Archive for the ‘Shiite’ Category

Why FDR Would Have Denounced The Modern Democrat Party As Un-American

February 25, 2011

Democrats and the Democrat Party they form have become truly despicable.

I can cite former Democrats such as Dennis Prager who has frequently called himself “a Kennedy liberal.”  He has pointed out, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.”

I can cite Ronald Reagan himself as such a man:

Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies, but in the early 1950s he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54] His many GE speeches—which he wrote himself—were non-partisan but carried a conservative, pro-business message; he was influenced by Lemuel Boulware, a senior GE executive. Boulware, known for his tough stance against unions and his innovative strategies to win over workers, championed the core tenets of modern American conservatism: free markets, anticommunism, lower taxes, and limited government.[55] Eventually, the ratings for Reagan’s show fell off and GE dropped Reagan in 1962.[56]  That year Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”[57]

One of the things that undoubtedly resulted in these two brilliant political thinkers’ sense of abandonment was the fact that they clearly HAD BEEN abandoned by the Democrat Party as it continued to “evolve” (liberals love that word, worshiping it in place of a God who stays the same) into a degenerate spiral.  And it was that profound abandonment of key Democrat liberal views – the abandonment of classical liberalism into something that can only be described today as a hybrid of Marxism and fascism – that then led these men to question their entire political presuppositions that had resulted in their being Democrats in the first place.

Yes, I know, liberals always confidently assure us that Nazism and fascism are right wing.  But how, exactly?  If they say militarism, then how was it that the Soviet Union had the largest and most powerful military machine in the world?  If they say racism, then – apart from their own bigotry – how do they escape their own racism?  If you want to talk about anti-Semitism of the Nazis, it turns out that Democrats are actually far more anti-Semitic than Republicans.  And, again, the genocide of the leftwing Soviet Union dwarfs even that of the Nazis.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nazism “right wing”?  Well, maybe the left would say that the Nazis were “Christian” and left wing ideologies are secular.  But that is hardly true, either.  I document in a previous article (“Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian'; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism“) that Nazism and Christianity had virtually nothing to do with one another, and that in fact Hitler was an acknowledged atheist.

I did not know at the writing of that article that in fact Hitler actually wanted to kidnap Pope Pius XII, and that the SS officer placed in charge of the operation understood that Hitler would have murdered him following his capture.  I don’t see how that doesn’t do anything more than strengthen my case that Hitler was hardly a “Catholic.”

When it comes to Nazi ideology and Nazi policies (not the least of which was the sort of abortion and Darwinian eugenics that liberal progressive and modern-day Democrat Icon Margaret Sanger engaged in), Nazism was far more in line with liberal progressivism than anything remotely conservative.  A couple quick statements by Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of Hillary Clinton:

In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning  … human beings who never should have been born.”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

And I also show in a comment to that article that Nazism was far, FAR more in line with Democrat Party liberalism than it ever could be Republican Party conservatism when it came to big government and big government policies.

Jonah Goldberg points out that Nazism was in fact “far right.”  But only in the sense that the Nazi Party, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the far right of the extreme left.

A good article I recently found on the subject of socialism and fascism is available here.  Basically, the latter is simply a particular species of the former.

American conservatism calls for a strong military defense, yes.  But as we shall see, so also did FDR.  And in every other aspect, consistent conservatism calls for limited and small national government.  Which was the diametric opposite of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi project, which controlled every sphere of life the same way the Democrat Party tried to do during the last two years when they had power.

If you think for so much as an instant that Adolf Hitler wanted less centralized power for himself and more control in the hands of the states/districts and the individual people – as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and conservatives constantly talk about – you simply couldn’t be any more ignorant.

That said, just what are the two fundamental issues I claim in my title that FDR would have denounced in the Democrat Party of today?

They are military power and the willingness to use it (i.e., the heart of any foreign policy) and government or public employee unions (i.e., the heart of Democrat’s domestic agenda).

These are no small matters: the former is central to any rational foreign policy and the latter has become central to Democrat domestic policy.

I describe FDR’s fundamental opposition to government unions and the reasons he was opposed to them here.  And I provide FDR’s very own words and his very own reasoning.  Suffice it to say that as pro-union as FDR was, he was profoundly opposed to government/public sector employees having the very sort of collective bargaining rights that Democrats today routinely demand for the public sector unions which constitute the bulk of union power today, and which massively contributes almost exclusively to the Democrat Party machine.  FDR realized that these employees were employees not of some unfair private company, but of the American people.  He also recognized that the government becomes a monopoly unto itself, and that government unions striking 1) exploited that monopoly power in an unfair and un-American way, and 2) was a defacto attack against the American people.

Please read the article above for more.

That leaves the other issue, the foreign policy issue of military power and the willingness to use it to deal with threats to the nation.

A speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could have been given today to expose the American liberal views of Democrats basically since Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to seek re-election after liberals turned on him.  It certainly powerfully applies to the Democrat positions in the war on terror – that Obama once refused to even acknowledge – of today.  Churchill began:

I have but a short time to deal with this enormous subject and I beg you therefore to weigh my words with the attention and thought which I have given to them.

As we go to and fro in this peaceful country with its decent, orderly people going about their business under free institutions and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realize that we are no longer safe in our island home.

For nearly a thousand years England has not seen the campfires of an invader. The stormy sea and our royal navy have been our sure defense. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be the heart and center of an empire which surrounds the globe.

It is indeed with a pang of stabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger. A thousand years has served to form a state; an hour may lay it in dust.

What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.

Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.

But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”

Churchill gave that speech back in 1934.  Just imagine how much unparalleled human suffering would never have happened if only the weak and appeasing policies of the leftist bleeding hearts had not triumphed!  The left wrongly claim to stand for peace and compassion and every good thing.  But the exact opposite is true, as they have in fact murdered millions and millions of innocent human beings with their naive and morally stupid policies.  And to whatever extent liberals have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with liberal intentions.

Think back to Obama’s positions as a candidate in which he demonized Bush’s war in Iraq and his surge strategy.  Think of Obama’s incredibly naive and incredibly failed policy of talking to Iran without preconditions.

I could go on all day about Democrats taking on the views that Churchill condemned; that our enemies really aren’t that evil and how we can talk to them and reach some kind of accord short of fighting them.  It is as naive and morally idiotic today as it was in the era of Churchill and – yes – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I did not realize this until I watched a program I viewed on the Military History Channel called “Decisions That Shook the World.”  But FDR rapidly became what we would today call a neo-conservative.

In the late 1930s, FDR began to watch with growing horror as the Nazis began to take over Europe.  In secret letters to Winston Churchill, he offered his moral support to the Allies.  FDR knew that if the people – who did NOT want to become entangled in what they saw as a European war – were to find out about these letters, they would turn against him in outrage.  The American people in the 1930s and early 1940s were crystal clear that they did not want to become involved in another world war in Europe.  As it was, at the very time that the American people were the most worried about FDR secretly getting involved in the war behind their backs, FDR was in fact secretly corresponding with Churchill to do that very thing.  FDR also – again secretly – ordered his military commanders to devise a secret military plan with Great Britain for when FDR was able to involve America in the war against Hitler in Europe.

Now, today, it would be very easy to condemn FDR as duplicitous.  And he WAS incredibly duplicitous.  FDR was a man – we find out in the words of the historians who narrated the “Decisions” program – who had no problem saying and doing things in private that he very much did not want to be known in public.  As an example, FDR, in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court – directed his Attorney General to wiretap suspected spies.  That was literally an impeachable offense.  FDR was breaking the law to deal with what he saw as a growing threat against America.

Rep. Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for president in the 1940 election – warned the American people, “If you elect FDR, he will get you into a war you don’t want.”  And FDR, deceitfully, in a speech, said, “That charge is contrary to every fact, every purpose of the past eight years.”  It was, as history documents, a complete lie.

Another lie FDR told the people came on the eve of the 1940 election.  FDR told mothers, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”  And it is hard to imagine a more dishonest promise, given that he was at the moment he said those words doing everything he knew how to get America into the war in Europe.

One of the points the historians made clear is that, “If all of Roosevelt’s acts were publicly known, he likely would have been impeached.”  He most certainly would NOT have been re-elected in 1940.

FDR was reelected on the promise that he would not do what in fact he was determined to do.

In 1940, the “anti-war” candidate was the Republican, Wendell Wilkie.  He had the virtue of being honest, but likely on the wrong side of history (we can’t know for sure what would have happened had the United States not become involved in World War II, but it doesn’t look pretty).  Democrat FDR may have had the virtue of being right, but he was certainly profoundly dishonest.

Now, I could write how FDR was quite constant with other modern liberal presidents who say one thing and do the exact opposite (I’m speaking directly about Barack Obama, the examples of which are now already legion).  But that isn’t my project here.  My project is to point out that, when it came to being prepared for war and then fighting that war, FDR was fundamentally in opposition to the modern Democrat Party agenda.

That briefly stated, it was the Republican Party which ultimately came to realize that FDR was correct in his views of the military and the need to vigorously defend American national security.  And it was the Democrats who came to turn on FDR’s realization and abandon his views.

They didn’t do so all at once, or right away.  As much as modern liberals tried to attack Ronald Reagan as putting the world on the brink of nuclear war in his Cold War stand against the powerful Soviet Union, one President John F. Kennedy was every bit the cold warrior that Reagan ever was.  And, again, any liberal who doubts this is simply a fundamentally ignorant human being.  That said, it was during the Kennedy presidency that JFK cynically – and by executive fiat rather than any vote by Congress – allowed the government unions that came to own the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel to collectively bargain as a means to help the Democrat Party.  And the moral collapse of the Democrat Party was incredibly precipitous after that.

At this point in time, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is easily capable of not only destabilizing the world, but plunging it into economic depression and global war is delusional.  The mere prospect of a collapse of the Libyan government alone could spell enormous problems in the likely event of a civil war in that country.  Oil prices could literally more than double, which would simply obliterate any potential global economic recovery.  If Iran is able to obtain the bomb – which is most assuredly will if it hasn’t already – we will see a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihadism and terrorism such that the world has never seen as the Iranian regime rightly sees itself as impervious to any meaningful international action against it.  If that isn’t bad enough, we would also see a nuclear arms race quickly escalate in the craziest region in the history of the planet as Sunni Muslim regimes tried to protect themselves against the Shiite Iranian threat.

For what it’s worth, even as mainstream liberals celebrate and rejoice in the overthrow of one Arab leader after another, it is IRAN which is most benefitting from the chaos.  From the New York Times:

MANAMA, Bahrain — The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said.

I have been warning and warning about this.  But the world listens to Obama, not me.

But in light of Obama’s policy of appeasement, of asking for meetings of minds with no preconditions, allow me to rephrase Churchill’s words to suit our modern-day situation:

Would the invaders consent to hear Barack Obama’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Hillary Clinton? Would they agree to meet that famous African, Kofi Annan, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it.

Allow me to share with you the consensus view of liberalism today at one of its elite headquarters of Columbia University:

Columbia University is holding a series of public hearings on whether or not to allow ROTC back on campus now that DADT has been repealed. A wounded Iraq veteran who recently enrolled at Columbia took to the microphone and asked fellow students to support ROTC. He was booed, jeered, and called a racist.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

The former soldier responded to the jeers with this awesome statement:

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”

The despicable so-called “Americans” in the audience only laughed and jeered more.

Anthony Maschek was a staff sergeant with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. He was shot 11 times and spent two years recovering at Walter Reed. He’s an American hero and those thugs at Columbia are a disgrace. This is no different than those pieces of crap who spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam. It’s disgusting that in 2011 our veterans should have to be heckled by cowards.

Read more: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/02/21/wounded-veteran-booed-and-jeered-at-columbia-university/#ixzz1Evn0A8qL

FDR would have turned his back on this Democrat Party as a bunch of contemptible and despicable traitors to the United States of America.  He would have looked at the government unions that today are the sine qua non – the “that without which” – of the Democrat Party machine.  And he would have been disgusted that the entire Democrat Party rests today upon an inherently un-American foundation.  Then this president who risked so much to keep America and the world safe from tyranny would have looked upon the modern Democrat Party and its repeated denunciation of those who would fight America’s most terrifying enemies even as those enemies grew stronger and stronger while we have grown weaker and weaker, and he would have vomited in contempt for the party that he had such a profound role in shaping.

By the very standards of the figures that you cite as your greatest heroes, I denounce you as the pathetic, vile, un-American fools that you truly are, Democrats.

I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt that you are capable of that virtue in this house-of-card world that you are building now.  And the problem with houses of cards is not merely that they fall; it is also that they tend to burn furiously when a match is struck.

And when the Antichrist warned of by the Scriptures for more than 2,600 years comes (as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation), it will be Democrats, the quintessential fools, who welcome him with cheers and adoration.

Are You Ready For The Most Incompetent President EVER To Handle Armageddon Part I?

May 9, 2010

This is shaping up to get real scary.  We’ve got the biggest failure in US history wasting oxygen in our White House, and we might be seeing the most terrifying war in Middle Eastern history taking demonic form:

Accord­ing Kuwaiti news­pa­per Al-Dar: Diplo­matic sources in Cairo told the news­pa­per that the U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clin­ton told her Egypt­ian coun­ter­part Ahmed Aboul Gheit and the Saudi intel­li­gence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz dur­ing a pri­vate meet­ing in the Nuclear Secu­rity sum­mit last week, that the Israeli-Iranian armed race is accel­er­ated towards a regional war in the Mid­dle East, dur­ing this year, at any time.

Clin­ton warned both Egypt­ian and Saudi offi­cials to take extra care and cau­tion, and define their strat­egy to for­mu­late the posi­tion of their coun­tries in the event of such a war.

Ear­lier this year, Joe Biden warned of a pos­si­ble Israeli attack this year, which involves Syria and Lebanon.

For the official record, Barry Hussein is a man who can’t even preside over his own dog’s potty training issues, let alone confront the nuclear threat posed by Iran.  Which is another way of saying that we are truly screwed.

During the campaign the same Hillary Clinton that advised Egypt that the fecal matter is about to hit the rotary oscillator very soon also said that Barack Obama was not even close to being ready to take that 3 AM phone call.  And nothing has changed.

The same president who’s utterly useless and asinine policy completely failed to even slow Iran’s nuclear program down is going to be an even more pathetic disgrace when Iran gets its nukes.

Joe Biden himself warned us that the US would face a massive foreign policy situation with Barack Obama as president.  He specifically warned that Obama wasn’t up to the job on the campaign trail:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’” Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Sen. Biden: “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.” (“Biden Lashes Out At Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)

Well, we’re about to stare down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his mad Mullahs who believe that they need to start hell to force the appearance of their Twelfth Imam.

And if you don’t already agree with the following -

- You will before it’s all said and done.

Iran Sucessfully Launches Satellite: Ballistic Nuclear Missiles Not Far Off

February 4, 2010

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius.  At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

Iran’s Satellite Launch a Signal of Missile Progress, Analysts Say
By Turner Brinton
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 12 February 2009

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,” Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

Israel certainly does, given the fact that Iran has repeatedly vowed that “Israel is a cancer” which they one day intend to “wipe off the map.”

The fact that Ezekiel prophesied some 2600 years ago that Iran (Persia) would one day attack Israel in the last days along with a coalition that looks eerily like the one being assembled today.

About a quarter of Israelis have said that they would leave Israel if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would literally mean the death of the Jewish state.  Israeli leaders cannot possibly allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

And time is running out on them.

But it’s running out on the United States and Europe, also.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack.  Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran?  I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran.  And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s.  Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad.  The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will.  They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat.  Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat.  They couldn’t have been more wrong.

I wrote something about Iran’s nuclear program in May of 2008, and I stand by it:

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

I also repeatedly pointed out in that three part series that countries such as Russia and China had protected Saddam Hussein by blocking every single United Nations resolution that could have prevented the Iraq War:

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way.  They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq.  Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose.  And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT.  Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

Iran, Iraq, and the Future in Bible Prophecy

June 24, 2009

The huge demonstrations protesting the election issues in Iran put that country on the front pages of every newspaper.

For nearly two weeks, demonstrations have raged.  Early on, some said that they didn’t know what would happen as to whether the protests would succeed in overthrowing the regime, but most recognized that the endgame was a foregone conclusion: the regime has the tanks, the guns, and the military.  It was only a question as to whether how far things might get before they used them.

As it stands, they won’t have to, as an AP article entitled “Intensified crackdown mutes protests in Iran” indicates.  While the demonstrations might well briefly flare up again (presidential candidate Mousavi has said he would appear at a demonstration on the 24th), there has never been any serious question that the theocratic regime would stand.

The serious question that remains is, stand as what?  Will it become a more open society, more willing to seriously interact with the Western world, or will it become more hostile and more determined to pursue a violent agenda in the coming months?

Based on the prophecies in the Bible, and based on my own belief that we are entering the last days, my view is that Iran will become more hostile and violent as it is increasingly isolated in the Western world.  Furthermore, my view is that it will engage in an increasingly close alliance/partnership with Russia and with other Islamic Arab and African states.

It is important to realize that the Iranian Constitution (Article Five) is inherently apocalyptic in nature.  The still-revered Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 proclaimed that the basis for Iran’s constitution and its government would be the authority of the Hidden (or Twelfth) Imam.  This apocalyptic figure has been called the ‘expected one,’ (al—Muntazar), the ‘promised one’ (al—Mahdi’), or the ‘hidden one,’ (al—Mustatir) in the Shi’a tradition.

The threats of impending destruction of Israel and even of war against the United States have been issued in the name of this Twelfth Imam who will (according to Iranian/Shi’a Islam) come in the last days.

According to the tradition, the Hidden Imam was taken into hiding by Allah and kept there until he reappears in the last days to purify the umma and take the world for Islam.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many others in the Iranian leadership passionately hold to the coming of the Hidden Imam.  That in itself is not necessarily frightening: Shi’ite orthodoxy has it that humans are powerless to encourage the Twelfth Imam to return.  However, in Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos and violence to encourage him – even force him – to return.  And Ahmadinejad is at least a former member, and quite likely a current member of this sect.  When Ahmadinejad became president, $17 million was spent on the Jamkaran mosque, which is central to the Hojjatieh movement.  And it is even more frightening when such a man sitting as President of Iran claims to have a direct link to God.

And Dr. Serge Trifkovic has said this regarding Ahmadinejad’s theology/eschatology:

Ahmadinejad, by contrast, shares with Trotsky an apocalyptic world outlook. He favors direct action in pursuit of a permanent Islamic revolution that will pave the way for the return of the Hidden Imam, pave it with blood, sweat and tears. Indeed he’d like to speed things up, as you point out, and implicitly he hopes to achieve this by twisting the arm of the Almighty – no less so than the cloners of red heifers and would-be re-builders of the Temple hope to do as a means of speeding up the Rupture. The fact that he is more sincere in his beliefs and more earnest in his endeavors than the kleptocrats of the House of Saud are in theirs, is alarming but unsurprising. He is a visionary; they are Machiavellian cynics.

A much-more detailed analysis that comes to much the same conclusion about Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic vision is available via FrontPage Magazine.

Mind you, re-building the Temple or cloning a red heifer are scarcely the source of inherently cataclysmic activities that many too many Shiite Muslims are pursuing.

So when one considers Iran, under such leadership, to be dedicated to the acquisition of nuclear weapons after stating that Israel should be “wiped out from the map” – and with the current Ayatollah Khamenei stating that Israel is a “cancerous tumor” on the verge of collapse – well, one should be very worried.  Wiping out Israel in a fiery blaze of atomic glory would indeed be a way to create the holocaust that would prompt the return of the long-awaited Hidden Imam (if anything ever could).

Clearly Jews understand this, as 1 in 4 would seriously consider leaving the country if Iran succeeds in acquiring nuclear weapons.  Given that such an event would literally mean the end of the state of Israel even if Iran didn’t nuke them, Israel has little choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear capability (since – clearly – no one else will).

Would Israelis hold back from a planned attack of Iran if they believed the United States would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Probably.  But the problem is, they clearly don’t believe that any more.  And they certainly no longer believe that America under Barack Hussein Obama is on their side.  When George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was “pro-Israel”; today under Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

Such an event, of hated Israel swooping into an Islamic country to destroy their Russian-built nuclear facilities, would itself be a likely cataclysmic event.  Do you even dare to imagine how the Islamic world would react?  And realize that just such an event is very likely coming – and coming all-too soon.

Now Vice President Joe Biden predicted that Barack Obama would be “tested” by an “international crisis” that would test his mettle.  He went on to say:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

Joe Biden quickly turned his discussion of this international crisis and Barack Obama’s seeming poor handling of said crisis to politics and the hopes of Democrats.  But Iran obtaining nuclear weapons won’t be about politics; it will be about Armageddon.

Frighteningly, Barack Obama’s very own VP has said that Barack Obama is most certainly not ready for what may very well prove to be the most terrifying crisis in human history:

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden,” McCain spokesman Ben Porritt said in a written statement, according to CNN. “Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

Biden frequently raised questions about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience during the primaries. “I think he can be ready, but right now, I don’t believe he is,” Biden said during one debate. “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

North Korea looms large, and may loom far larger in the days soon-to-come.  But a nuclear Iran is an even more terrifying prospect.  You’ll see.

As I turn to Iraq – and then to how Iraq relates to Iran in the context of Bible prophecy – allow me to first discuss Joel Rosenberg.

A Wikipedia article on Joel Rosenberg probably provides the most concise summary (accessed June 23, 2009):

Rosenberg’s novels have attracted those interested in Bible Prophecy, due to several of his fictional elements of his books that would occur after his writing of books. Nine months before the September 11th attacks, Rosenberg wrote a novel with a kamikaze plane attack on an American city. Five months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he wrote a novel about war with Saddam Hussein, the death of Yasser Arafat eight months before it occurred, a story with Russia, Iran, and Libya forming a military alliance against Israel occurring the date of publishing,[7] the rebuilding of the city of Babylon,[12] Iran vowing to have Israel “wiped off the face of the map forever” five months before Iranian President Ahmadinejad said the same,[13] and the discovery of huge amounts of oil and natural gas in Israel (which happened in January 2009).[14] The U.S. News & World Report have referred to him as a “Modern Nostradamus,”[15] although Rosenberg tries to play down those proclamations, stating that “I am not a clairvoyant, a psychic, or a ‘Modern Nostradamus,’ as some have suggested.”[16] He gives the credit for his accurate predictions to studying Biblical prophecy and applying to the modern world.[16]

Why did Rosenberg predict that there would be a “kamikaze plane attack on an American city” by Islamic terrorists?  Because he accurately understood the evil at the heart of Islam.

Why did Rosenberg predict a war between Saddam Hussein and the United States resulting in the overthrow of Saddam and his brutal regime?  That’s where it gets interesting.

Joel Rosenberg had done a thorough study of the Book of Ezekiel and of the Bible (as a couple of overlapping articles summarize – Article 1; – Article 2).  He learned that one day, according to the Bible, a massive army under the leadership of Russia and many of its former republics (Magog) and Iran (Persia) and consisting of many countries that are today Islamic [e.g. "Cush" (modern-day Sudan and Ethiopia); "Put" (modern-day Libya); "Gomer" (modern-day Turkey); "Beth-togarmah" (modern-day Armenia); and many peoples "along the mountains of Israel" (modern-day Lebanon and possibly Syria)] would form an “exceedingly great army” that would one day attack Israel.

What Rosenberg noted was the absence of two countries: Egypt and Babylon (i.e. Iraq).  Egypt had been a perennial enemy of Israel until 1973, when Egypt alone in all the Arab/Muslim world forged a historic peace treaty with the state of Israel.  That left Iraq.  Rosenberg asked himself, “How could a nation like Iraq, under the leadership of someone like Saddam Hussein, NOT participate in this mega-colossal-last-days attack on Israel?

Rosenberg concluded that Saddam Hussein WOULDN’T refrain from such an attack.  And that meant that Saddam Hussein would have to go.

And so, NINE MONTHS before the 9/11 attack, Rosenberg in his “fiction” created a scenario in which terrorists flew a plane in a kamikaze attack, and the United States took out the Iraqi regime and replaced it with a stable Western-friendly government.

And because the Bible is the true Word of an all-knowing God who knows the end from the beginning as revealed through His prophets, the scenario laid out by Joel Rosenberg turned out to be eerily true.  It wasn’t a “lucky guess”; it was based upon the God who had revealed the last days to an inspired prophet named Ezekiel some 2,600 years ago.

Thus we have Iraq, its tyrant who had filled mass graves with the bodies of at least 400,000 of his own people, overthrown and a stable democracy growing in his place.  And we have Iran, a country strongly allied with Russia; a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons; a country that has announced its intent on the destruction of Israel; a country under the leadership of men who in all likelihood believe in establishing a future by an act of violent apocalypse.  Two countries on two very different paths.  And both paths known to God 2,600 years ago.

Obama Ends War On Terror; Terrorists On Different Page

January 23, 2009

Barack Obama ended the war on terror yesterday.  He announced he was going to end the practice of incarcerating terrorists; he said that we must treat all terrorists captured as the most gracious of hosts and precede questioning with the words, “Pretty please”; he selected a liberal political hack who would make it his life’s work to dismantle our intelligence apparatus; and he basically holds the position that the whole “war on terror” thing was just a big mistake to begin with.

The Washington Post has a powerful article entitled, “Bush’s “War On Terror” Comes To Sudden End,” which I shall post in its entirety at the end of this article.  Let me post a couple of introductory paragraphs:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless…

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, in his haste to end the war on terror – which of course HAS been a source of embarassment to every liberal who glorifies world opinion – Barack Obama kind of forgot to consult with the terrorists.   I mean, no, we really don’t WANT our President getting cozy in dialogue with the kind of people who saw kidnapped victims’ heads off, but we might have wanted to know whether terrorists were interested in ending the war on terror before we decided to quit fighting.

There seems to be a prevailing notion among liberals that terrorism began during the Bush Administration, and that now that the Bush Administration is gone terrorism will end.  This attitude is wrong, and just-how-idiotic-are-you-people? wrong.

Modern terrorism began in the late 1920s in Egyptian prisons with the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Whether it was founded with an aim toward “moral and social reform” or not is moot; it didn’t take them long to resort to political violence as a political weapon to win political gains.  And terrorism has been building and growing expontially ever since.

Israel has seen limitless violence since its birth in 1948.  The world saw terrorism first hand in the Munich Olympic massacre in 1972.  The world saw the advent of genuine state terrorism in the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran.  The US took its first massive casualties to terrorism in the terrorist bombine of the Marine barracks in 1983 that took the lives of 241 Americans.

Then, throughout the Clinton years, terrorist violence took a near vertical climb on the graph chart.  There was the first World Trade Center bombing, and then the “Blackhawk Down” violence in Somalia in 1993.  There was the attempt to crash a plane into the White House and a bombing of the American military facility in Riyadh in 1995.  There was the Khobar Towers barrack bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1996.  There was the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in  Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.  And there was the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.  In all likelihood, that list is not exhaustive.

The 9/11 attack was nothing new; it was the continuation of a pattern of exponentially escalating violence that has been building for decades.  We may decide we are weary of fighting them.  But they will fight us until we submit to them.  Such “submission” is the true meaning of Islam.  Wake up to reality, or die as a naive fool.

Has that growth seemed to appear faster since President Bush’s declaration of the “war on terror” following 9/11?  Most certainly.  But war ALWAYS stimulates more recruitment, doesn’t it?  We certainly wouldn’t have decided it best to not fight against Hitler and the Nazis lest they expand their recruitment, would we?

Let me bookend two philosophies.

As a result of the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia – after which President Clinton ordered the American presence to leave with their tails prominently displayed between their legs – Osama bin Laden said:

“You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear,” he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Now lets look at another approach:

9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – after being hounded all over the world and then waterboarded until he spilled his guts to CIA interrogators – said that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever again dare to attack the United States again due to the massive, overwhelming response.

In the philosophical approach taken by President Bill Clinton and now embraced by President Barack Obama, our enemies perceive weakness and hesitation, and as a result they attack without mercy.  In the philosophical approach taken by President Bush, the United States responds with such massive force that our enemies are cowed and disheartened.  The American military machine is the finest in the history of the planet, and when it is unleashed, it wins – and God, or Allah, or Buddha, or place your deities’ name here – help whoever stands against it.

At least until Barack Hussein Obama became our Commander-in-chief.

How should al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations bent on murdering Americans react now that the policy of Harry Reid – “I believe that this war is lost” – and Jack Murtha – our Marines are the real murders and criminals – becomes the new law of the land.

How should they feel now that they are facing Democrats – who acted the part of the paper tiger to a “T” by spouting tough talk only to spend the next five years advocating that we cut and run (see here and here and here)?  Do you think they’re still afraid of us, now that we have voted for a Paper Tiger-in-chief with a Paper Tiger House and a Paper Tiger Senate?

We were kept safe since 9/11 because our enemies became convinced that they could never defeat a powerful America that would go to great lengths to defend itself and protect its interests.  We are now about to see what happens when we repudiate that strength and embrace a policy of weakness and appeasement.

After Hitler proved that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain – with his Munich Accord and his “I believe it is peace in our time” in shreds – was a moral idiot and a completely unfit leader, his own party in the House of Commons told him, “Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.  In the name of God, go!” and forced him to resign in disgrace.  I truly believe that that will be the end of Obama’s political career, as well.  The only question is how many American bodies will be buried before we come to that conclusion.

Article follows below:

Bush’s “War On Terror” Comes To Sudden End
Washington Post: With Stroke Of Pen, President Obama Erases Controversial Measures

Washingtonpost.com) This story was written by Dana Priest

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation’s most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat.

The CIA, which had taken the lead on counterterrorism operations worldwide, asked intelligence contacts around the globe to help its teams of covert operatives and clandestine military units identify, kill or capture terrorism suspects. They set up their first interrogation center in a compound walled off by black canvas at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and more at tiny bases throughout that country, where detainees could be questioned outside military rules and the protocols of the Geneva Conventions, which lay out the standards for treatment of prisoners of war.

As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency’s leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Over time, a tiny circle of federal employees outside these teams got access to some of the reports of interrogations. Some were pleased by the new aggressiveness. Others were horrified. They began to push back gingerly, as did an even smaller number of congressional officials briefed on the reports.

Eventually their worries reached a handful of reporters trying to confirm rumors of people who seemed to have disappeared: a Pakistani microbiologist spirited away in the dead of night in Indonesia. An Afghan prisoner frozen to death at a base code-named the Salt Pit. A German citizen who did not get back on his bus at a border crossing in Macedonia.

Front companies and fictitious people were used to hide a system of aircraft that carried terrorism suspects to “undisclosed locations” and to third countries under a little-known practice called rendition.

Unlike the federal employees, who could go to jail for disclosing the classified program, the reporters and their news outlets were protected by the Constitution — but not from government pressure. Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss and, later, Bush summoned top editors of The Washington Post to press their case against disclosing the existence of the secret prison network.

The published reports in The Post and elsewhere earned the news media sharp recriminations from the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress and the public. Government leak investigations were launched. Bush administration officials argued that such methods and operations were necessary to effectively thwart terrorism, noting to this day that there have been no major attacks since 2001.

If there were dissenters back then, they were largely silent.

But in Europe, the reports set off a firestorm of criticism and government investigations in nearly every capital. Washington was pressured to move prisoners out of the secret jails. U.S. government officials scattered throughout the national security and foreign policy agencies scrambled to learn more about operations they knew little about. A growing chorus within the CIA and the State Department began to question how long the secret system of detention and interrogation could survive, and drew up plans for an alternative.

By then, the color-coded terrorist alerts had ended. Police disappeared from roadblocks around the Capitol. Washington the fortress drew millions of visitors again. Some Democratic members of Congress replaced the “war on terror” phraseology with language indicating vigilance and persistence, but not unending combat and military-only options.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Bush announced the transfer of 14 “high-value detainees” from secret prisons to Guantanamo. He suspended the CIA program, but defended its utility and reserved the right to reopen it. The secret was officially out.

Over the next 2 1/2 years, as Democrats gained power in Congress, as the violence in Iraq sapped public support for the president and as the fear of another terrorist attack receded, the debate over secret prisons, renditions and harsh interrogations grew louder. Presidential candidates felt comfortable to include these sensitive subjects in the debate on the efficiency of Bush’s war against terrorists, and even on the notion that it was still a war.

During his campaign and again in his inaugural address Tuesday, Obama used a different lexicon to describe operations to defeat terrorists. “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said. “… And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 1

January 20, 2009

Bill Moyers stands out as a moral idiot par excellence in a journalistic field that has itself become characterized by appalling moral idiocy.  And as a man who has access into virtually every home in the country – subsidized by government through taxes – Moyers is able to powerfully advance his moral idiocy and create others like himself as few others are able to do.

In clip that lasts a little over 8 minutes, Bill Moyers pontificates that – although Israel admittedly has the theoretical right to defend itself – it is the brutally oppressive monster in this fight against Hamas.  He spends 1% of his time acknowledging Israel’s right of self-defense, and 99% of his time siding with Hamas terrorists and helping them broadcast their propaganda.

Bill Moyers to Joespeh Goebbels: “Are you having problems getting your message out?  Please, let me help you.”

Bill Moyers on PBS

Moyers says, “Brute force can turn defense into state terrorism,” and adds that, “By killing indiscriminately, Israel did what terrorists do and what Hamas wanted.”

There’s the rub.  But Moyers glides by it like the propagandist he truly is.  The tragic reality is that Hamas WANTS Israel to kill Palestinian women and children, and forces them to do so.  By locating amongst hospitals, and schools, and heavily populated neighborhoods, and by using such sites as weapons depots, and tactical command centers, and launching sites for their constant rocket attacks, Hamas forces Israel to either kill Palestinian civilians or stand idly by and do nothing while the lives of its own innocent civilians are put at risk.  And the latter is simply not an option for ANY nation.

Moyers is depicted by liberals as a courageous man, bravely standing up against Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby.  But he is a coward of amazing proportions.  For all the condemnation he heaps upon Israel, he never once presents Israel’s side in this Hamas-created dilemma, or offers an alternative to what Israel ought to do besides doing nothing while thousands of more rockets are launched into Israel.  He is cowardly, not courageous.  And yet he is rewarded with praise at elitist pinky-in-the-air cocktail parties for his contemptible pseudo-courage.

Hamas is routinely depicted as “the underdog” by cowards and appeasers like Moyers.  And every Palestinian civilian casualty is magnified as a crime against humanity.  Every “journalist” who condemns Israel in this manner becomes an apologist for terrorists who cynically and hatefully use the moral restraint – in fact the moral superiority – of their enemies against them.

Hamas is an “underdog” that uses Palestinian women and children as human shields while it doggedly pursues its mission of murdering Jews.   It is an “underdog” that deliberately locates their fighting and tactical sites in hospitals, schools, and homes.  It is an “underdog” whose very reason for existence is genocidal murder of Jews and the extinction of the state of Israel.  It is an “underdog” that refuses to exercise any moral restraint or show any respect for civilized behavior.  And it is an “underdog” that was elected by the majority vote of the “civilians” who are nevertheless still routinely depicted as hapless victims of brutal and indifferent Israeli aggression.

And what is Israel supposed to do when it suffers 3,000 rocket attacks in a single year by Hamas fighters?  How would Bill Moyers have Israel respond to this intolerable threat?  He lacks the courage to address such questions.

Only the most despicable and most depraved kind of human being would defend such “underdogs” and condemn the race of people who are their victims in attack after attack after attack.  There is no “balance” in Moyer’s analysis: there is only a refusal to face Israel’s dilemma, and to focus on the Palestinian as victim but never as aggressor.

Moyers clearly views deaths caused by Israel  as morally equivalent to the killing of Jews by internationally condemned terrorist organization Hamas.   Moyers appears to agree with the view of Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar, who says:

“The Zionists have legitimized the killing of their children by killing our children.”

This is utterly insane.  Israel doesn’t want to kill Palestinian children.  In fact, Israel has attempted to do everything it could to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties.  It has repeatedly pre-warned Palestinian civilians of impending attacks – giving up the important strategic element of surprise in the process – in order to limit the civilian death toll as much as they possibly could as they went after Hamas fighters.  But Hamas, by contrast, has done everything it could to maximize Palestinian deaths in order to use their deaths for political gain.  And useful idiots such as Bill Moyers – again, using his  tax-funded PBS program as his pulpit – has willingly served as this terrorist organization’s “useful idiot.”

Bill Moyers and those like him speak in terms of “the disproportionate use of force by Israel,” as though it would even be possible for a civilized nation like Israel to choose to send 3000 rockets indiscriminately into Gaza the way Hamas has done to Israel this past year.

How – after all – is a nation to “proportionately” respond to act after act after act of mindless and insane violence?  Should the United States have sent only 19 men after al Qaeda given the fact that al Qaeda had only sent 19 men on 9/11?  Would a nation that would not use every resource to protect its people from terrorist attack not be an evil nation?

And – having said that – I argue that Bill Moyers is an evil man.

We don’t generally think of someone like Moyers as “evil.”  He hasn’t murdered anyone, or raped anyone, has he?  And he’s an “intellectual,” not a criminal!

Realize something: ideas have consequences.  And some of the most shocking, brutal, hateful, murderous crimes in human history were the product of intellectuals as their “intellectual theories” gave rise to genocides.

Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust did not begin in the mind of Adolf Hitler.  Rather, it was the fruition of decades of intellectuals advancing their ideas.  Profoundly anti-Semitic theological liberals undermined the validity of the  Old Testament in order to depict Jews as frauds and purge “Jewishness” from Aryan Christianity.  Doctors began presenting their views – based on Darwinism and the best “science” – of the superiority of the Aryan race and the corresponding need – in the name of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” – to eliminate inferior people in order to forge the master race.  Other doctors – affirming the aforementioned theories – delved into eugenics and other measures to create and shape that master race.  And all the while philosophers and other German intellectuals were developing the concept of Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy to be lived”).

Adolf Hitler – who was shaped and influenced by these intellectuals’ ideas – was merely one of the architects who put them all together.  The view that the Jews were a subhuman race whose very existence posed a threat to the German people, and to the German Weltanschauung (for a more in depth understanding, click here).

Nazi Germany was the most educated, the most scientifically advanced, and the most intellectual nation on the face of the earth.  Do not think that “idea men” who have never actually had real blood on their hands cannot be incredibly evil human beings.  Most of the monsters who orchestrated the Holocaust and the death camps never actually killed anyone.

And Bill Moyers – in his morally blind denunciation of Israel for doing the best it could to defend itself in the midst of a moral dilemma orchestrated by its enemies – is very much like these other “idea men.”  Like these other depraved “idea men” before him, if Moyer’s ideas would be pursued, millions of Jews would ultimately pay with their lives.

Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 2

Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 2

January 20, 2009

Read Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 1

There is more.  I listened to Bill Moyers describe the Bible as a book in which God commands the Jews to exterminate foreign peoples.  He says,

When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan, their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants.  The very Moses who brought down the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” now proclaimed, “You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods… and wipe out their name from that place.”  So, God-soaked violence became genetically coded.  A radical strain of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth.

First of all, let me begin by showing you how Bill Moyers and Adolf Hitler would be nodding their heads in solemn agreement with one another on this subject.  In his Mein Kampf, p. 454, Hitler wrote:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature.  This may be a thousand times true; we may deeply regret this fact and establish with justifiable loathing that its appearance in the history of mankind is something that was previously alien to history – yet this does not alter the fact that this condition is with us today.”

That isn’t good, Mr. Moyers.  It isn’t good at all that you and Adolf Hitler are on the same exact page in lamenting so-called “Jewish intolerance and fanaticism.”  There is either something profoundly wrong with your thesis, or there was something right about Hitler’s.  And the latter view is evil to the core.

Secondly, should I begin with Bill Moyers’ setting himself up as a greater moral authority than the God of the Bible?  Or should I comment upon the twisted accusation clearly implicit in Moyers’ analysis that the Jews’ own hateful religion and their own hateful God are sins that are now coming home to roost in the form of Muslims holding to the same religious hatred and intolerance.  Is Islamic terrorism Jews’ karma for introducing their vengeful tribal God to the world?  You can almost see Bill Moyers’ sadness: “Oh, would that the God of the Holy Bible been MOYERS instead of JEHOVAH.”

The fact is that Israel would have been wiped out had Bill Moyers been leading them in the pillar of cloud just like they would be wiped out if they listened to his appalling moral idiocy today.  And Moyers is double the fool, for he attempts to imply a moral equivalence between the Jews and the terrorists.  Does he truly not realize that the goal of the terrorists is to kill every Jew; but that it is not and never has been the goal of the Jews to kill every Muslim?  How dare this morally depraved man attempt to create a parity between Jew and terrorist!  Moreover, how dare this depraved man attempt to even insinuate that the God of Moses provides a justification to wipe out Jews.

Let me, then, answer a more fundamental question: Why DID God command the Jews to conquer and kill?  And how is what is found in the Bible different from what is found in the Qur’an?  The answer begins to unfold in Genesis 15.  God foretells to Abraham that his descendants would “be strangers in a land that is not theirs [Egypt], where they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years.”  And in verse 16 God says, “Then in the fourth generation they shall return here” [to the land God gave Abraham and the Jews forever] – and then comes the big phrase – “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”

By the time Moses and Joshua led the Jews into the land that God gave them through His promise to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and on through David, the Amorites had become completely depraved.  God tells the Jews through Moses again and again, “DON’T be like these people!”  And thus we come to Exodus 23:23, which Moyers alludes to.  In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says that “it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Scholars use the term “power encounters.”  In the ancient world of Moses’ time, peoples and cultures were entirely bound up in their gods.  And if your people came in and defeated my people, it was a proof that your god or gods were stronger than mine.  And see Deuteronomy 3:21-22 as an example that it was God who went before Israel and gave it victory, just as it was God who had brought Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand (Deut 5:15).  And that was why Rahab the prostitute – who hid Joshua’s spies in Jericho – said, “I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you” (Joshua 2:9).

In short, God used the cultural reality of the day to show whose God was truly God over and against the depraved gods whose worship mandated child sacrifice, and He used the Jews to judge peoples who had succumbed to total depravity, to incest, child sacrifice, and every evil thing you can imagine.

And how does this differ from what is found in the Qur’an?  Throughout the Old Testament, God’s commandments to His people to commit acts of violence – to be His instrument of divine judgment, so that the other cultures would identify Jews with their all-powerful God  – was always situational.  In every case, God commanded a particular group of people to do a particular thing at a particular time in history – and to a particular enemy.  Contrast this with the Qur’an, which repeatedly emphasizes timeless, static commands to kill the infidel or to othe5 acts of violence (e.g. Sura 2:190−4).  See also the following links, here and here.

Mukhlas, one of the Muslim perpetrators of the 2002 bombings in Bali, cited a historical fact about the Prophet Muhammad in the December 18, 2005 issue of The Australian:

“Aren’t you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?”

Contrast Mohammed’s 77 historically documented campaigns of violence with Jesus, who said to His followers when His enemies came to seize Him,

“Put away your sword.  For all who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

Through the Jews, God progressively established over time a completely new moral system to the world.  And by the time of Christ, that system had transformed the moral thinking of ancient world around the Jews.

Yet Islam, which surfaced not in the 13th century B.C. or even in the 1st century A.D., but in the SEVENTH century A.D., exhibits none of the restraints against violence that Judaism had developed and Christianity passionately embraced.  To cite just one example, 100 years after the death of Christ, Christian believers were dying as non-violent martyrs suffering Roman persecution.  Contrast that with 732 AD, with Muslims pouring across Europe to kill and pillage – only to finally be stopped by Charles Martel at Tours, France.  They likewise poured out of Arabia into Africa with the scimitar to seize kingdoms and eradicate Christianity.

This is why Robert Spencer, in his powerful book The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, argues the terrifying but true thesis that Islam – properly understood through the paradigmatic life of the Prophet Muhammad – entails violent jihad.

Bill Moyers is the very worst kind of fool.  He is a fool who thinks he is wise, and a fool who is respected as wise by many around him.  He knows nothing about religion, or about the myriad differences between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.  And he most certainly knows nothing of moral wisdom or the common sense that emanates from such wisdom.

As Israel wraps up its campaign to deal with terrorists who have indiscriminately launched more than 6300 explosive-armed rockets and missiles into Israel just since 2005, I hope that you stand with Israel in its determination to live democratically amidst terrorists who want to destroy it, and condemn appeasing fools such as Bill Moyers.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers