 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought October 29, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
It’s always hard to pinpoint when a historic shift takes place. It is rarely as easy as Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 thesis that launched the Reformation and loosed the grip of the Catholic Church on the governance of Europe or when Henry VIII pushed Rome out of England to create the Anglican Church. When, however, did the tiny Muslim community in America, estimated to be between two and three million — by contrast there are some six million Jews in America — begin to assert its takeover? I am going to mark it from October 19, 2006 when the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest circulation daily, ran an article entitled “She’s got it covered: Designer seeks to dress the style-conscious Muslim woman” in its feature news section. “Many Muslim women wear hijab as an expression of the Islamic tradition of modesty,” noted the article about a 27-year old American Muslim fashion designer. Born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, she had converted to Islam as a student at New York University after she married her husband, a Muslim. When the media begin to find ways to offer up a positive image of Islam, you know they have probably decided that the game is over and we in the West have lost. The American media is expert at showing the white flag of surrender. They have been trumpeting the end of the world for decades now. Wrong about the Soviet Union right up to the day it imploded. Wrong about the predictions that the Earth could not sustain six billion people. Wrong about the availability of mineral and energy resources. Wrong about global warming. Wrong about cutting taxes. Wrong about the current excellent state of the U.S. economy. And now the surrender-addicts are ready, like our European cousins, to concede that Western civilization should just roll over and give up in the face of the worldwide Islamic jihad. Europeans stopped attending Europe’s churches and stopped having enough babies to replace themselves in favor of creating totally unsustainable welfare states. Instead, they imported millions Muslims to do the work they became too old or too lazy to do themselves. The United States, too, has created a cradle-to-grave socialist system that is going broke at an alarming rate even while the economy is thriving. The Bush administration is conspiring with Canada and Mexico to erase our national borders in order to create a North American Union that will throw our national sovereignty down the rat-hole of a vast bureaucracy that will not have to be responsive to those awful American voters. As Mark Steyn says in his brilliant new book America Alone, “We are living through a rare moment: the self-extinction of the civilization which, for good or ill, shaped the age we live in.” The British, part of the European Union, should have paid heed in 1990 when “The Muslim Manifesto: A Strategy for Survival” was promulgated to create the Council of British Muslims to act as “a Muslim parliament” in a nation that gave us the Magna Carta, detailing the rules of property rights and individual freedoms. These days, the nations with the least amount of freedom are predominately Muslim. Britain’s Muslim Manifesto [click here to download a copy in pdf format] made it clear that “Political and cultural subservience goes against their grain” because “at its inception Islam created a political platform from which Muslims were to launch themselves on a global role as founders of great states, empires and a world civilization and culture.” Why should an article in a leading U.S. newspaper mark the beginning of the end? According to the UK’s Muslim Manifesto, “The fact is that a Muslim woman cannot be a western woman.” The problem for Muslims in Great Britain was that “There are laws on the British Statute Book that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah.” “We are Muslims first and last.” “Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having British nationality by birth or naturalization does not absolve the Muslim from his or her duty to participate in jihad: this participation can be active service in armed struggle abroad and/or the provision of material and moral support to those engaged in such struggle anywhere in the world.” “Islam is our guide in all situations.” Ultimately this became clear to the non-Muslim citizens of England when on July 7, 2005, born-and-bred Muslim British citizens killed some of them in London’s subways and buses. In August this year, it scared a lot of people to learn that British Muslims were planning to destroy ten commercial airliners and kill thousands of travelers. Assimilation, according to the Manifesto, wasn’t even an option. Why need it be? By the early 1990s, there were already about 1,000 mosques in Great Britain, many of them former Anglican churches that had been abandoned and sold to Muslims. As is the case of France today, the Manifesto recommended that “The Muslim community may have to define ‘no go’ areas where the exercise of ‘freedom of speech’ against Islam will not be tolerated.” In the now famous words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” If America, the lone superpower, does not hold out against the march of Islam, it will fall into the Dark Ages of Muslim control, a place where born-and-bred Americans like the fashion designer will determine what American women will wear and other Muslims will impose the Sharia law of Islam upon all of us. The next time you want to mock the “fundamentalist” Christians, famed for their patriotism, think again. The next time you shrug when you hear your local school system has banned the playing or singing of Christmas carols, think again. The next time you are inclined to say or think unkind things about American or Israeli Jews, think again. The next time your neighborhood, community or city yields to some new Islamic demand to conform to their “religious” rules, think again. The next time you read demands that something not be published or aired in America because it offends Muslim sensibilities, think again. The next time anyone tells you that Islam preaches tolerance or peace, think again. This is how nations and ultimately western civilization will slip-slide into a world no American would ever want for their children and grandchildren. |
||||||
It is quite amusing to see the way the Democrats have so carefully shaped the debate and prepared the battlefield with salvo after salvo of “Quagmire!” “Bogged down!” and “No exit strategy!” in spite of the fact that they know they voted almost unanimously for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But like anyone who is a slow opportunist, they have been miraculously distracted at the absolute last moment. They have accidentally reshaped the debate and turned the spotlight on that one area where they dare not cast a spotlight. I’m inclined to say they don’t have a learning curve but that wouldn’t be very fair. Their learning curve is more like a loop. Anyone who has ever tried to write a program for a computer knows what that is. There is usually only one thing that you can do when you get caught in a loop and that is shut down. Fortunately for us the only way to shut them down is by not letting them back into office. This dreaded area for the Democrats is the Foley case, which seems to have brought the spotlight back on their lack of a forward moving learning curve. We now have Jim Webb who says that oral sex between a father and son such as he wrote about in his book "Lost Soldiers" ‘is "not sex." He said it was inappropriate to read the excerpt on the radio. He also said that he saw this happen with a father and a four-year-old son in Bangkok and that the excerpt "is illuminative." Unfortunately he is right about that. We have another Democrat saying that this particular act isn’t sex. He went on to say that his opponent has nothing to say about the war in Iraq and the country was breaking itself into pieces economically. He didn’t explain exactly what he meant, however. The important part for him was not providing anything that resembles a solution. He just felt it necessary to spew more of that liberal nihilism for which they are all so famous. I ran across two New York Times editorials disguised as news that spoke volumes about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. One of them stated that the Democrats have decreed the gay marriage debate will not have any effect on this election. Read: “Ignore the man behind the curtain.” These people all seem to live in the land of Oz. The nihilism that is so prevalent in the liberal mind is a threat to all of us. We haven’t had any terrorist acts committed here since the 9/11 attacks. For those who don’t remember that was actually part deux of the first WTC attack, about which Clinton did nothing but talk about what he would do (a common liberal trait I might add). When the first attacks occurred, the liberals pushed through a very important piece of legislation. It was the "Don’t ask, don’t tell" gay policy for the military. Awesome! At least they take care of their constituency, right? But there was an even more interesting article in NYT about the use of hand-sanitizers by politicians. It turns out that most Republicans use it but it sounded like most Democrats don’t. But why would they? At least they are consistent on something. Since they are against defending the country, why would they be smart enough to protect themselves? An excellent example is Gov. Bill Richards of New Mexico. He was in charge of the Los Alamos Labs when nuclear secrets leaked, vanished and then were determined to not have existed at all. His take on the use of hand sanitizers was quite telling. He said; “The great part about politics is that you’re touching humanity. You’re going to collect bacteria just by existing.” By the way, he has the Guinness World Book of Records place of honor for shaking the most hands in an eight-hour period. Did he use a hand sanitizer? Maybe the "don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy applies there, too. Or maybe one day he’ll be quoted as saying, “I don’t know what happened. I opened the window and influenza.” The liberals think that the war in Iraq and corruption in DC are going to be the primary focus of this election. Never mind the fact that those who are under investigation are stepping down or are in the process of being investigated. Liberals such as Studds, Kennedy, Clinton, Frank and many others never step down. They have an understanding with us that they are just that way and we’ll all have to accept it. The scariest thing in this election is the distant threat of Pelosi being speaker of the house and trying to impose San Francisco values on the rest of us. I wonder how many people will adopt the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy after this election. I had a very difficult time finding anyone who would admit voting for Clinton after he had been in a few weeks. If the liberals gain any traction, it is because of the stupidity of those unprincipled creatures known as the swing voters. They’re the ones who decide at the last minute who they are going to vote for. It’s always based on a stupendous lack of information because they don’t pay attention until the last few days before the election. That is why our politics are such a mess. Fortunately the liberals are once again all over the map like cockroaches because one of their own accidentally turned on the lights. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I like how there are people in this country who run for office without having any idea why they want to win. Lynn Swann is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Swann is running for governor here in Pennsylvania this year. The only thing he is promising in his campaign commercials is “change.” Does this kind of strategy actually work with people? Why? We don’t even know what kind of changes he’s talking about. Maybe he means pocket change. Or changing diapers. Who knows? He could mean sex changes. One minute you’re voting the guy into office; the next he’s turning men into women and women into men. Does this sound like something you want to be stuck with for the next four years? If Lynn Swann becomes governor, I am burning my bra in protest. I think anyone who runs for office should respect my vote the same way I respect traffic cops. In truth, I don’t respect them whatsoever. But I respect their authority enough to pretend I respect it. I wish politicians would at least pretend they respect me. Whenever a politician accuses his opponent of being “dirty” or “sleazy,” it usually means that politician is also dirty or sleazy. In fact, it usually means they are both. Another word for “dirty campaigning” is simply “campaigning.” Most campaign ads need to be watched from this point of view. I think my favorite ads nowadays would have to be the ones where they try to artfully weave the “I approved this message” shtick into the message, as if they were going to say it even if they didn’t have to. If there were Emmys for campaign ads, they would be called the Slimeys, and these ads would be the winners every time. Here’s how they work: A guy or gal who’s running for office comes on the air for about thirty seconds, talks directly to the cameras, and then closes up by saying, “I approved this message because _____.” The “because” is the key part to what they are doing, because the “because” is what lets them turn the ad into a call for action (or a cry for help). For example, “I approved this message because it’s time for change.” Or, “I approved this message because I need your support.” I just love the awkwardness of these moments. We already know these people approved the message. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have filmed it. The only time we would need further clarification is if they “approved this message because my campaign manager is holding a gun to my butt hole.” Just once I would like to see some politician turn this thing around. Just once I would like to see some truth in advertising. “My name is such and such, and I approved this mess we’re in.” “I’m Lynn Swann, and I approved this sex change.” If I ever run for office, I am going to revolutionize American politics. I’m going to start at the bottom and be the only guy ever to hold every office at least once. Starting with dogcatcher. Here’s my campaign slogan: “Jonathan David Morris. He really catches dogs.” Then, when I get all the way up to president someday: “Jonathan David Morris. He really has three names.” The way I figure, people need something to sink their teeth into. You’ve really gotta show them the money. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose — through their elected representatives — to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congress passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you? You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money! Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year. I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us. Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government! One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible-- the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits. Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week. Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
||||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 8:11 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
||||||
