Prosecuting our Protectors
Who would have ever thought that we would seriously debate whether to prosecute those who have kept us safe since 9/11?
Most of us can still recall the fear and uncertainty of the days and weeks that followed. Shell-shocked and frightened, we lived in imminent expectation of further attacks. Few would have bet a dime that in the next seven years we wouldn’t be hit again. That it did not happened is almost difficult to believe, since the hijackers’ spectacular success inspired jihadists far and wide. Every year since they would promise an even greater slaughter with blood running down the streets and American mothers veiling in despair. That those threats never materialized has surely not been due to a lack of trying on their part, but to the vigilance of George W. Bush and those in his administration who devoted themselves to protecting this country. The fact that they managed to keep us safe is a remarkable achievement and something we should all be grateful for.
Continue reading at American Thinker
It’s over for rich greenies
By fear their hearts are rent
In their mansions opulent
The world’s about to end
Because of cows flatulent
Originally published at the American Thinker
National Day of Prayer
May the 3rd marks the National Day of Prayer. It truly could not come at a better time. Under assault from without and within, America needs God more than ever before. It is a great tragedy that this once overwhelmingly Christian nation has been turning away from God. Needless to say, we are paying a steep price as a result. Most of the ills that plague us today – our moral looseness, our perverted popular culture, our flaccidness in the face of fanaticism – can be directly traced to a lack of godliness. We can, therefore, do no better than to repentantly implore God for his favor and protection.
May God keep our country and may His mercy and love be upon us.
Originally published at the American Thinker
My Fellow Immigrants
The New York Sun, March 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Immigrant:
As you may know, Congress is grappling with the serious immigration problem of this country, seeking to design what it calls comprehensive immigration reform. I think it is only appropriate that we who are at the center of this problem should do our best to help with the solution.
I am afraid, however, that the behavior of some among us only makes the already complex matters worse.
You may have noticed certain unlovely tendencies that have been becoming increasingly prominent in the immigrant population. We have learned to demand many things and then complain when our requests are not met. Protesting and tossing about charges of cultural insensitivity, discrimination, or worse have become our latest pastime.
It is safe to say that this ungracious attitude would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world. That it has been in America is due to the matchless amity of her people. But as criticisms and complaints grow more and more unreasonable, the situation is slowly becoming intolerable.
Being an immigrant myself, let me say something that needs to be said, but which Americans are reluctant to say.
Radical Islam – Ideology, Not Religion
Human Events, February 23rd, 2007
The dramatic events of the last few years have made it plain that the West is in a fight for its life. The terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, Madrid and London have demonstrated with ample clarity the enemy’s commitment to his stated goal of our destruction. The situation could not indeed be more dire, since never before have we faced a foe so dogged and fanatical. Whether we want to admit it or not we are in a war to the death, for the enemy will not relent until he either accomplishes his objective or is himself destroyed in the effort. Given the stakes, it is vitally important that we understand who this enemy is, because only then we’ll be in a position to formulate an effective strategy for the struggle ahead.
Contrary to all appearances, radical Islam — that militant form of Islamic fundamentalism — is not a religious movement. That this is generally not recognized is not surprising given the movement’s exploitation of religious rhetoric and symbols. But a closer look at its modus operandi shows that it is virtually indistinguishable from that of fascism and communism. The striking similarities should alert us to the fact that radical Islam is at bottom a political ideology along the lines of the great totalitarian ideologies of the past.
Like communism and fascism, radical Islam is intrinsically utopian in that it offers itself as the answer to all great problems of man. This feat is to be accomplished by eliminating the root cause from which all human trouble ultimately derives — the lack of true faith. The solution, then, is the conversion of peoples to Islam and the subsequent conforming of their conduct to Shari’a, a God-inspired body of law.
Britain to teach traditional values
Truly amazing things are happening in Britain. The British public schools will actually attempt to teach ‘traditional British values’ under a plan being put forth by the Blair government. Said the UK’s higher education minister:
I very strongly believe that we are a multicultural, diverse society and I think that gives us incredible strength and richness. But I think it is crucial that we recognise that there are some core British values that are central and common to us all.
This is clearly an effort to counter the Islamic takeover of Europe and reverse the decades of rabid multiculturalism by which Britain has been badly mauled. After many years of overextending itself to accommodate various (mainly Islamic) cultures and minorities, the country received its reward last July – bombs on the transport system set off by ‘alienated’ youths. Alienation is, of course, the inevitable result of multiculturalism, and a year ago the British got a taste of this poisonous fruit.
But now it looks like they finally want to do something about. It is very encouraging to see that there is still some will left in Europe which so obviously and painfully suffering from moral and cultural lethargy.
It remains to be seen whether the British will sustain the initiative and turn the proposal into reality and then follow up in other areas as well. Such work is desperately needed, but they are certain to face vicious opposition from the usual quarters. We wish the British very best for their own sake, and also for the sake of a great civilization that is slowly dying on the very continent which gave it birth.
Originally published at the American Thinker
Rush Limbaugh and Liberalism’s Fatal Flaw
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker
One of the Left’s great agonies and frustrations of the past fifteen years has been its abortive quest to field a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh. Fully cognizant of the massive damage inflicted on it by talk radio, a number of contenders placed bids to mount a counterattack. To their bitter dismay, they all came to grief despite the great hype and hope that surrounded each successive attempt.
A decade and a half worth of feverish effort thus produced no headway, not even a single nationally viable host. With nothing to show for, the time has surely come to ask the obvious question: Why?
Why have liberals failed to make any inroads in talk radio? And why has their failure been so complete?
It surely cannot be due to a lack of trying or will, since they have done everything they could to prop up their hopefuls even to the point of raising donations in this consummately commercial medium. All to no avail.
But rather than to reevaluate their obviously failing approach, they stubbornly carry on in the same way with predicable results. Again and again they run headlong into the same wall, each crash more pathetic and embarrassing than the one before. So bad things have gotten that most recently they placed their bets on Al Sharpton hoping that the kooky reverend would carry their water on national airways. A futile dream if there ever was one. Rather than pursuing vain hopes, liberals would do much better to take a pause and search for the root cause of their fiasco.
Any such effort would have to begin with a hard look at the format in which they are trying to succeed. In the type of political talk show inaugurated by Rush Limbaugh, the host openly takes an ideological stance (conservative or liberal) and then applies it to the issues of the day during his two hours on the air. What this in effect amounts to is in-depth analysis of current affairs from a specific political point of view.
The key to success in this kind of enterprise is the host’s ability to articulate his positions in a logical and cogent manner. This is because most people will not listen for very long to an analysis-driven program if the analysis itself does not make rational sense.
And this is precisely where the crux of liberals’ problem lies. They are simply not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. This is not at all surprising, for how does one justify high taxes, gay marriage, abortion, multiculturalism and such? They are all based on false premises and they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination must reveals them for the frauds and failures that they in truth are. This is why liberalism cannot withstand the analytical vigor of talk radio and why it has failed so abysmally in it.
Talk radio has thus exposed in a striking way a fatal flaw at the very heart of liberalism – its indefensibility by rational argument. Without having yet grasped it, it is the medium’s format that became liberals’ stumbling block.
However abysmal their current predicament may be, the future holds bleaker prospects still. Most liberals do not yet realize that they will never be able to succeed in talk radio. To make it there – at least in the form in which it is currently practiced – requires that hosts do something which liberals simply can’t: logically and rationally expound their views. To make matters even more desperate there is nothing they can do about it short of abandoning their untenable ideology. In popular parlance, they are cooked… completely and utterly cooked.
Things used to be infinitely more palatable (for liberals) when the television talk show was the main forum for the mass dissemination of political opinion. Its relatively short broadcast time – rarely more than fifty minutes – is usually intensely contested by several guests. As a result of severe time constraints, the discussants rarely speak for more than a couple of minutes at a time. This, of course, makes any serious analysis all but impossible. This problem is made all the more acute by the fact that the guests’ statements are routinely intended to rebuff points made by their opponents which themselves are often quite irrelevant to the topic under consideration.
This format just fine with liberals who – knowing instinctively that their positions cannot withstand thorough scrutiny – are always happy to avoid in-depth discussion of anything. Conservatives, on the other hand, are badly disadvantaged in this kind of environment. Conservatism requires methodical exposition, quite unlike liberalism which can only survive in the realm of disjointed statements and unsupported assertions. The television talk show is thus liberalism’s perfect vehicle. Often nothing more than a scattered clash of personalities, it is normally dominated by those with the biggest mouth. And since liberals have almost a complete grip on television, they make sure that the biggest mouths on their programs come from their own camp.
But things changed dramatically with the advent of Rush Limbaugh when the program format he made commonplace became the first ever forum in the mass-media that allowed for the systematic analysis of issues. Nowhere indeed are things discussed more deeply and thoroughly than in talk radio where not infrequently the whole show revolves around two or three subjects. The level of analysis is further deepened by the input from callers who enrich the discussion with their unique input and perspective.
And then, of course, there are those who disagree and openly challenge the host’s positions. To retain his audience’s trust he must be able to deal with their objections in an honest and fair manner. Woe be to the host who keeps dismissing those who oppose him without properly addressing the points they raise. Sooner or later he will be abandoned by all except the most narrow-minded in his audience. No one understands this better than Rush Limbaugh who accords those who contradict him the time and courtesy which go far beyond the bounds of common politeness.
Unable to face the unsavory truth, liberals charge that Mr. Limbaugh owes his success to his showmanship and that their failure to compete is due to their inability to field an equally talented performer. But this surely is not the case. Success in talk radio is not contingent on the host’s ability to be funny. There have been a number of other conservatives who succeeded in this medium without possessing Mr. Limbaugh’s flair for entertaining. Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Oliver North immediately come to mind. Funny or not, not a single liberal talk show host has come even close to matching their level of success.
The most acute observer of the American scene, it is his intelligence, penetration, and grasp of issues that primarily account for Rush Limbaugh’s success. His sparkling humor is merely the icing on the sumptuous cake of analysis he serves up on a daily basis. To liberals, however, it does not taste as delicious and understandably so. To them his wit feels more like a stinging petard in their rear regions as they lie prostrate in the ruins of their ideology brought down by the power of his analytical firestorm.
Cheney donated $6.87 million
The fact that Dick Cheney made last year a charitable donation of $6.87 million – the largest ever by a public servant – has gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media. Given that they are so eager to report all the bad things they can find about those evil trial-lawyer shooting republicans, they should at least have the decency to also report the praiseworthy. But obviously they don’t. To be fair, one does not often hear them reporting charitable donations by liberals either.
This, however, is probably due a different reason. Do you still remember Al Gore’s 1997 charity totaling $367?
As a general rule, heart-bleeding liberals talk very good talk when it comes to giving something back but when it comes to their own money they are rather careful. Most of the wealthy ones have become masters at avoiding taxation and hiding their wealth in various tax sheltered instruments. Ted Kennedy could tell you a great deal about it. But since he won’t there is an excellent book that does.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with people deciding not to part with their own money. What grates is the hypocrisy. One wonders just how much of his newly-found personal wealth Bill Clinton has ‘given back to the community,’ to use the phrase that he so loved when in office. It is well known that the man is rather sharkish when charging for his appearances and that he cannot be got on the cheap.
His wife likewise has shown considerable cunning when it comes to steering money to her own nest. Some people may still remember how she arranged to get paid her huge book advance just days before being sworn in as a US Senator after which fact she would have been ineligible for much of that money.
It would surely seem that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton exhibit the classic symptoms of that same greed against which they so bravely fought while in the White House. It would also appear that they are not the only ones among the liberal folk who suffer from this execrable affliction. Can it be that Dick Cheney’s enormous charitable donation puts many of them to shame which is why their friends in the mainstream media are so loath to report his benevolent act?
Originally published at the American Thinker
A unique opportunity
Many republicans are already frightened that the democrats will use the occasion of General Hayden’s confirmation hearings to bring up the subjects of the National Security Agency and Guantánamo.
Rather than feeling apprehensive the republicans should rejoice, since this represents a priceless opportunity to nail their detractors. There is one thing, however, they will have to do. They must stop cowering and explain calmly and accurately what these programs are about. As those who care know, the NSA’s surveillance is about listening on those plotting our destruction. Only a madman (or a liberal) could say that this is the wrong thing to do.
At Guantánamo we hold some of the most ruthless terrorists out there. Those who think that regular Americans are concerned when we occasionally slap a few of them around in order to extract life-saving information are mistaken. I would bet far more people are indignant at the way we pamper and fatten them. And most Americans are not too crazy about giving them Korans and prayer rugs either.
The administration has not made these points forcefully enough, because it has allowed itself to be cornered by the rabid media and demagogic liberal politicians. Now they will have a unique opportunity to present the truth. They should not let it slip. Let them state the case boldly and let the democrats attack it. We will see which way the American people will go. After all, it is their safety that these programs are designed to ensure.
Originally published at the American Thinker
A Case for Forced Interrogation
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker on May 10, 2006
Glad the administration has one less ‘scandal’ to deal with, many on our side welcomed with relief the recent conclusion of EU’s antiterrorism chief that the CIA has no secret interrogation facilities in Europe. I, for one, am troubled by this news, since it was my hope that such centers did in fact exist.
Intelligence is the most effective – and in many situations the only – weapon we have in the war against the enemy we currently face. The terrorist operates by making himself invisible and often the only way to disrupt his plots is by having a prior knowledge of them.
One of the most important sources of such knowledge is captured terrorists themselves. The challenge is how to extract this information from them. Hating us as they do, of one thing we can be certain – they will not reveal it to us voluntarily. In most cases – especially when time is of the essence – crucial intelligence can only be obtained through the infliction of physical pain.
In March of 2003 our forces in Pakistan got hold of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Al Qaeda's operational leader with ‘unrivaled knowledge of the organization's plans and personnel.’ An anti-terrorist expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland said this about him just after the arrest:
Depending on who interrogates him and where, several Al Qaeda operations in the planning, preparation, and execution may be disrupted. As head of the military committee of Al Qaeda, he knows all the key regional leaders and assets … in at least 98 countries.
Recalcitrant and defiant, the captured Sheik was unwilling to talk until he was subjected to a rather unpleasant procedure known as waterboarding. He lasted two minutes and thirty-five seconds before begging for relief. His subsequent confession turned out to be a priceless trove of actionable intelligence that helped disrupt plots, capture additional terrorists and save the lives of innocent men, women and children.
A striking example of the effectiveness and value of forced interrogation, this case shows why we not only have a moral right but also a duty to make use of it. The act of putting under temporary physical duress mayhem-plotting terrorists is amply justified by the hundreds and possibly thousands of potentially saved lives. Those who still have their doubts should only ask themselves this: Should we be more concerned about the short-term pain of a fanatic than the lives of innocent people whom he intends to murder? It is difficult to see how anyone in their right senses could respond in the affirmative.
Those who allege that their objections are due to moral considerations are lying, because any honest analysis can only lead to one conclusion. Not only are we justified in using this method, but a failure to avail ourselves of it would be morally unforgivable. For how in good conscience could we bear to look at the mangled bodies of victims knowing we could have saved them simply by putting some pressure on their killers?
Rather then driven by moral qualms, the opposition is motivated by something entirely different and altogether far more insidious. Inexplicable as it may seem, there are some in our midst who so hate their own country that they want to see it beaten and defeated. Having realized that forced interrogation is one of the most effective weapons in this war, they want to deprive us of it.
It is disturbing to see the critics carry the day while the other side cowers in the corner afraid to even articulate the rationale behind this invaluable practice. The president himself has been markedly evasive even though it is obvious he has tacitly authorized its use. In doing so he was absolutely correct and justified, and yet we find ourselves in an absurd situation where the man who is trying to protect us can’t even speak honestly about his efforts. There is something deeply askew with our mindset when we must hide from ourselves the fact of doing that which is right.
Rather than playing the role of accusers, it is the critics who should be called to account. Perhaps they could tell us whether they place the temporary discomfort of terrorists over the lives of their fellow citizens. They should also be asked if they know of a better method of extracting crucial intelligence from recalcitrant jihadists. If so, let’s hear it. But if they don’t, they should hold their peace and not sabotage the work of those who try to shield us from the murderous designs of a treacherous enemy.
It is imperative that we cut through the hysteria so that the vital work of aggressive interrogation can be carried out properly with the full sanction of our legal and political establishments. To bring this about will require some leadership and no one is better positioned for this task than the president himself. Since nothing usually works better than plain truth, why not to state publicly what he quite obviously believes in his heart? His case would be much strengthened were he to come out and say something like this:
I fully support the application of forced interrogation to those who plot murder and destruction in our midst. I believe that it is the best and most effective way of obtaining crucial intelligence from refractory terrorists which we would never have access to otherwise. I also believe that the lives of our citizens are far more valuable than the temporary discomfort of those scheming to kill us. I have sworn to protect this country and its people and it is my duty to take every reasonable measure to that effect. Denying our security forces this invaluable tool would be a gross violation of my oath.
Does anybody doubt where the majority of the American people would come down on this? After all, it is our own safety that this practice seeks to ensure. The truth thus presented would also have another beneficial effect. It would strip away the critics’ false mantle of moral righteousness and expose them for what they truly are – saboteurs seeking to deprive us of one of the most valuable weapons at our disposal in the war on terror.
Liberal love and wisdom
‘I have wisdom. I feel love. I live in the present and I try to present a dimension that brings harmony and healing. My concept is the opposite of George W. Bush,’ guitarist Carlos Santana in a recent interview.'
Santana’s language marks him out as belonging to the same liberal crowd which in its love and wisdom also vilified Ronald Reagan as he fought one of the greatest evils that ever plagued mankind.
But this wasn’t by far the only inanity liberals committed under the influence of their love and wisdom. There are plenty more.
They defend tooth and nail partial birth abortion, a barbaric procedure in which the skulls of viable babies are crushed with a pair of tongs.
They swear by abortion which has claimed more than 30 million human babies in the last three decades.
They turn serial murderers into celebrities.
They disparage traditional marriage while legitimizing perversions.
They celebrate the strange, the odious and the convoluted.
They malign the decent and productive.
There can be no true love or wisdom in the liberal heart that leaves mangled baby corpses, dependency, tyranny and perversion in its wake. If the results of its actions are any indication, filth and poison reside therein.
For liberals to boast about their love and wisdom is about as appropriate as for skunks to brag about the noxious odours exuded by their scent glands.
Speaking of skunks, Charles Darwin said once wrote something about this species that perfectly applies to these people’s deleterious ideology: ‘Whatever is once polluted by it, is for ever useless.’
Originally published at the American Thinker
A reason for rejoicing
History has been made in the UK as three opera albums appeared in the top ten on the country’s music charts. One cannot but rejoice in this, since it is one of the great tragedies of our time that we have largely turned our back on classical music. Classical music truly stands as one of the West’s great achievements unequalled by any other cultural tradition. Where else can one find anything even remotely comparable to the magnificence of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion, Mozart’s Magic Flute or Wagner’s Ring Cycle? And these are but a few examples among many.
The effort spent unlocking the treasures hidden in these works is well worth the time, for it can enrich beyond measure. A powerfully expressive means of non-verbal communication, classical music is uniquely suited to probe the deepest aspects of human experience as these are invariably un-articulable. For how can we really capture in words the mystery of God or the simultaneous coexistence of love and evil in the human heart? These and other such things can only be intuited and even that only dimly. And perhaps nothing is better suited for this than the unbounded richness and expressiveness of classical music.
Once we become aware of the untold depth and beauty of classical music we will also recognize the greatness and wisdom of the civilization that produced such splendor. This will deepen our love and appreciation of our great culture and steel our resolve to defend it against barbarians – both domestic and foreign – who would tear it down.
Originally published at the American Thinker
Proud to be an American
with one comment
How appropriate it is that America bashers should hold their rendezvous in the great country of Cuba. Nothing indeed could have revealed their true character better than their choice of venue.The best way to gauge a country is to see how many people try to get in as opposed to how many try to get out. It is truly paradoxical that while the leaders of these governments convene to condemn the United States, scores of own their citizens try to immigrate here. Castro himself had to turn his island into a virtual prison to keep the populace from running off to Florida.
You can get a good idea of someone’s character by the kind of enemies he has. To wit, there are three main types of America haters in the world today: Assorted dictators, Islamists and leftists. That they hate us shows that we are still doing things right. Even though George Bush may be faulted on many fronts, he is to be heartily congratulated on this one, since not even the great Ronald Reagan managed to rouse the world’s malefactors for an America bashing orgy of the current magnitude.
This is a great time to be an American, and I am very proud to be one. As someone who grew up in a bad system that was relegated to the ash heap of history by the United States, I am convinced of this: America is the best place on this earth and truly the last best hope of man. Whenever the subjugated citizens of America’s specious maligners feel the pangs despair, they can dream that one day they too may find a better life in the great land of the free. And to oppressed people everywhere this is no small consolation.
Written by Vasko Kohlmayer
September 22, 2006 at 10:23 am
Posted in COMMENTARY, Communism/Socialism, International politics, Uncategorized