The Trouble in Iran (Updated)

The clashes in Iran have already started today, after the Ayatollah's speech yesterday warning against any more street protests. The Iranian people have apparently had enough and will not give up. Good for them! Obama has at least released a statement supporting the Iranian protesters, although it could have been stronger. Every little bit helps. Paul Kengor writes about how President Reagan handled this sort of thing here.

In my last blog post I wrote that I would be refraining from links, but that isn't always a practical thing to do. You can find information on the Iranian protests in many news outlets, but I would like to point out some that I think have good up-to-date coverage. One is Gateway Pundit, a blog that includes reports, photos, and videos. Two more are The Guardian and Telegraph in Britain.

I wouldn't say that Mir Hossein Mousavi is the ideal opposition leader. In the past, he has proven not much different from Ahmadinejad. He only got on the ballot because he was approved by the Guardian Council. Still, there is hope that he may go with the persistant rebellion by the people and can and will make needed changes. See here. See "Cracks Begin to Show in the Iranian Regime" by Ryan Mauro.

There is a lot at stake and I wish the Iranian people success in their rebellion against tyranny.

Updated to Add: Michelle Malkin has a blog post up with links to a twitter page and updates elsewhere.

An Assortment of Things to Consider

With so much going on in our world today, it is hard to focus on any one thing. We do our best to keep track, but we can feel that things are spinning out of control. I have gathered a few articles that may let you think a little more deeply about some of today's concerns.

"Offshore Oil Drilling: An Environmental Bonanza" by Humberto Fontova

"Why the Law is Foreign to Ginsburg" by Selwyn Duke

"Koh Fails the Democracy Test" by John Fonte

"Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture" by Dennis Prager

"Survival Optional" by Thomas Sowell

"Soros Show Trials" by Matthew Vadum

"Presidential Poison" from the Wall Street Journal opinion page

Those articles cover a range of issues, yet don't touch on them all. You can read one viewpoint in the mainstream media (see "Media Sharks No More" by Jed Babbin), but you may not be aware that there are other ways of looking at these issues, and what I try to do is let you be aware of those other ways.

More Political Stuff

Yesterday's post about the torture memos and "truth commissions" and all have me thinking about the issue. I ran across two other columns today that give more to consider. See what you think.

"Conservatives Torn on Interrogation 'Truth Commission'" by Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media

"The Torture Controversy" by Rob Miller at American Thinker

Both bring out some of the consequences that having such 'truth commissions' and trials would set for our country.

On a much more cheerful note, indulge in some daydreaming about what it might be like if Texas seceded from the Union with this Capitol Hill Coffee House column by Richard Geno titled "Texas Does Not Have Enough Land".

The Torture Issue (Updated)

Torture is a touchy subject. Few people can tolerate even the discussion of such a topic. I know that I don't like to think about it or read about it, not even in fiction. It has come to the forefront lately, particularly since President Obama felt the need to release Bush administration memos about torture. I don't know what his motives were, although I suspect it has a lot to do with appeasing his leftist followers from his continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps it is an effort to distract the public from the economic issues here at home. Be that as it may, there is talk of creating a "truth commission" to look into the torture issue.

I ran across an interesting piece at Weekly Standard titled "Telling the Truth" by Noemie Emery. It is a very thought-provoking article and will give you a new perspective on this issue.

Updated to add: This link is to a video of Norah O'Donnell interviewing Liz Cheney (daughter of the former Vice President), former assistant deputy Secretary of State, regarding torture and the memos. It is worth watching. It runs 8:36. http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/04/25/liz-cheney-breaks-nora-odonnell-on-torture-discussion/

Think About This

"Islam: Not Just Another Religion"

There is an article at American Thinker titled "Islam: Not Just Another Religion". It is written by Janet Levy. This is a serious article and definitely not a politically correct article, but it should be required reading for every American if we want to hold on to our freedom and our ability to worship as we see fit.

The first paragraph of the article says this:

This campaign season, presidential candidates seem intent on battling each other with a war of words over universal healthcare, tax reform, immigration, the war in Iraq, the economy and Biblical literalism. Yet, they have spent few words on and have literally ignored the greatest threat to America and Western civilization since the Cold War: the global jihad.

We need to talk about global jihad. It is a threat to everyone everywhere. There may be moderate Muslims out there who do not support global jihad, but they are remaining silent. Many people think that it's not polite, or politically correct, to speak out about wrong being done in the name of religion. Unless, of course, it's to speak out against Christians and Jews. They remain fair game.

Back to the article. Ms. Levy makes many good points about just why Islam and the global jihad they are waging is so dangerous. For example:

While this may appear to be benign, election-year activity, it important to note that CAIR's aims are far from that. In 1998, CAIR's founder, Omar Ahmad, stated that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

And:

Worldwide, Islamic fundamentalists continue to make inroads into Western culture, political structures and in the economic system, while, at the same time, insisting on severe and outrageous punishments for even minor violations of sharia or Islamic law. It is unprecedented that a minority group that freely immigrated to the United States and Europe of its own accord is now endeavoring to overhaul Western civilization to its Koran-dictated, specifications. The West, particularly America, has a tradition of welcoming people from other cultures and practitioners of different religions. However, immigrants have always assimilated and strengthened American society rather than demand that we adopt their ways at the expense of our own.

Many Westerners, who worship at the altar of multiculturalism and erroneously believe that Islam is just another faith, fail to understand the inherent cultural and political dangers of a religion that is a consummate ideology for the faithful. Unwitting Westerners write off barbaric punishments as mere cultural differences, enthusiastically embrace blatant acts of appeasement and readily respond to demands for special privileges and allowances never before conferred on other groups.

Also:

In places like Saudi Arabia, the epicenter and primary global financier and promoter of Wahhabism, an austere form of Islam that interprets the Koran literally, social rules are severe, extensive and often brutal. Gender apartheid is enforced with separate libraries for men and women. Starbucks coffeehouses are divided into "male" and "family-only" sections, and hotels are completely devoid of a female presence, as all personnel, including maids, are male. A rape victim was recently sentenced to 200 lashes, a punishment that was increased when her lawyer complained of its injustice. At the same time that the Saudi government is sponsoring 32,000 students on visas to the United States, the standard Saudi elementary and high school curriculum teaches hatred for Christians and Jews.

And:

Meanwhile, six years after 9/11, most Americans remain ignorant about the history, nature and intent of Islamic jihad. They know little about the worldwide presence of Islamist groups, the hateful rhetoric directed toward non-Muslims spewing from mosques and madrassas, the use of the Internet by Muslim radicals to spread their propaganda and connect with each other, the extent of weapons arsenals and nuclear proliferation, and the geopolitical interconnections between countries in the Middle East, Europe, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South America, North Korea, Southeast Asia and Africa.

Ms. Levy's final paragraph says this:

An ideology that endeavors to supplant our laws, culture and religious beliefs poses a dangerous threat and is not a candidate for coexistence. We had better face the reality of true, Islamic doctrine and forcefully fight its encroachment into our society. It is a peril to our way of life if we wish to preserve the liberal and enlightened democracy that is America.

I think we have allowed political correctness to run amok if we can't even warn our country about a very serious danger that it faces.

As we consider presidential candidates, it would be a good idea to check and see what kind of courage they have.

Latest Information on WMDs in Iraq

At FrontPage Magazine there is an article about WMDs in Iraq. The article is called "Shattering Conventional Wisdom about Saddam's WMDs" by John Loftus. This is an interim report as there are literally many shelf-miles of documents to be gone through and translated, but what has been learned so far shows that while the WMDs aren't all buried in the sand, there definitely were WMDs long after 1991--right up to just before we invaded Iraq, in fact.

The article isn't too long, and is well worth the time to read it. Here is the first paragraph:

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com. This document research has been supplemented with dozens of interviews.

The next two paragraphs provide something of a summary which is documented by the rest of the article and the research paper mentioned above:

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Here is what the last paragraph says:

Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam’s own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.

There is still much to learn, of course, but the information gathered so far is beginning to answer a lot of questions.

More Serious Situations are Being Ignored

You may notice a theme to today's three posts--that of Americans asleep at the wheel and other Americans not being informed about what is going on in America and in the world. It is time we woke up, but it is also time for the MSM to stop promoting their political agendas and start presenting factual reports of important news to the American people.

At The New Media Journal, there is an article by Dr. Paul Williams, PhD. The title of this piece is "Jihad Among Junipers and Mint Juleps" and provides yet more evidence of news not being reported and serious situations being ignored. The article reports on a visit to a compound in Virginia. Yes, that is our state of Virginia in the United States of America. Here are some excerpts, but I recommend reading it all.

The Islamic practice of taqiyya, meaning “deception” or “concealment,” has been refined into an art-form at a jihad training compound for African American converts near the small town of Red House in Charlotte County, Virginia.

The fifty-acre compound is easy to find since the main road leading to it has been named Sheikh Gilani Lane in honor of the guru and founder of a terrorist organization with close ties to Osama bin Laden. The Board of Supervisors of Charlotte Country are either oblivious to the threat of radical Islam on American soil or clandestine advocates of the great jihad.

At the end Sheikh Gilani Lane is a sign – barely visible through the overgrown brush – that reads, “The Muslims of the Americas.” The sign serves to make the place appear as an innocuous religious settlement, until one realizes that The Muslims of the Americas is, in reality, an outgrowth of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, an alleged sister agency to al-Qaeda.

And:

What is taking place in the Red House complex? Is the complex amidst the rolling hills of southern Virginia a peaceful Islamic village where devout Muslims have gathered to retreat from the hustle and bustle of contemporary American life in order to pray, meditate, and to live in strict accordance with the traditions of their faith? Or is it something more sinister – something that should alarm every American who is concerned about the threat of radical Islam?

These factors are clear:

1) There is an underground bunker at the complex that may be used for paramilitary training and possibly to harbor deadly weapons for use in the great jihad against Christians and Jews. Twenty-four members of this Jamaat ul-Fuqra complex already have been arrested for trafficking in illegal firearms, including the ammunition for AK-47s.

2) Members of the compound have been sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan for specialized training in guerilla warfare – a fact confirmed by Thomas P. Gallagher, a Special Agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

3) The Red House compound regularly receives visits from suspicious guests from Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

4) The Red House cell of ul-Fuqra has metastasized so that similar Islamic compounds have popped up in neighboring Prince George and Campbell Counties. The 25 acre facility in Prince George County is situated on Mahareen Road, a name selected by the Muslim newcomers and duly approved by the local ordinance officials. Mahareen is the plural of the Arabic mahar, meaning “clever one.” The facility in Campbell County is considerably larger, occupying more than 100 acres. An additional compound reportedly has materialized in Bedford County near the city of Roanoke.

5) Several Virginia compounds appear to possess obstacle courses, and firing ranges.

6) Members of the compounds have been known to refer to themselves as “soldiers of Allah” and “Mohammad’s commandos.”

7) What happens in the Red House compound stays in the Red House compound. The members of the radical Islamic community rarely appear in the nearby town; conduct little business with local merchants; and stay to themselves.

And:

Knowing the need for new recruits, Gilani turned to the penal system and focused his attention on converting incarcerated blacks to his radical Islamic doctrine. Imams and religious instructors were dispatched to local, state, and federal prison facilities to accomplish this objective. The results were mind-boggling. Thousands converted on a weekly basis, drawn to the offers of protection, special meals, and release from work detail for daily prayers and the entire month of Ramadan.

Gilani soon came to the realization that it would be financially advantageous to train new recruits for the holy war on American soil rather than to pay the freight of sending them to Pakistan, and the sites of his other training camps throughout the world. And so, Islamberg in Hancock, New York came into being. Soon other hamaats were established in such places as Hyattsville, Maryland; Falls Church, Virginia; Macon, Georgia; York, South Carolina; Dover, Tennessee; Buena Vista, Colorado; Talihina, Oklahoma; Tulane Country, California; Commerce, California; and Onalaska, Washington. The Red House compound cropped up in 1993. Others are under construction, including an expansive facility in Sherman, Pennsylvania. How many hamaats are now in place throughout the United States is anyone’s guess. A low-ball figure is 38.

Before becoming a citizen of the Red House compound or any of the other Fuqra communities, the recruits – primarily inner city black men who became converts in prison – are compelled to sign an oath that reads: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.” They are also obliged to contribute 70% of their welfare checks and other sources of income to Muslims of the Americas, Inc.

And:

Even though Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been involved in bloody bombings and sundry criminal activities, recruited thousands of members from federal and state penal systems, and appears to be operating paramilitary facilities for militant Muslims, the terror organization remains to be placed on the official US Terror Watch List, and The Muslims of the Americas continue to operate, flourish, and expand as a legitimate nonprofit, tax-deductible charity.

Meanwhile, the hills of rural Virginia are alive with the sound of jihad.

But few, it seems, are listening.

Will we begin to listen?

The Seriousness of Our Situation

At The New Media Journal is an article by Jeffrey Epstein titled "Failure is not an Option". All Americans should read this piece and think seriously about what it says.

One thing Mr. Epstein has to say is this:

America is currently engaged in a deadly war that has the potential to last for decades and cost millions of innocent lives. Most experts agree that a far more deadly attack is imminent – a catastrophic strike involving a combination of tactical nuclear and/or radiological “dirty” weapons. Yet, Washington refuses to take legitimate actions to secure our homeland – that is, to properly identify the enemy, seal our borders and inoculate a number of terrorist-front groups that freely operate on our soil; subversive organizations that seek our destruction, spread seeds of hatred, fundraise for the enemy, support international acts of terrorism, recruit thousands of disgruntled “home-growns” and prepare scores of their followers to perpetrate acts of violence.

Of greater concern is the administration’s failure to come clean with the American people regarding numerous terrorist hits that we have already suffered – attacks both leading up to and following 9/11.

For unknown reasons, Federal law enforcement agencies continue to misrepresent barbaric acts of violence as being anything other than Islamist-inspired – a reckless policy that, in the long run, will only cost more lives. There’s no legitimate reason to hide the truth from our citizenry while blood hemorrhages in various locations across America. An educated, vigilant society will only make our shopping malls, highways, houses of worship, college campuses and federal buildings safer to visit. Additionally, surviving family members deserve to know what really happened to their loves ones.

While in a holding pattern awaiting the unthinkable – news of simultaneous nuclear detonations occurring in major U.S Cities – our State Department is reaching out to those same terrorist-host nations that are conspiring to exterminate us. If that isn’t enough, the Department of Education is in the process of opening twenty Arabic-teaching schools for Muslim students across America, Kansas City International Airport recently installed foot baths to accommodate Muslim travelers and several federal agencies (including the FBI and TSA) have contracted with CAIR (a terror-friendly Islamic advocacy group) to provide sensitivity training to their field agents and employees.

Yet again we are either not hearing necessary news from the MSM, or they are reporting incidents separately, without regard to how they tie in to the big picture. If they at least report some of it, we have a chance to connect the dots ourselves, although the leftist/multicultural/diversity crowd will certainly try to shout down any such sensible efforts. Do they not realize that their freedom to shout down others is at stake?

Mr. Epstein has more. Give this more than a passing thought:

According to our nation’s leading counter-terrorism experts, it’s far later in the game than most folks realize, for the enemy has accomplished much in terms of their infiltration and entrenchment on our soil. These radical Islamist barbarians truly believe that America is their’s for the taking. They’re convinced that their imperialistic drive to conquer our nation is far stronger than our willingness to fight for what’s rightfully ours. Unfortunately, they’re probably right since just a scant few of us are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to resist these cretins at any cost.

Their victory would mean the end of the United States and the end of the free world as we know it. To them, it is not about politics, it is about religion, a radical religion where the law allows for beheadings, stoning and maiming; a radical religion that uses terror as its tool of choice to keep the masses in line.

There isn’t a better time to draw a line in the sand, take a stand and be heard.

Where the battle against the aggressive totalitarianism of Islamofascism is concerned, it is well past the time to act. If we allow politics to infiltrate the process of disseminating fact-based information – the truth – about the lethal foe we face we risk repeating the mistakes made in the waning days of Vietnam only this time the genocide may very well happen to us...on American soil.

Failure is not an option. To quote Winston Churchill:

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Our situation in the world is indeed serious and needs to be attended to. For a beginning, American citizens need to give more attention to what is happening here and throughout the rest of the world.

Iran has Five American Hostages

Where is the coverage on the fact that the Iranians are detaining five Americans? I have heard nothing about this on the Mainstream Media (MSM).

At Jewish World Review Michael Ledeen writes a column, titled "The Invisible Crisis: What if Iran took Hostages and No One Noticed?", on the five Americans being held in Iran. Mr. Ledeen begins by writing:

Rarely have so many journalists, politicians and commentators so totally missed a headline. There are now five American hostages in Iran. Each case has been largely treated by itself, almost as if it were an oddity, something requiring a special explanation, instead of another piece in a luminously clear pattern whose meaning should be intuitively obvious to us all.

The five American hostages are:

Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington and the wife of the distinguished historian Shaul Bakash;

Parnaz Azima, a journalist for radio Farda, the Farsi-language component of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;

Ali Shakeri, a founding board member at the University of California, Irvine’s Center for Citizen Peacebuilding;

Kian Tajbakhsh, a consultant working for George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Robert A. Levinson, a former FBI officer reportedly investigating tobacco smuggling on behalf of a private client. He disappeared after he flew to Iran’s Kish Island in March.

How is it that this has been ignored? Ledeen goes on to say:

The two women — Esfandiari and Azima — were regular visitors to Iran, and both were visiting their mothers at the time of their arrests.

Iranian and Iranian-supported terrorists have been trying unsuccessfully to capture Americans in Iraq for some time (a hostage-taking operation failed last September, for example), but they found that the Americans fought back. They have now snatched unarmed Americans within Iranian borders. Several of them have been charged with espionage. Esfandiari has been accused of an additional crime: being married to a Jew. In the words of a website closely tied to President Ahmadinejad, Esfandiari is “married to Shaul Bakhash, a Jew, (and) is one of the leading figures in the international Zionist lobby planning the overthrow of the Iranian regime, including the Zionist regime’s plans to attack Iran.”

Actually, Esfandiari is one of the leading figures in the intellectual/scholarly opposition to the Bush administration, Azima works for an organization that has been a feckless voice of confusion and a frequent critic of American policy in the Middle East, and Tajbakhsh and Shakeri are advocates of dialogue with Iran. I don’t know anything about Levinson’s politics or religion.

Not that the actual views of the hostages have anything to do with their plight; they are hostages simply because they are Americans.

Why would Iran do this, you ask? Here's Ledeen's take on that:

The Americans were taken hostage for the same reasons the regime has routinely taken foreign hostages from the first year of its existence: to resolve internal power struggles, to demonstrate to the Iranian people the hopelessness of their condition by directly challenging the infidels to do anything about the humiliation of their countrymen, and to impose their will on a Western world the mullahs view as feckless and paralyzed. When the American embassy was overrun in the fall of 1979, Khomeini famously proclaimed that the Americans “can’t do a thing,” and today the regime is trying to show that neither the Americans nor the Brits (five more of whom were taken hostage in the past couple of days) can do anything to challenge the mullahcracy.

Ledeen goes into some detail and one of his points is this:

Message to the Iranian People
Two of the American hostages — Esfandiari and Tajbakhsh — have been charged with attempting to subvert the Islamic Republic and organize a “soft revolution” against the regime. At the same time, the mullahs have launched a new wave of political repression against students, teachers, women, intellectuals and, most recently, scientists. The information ministry, a.k.a. the secret intelligence service, recently declared that any Iranian who attended overseas conferences would automatically fall under suspicion of cooperating with foreign-espionage operations. All these measures are symptomatic of a regime that knows it is hated by most Iranians, and fears a popular uprising.

It is a basic tenet of the Iranians’ worldview that nothing of great significance will occur in the world without American support, which in practice means they are unlikely to launch a revolution until and unless they see signs of such support. It also means that the mullahs constantly seek to demonstrate that America is impotent, thus hoping to discourage potential challenges from below. What better way than to take American (and British) hostages, and show that the United States (and Her Majesty’s government) are powerless to do anything about it?

He finishes with this:

Messianic movements of the sort led by the Islamic Republic can inspire masses of people, but they are uniquely vulnerable, because any dramatic setback raises a frightening question: Has divine support suddenly been removed? It follows that we should strain to defeat them, primarily by supporting their own gravediggers, the people of Iran.

Alas, not even that celebrated warmonger, George W. Bush, has the will to support democratic revolution in Iran, or even to say the simple words “we want regime change in Tehran.” His secretary of State insists that we do not want regime change, but only a change in the behavior of the regime. Which is rather like saying that the best way to fight evil is by reading the Psalms. Instead of vigorously defending the Americans outrageously arrested and incarcerated in Iran, we opened a new round of negotiations with their captors, and the killers of our troops in Iraq, on Memorial Day. Yes, there are American warships in the Gulf, but no one in his right mind expects them to do anything other than show the flag.

But then, nobody even seems to have noticed the existence of a hostage crisis. Why would anyone expect the American government to do anything about it?

There is a lot going on in this world that the American public is uninformed about. Some is our fault for not keeping up with current events, of course, but some is because of the selective "reporting" practices of the MSM. I highly recommend reading all of Michael Ledeen's column.

A Fine Essay about Memorial Day

At National Review Online is a wonderful essay about Memorial Day by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. Mr. Smith is described at the foot of the article as "A former U.S. Marine infantry leader, W. Thomas Smith Jr. writes about military issues and has covered war in the Balkans, on the West Bank, and in Iraq. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications." The essay is called "It's Not Political" and gives some history of the day and also some thoughtful comments.

An excerpt:

Point being: no matter what flags Americans have served under — or causes they have fought for — since initially choosing between the colonies and the Crown back in 1775, all are indeed Americans.

And most of them have fought less over the politics of a given conflict and more from the sheer fact that they were the ones responsible for defending the homeland or its interests abroad when politics and diplomacy had broken down.

Another:

One of the oft-told stories of the American Civil War is one in which a U.S. Army officer asks a young Confederate soldier, who had just been taken prisoner by Union forces, if he (the Confederate) owned slaves. When the prisoner said no, the officer asked why he was fighting on the side of the rebellion. The Confederate matter-of-factly responded, “Because you’re here.”

Sounds simple, but for the Confederate soldier, taking up arms against the enemy had nothing really to do with politics or such lofty mid-19th-century issues as slavery and its abolition. It had everything to do with the fact that his country had been attacked. And if his fellow countrymen were going to shoulder weapons and march against the enemy, how could he not?

And:

“Memorial Days began very soon after the war, and concurrently by both Northern and Southern groups,” Joe Long, curator of education at the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum, tells National Review Online. “There’s a book entitled Race and Reunion that claims that the very first Memorial Day service was held by black Americans in honor of Union soldiers.”

Long adds that Northern and Southern observances were organized by ladies’ memorial associations. “Those early memorial services were very much driven by women.”

I hope you will take the time to read and ponder this essay.

The View from Israel

At Jewish World Review writer Caroline B. Glick of The Jerusalem Post has a few instructive things to say about the war on terror. She has written two columns, "Must We Lose This War?" and "The Long Road to Victory," both of which are worth the few minutes it will take you to read them in their entirety.

In "Must We Lose This War?" posted 6 April 2007, Ms. Glick has this to say about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria:

The President's criticism was well-founded. By visiting Damascus, Pelosi strengthened Assad's view that the free world has no problem with his behavior. Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Muallem made this clear Tuesday when, speaking to a Kuwaiti newspaper Tuesday, Muallen said that Pelosi's visit proved that Syria's international isolation, which began after Damascus masterminded the Februaray 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, is officially over.

Other Syrian officials made clear that far from softening Syria's policies, Pelosi's visit, like those of European leaders will only toughen Syria's positions. As Imad Moustapha, Syria's ambassador in Washington put it, " Syria will not hurriedly offer concessions when it refused to offer them under much greater pressure from the United States in the past." Wednesday Pelosi stated triumphantly, "We were very pleased with the assurances we received from [Assad that] he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."

Yet this is a lie. Over the past several weeks, it has become abundantly clear that Syria is preparing to attack Israel in the coming months. If Pelosi had bothered to pay attention, she would have noted the terrorists from Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq passing her at the Damascus airport en route to training camps in Syria and Iran.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also visited Syria recently. Of her visit, Ms. Glick says:

On the face of it, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who also paid a visit to Syria this week, seems to take a stronger stand on the issues than Pelosi. While visiting Ramallah she called for Hamas to accept Israel. While in Lebanon she called for Syria to stop arming Hizbullah. While in Israel, as is her wont, she said that 70 years after her nation murdered a third of the Jewish people, she strongly opposes letting Iran acquire the means to kill another six million Jews.

Strong words. Unfortunately, Germany's actions tell a different story. As German political scientist Matthias Kuntzel pointed out in a recent paper, through its support for German trade with Iran, Merkel's government is a central driver of the Iranian economy and so enables Iran to finance both the global jihad and its nuclear weapons program.

When I read these things, I am left wondering why anyone thinks negotiations in the Middle East are even possible, if no one bothers to be truthful or to state their positions accurately. Ms. Glick writes about several other recent actions and words, including some from Britain, the EU, and the Bush White House, that are causing the Middle East problems to worsen. She ends with these statements, however:

If maintained, the current policy trend will lead us directly to the worst-case scenario. In this scenario, after the US leaves Iraq in shame, or remains only to watch the country officially become an Iranian proxy, Israelwill find itself encircled and under attack from Iran's proxies as Iran itself becomes a nuclear power.

But it is far from inevitable that the current trend will continue. For every step that takes us towards the worst-case scenario, there are multiple counter-steps that can lead us away from it. This week British could have honorably confronted the Iranians. They still can.

The Americans can attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Germany can destroy Iran's economy.

Israel can initiate a campaign against the Palestinians or Hizbullah or Syria and so weaken Iran's creeping regional hegemony and at least partially extricate itself from its present encirclement. (To this end, of course, the Knesset must vote for new elections and the people must elect a government capable of crafting policies to defeat our enemies.)

Iran grows stronger in the face of Western weakness and hypocrisy. But it still isn't all that strong.

The fact remains that even at this late date, we alone will determine whether we win or lose.

The United States, Israel, and Western civilization are worth saving. We just need to work toward that end instead of stumbling around in the dark and allowing rogue politicians to interfere with national foreign policy.

Ms. Glick's other column, "The Long Road to Victory" discusses some of the mistakes that have been made and ways they might be corrected. She writes:

"Right-thinking" people these days claim that if the US and Britain hadn't invaded Iraq, everything today would have been perfect. The US would have been loved. The Europeans, Arabs and the UN would be standing on line to support the US in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

As British commentator Simon Jenkins put it in *The Guardian* on Tuesday, "If ever [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair hoped to carry his 'western values agenda' on a white charger to the gates of Tehran, that hope vanished in the mire of Iraq."

Yet this is untrue. The US's difficulties with confronting Iran have little to do with the decision to invade Iraq. Rather, America's feckless diplomacy towards Iran to date is the result of the administration's early misunderstanding of Iraq and of Iranian and Arab interests.

So, what kinds of misunderstanding are we talking about here? Well, there is this:

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration identified certain basic guiding realities and missed others. First there was the issue of Arab tyranny. As Bush recalled last September, "For decades, American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by pursuing stability at the expense of liberty. The lack of freedom in that region helped create conditions where anger and resentment grew, and radicalism thrived, and terrorists found willing recruits."

Yet recognizing this basic reality did not lead the administration to adopt appropriate policies. Rather than promote liberty, which at its core revolves around a certain foundational understanding of human dignity, the administration promoted elections — fast elections — in Iraq and throughout the region.

In so doing, the administration placed the cart before the horse, with predictable results. The legacy of tyranny is hatred and dependence. And the values of hatred and dependence were those that were expressed at the ballot boxes in Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority. In all jihadists, often allied with Iran, were empowered while those that were considered moderates modified their positions in opposition to the US.

If you are like me, you saw the early elections in Iraq as nothing but positive--and to some extent they were--but perhaps better groundwork could have been laid first. Ms. Glick gives other examples and offers some ideas for solutions. I think that reading her articles will give you a broader understanding of the Middle East situation--what is at stake and what needs to be done. She concludes this last article with the following:

The success the US is now experiencing in Iraq is the result of a process of identifying and correcting mistakes. If such learning could take place regarding the US's regional strategy, there is every reason to believe that it will contend successfully with Iran and the Arab world. But to correct mistakes it is first necessary to recognize them.

The US is not failing to contend with Iran because it went to war in Iraq. It is failing because it is implementing policies that prefer imaginary silver bullets to real solutions to real problems.

There are no shortcuts in this war. But victory is still waiting at the end of the long and difficult road.

Ms. Glick's insights are valuable reading. If we can gain some greater understanding of the entire situation, it can be handled better. Nothing is simple, of course, but persistance pays off.

The Logan Act

I have some serious concerns about the way so many politicians (from both parties, present and former office holders) feel free to go to foreign countries with whom we have conflicts. It is one thing to go on a fact-finding mission, but another entirely to meet with leaders of these countries and discuss current situations, diplomatic matters, and so forth when they are not authorized to do so by the government of the United States. The latter is what concerns me so much.

Obviously, my thoughts turn to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her recent sojourn to Syria, but there is also Jimmy Carter with his various trips attempting to arrange agreements with countries with whom we are in conflict. And there have been Republicans and others, as well as Democrats, who do this type of thing.

It should go without saying that this interference can ruin any hope of the governments reaching some solution. In addition, it is illegal. There is the Logan Act, which has been on the books since 1799, addressing this very situation. For a good explanation, complete with the wording of the act itself plus background information, see this link for a pdf file from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.

At Jewish World Review, David Limbaugh writes a column about Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. The title is "Gen. Pelosi's Gift to Our Enemies". Have a look and see what you think. He says:

President Bush strongly urged Pelosi not to go. But in keeping with her flagrant disrespect for President Bush and, manifestly, for the presidency itself, she openly defied him and went anyway.

Her action is indefensible. She was not legally representing the United States, since the president refused to authorize her mission. And if she wasn't purporting to represent the United States, her trip was pointless. But she was.

Pelosi and her delegation were clearly attempting to influence American foreign policy by pressuring the Bush administration to open a dialogue with Syria.

Also:

If you believe the Pelosi delegation was merely "fact-finding," which characterization is laughable, listen to its own post-trip assessment. Delegation member Tom Lantos boasted that the meeting "reinforced sharply" the potential benefits of talking to Syria. "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit."

And then there is this to consider:

Under the Constitution, President Bush is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. In that capacity, he has attempted to isolate Syria and has persuaded our allies to do likewise. Pelosi, in direct contravention of presidential authority, directly contradicted the U.S. policy toward Syria by sending the unmistakable signal that Syria is part of the international mainstream when it is our policy to discourage that notion. As the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives, she colluded with a terrorist tyrant to humiliate the commander in chief and countermand his foreign policy.

It wasn't just the US foreign policy she was interfering with--it was also Israel's policy:

Pelosi not only undermined the United States through her unconstitutional usurpation and contradiction of executive authority. She also intermeddled with Israeli policy and caused great harm there, too, by misrepresenting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in implying he had softened Israel's stance toward Syria and wanted to renew peace negotiations. This reckless blunder incensed the Olmert administration, which strongly denied it had changed its position. Olmert said that until Syria changes its sponsorship of terrorism, peace talks will be meaningless.

Mr. Limbaugh concludes with these two paragraphs:

If there is any doubt about Pelosi's collusion with Syria to weaken the president and thus the United States, or if there is any doubt about the poisonous fruits of that infernal collusion, hear the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Moallem following the Assad-Pelosi meeting. He said, "These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue, I tell them one thing: Dialogue is … the only method to close the gap existing between the two countries. … We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."

Pelosi has caused enormous anxiety to our allies, but has given great comfort to our enemies who seek to divide and conquer us, by doing the dividing part for them. Her actions were disgraceful.

I believe that we elect Senators and Congressmen to support our country, not to tear it down and cause further problems. Speaker Pelosi has shown on more than one occasion that she is not working to support our country. So what is she doing? I'll leave it to you to answer that.

Political Reflections

I often link to and quote from conservative political articles in my posts here at Scholar. I suppose that I come off as agitating for war instead of peace. Believe me, that is not my intent! However, there are times when we need to stand up for what is right and oppose what is wrong, even if that does mean going to war. When you think about the repressive regime the jihadists wish to force upon the entire world, you understand why they must be stopped.

It appears that many Americans have grown impatient. They want instant solutions rather than long term corrections that will genuinely solve problems. If a war takes longer than a couple of months, they want out. If tax cuts take awhile to work, they want to repeal them. If immigration problems take time to solve, they want to just leave them be. People seem to have lost sight of the fact that problems don't develop overnight and cannot be solved overnight. You have to think deeply and consider all the possible consequences of any course of action. Then you choose the best long-term solution and began, knowing that it will take time--sometimes a lot of time--but that in the end, the problem will be truly solved.

Education in government schools is at least a part of the problem. Our children aren't taught in depth like they were in the first half of the twentieth century (and earlier). Now it seems that they are skimming along on the surface of subjects, not learning the patience and persistence it takes to study something thoroughly. Everyone is praised for everything and no one wants to get into anything too difficult because it might injure somebody's self-esteem or offend them in some way. I imagine the real world is something of a shock to today's young people, a real world in which there is competition and there are difficult problems that render a surface knowledge of subjects useless. This is a real world where there is right and wrong--truth isn't relative like they were taught in school. There really are values and virtues, evils and vices, and they must be sorted out. Some things are of great importance and must be defended. Other things are trivial and time-wasting and need to be let go.

If people don't know how to think things through, they fall victim to every scheme and scam that comes along. They believe everything they are told. They think you can throw money at a problem and solve it. They even think that empty-headed celebrities and politicians always know what they are talking about. Where are people who are able to think carefully and read up on different points of view and consider the ramifications of various proposals? Where are people who have values and standards and understand that liberty, freedom, virtue, morality, marriage, family, religion, and other such things are essential to the development of real civilization? Where are respect and honor? Where are truly good role models?

Being human, none of us are perfect. We make mistakes. We fall short. My concern is that we lack the depth necessary to overcome our imperfections and to correct our mistakes. We are too short-sighted, too impatient. We are too concerned with the politically correct and not concerned enough with what is the truth.

One solution is to teach truth, values, virtue, and morality. If it isn't taught in schools, it should be taught at home and in the community. It can be taught through various forms of media. It can be taught through churches, private schools, and home schools. And there are always some people of depth who survive their public schooling and exposure to mainstream media and learn on their own to study subjects in depth and think things through and consider consequences.

We shall just have to continue to do the best we can in whatever circumstances we find ourselves and be good examples that will reach at least a few people, eventually spreading through society. It would be easy to become pessimistic and give up. That we must never do.

On Negotiations

At Jewish World Review, Caroline B. Glick has an article titled "If Iran Gets the Bomb." This is an excellent piece which lays out why the world should get busy and stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. Her first two paragraphs read as follows:

With the Bush administration now happily basking in the glory of positive coverage in The New York Times and enjoying the warm embrace of the James Baker/Brent Scowcroft wing of the Republican Party, it is hard to imagine that it will reconsider its decision to abandon the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine, named after President George W. Bush and most forcefully enunciated by him, eschewed appeasement of terror supporting, weapons of mass destruction proliferating enemies of the free world.

Today, what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refers to as a "diplomatic initiative" aimed at appeasing terror supporting, and weapons of mass destruction proliferating Iran, and its terror supporting, and weapons of mass destruction proliferating Syrian colony is about to take off in Baghdad. So too, this week the US began normalizing its relations with the terror supporting, weapons of mass destruction proliferating Stalinist dictatorship in Pyongyang.

She goes on to explain the consequences of following this appeasement/negotiation pathway. Read the piece and see what you think.

Also at Jewish World Review is this article by Michael Ledeen titled "The Negotiations Hoax." In this piece, Mr. Ledeen demonstrates the falsity of the Left's position that negotiations have not been tried in the Middle East or elsewhere by the United States. He begins by saying:

A great hoax is being perpetrated on the world, the hoax of negotiations as an untried method to "solve" the "Iranian problem." In fact, we have been negotiating with the mullahs ever since—indeed even before—the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah and brought to power the Islamic Fascist regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In the intervening 28 years, we have participated in countless face-to-face encounters, myriad "demarches" sent through diplomatic channels, and meetings—some on the fringes of international conferences—involving "unofficial" representatives of one government or the other. The lack of any tangible result is obvious, yet the chatterers, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, and cheered on by intellectuals, editorialists, and instant experts on Iran, act as if none of this ever happened.

and concludes with this:

Those who still dream of the grand bargain—including those in the G.W. Bush administration who have pursued it avidly, and have gotten kicked in the same place as the Clinton pursuers—must explain to us simple souls why there is anything different today that might make a bargain with the Iranians more likely than it has been for the last 28 years. Certainly the Iranians have shown no desire for reconciliation; quite the contrary, unless you think killing Americans at a rate considerably faster than the tempo of murder in the Clinton years represents some odd form of mating dance. The Supreme Leader is the same fanatic as he was then, in terrible health to be sure, but no friendlier towards satanic negotiators. The only big change in Tehran personnel is the president. Instead of Khatami-the-Reformer we've got Ahmadinejad, Hitler's great admirer. I don't think that is an improvement.

If they were forced to answer these questions, the advocates of negotiations would resort to the hoax—we haven't tried negotiations, and it's worth a try. But the real history of U.S.-Iranian relations suggests very strongly that the only possible winners in such talks will be the mullahs. They will gain more time to organize their war against us, and to build atomic bombs.

All those who think we haven't tried negotiating with our enemies and that if we would, we could solve all the problems, should read these two articles. Talk about a wake-up call!

How Concerned Should We Be About the Activities of our Congress? Very!

At The New Media Journal there is an article by Raymond Kraft titled "When Congress Commits Treason". Strong word that he uses--is it justified? Read Mr. Kraft's first paragraph and see what you think:

Al Qaeda wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Hezbollah wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Iran wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Muqtada al Sadr wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Osama bin Laden wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. When an American political party aligns itself with the goals, hopes, and ambitions of America's enemies in a time of war, in my view there is only one word for it - Treason.

If the Democrats don't want an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq, they have a funny way of showing it. More strong words:

Today, most of the "leading Democrats" in Congress are falling all over themselves to give aid, comfort, and hope, to the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Islamist movement for the decline and fall of Western Civilization and the ascendance of Jihadist Islam in Iraq and around the world. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and many of the rest give their assurance that with Democrats in power, America will retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender, selling their souls and their country down the river for primary votes and and trucks of money from the Pacifist Left. Here, the ignominious spectacle of Democrats selling out the future freedom of the Iraqi people for votes and dollars. Osama bin Laden once called America "a paper tiger." America's Democrats seem determined to prove him right. Treason for votes. Treason for dollars. Treason as a political calculation. Treason, for revenge on George Bush.

Treason, to put a Democrat in the White House.

I have to ask myself, given the behavior of Democrats in Congress, not to mention the Mainstream Media and assorted Leftist groups, if that isn't indeed what they want.

And there will be consequences to that behavior. Remember Vietnam?

Thirty-two years ago, in 1975, after America and the Republic of Vietnam had fought and won a ten-year war to save South Vietnam from the predations of the communist north, a Democrat Congress voted to terminate life support for South Vietnam in the face of another North Vietnamese invasion, backed by the USSR. A Democrat Congress voted to "pull the plug," and condemned millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotions to death, torture, imprisonment, re-education camps, condemned others to flee their homes and countries as refugees. That, in my view, was the blackest day in American history, and the blood of those people is on the hands of the Democrats who voted to abandon them. Until now.

Now, another Democrat Congress is poised to repeat that act of infamy, and abandon the people of Iraq to the conflagration that will almost certainly follow if the United States withdraws its forces prematurely. Another Democrat Congress declares to the world that America is a fair weather friend, that America cannot be relied on, that America cannot be trusted to stand by its promises when the going gets tough, that America no longer has the will to lead the world toward a future of freedom, that America has decided to embrace defeat, to retreat and surrender. Another Democrat Congress declares that America, having liberated the Iraqi people from the bloody tyranny of Saddam Hussein, has grown tired of the messy business of liberation and will now wash its hands of the whole affair, and abandon the Iraqi people to the bloody tyranny of the Jihad.

This is a long article and you should read it in its entirety to get the full story, but this is how Mr. Kraft, an attorney and writer in Northern California, concludes:

America's Congressional Democrats en masse are betraying, rejecting, repudiating, their own ostensible dedication to the Liberal values of freedom and liberty, multiculturalism, diversity, democracy, for money, for votes. Their half-spoken mantra is, "No war for oil, no victory for freedom."

We see America's Congressional Democrats becoming the American Judas, betraying America, and Iraq, for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. We are watching the astonishing, appalling, and unprecedented spectacle of a Democrat Party so hungry, so greedy, so blindly avaricious for political dominance that it is committing itself to the retreat, defeat, and surrender of America, of Iraq, of the Middle East, perhaps Africa, perhaps Europe after that - where, if anywhere, will the Democrats' firm resolve to retreat and surrender end?

This is treason.

When will all of our elected representatives in Congress start thinking seriously about what they are doing?

"Chavez and the 'Ezekial Option'"

World Net Daily columnist Hal Lindsey writes an interesting piece titled "Chavez and the 'Ezekiel Option'". I will be researching several of the items mentioned in the article to learn more.

Hugo Chavez is, of course, the President of Venezuela. Dictator might be a much better word. Be that as it may, Mr. Lindsey begins with the following:

This week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was handed unrestricted authority to rule his nation by decree. Venezuela's new parliament passed, and Chavez signed, the "Enabling Act" and put an end to any hopes of a democratic end to his rule.

Chavez is expected to exercise the absolute power granted him to nationalize all private oil and gas operations now operating in his territory.

Chavez also has plans to take state control of Venezuela's biggest telecommunications company and electricity providers, to revamp banking and zap the rich with new taxes with a goal of ensuring ''the equal distribution of wealth."

But that's not all:

Venezuela is America's fifth largest supplier of oil. And Chavez owns (or will soon own) all the oil companies.

Making the situation even more dangerous is Chavez's close alliance with Iran. Iran has sworn to wipe Israel from the map publicly, and on more than one occasion. Ahmadinejad recently sponsored a conference entitled, "A World Without Zionism" and subtitled, "A World Without America."

Also:

Iran is protected by its chief nuclear suppliers in Russia, complicating the situation even more. Moscow has hundreds of billions of dollars invested in Iran's nuclear programs. Iran's nuclear facilities are crawling with Russian scientists, advisers, technicians, security personnel – and their families.

The U.S. can't afford to move against Chavez without risking conflict with Iran – which ultimately risks dragging in the Russians. Chavez, on the other hand, can easily afford to wreak havoc on America's oil supply – and its economy – without fear of economic repercussion.

Mr. Lindsey winds up by writing:

The prophet Ezekiel predicted the development of a vast alliance that would include Russia, Persia (Iran) "and many people with thee" in the last days that would launch a surprise invasion of Israel.

So how does Israel fit into all this? A Texas oil company, Genco, recently announced the discovery of a large oil field near the Dead Sea. Israeli Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer called the strike "just the beginning."

British Natural Gas announced the discovery of a vast natural gas deposit 20 miles offshore of Tel Aviv. Initial estimates suggest some 3.5 trillion cubic feet in proved reserves.

Zion Oil has sunk eight exploratory wells, all of which have shown signs of oil and gas. Zion founder John Brown believes the amount of oil reserves hidden beneath Israel could rival that of Saudi Arabia.

A massive oil strike in Israel would completely change the balance of power in the Middle East. Such an oil- strike could potentially break the back of OPEC. It is unlikely OPEC would admit Israel as a member, regardless of how much oil she had.

That would seem to leave but one option, best expressed by my friend Joel Rosenberg's novel of the same name.

The Ezekiel Option.

Interesting, no? If there is oil and natural gas in Israel, that would change the world dynamics considerably. I will be looking for more information on this.

As for Chavez--between him and Ahmadinejad, there is plenty to worry about. I guess I am naive, but why in the world would Venezuela allow Chavez unrestricted power like that? More research for me to do.

Still, I thought the above article was very interesting and wanted to share it for that reason alone.

Do Most People Understand the Mindset of the Jihadists?

One reason I write about politics a lot on Scholar is that I feel there is a lot of information and a lot of ideas that need to be considered that are simply not available in the mainstream media due to their leftist agendas. As a result many voters and many political leaders don't have the perspective needed to solve this nation's problems--and, in many cases, the world's problems. There are many "solutions" that look good on paper or in the short term, but that would prove disasterous if carried out. And so I do my little bit to provide information and insight into truth and what is really going on out there in the world.

Today's feature is an article from The New Media Journal titled "Wake Up, America: Understand the Mind of the Jihadist" by David J. Jonsson. In his article, Mr. Jonsson explores the mindset of the Jihadist--what they are really after. He also discusses how we can counteract that--and why we need to. This is not about tolerance or intolerance--this is about human liberty. This is about protecting our agency, our will, our freedom.

Here is a quote from the beginning of the article:

The war on terror might be lost not on the streets of Baghdad but in the corridors of Congress. A divided America and Anti-Americanism serves our enemies well. Soon we may see a vote in Congress that says, "We can't stop the surge plan, but we don't support it." It is time for America to understand who the enemy is, the murderous ideology that is driving them and their strategy for success. This would be the Islamist's greatest fear.
It is important to understand that the goal of the Jihadists is – following in the footsteps of Muhammad to create the "Islamic kingdom of God on Earth." The primary goal is not primarily to conquer lands but to Islamize the world. The drive is to instill Islamic law (Shariah) into both Muslim society and the entire world, and ultimately to recreate society under their interpretation of the law. The strategy is to utilize the sword of Islam. The sword may include terrorism, but more importantly it is bringing together groups of people with a common hatred, which can cause the ultimate decline in will of the populous. This cabal has coalesced as the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. As we will see pacifism, self-hatred, complacency and appeasement – deserve attention, equally important is the use of Islamic Finance to gradually make the West comfortable with accepting living with Shariah law.

The article is informative and contains links to further information. It is worth your while to read it carefully and think about it seriously. Human beings were not created to be oppressed and downtrodden.

An Editorial Review of Some Important Political History

At Investor's Business Daily an editorial titled "97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime" shows how developments in the latter part of the 20th century have led us to where we are today.

This outlines a number of events and gives us a history lesson we would be wise to consider. Never mind partisanship--what is best for our country? Read thoughtfully.

Dinesh D'Souza Dispels Some Myths About Iraq

In an article at Townhall.com, author Dinesh D'Souza takes us through some well-rehearsed myths about Iraq in his article "What They Know That Isn't So." D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Mr. D'Souza takes us through three myths that are commonly bandied about and tells us why they aren't true. First up:

They’re furious at us for stopping democracy in Iran. As the left-wing story goes, Mohammed Mossadegh was the elected prime minister of Iran in the early 1950s. The United States didn’t like the fact that he was anti-imperialist, so the CIA engineered a coup and installed the hated Shah of Iran. The people of Iran have still not forgiven us for this, and it is a continuing source of radical Muslim hatred against us.

The second myth is:

We provided weapons to both Saddam and Bin Laden. This leftist account says that America should not be too surprised at the weapons possessed by Saddam and Bin Laden, since we provided them to him. We may even have sold those weapons of mass destruction to Saddam. And certainly we provided ammunition and other material support to Bin Laden when he was fighting against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

And last but not least, we have:

In Iraq we’re getting into a religious war that’s lasted for centuries. This theory, espoused among others by John Murtha, holds that the Sunni and Shia are fighting in Iraq because these two groups have been fighting everywhere since the seventh century. So who wants to get into the middle of an ancient conflict that shows no signs of abating? This would seem to be an argument for America to get out of a religious quarrel that it has no way to settle, and that shows no sign of abating.

D'Souza takes each of these myths and explains why they just aren't so. And why are they so prevalent in the United States? Two possibilities exist:

So where do all these myths come from? The benign explanation is the Internet. People get information off websites which get it off other websites, so that idiocy gets passed around frequently enough to become accepted as truth.

But there is a second possibility. The myths are part of the propaganda produced by the cultural left which is rooting for Bush to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror. If Iraq is lost, the chances are it will be lost not in Baghdad but in the American mind. Bin Laden and the insurgents are completely outmatched in force, but they can still win, courtesy of the lobbying efforts of the enemy at home.

I think it is probably a mix of those two possibilities, but the important thing is that we learn to stop and think and do a little research so that we aren't buying into every myth floating around out there.