Why Bush Cannot Be Honest About Muslims

Conservative blogs and some talk show hosts are bashing President Bush for speaking to a Muslim group on Wednesday and for announcing the appointment of a representative to an international Muslim organization. Since 9/11, Bush has consistently maintained that Islamic terrorism is limited to a relatively small number of radicals, and that almost all Muslims are peaceful people who, in the USA at least, only want for their children the same things that everyone else does.

My position on this is a little complicated. I have moved slowly from 1. not much thinking about Muslims at all prior to the USS Cole massacre, to 2. agreeing with President Bush for some time after 9/11, to 3. concluding that the Muslim religion is as much a hateful, political movement as it is a religion, and that it must be confronted and stopped or changed. I reached this conclusion not only from observing more closely the number of Islamic terrorist acts transpiring every day around the world, but also from noticing that Muslims try to impose their Sharia whenever they gain some political power.

I have also been influenced by the actions of the so-called “flying imams”, by the Rasmussen poll that found that more than a quarter of American Muslims support suicide bombing and also by the many cases of murder carried out here by American Muslims on non-Muslims (such as the Washington, DC snipers).

I think that privately President Bush agrees with me, and that the Iraq War is clearly the start of a long range plan to bring modernization and democracy into an area of the world still operating in the 7th century, but, as President of this country, he recognizes two things and has responsibilities I do not have: first, he wants to keep our fight with Islamic fundamentalists from being seen as a religious war. This could force the huge number of moderate Muslims in the world to choose up sides to defend their religion. It is a religious war of sorts, but Bush wants to maintain the fiction that it is not, and he is right to do so. Bush’s other consideration is that he is president of all Americans, and he does not want acts of violence against all Muslims to occur in a major way here. Again, he is correct in trying to keep a lid on this real possibility.

For these reasons, I agree with the decisions of President Bush to make appearances at Muslim events and to appoint this representative, however, I also support efforts to shut down all further immigration of Muslims, and I support efforts to stop the preaching of hate messages at Muslim mosques – including the deportation of persons delivering sermons urging violence and the imposition of Sharia.

Bush condemns radical Muslims in visit to mosque
By James Gerstenzang
LA Times Staff Writer

9:20 AM PDT, June 27, 2007

WASHINGTON — Visiting an Islamic mosque on Washington's Embassy Row, President Bush delivered a strongly worded denunciation today of Muslim radicals and said he would appoint for the first time a U.S. representative to a major international Islamic organization.

Drawing a distinction between moderation in the practice of Islam and those seeking to use the faith for what he described as radical political ends, the president said "it is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy."

Bush's remarks came during his second visit to the Islamic Center of Washington, which is marking its 50th anniversary. He is the first president to visit the center more than once. Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, he spoke at the center to denounce anti-Muslim violence and prejudice.

That visit occurred during a period of sympathy for the United States. Today he spoke under much different conditions, at a time when U.S. officials have gone out of their way to defend the war in Iraq and present the Bush administration's policy as one intended to further democracy rather than an attack on Islam.

The president, in keeping with custom, removed his shoes before entering the sanctuary. He said the Islamic Center, in a neighborhood not far from a Jewish synagogue, Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church and Buddhist temple, represented the nation's commitment to religious diversity.

He cited U.S. support for Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina after the disintegration of Yugoslavia — a reference applauded by his audience — and said Americans offered such support out of "compassion, conviction and conscience." It reflected the proper course of supporting moderation against extremism, he said.

In the Middle East, he said, "we have seen the rise of groups of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power."

It is the radicals, Bush said, who stage "spectacular attacks" against Muslim holy sites to divide Muslims and push them into fighting each other, conducting "acts of butchery ... in the name of Allah."

It is such extremism, the president said, that needs to be turned back "before it finds its path to power."

Bush said he would appoint an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a nearly 40-year-old group of 57 nations created to protect Muslims and fight discrimination against them. The envoy, whom he did not name, will be dispatched to share "America's views and values."

The Fascists on the Left Are At It Again

On Fox News Sunday night we were distressed to hear Senator Feinstein aver that she "would be looking into the 'Fairness Doctrine'", the most misnamed of the all the liberal, thought-control ideas we have to fend off constantly. Unfortunately, at her side was the normally conservative, but not always perceptive, Senator Lott. Lott was smarting from the reception he received the previous week for suggesting that talk radio listeners were misinformed about the amnesty-immigration bill, and that something should be done. Actually his exact words were 'Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem'...

Apparently, the fears we have been expressing about this threat are well-founded. Here is an excellent article by Rich Lowry that brings some light to this issue:

Balancing Act
Rush to control the airwaves.

By Rich Lowry, June 26, 2007, National Review

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio pioneer, has been called many nasty things before, but never a “structural imbalance.” That’s the fancy term a liberal think tank uses to characterize his success — and to dress up its proposal for counteracting that success through new government regulation.

The report of the Center for American Progress on “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” marks the latest phase in liberaldom’s grappling with conservative talk radio. First came the attempts to create a liberal Limbaugh — Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al. — that fell flat. Then an entire left-wing network, Air America, was founded, and foundered. So there’s only one option left — if you can’t beat them, and you won’t join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them.

The report looks at a slice of 257 talk stations and concludes that more than 90 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative. The supposed reason for this is, essentially, that media companies are conspiring to shove conservative radio down the throats of listeners in a way they couldn’t if, among other things, government required broadcasters “to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest.”

This is a pinched view of radio. There are upwards of 2,000 talk stations in the country that deal with news and issues, according to Michael Harrison of Talkers magazine, and they encompass all sorts of formats from National Public Radio to urban radio to shock jocks, none of which are dominated by right wingers. Conservative talk radio is a vibrant niche within that market, but there are many other places to go for news and opinion.

What is hard to find are liberal replicas of Rush Limbaugh, and that is due to the deepest structural imbalance of all — talent. Limbaugh and other top conservative talkers are silver-tongued, informative, and — importantly — entertaining. These are qualities that can’t be conjured out of nowhere, and designated liberal-radio saviors have tended not to have the requisite talent “on loan from God” (as Limbaugh puts it).

There have been conservative failures at talk radio for the same reason. Without the right mix of substance and entertainment, a host will fail to get ratings, and, with that, be yanked from the air. “Ratings” is a word that appears only once in passing in the Center for American Progress report, because then it would have to acknowledge that conservative radio is successful exactly because it gets listeners.

Broadcasters go where the money is. If a liberal could draw the kind of listeners — and hence the kind of advertising dollars — as Limbaugh, he too would be on more than 600 stations. This is why Spanish-language radio is such a growth commodity. Not because broadcasters have an agenda to Hispanicize America, or because there’s a structural imbalance that favors Spanish-language over German- or French-language programming, but because there’s an audience for it.

The Center for American Progress wants to short-circuit the market. Having bureaucrats determine whether radio stations are serving the public interest is inherently dangerous. There are times — like now, in the debate about the immigration bill — when Democrats and Republicans in Washington will agree that conservative talk radio is not serving the public interest, because it brings to the table public sentiment that the establishment prefers to ignore.

The report avoids directly calling for a renewal of the constitutionally dubious Fairness Doctrine that mandated equal time for conservative and liberal opinions, although some Democratic lawmakers aren’t so circumspect. After five years of opposing most assertions of government power to fight terrorism, these liberals are ready to wield it to fight conservative talk radio. After maintaining that the First Amendment protects nude dancing, they are ready to argue that it doesn’t quite apply to people broadcasting conservative views over the airwaves.

In our toxic contemporary politics, it’s a sign of success if you drive your opponents batty. Rush Limbaugh might be a structural imbalance, but his critics appear simply imbalanced.

IPCC Falsifying Global Warming Data?

Now let's see: we've had the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph, the foundation of the manmade global warming theory, exposed; we've had the admission that almost all of the reputed global warming took place BEFORE 1940; we've had it pointed out that Al Gore wildly overstated the IPCC's prediction of sea rise; we've seen evidence that CO2 emissions rise occurs AFTER, not BEFORE, an increase in global warming and we see scientists by the tens of thousands sign on to the thesis that any global warming that is occurring is a natural event that has happened in cycles many times before.

Now we have some more evidence of fraud committed in the cause of destroying the technologies that doubled man's lfespan and brought him prosperity over the last 100 years or so:

Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence

Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 24, 2007, Newsbusters.org

If you listen to the global warming alarmists working for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, sea levels across the globe are rising at a rate that will eventually doom us all.

According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.

Mörner was recently interviewed by Gregory Murphy of Executive Intelligence Review, and began by making it clear that the sea level claims made by the IPCC are a lot of nonsense (emphasis added throughout, h/t Eduardo Ferreyra):

[W]e can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more.

1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. Doesn’t sound very catastrophic, does it?

Mörner then addressed what in his view was a ridiculous error by the IPCC:
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world.

But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.

But that was just the beginning of Mörner’s problems with the IPCC:

Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

Pretty extraordinary, wouldn’t you agree? A "correction factor." Honestly, the way these folks manipulate data is nothing less than astounding.

Yet, Mörner wasn’t finished, as he later detailed an incident when IPCC scientists actually destroyed evidence which refuted their rising sea level claims:

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the '50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven't told anybody else, but this was the story.

They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.

Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be interviewing Mörner any time soon?

No, I don’t either.

Council of Ex-Muslims Launches Manifesto

Maryam Namazie may be a communist, but she is also one of the most effective activists for women’s rights under Islam in the world. An escapee from the repression of Iran, she now lives in Great Britain. The following statement by her explains the driving force behind her activism:

“The situation of women living in Islam-stricken societies and under Islamic laws is the outrage of the 21st century. Burqa-clad and veiled women and girls, beheadings, stoning to death, floggings, child sexual abuse in the name of marriage and sexual apartheid are only the most brutal and visible aspects of women's rightlessness and third class citizen status in the Middle East.”

- Maryam Namazie

I received this e-mail from Maryam this morning that I wish to pass on:

“Launch of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain

A British branch of a new Europe-wide phenomenon is to be launched on Thursday 21 June in London. The Council of ex-Muslims of Britain is building on the stunning success of other branches already operating in Germany, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The British Humanist Association and National Secular Society are sponsoring the launch and support the new organisation.

The Council will provide a voice for those labelled Muslim but who have renounced religion and do not want to be identified by religion.

“Manifesto of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.

Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.

By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.

Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing
intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.

Taking the lead from the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, we demand:

1. Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to
cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.
2. Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on
unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'.
3. Freedom of religion and atheism.
4. Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.
5. Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or infringe people's rights and freedoms.
6. Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious
customs which hinder and contradict woman's independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.
7. Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or
relatives, or official authorities in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships and sexuality.
8. Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and
religious institutions.
9. Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.
10. Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.”"

Maryam Namazie
BM Box 1919
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731

Immigration ‘bargain’?

This editorial that appeared in the main Providence newspaper kind of floored me and probably anyone else who reads this paper regularly. The Journal usually supports liberal ideas and probably is best described as somewhere between moderate Democrat and RINO Republican in its philosophy. When Senator Lott appeared on Fox News tonight and described the opponents of the amnesty-immigration bill as people who did not really know what was in the bill, his arrogant comments prodded me to post this Journal article.

Immigration ‘bargain’?

June 21, 2007, Providence Journal Editorial

President Bush made an unusual visit to Capitol Hill last week to support the little-loved “grand bargain” on immigration. Most objection in the Senate has come from fellow Republicans who regard instant amnesty for 12 million or more illegal immigrants with a wary eye.

Let us throw out a few considerations. The first is that there’s been too little information on the costs to taxpayers of legalizing many millions of mostly unskilled workers, who would instantly be eligible for a variety of public benefits.

For example, how would the plan affect spending on the Earned Income Tax Credit?

This is a federal program that returns money to low-income workers, in effect subsidizing their pay. It is a worthy program, but one that would be strained if huge numbers of legalized people suddenly qualify for it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the credit would cost U.S. taxpayers $20 billion in the first 10 years after the proposed amnesty went into effect.

The Heritage Foundation has come up with a projected cost of retirement benefits for this group, including Medicare, of $2.6 trillion. We can’t assess the accuracy of that number, but it is a large one. Let’s hear other projections.

Mr. Bush had been marketing an amnesty directed toward people who have been in America a long time and pay their back taxes. But the bill sets the deadline date at Jan. 1 of this year — less than seven months ago — and although it calls for $5,000 fines, it totally drops the requirement for paying back taxes.

We are not averse to the idea of an amnesty, but it must be paired with a genuine commitment to stopping future illegal immigration. That was to be the deal on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The amnesty came off without a hitch, but the sanctions against the employers who hire illegal workers were ignored. Instead of requiring firms to check an applicant’s eligibility against a national database, the law let them simply accept identification documents that looked plausible.

A huge market in counterfeit and stolen identities bloomed, in effect gutting the law. Making matters worse, President Bush virtually abandoned all efforts to go after employers who blatantly employed illegal workers. The new bill is supposed to overcome that flaw — it does require that IDs be checked against a computerized registry — but given the pathetic history of early immigration-policy “reform” and the opposition of low-paying employers to these new rules, we can’t help but be skeptical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to boost everyone’s confidence by first enforcing the law on the books? Add to that a database requirement and let’s see what happens.

America already admits legally about three-quarter of a million immigrants every year. We question adding so-called temporary workers to the total. First, we would fully expect large numbers of these “temporary” guest workers to simply overstay their visas, as happens now. (Who can blame them?) So the temporary-worker program must realistically be regarded as adding to the permanent numbers.

We are also troubled by the notion of an indentured-servant-like class of worker. Temporary workers can be exploited by their employers and they’d further depress the wages of unskilled Americans and legal immigrants.

Americans need a lot more serious analysis of the grand bargain before they sign on. It may not be much of a bargain at all.

Conservatives, Hold Your Ground

As we look around us at the disintegration of our civil society, and we wonder how this has come to be, some of the answers may be found in the following essay. The end consequences of liberal philosophy and politics are dire. When we see pagans, protected by police, parading in costumes with their genitals hanging out, when we see organizations devoted to molesting young children operating openly, when we see a political party fighting fiercely to retain the right to smash to death bodies of infants born full-term, when we see most of our children living without fathers to civilize them, we see only the most obvious of the decay.

Guest Commentary
Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?
By Linda Kimball
www.MichNews.com
Jun 19, 2007

In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium, and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).

“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley…As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Humanist Manifestos I & II, 1980, Introduction, Paul Kurtz)

The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).

All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God…” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.”

Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:

“…matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic…the dialectical materialists attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Dialectical Materialism, Gustav A. Wetter, 1977, p. 58)

In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:

“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, 1969, p. 28)

“The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)

Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.

Deadly Problems

First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.

Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his “Autobiography” that one who rejects God,

“…can have for his rule of life…those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)

Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,

“…if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 138-139)

Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)

With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:

“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)

Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:

Man is “but fish made over…” declared biologist William Etkin (Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, Bernal, 1967, xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)

Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, “Degradation and Shock,” Chapter viii)

Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens---by chance of course---that some lucky ‘species’ and ‘races’ of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are---unluckily for them---less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species---or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism--- it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” (1871) Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:

“At some future period…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)

In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements--- pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism

Nazi Germany

Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book, “Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,

“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (1947, p.230)

It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create---by way of eugenics--- a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.

Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of “Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life,” reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,

“has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (2005, p. 13)

The Soviet Union

Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s ‘Origin’,

“is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Conway Zirkle, 1959)

Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,

“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)

Vladimir Lenin exulted that,

“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)

Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)

Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:

“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid, p. 751)

21st Century America

Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston TX, 8/17/1992)

Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (In the Words of Ronald Reagan, by Michael Reagan)

As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our government-controlled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as ‘vegetable,’ “non-persons,” and ‘uterine content.’

Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.

America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.

Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the ‘animalization of Other,’ in tandem with the elevation of the ‘superior,’ for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.

In a portent of things to come, evolutionist B.F. Skinner said:

“A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual…is henceforth to be controlled…in large part by other men.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 232) Linda Kimball

Plain Speaking From Fred Thompson

Although I haven't yet decided on a candidate for president, I have to admit that Fred Thompson is looking better and better to me. My main concerns are that our next president be very strong on combating Islamic terrorism, and that he be able to defend himself quickly and forcefully against the vitriol and smears from the left - which he is sure to encounter no matter what he does. It has been very frustrating to observe lies and smears from left-wing politicians and the mainstream media go unanswered, and Republican politicians acting as if there was something to be ashamed of for embracing conservative principles.

One thing that has already set Thompson apart from the declared Republican candidates is his willingness to give a direct answer about his beliefs on any issue. He has come out firmly against the amnesty-immigration bill now before Congress, and, unlike every other politician, says bluntly that Scooter Libby has been treated very unfairly and should not go to jail for what is, at heart, a political disagreement.

Ever since 9/11, conservatives who were paying attention have been warning about the activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and confounded by the Bush Administration's stance on this terrorist-supporting group. Now we find out that America's Muslims have indeed been paying attention - by departing from this fake civil-rights organization, CAIR, in droves. From the Fred Thompson report on ABC:

Good News about CAIR
The Fred Thompson Report, June 20, 2007

“I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.

For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.

Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.

CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.

Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?

CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.” Fred Thompson

Another Massachusetts Betrayal

Anyone who thinks we do not need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman should rethink his position after Massachusetts legislators, defying tradition, ignored a mandate from the people in denying them a vote on this issue. Why does this matter? Because when government approves a certain behavior, i.e. abortion or welfare, government endorses and encourages it. The purpose of marriage is the survival of civilization - to provide a stable environment that protects and nourishes children and thereby promotes a law-abiding citizenry.

Massachusetts Lawmakers Betray Constituents on "Same-Sex Marriage"
By Newswires
MichNews.com
Jun 17, 2007

Washington, D.C. — Despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, Massachusetts lawmakers thumbed their noses at constituents on Thursday and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) to prevent the citizens of Massachusetts from voting on a constitutional amendment in 2008 which, if passed, would have properly restored the definition of marriage to one man and one woman.

Addressing the vote, Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “In its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed ‘same-sex marriage’ on the people of Massachusetts through a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the radical homosexual lobby and have betrayed their own constituents and the democratic process by precluding them from weighing in on this crucial issue.

“What are they afraid of? Well, we know the answer to that question. They mustn’t allow the voters to decide on marriage because ‘gay marriage’ proponents almost universally lose when the voters have their say.

“Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole’ fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and a female and that it is a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.

“After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — miraculously divined that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this insanity.

Although this ballot initiative wasn’t perfect in that it would have grandfathered existing ‘same-sex marriages’ in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home.

This just underscores the need for a federal constitutional amendment which would protect the true definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman,” concluded Barber.

I Love Baseball, But

When I saw the article posted below, it was like the first time I listened to Rush Limbaugh: here was someone who felt as I did, and could express my feelings and the reasons for them in a wonderfully articulate way. I hate inter-league play. I don’t know anything about the teams or most of the players in the other league, and I almost don’t care about the game. It’s boring. I feel a little cheated until the REAL games start again. I know these games count, but it doesn’t matter because they take away from the games I want to see.

America's Game Gone Lame
By Lisa Fabrizio, 6/20/2007, American Spectator

There have been numerous changes to the game of baseball since its inception. No one expects a sport more than a century old to remain forever true to its original rules and practices, and good arguments can be made for or against particular changes.

Some, like the DH rule were made to bring more excitement by keeping older hitters in the game and sparing us the sight of anemic-hitting pitchers bunting with one out. Other changes were made in a quest to even-up the ever-changing cycles, such as lowering the mound in times when pitching dominates and vice versa. Some, like the wild card were born of expansion.

However, ten years ago, in an effort to bolster popularity and regain a fan base that it was losing to other sports due in part to the resentment caused by the 1994 strike, Major League Baseball introduced interleague play. Many baseball lovers have greeted innovations like the DH with statements like, "What were they thinking about? The game will always produce great moments and players without any artificial tinkering."

But my absolute hatred of interleague baseball is based on a much different premise.

The aforementioned changes tweaked the game closer to the 21st century without altering its main allure: baseball is baseball. It is unique in its recollection of a simpler time, even as it improves itself through minor adjustments. It is still about a sun-splashed day where no time limits can intrude upon its stage; where one can view the wonderful symmetry of its composition. And this is where the conflict begins.

Among all major sports, only in baseball was the playing field truly level, especially under the balanced schedule. Uniforms, strike zones and entire teams could change, but one thing was constant: every team in a division played exactly the same schedule as everyone else. The Yankees and Red Sox played the same number of games against each other as well as all the other American League teams.

Symmetry -- three strikes, four balls, ninety feet, nine innings -- was well served by this system.

Then came interleague play. In order to introduce phony (and unnecessary) rivalries, we have thrown that blessed symmetry to the winds. It is bad enough that MLB, with its luxury tax and other attempts at parity, is fast becoming the NFL -- those who decry the DH should be glad there is still a semblance of difference between the NL and AL, since both leagues have been essentially dissolved -- now we are subjected to the groans of those who claim that "strength of schedule" has doomed their teams to failure.

One of the reasons for interleague play, we are told, is that fans can see players they don't normally get to see in their home parks. This, of course is patent nonsense. In today's satellite TV age they can see more players than ever before.

What about those who want to see opposite league players in person? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when NL fans go to their parks to see AL teams, they often miss that team's best hitter, the DH.

It can't be denied that in certain markets, interleague play is beneficial to the owners and some fans. But is creating artificial rivalries by ignoring real ones really good for the game? For every Detroit vs. Florida "thriller," there is one less game for the Tigers to play the hated Yankees, a team they'll likely be battling for the wild card spot. Rivalries will ebb and flow as team fortunes rise and fall. The Dodgers and Yankees had one of the best rivalries in baseball history and never played a single regular season game against each other.

Which leads, of course, to the World Series. No other championship can rival it for sheer grandeur, tradition and suspense; part of which is bred by the unfamiliarity of its participants. Who can forget Tony Gwynn surveying Yankee Stadium with awe for the first time on the eve of the 1998 Series? How can little boys argue league superiority -- a timeless and honored baseball ritual -- when both AL and NL team records are diluted by games with each other?

These kinds of quirky sentimentalities are why we love baseball. But all are quickly becoming neutered by interleague play. It's time to declare the experiment a failure and return America's pastime to its former and unique greatness.

Dividing America by Race and Ethnicity

Yesterday, I published an essay indicating that the basic fabric of America is holding despite the efforts of the hate-America crowd to unravel it. I didn’t mean to say that we should all relax, or that the dangers weren’t still out there. The multiculturalists are still hard at work trying to destroy the concept of an American experience and an American culture – born and sustained by the melting pot. My immigrant grandparents strove with all their might to become Americans while still retaining what was good about their native culture. They certainly didn’t risk everything to escape that old culture and then bring it here.

The American experience takes the best features of those old cultures and blends them into something uniquely American. That is what made us great, and we have to make sure that conflicted, guilt-ridden people who only see thorns when given a rose never destroy that, and we have to make sure that our newest Americans have the same opportunities our grandparents had.

Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about:

City Journal
Let the Segregation Commence
Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA.
John Leo
13 June 2007

Commencement weekend is hard to plan at the University of California, Los Angeles. The university now has so many separate identity-group graduations that scheduling them not to conflict with one another is a challenge. The women’s studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, “Raza,” is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later.

Planning was easier before a new crop of ethnic groups pushed for inclusion. Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian–Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements, and some talk of a Cambodian one in the future. Years ago, UCLA sponsored an Iranian graduation, but the school’s commencement office couldn’t tell me if the event was still around. The entire Middle East may yet be a fertile source for UCLA commencements.

Not all ethnic and racial graduations are well attended. The 2003 figures at UCLA showed that while 300 of 855 Hispanic students attended, only 170 out of 1,874 Asian-Americans did.

Some students are presumably eligible for four or five graduations. A gay student with a Native American father and a Filipino mother could attend the Asian, Filipino, and American Indian ceremonies, plus the mainstream graduation and the Lavender Graduation for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.

Graduates usually wear identity-group markers—a Filipino stole or a Vietnamese sash, for instance, or a rainbow tassel at the Lavender event. Promoters of ethnic and racial graduations often talk about the strong sense of community that they favor.

But it is a sense of community based on blood, a dubious and historically dangerous organizing principle.

The organizers also sometimes argue that identity-group graduations make sense for practical reasons. They say that about 3,000 graduating seniors show up for UCLA’s “regular” graduation, making it a massive and impersonal event. At the more intimate identity-group events, foreign-born parents and relatives hear much of the ceremony in their native tongues. The Filipino event is so small—about 100 students— that each grad gets to speak for 30 seconds.

But the core reason for separatist graduations is the obvious one: on campus, assimilation is a hostile force, the domestic version of American imperialism. On many campuses, identity-group training begins with separate freshman orientation programs for nonwhites, who arrive earlier and are encouraged to bond before the first Caucasian freshmen arrive. Some schools have separate orientations for gays as well. Administrations tend to foster separatism by arguing that bias is everywhere, justifying double standards that favor identity groups.

Four years ago Ward Connerly, then a regent of the University of California, tried to pass a resolution to stop funding of ethnic graduations and gay freshman orientations. He changed his mind and asked to withdraw his proposal, but the regents wanted to vote on it and defeated it in committee 6–3.

No major objections to ethnic graduations have emerged since. As in so many areas of American life, the preposterous is now normal.

BREAKING NEWS: HOUSE KILLS FENCE

As reasonable people wait to hear what amendments are offered to resurrect the amnesty-immigration bill, there is a report that the Democrat House of Representatives has just voted to enact such severe restrictions on further completion of the previously authorized 700 mile fence as to bring it to a screeching halt. These restrictions impose new environmental safeguards, the need for local consultation and other roadblocks clearly intended to stop any further fence building – no matter what new funding or new authorizations are passed.

This is such deceit and such a clear slap in the face to those wanting something positive done to stop illegal immigration that it almost takes your breath away. That’s not all. Initial reports are that no-one, from President Bush to Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff objected to these incredible changes. Whether they were informed of the vote taken today is unknown at this time.

The Fabric of America is Just Fine, Thank You

Two events this past week would cheer anyone worried about how the fabric of America is holding up to the dual challenges of 1. Confronting and containing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists without shredding our Constitution, and 2. Maintaining traditional American values that are under siege by the hate-America crowd.

Confronting and containing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists without shredding our Constitution:

The system is definitely working. The horrific attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 brought with it the understanding that defending ourselves from these maniacs would require means and methods we don’t like to use. The criminal justice system cannot adequately protect Americans from the use of weapons that can kill thousands and even hundreds of thousands. We need to surveil and find these people before they act, we need to get critical information from them and we need to put them away for a very long time without jeopardizing national security or subjecting witnesses to their own murder by people, some of whom, think they will go to heaven if they die for their “cause”.

And so a wartime president has responded, putting forth methods that trouble many Americans. It has now been firmly established that foreign nationals captured without uniform on the battlefield can be designated as ‘enemy combatants’ and dealt with as such; and it has been established that American citizens who are terrorists must be subjected to our normal criminal justice system (although in my mind when they conspire to terrorize America they have renounced their citizenship). We are now in the throes of establishing whether or not the ‘enemy combatant’ label can be applied to aliens who are here legally. The President is pushing for security, and the courts are pushing back. At some point the issue will be decided, as it should be, by our system – and it works!

Maintaining traditional American values that are under siege by the hate-America crowd:

My readers well know of my concerns about the poisoning of America’s youth by the hate-America, multiculturalism crowd now dominating our colleges and universities and showing up often even in our public schools. Fortunately, this week I happened to attend the graduation exercises at a small-town high school with 263 graduates of a tri-town combined high school. As I watched the totally American proceedings take place and realized how many places in the USA where this same event was transpiring, a shudder of joy came over me. The American flag was everywhere, the National Anthem was played, the Pledge of Allegiance was given and (gasp) even God was prominently mentioned.

It is still of paramount importance that we find and root out the evil presence of multiculturalism wherever we find it, but maybe we don’t have to worry too much about the youth of America – they may not be getting a very good education, but they look and sound just like we did.

And on the college scene:

A College Education
Revolt of the alumni and other good news.

Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Any number of colleges and universities seem to be having PR travails these days, but this may be a case where the turmoil is healthy. The school year that is now ending has turned out to be something of a banner year for academic reform.

Consider the recent unrest at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. When the school's tour guides were informed in an email last winter that a century-old cross was to be expelled from the school's chapel, alumni and students mounted a "Save the Wren Cross" campaign. Press releases, a Web site, and a petition that collected 18,000 signatures led to a restoration.

This experience has emboldened what might be called the William and Mary electorate. A new organization is now asking if the governing Board of Visitors should renew the college president's contract. That's normally a rubber-stamp affair, but now college executives are being forced to defend themselves against charges of poor financial stewardship.

The merits of these disputes seem less important than the fact that there is now earnest and public discussion about the performance of college administrators, who, like career government bureaucrats, are usually adept at avoiding accountability. Stakeholders are suddenly feeling empowered.

That's certainly true at Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, where alumni have used a petition process for the board of trustees to elect four independent candidates in recent years. These "petition candidates" have run against disciplinary procedures that lack due process rights, speech codes, and an increased budget emphasis on administrative bureaucracy at the expense of academics.

The Dartmouth administration responded last fall by proposing a new set of trustee election rules that would have made these outsider candidacies more difficult. The measure needed support from two-thirds of voting alumni to pass but failed to get even a majority. The year ended with the election of a fourth reformist, University of Virginia law professor Stephen Smith.

Elsewhere, market forces prevailed. Antioch College in Ohio--which became famous for sundry curious radicalisms like requiring verbal consent before two students may kiss--was designed to accommodate 2,700 students, but will soon close its doors indefinitely. Its enrollment, now around 300, is no longer sustainable.

The radical professoriate has also had a bad year. Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called Americans killed on September 11 "little Eichmanns," was recommended for dismissal. And Norman Finkelstein, who wrote "The Holocaust Industry" and professed the belief that "Schindler's List" was designed to blind Americans to current Middle East policy, was denied tenure at DePaul University.

Does it seem uncouth that students and alumni are pouring their criticisms into press releases? It shouldn't. Colleges and universities have largely brought this stakeholder activism on themselves--when they decided to become instruments of fashionable politics instead of repositories of knowledge.

General Pace's Collateral Damage

Kathleen Parker, June 13, 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Gen. Peter Pace -- the first Marine Corps officer to serve as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- is being precipitously let go.

In a surprise announcement last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Pace wouldn't be renominated to a second term. In his place, Adm. Mike Mullen, current chief of naval operations, would take over when Pace's term expires Sept. 30.

As the highly qualified, deeply respected Pace is being ushered out the door, it is reasonable to wonder why.

Is it because he was doing a lousy job? Not according to Gates, who said that terminating Pace had ``absolutely nothing to do'' with his performance. In fact, Gates had sent the names of Pace and his second in command, Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, to the White House for approval.

Gates said he was disappointed that circumstances ``make this kind of decision necessary.'' What those circumstances are, exactly, is anyone's guess. Gates said only that Pace's reappointment to another term would have proved a ``divisive ordeal.''

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chair of the Armed Services Committee, apparently let Gates know that confirmation hearings for Pace would focus on the past rather than the future, and that the process ``would be quite contentious.''

Well, we can't have that. We're at war, the stakes are high, and we're told that contentious debate is out? It is better, presumably, that we install someone who won't cause a stir. Someone who thinks more like the Democratic majority, perhaps. Someone who, let's say, doesn't think that homosexuality is immoral.

Flash back to March 12 and recall that Pace, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, said he believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Pace later expressed regret for his remarks, saying he should have kept his personal beliefs to himself. But the die was cast.

When it comes to certain social issues, particularly those based on moral belief, a person is well advised to keep his thoughts to himself.

Whether that single remark would cause Pace's removal seems doubtful. Others surmise that his replacement by a Navy admiral is sending a message to the Army to shape up. Mullen has said that one of his first priorities is to upgrade the Army. Still others say the move is a way for the Democratic Congress to further undermine President Bush.

What we do know is that even in wartime, everything is political. Thus, a better route to understanding may be to pose the question raised by Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness: ``Cui bono?'' Who benefits?

One doesn't need much of a running start to make the leap to Sen. Hillary Clinton, who also sits on the Armed Services Committee and who, you may have heard, is running for commander in chief. No one benefits more from Pace's removal than Clinton, who would have had to vote for or against the man and be stuck with a position that could hurt her.

As the Democratic candidate for president, Clinton couldn't endorse Pace, now identified in some quarters as anti-gay. Her husband is responsible, after all, for the 1993 ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy that evolved as a compromise to his campaign promise to lift the ban on gays in the armed forces.

As a future commander in chief, Sen. Clinton could ill afford to be perceived as siding with the liberal agenda and the gay lobby, which continues to push for the original Clinton promise. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., has reintroduced his 2005 bill to lift the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy and the law barring professed homosexuals from the military.

Though Pace's views may be moral issues for him personally, they reflect the secular concerns addressed in the 1993 statute defining military personnel eligibility (it has no name other than Section 654, Title 10).

The statute prohibits homosexuality for strictly secular reasons in the service of military objectives: unit cohesion, military discipline, order and morale. It's not about the rights of gays to serve, but about the rights of non-gays to be protected from forced intimacy with people who may be sexually attracted to them.

Bill Clinton's policy accomplished little more than lifting the ``Are you homosexual?'' question from military induction questionnaires, and otherwise caused confusion.

There's no telling for now what kind of backroom understandings may have led to Pace's walking orders. Maybe it was really all about a new beginning. But the pained expression on Gates' face and his oblique responses to questions during his news conference suggested something else.

And the Clintons, as always, bear watching.

Reviving the Immigration Bill

Although like most conservatives, I am against the current immigration bill recently set aside in the Senate, I do accept the notion that our border-control and immigration system is broken and needs fixing. Whether the system is not working mostly because exising laws are deficient, whether current funding is inadequate or whether the problem is a lack of desire to enforce existing laws is not completely clear, but probably a mix of the three is closest to the truth. As a conservative and as a former business-owner, I know that government is, on most matters, inefficient, ineffective (except for unintended consequences), corrupt, bureaucratic, stifling and filled with employees whose main concern is not to get in trouble or do very much work. Any time a new system or a changed system is designed for government execution, these realities must be taken into consideration, and "keep it simple, stupid" is a good principle to follow.

For now, I'm willing to accept the hypothesis that the federal government is hampered by inadequate laws and insufficient funding to do its main job in this area, which is: 1. Stop illegal immigration, 2. Provide the workers and skills we need to keep moving forward, 3. Provide and control the temporary workers employers need seasonally, and 4. Deal with illegals now here with some compassion, but slowly, carefully, and with regard to those who obeyed the rules.

I'm also willing to accept with an open mind further attempts to modify and revive this bill, SO LONG AS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS STOPPED, AND WE KNOW IT'S STOPPED BEFORE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS KICK IN.

Senate Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill
New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 14 — Senate Democratic and Republican leaders announced on Thursday that they had agreed on a way to revive a comprehensive immigration bill that was pulled off the Senate floor seven days ago.

The majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said they expected the bill to return to the floor before the Fourth of July recess.

In a joint statement, Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell said: “We met this evening with several of the senators involved in the immigration bill negotiations. Based on that discussion, the immigration bill will return to the Senate floor after completion of the energy bill.”

The immigration bill, ardently sought by President Bush, would make the biggest changes in immigration law and policy in more than 20 years.

It would increase border security, crack down on companies that employ illegal immigrants, establish a guest worker program and offer legal status to most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

The agreement does not guarantee that the bill will be approved by the Senate or become law.

Supporters of the bipartisan bill predict that some conservative Republicans will try to block a vote on final passage, because of concerns about the legalization program.

Predicting “procedural barriers,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership team, said, “Three or four senators will try to block every amendment.”

The House has held many hearings on immigration this year. House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have expressed concerns about major provisions of the Senate bill, including one that would give less weight to family ties in deciding who can immigrate to the United States.

A White House spokesman, Scott M. Stanzel, said, “We are encouraged by the announcement from Senate leaders that comprehensive immigration reform will be brought back up for consideration.”

The bill stalled on June 7, when supporters garnered just 45 of the 60 votes needed to end debate. Republican senators said that they had not been allowed to offer enough amendments.

Under the agreement reached on Thursday, the Senate will consider about 22 amendments, half from Republicans and half from Democrats.

Earlier in the day, trying to start the bill moving again in the Senate, Mr. Bush called for an immediate burst of $4.4 billion in spending to show that the government was committed to “securing this border once and for all.”

Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, described the call for $4.4 billion as “a good start.” But Mr. Isakson said Mr. Bush needed to do more to secure the border and to show that he was serious about enforcing immigration laws.

Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, welcomed the president’s support for more spending on border security, but said, “There’s no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it.”

Mr. Bush said the $4.4 billion would “come from the fines and penalties that we collect from those who have come to our country illegally” and apply for legal status.

Representative Duncan Hunter of California, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, scorned such linkage.

“The idea that we will have border security only if it’s paid for by illegal immigrants is unacceptable,” Mr. Hunter said.

Matthew A. Towery, a political analyst in Atlanta who was once a campaign chairman for Newt Gingrich and is now chief executive of a polling firm, Insider Advantage, said: “Having George W. Bush come out and speak in favor of the immigration bill does not do any good for Republican senators. He just irritates the conservative base of the Republican Party, which has abandoned him on this issue.”

A new proposal floated on Thursday in an effort to deter the hiring of illegal immigrants would put biometric identifiers into Social Security cards. That change would make the cards more difficult to forge and counterfeit, Mr. Schumer said.

SIRHAN SIRHAN, A Mystery No More

On June 5, 1968, a Muslim-Arab immigrant from Palestine, shot and killed Senator Robert Kennedy, who was then running for president. Most of us who watch closely the issue and history of Islamic terrorism against America and the west usually place the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979 as the start of the ‘modern’ era of this terrorism. Of course, we are also aware of the Islamic terrorism that pervaded the Philippines prior to World War II, and which was confronted forcefully by Generals Pershing and MacArthur, and we are aware of the Islamic terrorism behind the colorful stories of the Barbary Pirates, but until recently, I had not made the mental connection between Robert Kennedy’s murder and Islamic terrorism. Sirhan acted like and seemed to be a madman who had gone through many religious belief systems and whose diaries and notes were incoherent. Kennedy’s murder has been attributed to the incomprehensible actions of a madman – without purpose or explanation.

A recent story about Sirhan got me to thinking. In 1968, when this horrible act took place, the farthest thing from my mind was Muslims and Islamic terrorism. I remember right where I was when it happened; I was in Times Square and saw the announcement on the famous billboard there. Now I have come to understand that Sirhan’s act was the leadoff in the reign of Islamic terrorism against America that escalated eventually to 9/11 and continues to this day.

“Sirhan was an Arab who had emigrated to the United States in the 1950s and was reportedly disturbed by Kennedy's pro-Israel positions. After a 1969 trial lasting nearly four months, Sirhan was convicted and sentenced to death. That sentence was commuted to life in prison and Sirhan has been in prison in California ever since; his repeated applications for parole have been denied.

Sirhan supposedly believed himself deliberately betrayed by Kennedy's support for Israel in the June, 1967 Six-Day War, which had begun exactly one year before the assassination.” Answers.com

Even though there were numerous witnesses and five other wounded individuals at the scene, his trial was touch and go at times. Now that these madmen have access to weapons that can kill many thousands of innocent people, our criminal justice system cannot possibly cope with Islamic terrorism and its plots. We have to catch and stop these guys BEFORE they get a chance to act, and when we catch them, we have to put them away forever. No amount of downplaying by the liberal press of events like the JFK plot or the 10 airliners plan can change that. We will be committing suicide if military commissions are not allowed to do their job.

Our Honeymoon with Walmart and China

Even though many Americans experience a pang of angst when shopping at Walmart, knowing that many of the items we buy there, like televisions, toys and clothing, are made in China, and we would rather be supporting American companies with our purchases, still the lure of unbelievably low prices cannot be overcome. I know; I just bought a 32” HDTV set there for $498.

The predisposition of Walmart to resell so many items from China, together with their low profit margins and their incredibly efficient inventory-management system are what makes Walmart so successful, and its customers flocking back. A problem is beginning to emerge, however, as we learn that some of the consumables from China contain poisonous materials, and that China’s inspection systems and concerns are laughable.

These problems first showed up in pet food, and the inquiries triggered by the pet food tragedies have turned up case after case of deaths and illnesses of human beings in other countries due to the consumption of Chinese products.

In our e-mail group we are fortunate to have John E. Carey, a retired naval officer who also writes extensively, and who has looked into this problem:

China Killed Your Dog; Now You and Your Kids are at Risk Too
Fixing a corrupt system with up to 1 billion players

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom
June 14, 2007

On April 1 of this year I wrote a commentary essay under the headline “China Killed Your Dog.” I said at the time that the mainstream media seemed to be brushing this story under the carpet.

The red meat of “China Killed Your Dog” is this: Chinese food manufacturers use all kinds of inexpensive products as filler and other agents in things like pet food, soy sauce, toothpaste and chewing gum.

The pet food was largely poisoned by a product called melamine, which is used in fertilizer and plastics, mixed with wheat glutin. Using this formula, Chinese manufacturers reduced production costs while still charging cutomers top dollar: as if beef had been used in the pet food.

Melamine is a prohibited substance in American pet food according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, melamine is a widely accepted fertilizer in China. And farmers mix it into livestock feed, pet food and other products because it is plentiful, inexpensive and usually undetected.

When the New York Times reporters in China followed up on this story, they asked some farmers why China couldn’t just stomp out those few using melamine. Farmers told them everyone used melamine this way since the 1950s. The use of melamine is not restricted to a few isolate production houses: it is everywhere in Chinese agriculture.

Since April, there have been several additional revelations about how China produces food and just about everything else. American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have been spot checking to see where Chinese manufacturers cut corners and endanger consumers.

What followed was a series of discoveries of wrong-doing on the part of Chinese manufacturers.

Cold medicine made in China killed 51 people in Panama. The product was found to contain glycerin.

Chinese toothpaste was found to contain diethylene glycol. This is a close relative to the anti-icing spray used on aircraft in winter time and it is know to be poisonous.

And yesterday the CPSC recalled Thomas Train pieces manufactured with lead paint.

The world has known that lead paint is toxic for decades.

Chinese officials made a great show of saying they would provide “100% inspection of all exports.” Of course this is a ridiculous and unworkable plan.

FDA and CPSC officials tried to explain to the Chinese of “building quality into the product from the start.”

This built-in quality idea, of course, came from Japanese auto makers. When Japan began to make higher quality cars than Detroit, Ford, GM and other manufacturers went to Japan to learn why. The Detroit auto men claimed to have the best post production quality inspection and control system on earth. The Japanese said they had very limited post production inspection. The Japanese built the quality in from the start.

This concept horrifies the Chinese. With a population of 1.3 billion and at least 700 million people (China has 200 million migrant workers alone) involved in product production, manufacturing and agriculture; how can China rapidly change the manufacturing culture?

They cannot. This is why the “Culture of Corruption” is of such concern.

China can't just paper over this problem the way it usually does during any crisis. No charm offenive will work. China has to start to turn the ship of state toward honest and integrity or its economy will suffer. This thaght must be a nightmare for Chinese leadership. John. E. Carey

It seems to me that Walmart’s customers across the board should demand that Walmart scrutinize any Chinese product it offers for sale that is consumed or placed next to the skin, and we customers should also boycott such products until we are assured of their safety. I realize that this will hurt Walmart, whom I greatly admire, but this is serious stuff.

The Wonderful Hugo Chavez

Refusing to be Hugo’s voiceless proles

June 12, 2007, Providence Journal, Bridget Johnson

LOS ANGELES -- I NEVER CEASE to be entertained by G-8 rioters. Whenever the world’s movers and shakers gather to meet — government, banking, trade — it’s like the anarchist play date. Boys in the hoods and their best mates in black take to the streets to torch cars, smash windows, hurl Molotov cocktails and chuck the nearest available debris — for a good cause, we’re told.

The riot rousers came out to play as the Group of Eight industrialized nations that run everything prepared to meet in Germany last week. In days, dozens had been arrested and 30 police officers were seriously injured.

But there are protests of more importance happening south of the equator right now — ones that could define the course of a continent.

Anyone who values free speech and a free press can’t help but be awed by the thousands of Venezuelans pouring into that country’s streets in protest of the May 27 closure of Radio Caracas TV, which had drawn President Hugo Chávez’s ire for its opposition stances. Braving police water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas, the crowds included students, relatives of political prisoners, nuns, business professionals and others who have realized that Chávez’s heavy hand may clamp down on their educational options, religion, industries or loved ones next.

The official socialist programming that replaced RCTV’s telenovelas made many Venezuelans realize that they weren’t content to wind up as Chávez’s voiceless proletariat.

In response, Chávez told his scarlet-clad fan club to get out there and confront the anti-Chavista miscreants. Whereas the opposition demonstrators were from all walks of Venezuelan life, Chávez’s red-shirted marches have been the portrait of subjugation and conformity.

And whereas some international bodies such as the E.U. Parliament have woken up to Chávez’s free-speech crackdowns, notables such as Hugo’s new best friend Danny Glover have not. We know the yarn about what a humanitarian Chávez is: how he gives poor people discount heating oil and — in the face of evidence to the contrary — how he apparently protects free expression.

“The press is free to report, and express opinions, without government interference,” British Labour MP Colin Burgon wrote in The Guardian two days before RCTV was shuttered. “. . . No journalist has been imprisoned or punished for report or comment.”

Cough! How about the conviction of El Nuevo Pais columnist Julio Balza, sentenced to nearly three years in prison for calling then-Minister of Infrastructure Ramon Carrizalez “unable and inept” in a February 2006 column? Or the fine imposed recently on opposition newspaper Tal Cual for publishing a letter from a comedian that mocked how Chávez once said he consulted his 9-year-old daughter on some decisions?

In August 2006, journalist Jesus Flores Rojas, who had written about government corruption, was gunned down — and since police shot the accused killers, we’ll never know the whole story.

El Nacional columnist Marianella Salazar, who called for an investigation of Venezuela’s vice president, was prosecuted for slander. One mayor imposed a “news and publicity ban” on four media outlets in his town last November. Chávez has increased penalties for media organizations and toughened “insult laws.”

And in the wake of the RCTV protests, Chávez launched an offensive against the remaining opposition station, Globovision, and CNN, accusing them of destabilizing his government. “Unfortunately, there is no longer any doubt about his goals,” Reporters Without Borders wrote. “. . . Media that criticise the government will be snuffed out one by one until only the pro-government media are left.”

As every paranoid autocrat has his threshold, the day will also come when the opposition protests in Venezuela will face greater violence from the police or military — think about when China finally had it with the pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. If the present course continues, the day will come when Venezuelans will not be able to stage opposition protests at all — just like in the land of Chávez’s mentor, Fidel Castro.

And despite the new Michael Moore glorification, Cuba is still — and always will be, so long as it’s under communist rule — a totalitarian regime where thousands brave the ocean in makeshift crafts just to escape and have a shot at freedom in the United States.

Bridget Johnson is a columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.

Palestinians Solving Palestinian Problem?

Golda Meir, Israel's former prime minister, now deceased, is said to have answered a question about when Israelis and Palestinians would make peace with the statement that, "when Palestinians come to love their children more than they hate us". Since Palestinians are now killing each other with the same gusto that they have when attempting to kill Israelis, it appears that the situation visualized by Mrs. Meir will be a long time coming. It is tempting to just let these madmen kill themselves all off.

June 12, 2007
Gaza Collapsing, Cross-posted from Captains Quarters

"The latest cease-fire between Palestinian factions has collapsed almost before it got announced as Gaza slides into an all-out civil war. Refugees have begun to flee to Egypt, and Hamas-controlled mosques now serve as broadcast stations for war announcements:

Palestinian infighting, almost daily Israeli air strikes, and a steadily worsening economic situation triggered by an international aid boycott has made life unbearable for many Palestinians. Those who can are leaving.

European Union monitors at the Rafah border crossing from the Gaza Strip to Egypt say that more than 14,000 Palestinians have fled Gaza since Israel withdrew soldiers and settlers in 2005 and the rise to power of the Islamist Hamas five months later. In the past year alone, the average number of people leaving Gaza per day has doubled from 15 to 30.

The rising number of Palestinians seeking to emigrate has prompted Jerusalem's Mufti, Mohammad Ahmed Hussein, to issue a fatwa prohibiting Palestinians from leaving Palestinian territories.

"Immigration from this blessed land is not permissible according to Islamic law," said the religious edict. "People who live in this land should not leave it for the invaders and occupiers."

That's a sure sign of desperation. Imams now forbid movement of Palestinians even to other "blessed" lands, such as Muslim Egypt. Why? They know that if the Palestinians leave Gaza in droves, it will leave terrorist groups like Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad much more exposed to Israeli strikes.

The imams want their congregations to continue their roles as human shields so that terrorists can conduct holy wars. Isn't that special? No wonder they call Islam the Religion of Peace.

It won't matter. Palestinians in Gaza have seen their one opportunity to create a protostate, free from occupation, utterly collapse. They won't stick around to starve or to get killed in the crossfire. Those with means will leave, to Egypt first and perhaps later to Jordan.

And if the imams haven't covered themselves in enough blood already, now they're announcing attacks from the minarets:

Militants from the armed wing of Hamas have threatened attacks on security positions in Gaza belonging to Palestinian rivals Fatah, reports say.

Hamas-run mosques in Gaza City gave Fatah fighters two hours to leave their positions.

The civil war is already on. Both sides have attacked each other's leadership. Every round of diplomacy creates another cease-fire, which lasts as long as it takes to restock the ammunition. Ordinary Palestinians, who created this situation by supporting Hamas in their last elections, have no way to put an end to the fighting themselves, and the Israelis have learned not to do anything other than target terrorists who target Israel.

Let Gaza collapse. We can't stop it anyway, and our efforts to intercede will by definition leave terrorists stronger in the region. Only when Palestinians tire of bloodshed will it end. Captains Quarters

CAIR membership plummets

June 11, 2007, Washington Times

Membership in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has declined more than 90 percent since the 2001 terrorist attacks, Audrey Hudson will report in Tuesday's editions of The Washington Times.

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

Asked about the decline, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR board chairman, pointed to the number of individual donors to the organization.

"We are proud that our grass-roots support in the American Muslim community has allowed CAIR to grow from having eight chapters and offices in 2001 to having 33 today," Mr. Ahmed said.

The self-described civil liberties organization for Muslims seeks to portray "a positive image of Islam" through public relations and the media, but has instead alienated some by defending questionable accusations of discrimination.

Critics of the organization say they are not surprised membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for 7 million American Muslims, as the group has claimed.

"This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their membership and donors," Mr. Jasser said.

*****************************
Apparently, concerned Muslims in the United States have taken note of the real record and the real puposes of C.A.I.R. and have taken matters into their own hands by disassociating themselves from this terrorist-supporting organization. They understand what the American left does not understand; as I pointed out in a recent article on my weblog:

"One aspect of life that has been unfathomable to me is the continued support the left in America gives to CAIR, the Council for American-Islamic Relations. I recognize that their initial support came from the honest belief that CAIR was a civil rights organization dedicated only to protecting the rights of America’s Muslims, but, by now, even the most close-minded liberal must admit the terrorist activities of this organization.

First, one of CAIR’s founders made it clear that a main objective of CAIR is to impose the Sharia on the United States. We have gone over this before.

Then we have the case of CAIR 'cause célèbre' Sami Al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor and the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A news report of his trial this year had this to say:

"In a closed proceeding before a federal magistrate at U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida last week, Al- Arian pleaded guilty to Count Four of the indictment against him — a charge of conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The plea hearing was closed over the objections of the government and unsealed today. The guilty plea was accepted by U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moody, Jr. this afternoon. Sentencing was scheduled for May 1.

Al-Arian’s agreement with the government calls for a recommended prison sentence of 46 to 57 months in prison, based on a five-year maximum statutory sentence. Al-Arian, 48, who has been in custody since his arrest on Feb. 20, 2003, has agreed to stipulate to deportation to another country by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement once his prison sentence has ended. Al- Arian has lived in this country for approximately 30 years."

And now, just this week, two more terrorists with ties to CAIR have been convicted:

American citizens aided Hamas terror
Former CAIR member gets 7 years,
Imam in 'quiet' town pleads guilty

Posted: October 13, 2006
WorldNetDaily

"Two American citizens with ties to a major U.S. Islamic civil rights group faced judgment in court today for aiding the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, with one sentenced to seven years prison and the other pleading guilty.

Ghassan Elashi, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

Meanwhile, an Atlanta Imam, Mohamed Shorbagi, pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hamas."


These are not just isolated cases, either, and some prominent Democrats including Senator Schumer of New York have denounced CAIR.

Cross-posted from Anti-CAIR-Net:

"Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan.

Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.
Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook, was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Haddad served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”). GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001."

So I ask again, how can any American support the continued existence of this organization? Would someone on the left please enlighten me?"