, which he called an interesting entry by our enemy into the presidential race. What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt? he said in an exclusive interview for the new book Strategery. Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because youre not sure of the effect.
I thought it was going to help, he decided. I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesnt want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush. Mehlman agreed, citing polls that show Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats on matters of national security. It reminded people of the stakes, he said in an interview for Strategery. It reinforced an issue on which Bush had a big lead over Kerry. Even the mainstream media fretted about the tapes potential to help Bush. Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite told CNN that White House strategist Karl Rove probably set up bin Laden to this thing.
The bin Laden tape was not the only curveball thrown at Bush in the closing days of the campaign.
The New York Times published a story faulting the administration for failing to safeguard a cache of
weapons in Iraq that went missing around the time of the U.S. invasion more than 18 months earlier.
Some Republicans regarded the story as a political stink bomb, much like the revelation just before the 2000 election that Bush had once been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Bush said the weapons flap was different from the DUI story, which defined me personally as opposed to my policies. And theres a difference.
The Times quoted Kerry accusing the president of incredible incompetence and calling the missing explosives one of the great blunders of Iraq. Bush responded by turning Kerrys newfound concern over weapons against him. After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq was a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons, Bush deadpanned, drawing laughter from an audience in Pennsylvania. Mehlman was similarly incredulous that Kerry would deviate from his long-held position that Bush had exaggerated the weapons threat in Iraq. I was stunned that he brought it up, the campaign manager
said. He was essentially saying it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein, even though weve just
discovered all these dangerous weapons in the country.
Politics is like a chess game, he added. If you dont think a few moves ahead, then you always end up like Homer Simpson going, Doh! Even more helpful to the Bush campaign was the flap over Kerrys Vietnam service. For the first time, Mehlman is now defending the Swift Boat veterans, who questioned Kerrys Vietnam record and savaged his claim that U.S. soldiers were war criminals. These are people who are incredible, Mehlman said of the Swifties. You may disagree with what theyre saying. But these are heroes. These are people that suffered in prison camps for America. And to respond and say, These are bums who dont have a right to speak. But other veterans who
agree with us do, is responding with a hammer and not a scalpel, he added. The Kerry campaign
seemed unable to use a scalpel. Instead, they had to use a hammer for everything.
After the election, Rove and other Bush officials initially downplayed any role the Swift Boat Veterans might have played in the campaign. But now there is widespread acknowledgment in the White House that the veterans were pivotal in vanquishing Kerry. I felt they had a very big impact, Mehlman said.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said in an interview that the Swift Boat Veterans had an impact to Kerrys detriment. I think they tended to put him on the defensive. But that impact would not have been possible had Kerry not spent so much time emphasizing his Vietnam record, Mehlman said.
I think the mistake that Kerry made was making the entire essence of his campaign that he served in Vietnam, he said. Ultimately, it wasnt that relevant of an issue. Besides, by focusing on Vietnam,
Kerry invited criticism of his 1971 congressional testimony that fellow Vietnam veterans were war
criminals, Mehlman said. No ones taking away his service, he emphasized. The question
was his judgment when he came back.
Ultimately, Kerrys emphasis on Vietnam proved self-defeating. It reinforced something about him, Mehlman said. By the end of the campaign, from a character perspective, he came across as
a guy who is just ambition over everything. He contrasted Kerry unfavorably with former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kansas, who was severely wounded in World War II, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona,
who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Dole didnt talk about his service
almost ever, Mehlman said. McCain, when he talks about it, talks about it in a way where
its very clear it affects him very deeply.
Bush was asked in the Oval Office interview whether Kerry had blundered by making Vietnam the
cornerstone of his campaign. I dont know if youd call it blunder, he replied. It didnt
work.
EXCLUSIVE SERIES
» Bill Sammon makes his debut in The Examiner as senior White House correspondent this week. Sammon is a veteran journalist, FOX News analyst and author of three previous New York Times best-sellers on
the presidency.
TOMORROW PART THREE
» How the mainstream media helped the Bush campaign
Whoa! I can't wait for that!
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/28/2006 07:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I doubt that bin laden or the Swift voters had little effect on the 04 Presidential election.
People had pretty much made up their minds who they were going to vote for.
Democrats lost the presidential elections of 2000 & 2004 because they didnt compete in the south/midwest.They essentially wrote off those areas. They didnt win a single southern state in either election. Hopefully its a mistake they wont make in future elections
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/28/2006 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think the record reflects the fact that the Democrats can't compete outside the big cities, because they're promising to take away from those that live outside the cities and give to those inside the cities.
That's my opinion, and I shall not be drawn into an argument about it. I do hope I remember to post the next part, tomorrow!
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/28/2006 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
By C. Fred Bergsten
Washington Post, Tuesday, February 28, 2006; Page A15
Nearly all objective you, and me, and ... who else?
observers of the uproar over "selling American ports to the Arabs" agree on three key elements of the situation. First, the purchase of port management operations by Dubai Ports World from a British-owned company will have no operational impact on the national security of the United States. Port owners and managers are not responsible for port security. There are risks at our ports, but they stem from the fact that the American agencies responsible for our security -- U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard -- examine only about 5 percent of incoming cargo, along with a modest portion of shipments at the point of export. But Bush's poll numbers are down, so the campaign is successful
Mid-level officials at 12 agencies of the U.S. government, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon, reviewed the Dubai investment in considerable depth, apparently with full cooperation from the company. They unanimously concluded that there was no reason to refer it to their own superiors, let alone the president. The substance of the government's vetting process, conducted through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), worked precisely as intended by the legislation under which it operates. And has operated for 30 years - see below
Second, that process contains a major flaw: its failure to inform Congress of pending transactions in a way that would enable lawmakers to express meaningful objections in an orderly manner. Wow. Meaningful and orderly? Is this guy ironic, or what?
The CFIUS process is opaque and secretive, requiring after-the-fact notification of the Hill for only the very few deals that have already been acted on through the president's personal intervention. Congress can therefore express its concerns only by leaping into individual cases with great fanfare, as in the current case and, even more so, when it in effect vetoed the bid for Unocal by the China National Offshore Oil Corp. last year even before that deal was considered by the CFIUS.
Third, it would be a grave mistake to enact new legislation that permitted Congress to exercise case-by-case review of individual applications for foreign investments in the United States. But Hilly has introduced legislation to ban foreign operators!
Such congressional micromanagement See? I said he was good at irony!
exists in other specialized policy areas such as arms exports to foreign countries. But applying it to commercial transactions would generate such uncertainties and potential delays for foreign investors that it would have a huge chilling effect on their proclivity to buy American assets. The United States needs to attract almost $1 trillion of foreign financing annually to fund our huge and growing trade and current account deficits. It would be the height of national folly to erect any such deterrent to one of the most desirable channels for such flows.
Drawing on my experience as the second chairman of the CFIUS after it was created in 1975, and on an in-depth study of the CFIUS process to be published shortly by the Institute for International Economics, I offer two suggestions. To help deal with the immediate problem, the administration should obtain and make public immediately a letter of assurance from the government of the United Arab Emirates committing itself to avoid any involvement in the business operations of Dubai Ports World and to take all steps necessary to guard against security problems. Both the government and the company have proclaimed that Dubai Ports would act solely as a commercial entity, and the company has pledged its full participation in all U.S. security programs, so it should be routine to obtain such a letter. Any violation of these commitments, by the UAE government or the company itself, would subject the company to cancellation of its approval to operate in the United States and thus force its immediate divestiture, presumably at a fire-sale price. We obtained a similar statement from the French government in 1979 to resolve concerns about the acquisition of American Motors by Renault, which was then partially government-owned. And when was the last time you heard of American Motors or Renault?
The more fundamental problem of inadequate CFIUS transparency should be resolved by a structural change in the governmental review process. The CFIUS should henceforth provide to the leadership of the relevant committees of Congress, on a confidential basis to preserve legitimate business interests, quarterly (or even monthly) reports and briefings on pending as well as completed applications for approval of specific investments. The responsible members could then register any concerns they might have directly with the relevant government agencies for consideration during the CFIUS review itself.
Similar procedures are followed in a wide range of policy areas, especially with respect to sensitive intelligence issues. They have also been used for other economic issues; for example, the Treasury Department, which chairs the CFIUS, used to conduct frequent interventions in the foreign exchange markets, and informed the members of Congress responsible in that area. The administration could simply adopt this reform on its own, or Congress, if it wants to be seen as taking action on the current issue, could amend the governing legislation.
The debate over the Dubai investment could result in real damage to U.S. economic and security interests. Foreign investment in this country might be deterred by imposition of an overly intrusive approval process; our economy would then lose the multiple benefits of such investment, and it would become even more costly to finance our external deficits. Major foreign policy costs could ensue from another rejection based solely on the nationality of the investor. But we could blame Bush for that, too, yes? The very real issues raised by this case and, more important, the government's procedures for handling such transactions on an ongoing basis, should be resolved through much more moderate and balanced measures.
The writer is director of the Institute for International Economics and a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for international affairs (1977-81). He will answer questions today at 1 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/28/2006 07:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I've often felt (both prior to deploying and since getting hurt) that I just don't give a damn about Iraq--they should all just be lined up and shot. Regardless of all the good things we did, and are doing; regardless of the good iraqis I met and worked with; regardless of how much I, and for the most part, all service members feel about what we're doing.
And then I get to thinking about the friends I made, the people that I worked with. The fine men whose lives were affected by the simple act of going to work--most of the soldiers in the Iraqi Army have to hide their identities from their friends and neighbors to protect their families from retribution. The kind of cowards we were fighting had no problems killing the wives and children of these soldier who were simply trying to make Iraq a better place to live. How many of us would be willing to risk the lives of our families for something like that? We all like to say we would, but until you're put in that position, you just never know.
Major Kareem, my counterpart, the guy who looked just like Eugene Levy, was just such a man. His house (where his family, brothers and their family, parents, and nieces and nephews all llived) was frequently the target of these attacks. They would not be scared off, and he just worked harder to try and give them a more secure home. Frequently, he would stay at work for weeks on end, sleeping in his office, so that he couldn't be followed home. Major Kareem was the best of the best--He flat didn't care what tribe you belonged to, whether you were a sunni or a shia, or even if you were an Arab. If you were dirty, he was going after you. He took my getting wounded personally, and because of that, they caught the bastard who planted the IED the next day--after he and his boys dismantled the town where I got hit. I often had to reign him in during operations, because he was being too aggressive in his methods, and getting over-extended. But he always got the job done. We saw eye-to-eye on a lot of things, and he was my friend. He often would stop by the FOB with a basket of fruit from his orchard--oranges, pomegranate, grapes--whatever was in season. Not as a bribe, just as a gift from a gentleman farmer--all he ever wanted to be. I visited him in the US hospital in Balad (the same one I would be in months later) after he was injured in a truck bomb attack where he stood his ground with a pistol as insurgents attacked his headquarters. I even drove him home from the hospital in my truck--an act he asked for the honor of repaying once I returned to Iraq.
Because of his tenacity, character, and loyalty, I recommended him for command of the whole Iraqi battalion in our area of operations. He was eventually given the job, (we had to get rid of his politically connected, and utterly worthless, boss). MAJ Kareem was given the job, and recently promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. A few days ago he was killed by a suicide bomber in the Old Baqubah Market. I don't doubt that he was doing his job, looking for shitheads, being a warrior. I will miss him dearly.
Goodbye, Ra'ad (Major) Kareem.
--Chuck
I want to go back, right now, just to be with his family and his men. And to find and kill the sons of whores who planned and resourced this attack. And their families.
#1
I hope Lt. Col. Kareem is, at this moment, jeering the roasting shithead in hell who killed him, surrounded by the 72 adoring Houris plying him with wine and grapes...
#3
there are Iraqis who're above and beyond the leftist rabble we have living comfy and large in our very own nation. Major Kareem kicks ass - still - when his story is repeated.
thx JE
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2006 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Why, oh why, must such integrity and honor be so lacking just where it is needed so vitally? Rest in peace, Major Kareem. Iraq weeps for the want of you.
#5
I can't imagine such a man of action and integrity lying about for very long being fluttered over. The Major has no doubt already started reorganizing Paradise, applying what he learnt from his beloved American teachers. Those poor houris are no doubt learning to type and file even as we speak. ;-)
Chuck makes it sound like the Iraqi army is full of men like this. I hope so.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
