Krauthammer: Improving Our Odds Against Terror

Charles Krauthammer writes on that we should eliminate doing bag and shoe inspections on 83 year old grandmothers from Poughkeepsie.

The American response to tightening up after London has been reflexive and idiotic: random bag checks in the New York subways. Random meaning that the people stopped are to be chosen numerically. One in every 5 or 10 or 20.

This is an obvious absurdity and everyone knows it. It recapitulates the appalling waste of effort and resources we see at airports every day when, for reasons of political correctness, 83-year-old grandmothers from Poughkeepsie are required to remove their shoes in the search for jihadists hungering for paradise.

The only good thing to be said for this ridiculous policy is that it testifies to the tolerance and good will of Americans, so intent on assuaging the feelings of minority fellow citizens that they are willing to undergo useless indignities and tolerate massive public waste.

Assuaging feelings is a good thing, but hunting for terrorists in this way is simply nuts. The fact is that jihadist terrorism has been carried out from Bali to Casablanca to Madrid to London to New York City to Washington by young Islamic men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin.

This is not a stereotype. It is a simple statistical fact.


Sen. Kennedy on Supreme Court Nominees 1967 vs. 2005

Senator Ted Kennedy – 1967 Debate over nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court:

“We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court,” Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. “This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent.”

Senator Ted Kennedy – 2005 Debate over nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts “will be expected to answer fully” any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

What more needs to be said?

The Foreign Policy of Guilt

From the Ayn Rand Institute:

The Foreign Policy of Guilt

Until the West asserts its moral right to exist, we will not be safe from Islamic totalitarianism.

By Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate

In the aftermath of the bombings in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked the British people to remain calm and maintain their daily routines; the terrorists win, he says, if one gives in to fear. This, you may remember, was also George W. Bush’s response after Sept. 11, when he called on Americans to return to our shopping malls and not be afraid.

But we should be afraid–precisely because of Blair’s and Bush’s policies.

We face an enemy, Islamic totalitarianism, committed to our deaths. Its agents have shown an eagerness to kill indiscriminately in London, Madrid, New York and elsewhere, even at the cost of their own lives. They continually seek chemical and nuclear weapons; imagine the death toll if such devices had been used in London’s subway bombings. In the face of this mounting threat, what is our response?

Do we proudly proclaim our unconditional right to exist? Do we resolutely affirm to eradicate power base after power base of the Islamic totalitarians, until they drop their arms, and foreign governments and civilian populations no longer have the nerve to support them?

No. Blair’s response to the London bombings, with Bush and the other members of the G8 by his side, was, in meaning if not in explicit statement, to apologize and do penance for our existence.

Somehow we in the West and not the Palestinians–with their rejection of the freedoms attainable in Israel and their embrace of thugs and killers–are responsible for their degradation. Thus, we must help build them up by supplying the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority with billions in aid. And somehow we in the West and not the Africans–with their decades of tribal, collectivist and anticapitalist ideas–are responsible for their poverty. Thus we must lift them out of their plight with $50 billion in aid. This, Blair claims, will help us “triumph over terrorism.”

The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq might be considered exceptions to this orgy of penance, but that would be an error. In neither war was the aim to smash the enemy. Unlike in WWII, when the Allies would flatten cities to achieve victory, the American and British armies, by explicit order, tiptoed in the Middle East. Terrorists and insurgents went free, free to return to kill our young men, because we subordinated the lives of our soldiers to concern for the enemy’s well-being and civilian casualties. Our goal was not victory but, as Bush so often tells us, to bestow with our soldiers’ blood an unearned gift on these people, “freedom” and “democracy,” with the hope that they would then stop killing us.

According to Blair, our duty is to shower the globe with money. According to Bush, our duty is to shower the globe with “democracy.” Taken together, the meaning of their foreign policy is clear. The West has no moral right to exist, because it is productive, prosperous and free; materially and spiritually, with its money and its soldiers’ lives, the West must buy permission to exist from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world has an unquestionable right to exist, because it is unproductive, poor and unfree.

Until we in the West reject this monstrous moral premise, we will never have cause to feel safe.

What we desperately need is a leader who proclaims that the rational ideals of the West, reason, science, individual rights and capitalism, are good–that we have a moral right to exist for our own sake–that we don’t owe the rest of the world anything–and that we should be admired and emulated for our virtues and accomplishments, not denounced. This leader would then demonstrate, in word and deed, that if those opposed to these ideals take up arms against us, they will be crushed.

Support for totalitarian Islam will wither only when the Islamic world is convinced that the West will fight–and fight aggressively. As long as the insurgents continue with their brutal acts in Iraq, unharmed by the mightiest military force in human history, as long as the citizens of London return to “normal” lives with subways exploding all around them, as long as the West continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons–as long as the West continues to appease its enemies, because it believes it has no moral right to destroy them, totalitarian Islam is emboldened.

It is the West’s moral weakness that feeds terrorism and brings it fresh recruits. It is the prospect of success against the West, fueled by the West’s apologetic response, that allows totalitarian Islam to thrive.

Bush has said repeatedly, in unguarded moments, that this war is un-winnable. By his foreign policy, it is. But if the British and American people gain the self-esteem to assert our moral right to exist–with everything this entails–victory will be ours.”

Yaron Brook is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at ARI. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand–best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

You bet!

Multiculturism – Gone Horribly Wrong

Read an interview with the enemy from Australia’s 60 Minutes.

More Evidence of the Corruption of the United Nations

From the International Humanist and Ethical Union:

IHEU today attempted to call on the United Nations to condemn killing in the name of religion, but were prevented from doing so by the heavy-handed intervention of Islamic representatives. The IHEU call, at today’s meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, follows moves by Islamic clerics to legitimise the current wave of terror attacks.

At this afternoon’s meeting, IHEU representative David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs: the Association for World Education, the Association of World Citizens, and IHEU, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the Sub-Commission. After repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech.

The Islamic members of the Sub-Commission objected to the speech as an attack on Islam. The text however(attached) is a report on recent critical comment on Islamist extremism by a number of notable Muslim writers and is a call to the UN Human Rights Commission by the NGOs “to condemn calls to kill, to terrorise or to use violence in the name of God or any religion”.

The text referred to recent decisions by high-ranking Muslim clerics confirming that those who carry out suicide bombings cannot be treated as apostates and remain Muslims(1), a fatwa by a Saudi cleric that innocent Britons were a legitimate target for terrorist action(2), and remarks by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University who has visited Britain, that terror attacks are permissible.

Commenting on this censorship, Roy Brown, President of IHEU said:
“This is part and parcel of the refusal by the Islamic representatives at the UN to condemn the suicide bombers, or to accept any criticism of those who kill innocent people in the name of God.

Read more

Do Democrats owe African-Americans Reparations?

There is an excellent article on reparations in the American Thinker. The gist is that while the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are shaking down corporations for reparations, and if they are serious, then there is another group that should be paying reparations:

Licking his chops, interim president of the NAACP Dennis C. Hayes said, “… we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table.” I have to wonder, though, if “all parties” means there’s place at that table for one Rev. Wayne Perryman.

You see, Rev. Perryman, a conservative minister from Seattle, Washington, has filed suit against the Democrat Party, charging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.”

What an inspired idea. This is the party of George Wallace, who blocked schoolhouse doors after an integration order and is famous for the campaign battle cry, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” It’s the party of the original Ku Klux Klan. It’s the party of slavery. It’s also the party occupied by virtually all the members of the Greenback Coalition. Ah, no sweeter irony have lips ever tasted: those throwing the reparations stones are living in a most fragile glass house.

The truth is that if the Greenback Coalition’s thesis – namely, that entities whose former selves had a hand in or profited from slavery are today responsible for making amends – is valid, there’s no reason why the Democrats should be omitted from the chain of responsibility. Why, theirs is among the most prominent of places in the hierarchy of complicity. After all, who bears greater responsibility: those in authority who create unjust laws or those subject to that authority who operate within the parameters of the law? The Democrat southern governments abdicated their moral responsibility to afford basic human rights to all persons residing within their borders. The rule of thumb here is that with responsibility comes authority and with authority comes responsibility.

Another consideration is the fact that just like the hapless corporations that find themselves haunted by the ghosts of the distant past, the Democrat Party was a beneficiary of slavery. For instance, by being a guarantor of the perpetuation of slavery the Democrats gained and retained power. Given this fact, and in light of the Greenback Coalition’s demand that corporations disclose whether or not they filled their coffers on the backs of slaves, there should be an investigation of the Democratic Party to determine the degree to which it benefited financially from slavery. After all, we know that political parties tend to get donations from those who benefit from their policies. So, let’s find out how much money the Democrats received from plantation owners and other businesses that had a vested interest in the institution of slavery.

This is a golden opportunity for the shakedown thugs to prove that, well . . . they’re not thugs. You see, some people could get the fanciful idea that the drive for reparations is animated by ignoble motivations like greed and the pursuit of political power. Why, people get some crazy ideas, don’t they? Standing on principle and applying the same standard to all – including your political bedfellows – would serve well to dispel these notions.

Well, let’s see how much the Democratic Party is willing to pay in reparations. I’ll let you know when they write the check how much it is for.

Antelope Valley Muslims Protest Islamist Terror

An article in the Antelope Valley Press relates how Muslims living in the Antelope Valley, about an hour north of Los Angeles, stress message of peace.

“Islam is Peace,” the signs read as about 100 Muslims and supporters from across the Antelope Valley offered that message to their fellow residents in a street-corner rally Friday evening.

Drivers answered by honking their horns and returning peace signs. Two sheriff’s squad cars idled in the old K-Mart parking lot for security, but deputies said no problems were reported.

Asema Sultan immigrated to the United States from Pakistan 24 years ago and has lived in Palmdale for 15 years.

The sign she carried said: “Not in our name.”

“Killing any person is not right,” she said. “Jihad is an inner struggle, not killing people.”

Her concept of jihad is not often heard among those who purport to carry out holy war in the name of Islam.

Jihad, Sultan explained, should be thought of as “restraining desires, resisting from evil.”

“Good doesn’t come easily,” she said. “You have to sacrifice to do good.”

As she spoke, a young white man drove by in a beat-up black car, honking his horn and waving his middle finger at the gathered Muslims.

Sultan shrugs it off.

“There are all kinds of people,” she said. “They just need more education, that’s all.

“We don’t blame them. They will learn one day.”

Kamal al-Khatib, leader of the American Islamic Institute of the Antelope Valley, helped organize the event.

“This is the whole community coming together,” he said.

Friday’s rally came as participants were just learning of several car bombings in an Egyptian resort.

At least 49 people died in three car bombings early today at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik.

“The whole world’s on fire right now,” al-Khatib said. “If the world doesn’t take care of these problems, we’re going to have the jungle.”

Medhat Elharty, an Egyptian who now lives in Palmdale, was at the resort just a few weeks ago.

“It’s a beautiful town,” he said. “Not many Egyptian people go there because the cost is very high.”

The bombings rattled Elharty.

“It’s really bad,” he said. “This is not the Muslim way.”

The rally was informal. There were no grand speeches or calls to action. Members of the Muslim community and supporters stood on the corner of 10th Street West and Rancho Vista Boulevard (Avenue P) waiving peace signs and American flags, showing that they were part of the community.

Abdul-Wahab Omeira, a chaplain at California State Prison Los Angeles County in Lancaster and the main event organizer, told al-Khatib there would be no grandstanding at the event.

“We don’t need speeches,” he said, wearing a pink sign across his chest that said, “We love the UK.”

“Action speaks louder than words,” he told al-Khatib.

Several participants gathered briefly around Omeira, who paraphrased a simple passage from the Koran to denounce terrorism:

“If you kill one person, unjustly, you kill all humanity. If you save one person, you save all humanity.”

It was a saying oft-\en repeated by many at the event.

A handful of on-Muslim residents came out to support their neighbors.

Don Gockel, a Realtor from Palmdale, brought water for the demonstrators and handed out American flags with his business card attached.

“I don’t think for a moment that all Muslims are terrorists. We have a well-established Muslim community in the Antelope Valley that doesn’t need to be associated with the wrong group,” he said.

Caroline Scratch of Lake Hughes said a Palestinian man she worked with for 30 years helped her understand Muslims and the Middle East. That understanding, she said, brought her to Friday’s rally.

“Every age has to fight evil in its own way,” she said. “This is their way. They’re willing to say (terrorism) is evil, and that’s what we need to hear.”

Ron Constable of Palmdale added, “When some folks are doing something right, it’s right to support ’em.”

Gini Armstrong, also of Palmdale, was impressed by the showing.

“When Muslims make the point that terrorism doesn’t represent them, and are willing to come out here,” she said, “they’re taking back their faith.”

Around 8 p.m., a man wearing an Army shirt walked through the rally and offered a firm handshake to al-Khatib.

“Last time I saw this was outside of Baghdad,” said the man, who identified himself only as an Army corporal from Palmdale. He served a tour of duty in Iraq that ended in January 2004.

“Right now, people are biased against them,” he said of the rallying Muslims. “I wish I would see more of something along this line.”

He added, “Next to supporting the troops, this is equally good.”

As I have said in the past, when the majority of Muslims who oppose the jihadists speak up and issue fatwas like they did here, the jihadists will no longer be able to use the Quran as justification for their murderous acts.