IT'S THE IMMIGRATION, STUPID!

As the United States announces that it will take in more than 5,000 Iraqi refugees now living in Syria, Brenda Walker of VDARE takes umbrage at the idea of persistent immigration of Muslims into our nations is in the best interests of the West. The article is rich in detail, and peppered with informative links. Here's a taste, sans its original links:

IF THERE IS ANYTHING that should make Americans' blood run cold about immigration, it is the sight of Europe—and Britain, the home of Western civilization—being buried by millions of Muslim colonists. Europe is just hoping against hope that Islam isn't going to explode into massive rioting (or worse), or impose total cultural Islamification.

Major jihadist terror occurred in London (July 7, 2005, killing 52 and injuring 700) and in Madrid (March 11, 2004, killing 191 and injuring 1841). Yet cowardly politicians continue policies of appeasement, which hostile Muslims correctly apprise as the fatal weakness of a culture too pacified to defend itself.

Some Europeans already accept the coming Eurabia. One Dutchman, mourning the future loss of Europe was quoted by Paul Belien as saying, "I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Well, that's honest. But how about less self-pity and more directed anger? Many Americans I know in the patriotic immigration reform movement had a come-to-Jesus moment of awakening from passivity, turning to resolve to save the country.

Did America encourage Europe's socialist pacifism by protecting it too well, starting after the Second World War? Perhaps. Having your freedom handed to you on a plate is no way to appreciate its value.

Other causes of the continent's tragic downfall are rooted in recent history. They include business' desire for cheap labor (so familiar!), a trendy belief in secular multiculturalism as a replacement for Christianity and apparent ignorance of Islam's long-standing enmity toward Europe.

Now the triumphs of Tours and Vienna are being trampled by immigrants, entering mostly legally. It's a wonder the Muslims bother with terrorism at all when demography is working so well for them.

Read it all.

MONEY ON THE BONFIRE

WAIT! ALL IS NOT LOST. The circumspect and persistent Harry S. Dingey writes once again:

So. It is exactly like I have been preaching for the last 15 years since America joined NAFTA and the WTO. At some point the American working class will totally run out of money from having all the better jobs moved off shore to China where the international companies can hire slave labor for $2/day.

American Workers have maxed out their credit cards and now working for minimum wages flipping hamburgers at McDonalds and Sonic. The Chinese workers who worked for slave labor can not afford to purchase the same items they manufactured. So the game was forced to stop.

This is exactly where we are right now in America.

The American President and Congress have not figured out yet they are pushing on a string with all of these Trillions of Dollars in Bailouts because what they are doing is creating a Temporary Consumer Product Demand.

Since the bailouts are creating only a temporary product demand it will fizzle out very, very soon and the Depression will continue. But, America will be even worse off because will be burdened with all this extra national debt created from all these bailouts. They just don't get it. GLOBALISM will not work under any circumstances it is just that simple.

Solution? PULL OUT OF NAFTA and the WTO and stop all these trillion dollar bailouts and things will start to improve over night. Then go back to accomplishing international trade the exact way America did for well over 215 years and America will become that shining light on the hill again.

I'd like to see this happen in my lifetime, or it may never happen again. The numbers are just not there.

ISA CONTINUES TO CURRY FAVOR

WHO'S AWAKE NOW? More on the northern Virginia Saudi-backed Islamic school, which has been under fire of late for many unsavory reasons, the last being their intention to enlrage their premises. Here's some info by a reader of Jihad Watch.

As a lifelong resident of Northern Virginia and one who has worked for private schools throughout my teaching career, I can testify to how much difficulty the County typically gives to the zoning procedures for any private school, particularly toward private Christian schools.

But in the case of the ISA, the County is bending over backwards and evincing full dhimmitude. The contrast couldn't be more apparent! What should we conclude? Frankly, I suspect there is a money trail—possibly campaign donations to Board members or something similar.

When Fairfax Christian School sold to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia back in the 1980s, the financial offer was sky high—an offer not to be refused, really, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Act or no Chesapeake Bay Watershed Act.

To my knowledge, the Popes Head Road location of the ISA is now configured differently from when the site was the property of a Christian school. Last time I drove by, the place was similar to a walled compound. My memory could be faulty as I haven't been there in a while. I will check it out on my own soon. But I can say this FOR A FACT: When Fairfax Christian School was operating in that location, the site was not a walled compound.

Here's something else to note: in Fairfax County, the ISA has used or purchased sites previously used as schools, thereby passing the initial and grueling zoning procedure. There's a reason for that method: if starting from "scratch," the school and its primary officers/investors would have to produce proof of character and sign off on future intentions for the site. In addition, along the way during construction, inspections of all sorts would be conducted on a regular basis. Among those inspections would be a process of full financial disclosure, made public.

America. Home of the sellout.

CONGRESSMAN FRANK WOLF ON THE JOB

SEVEN ATTEMPTS BY U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10) to have the U.S. State Department initiate an investigation into controversial textbooks used at two Islamic schools in Northern Virginia have gone unanswered. In his seventh letter in less than a year to the department, Wolf calls continued inaction on the part of the department "inexcusable."

The Islamic Saudi Academy, or ISA, has close ties with the government of Saudi Arabia, which Wolf says charges the State Department with overseeing any investigation of it, under the Foreign Missions Act of 1982.

"The Saudi ambassador is the head of the school," said Wolf.

ISA has two campuses. One in Alexandria on Richmond Highway, and another in Fairfax on Pope's Head Road. Material in some textbooks used at both campuses has been called "intolerant" and "shocking" by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and by Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the The Institute for Gulf Affairs, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., think tank.

According to Al-Ahmed, one example is a 10th-grade work that "indulges in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories." Wolf said, "Textbooks used in Saudi Arabia are very anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pretty hate-filled." While some textbook material has reportedly been changed due to pressure from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Wolf says an independent investigation of the textbooks and their overarching use at the academy has yet to be initiated.

"We're just asking that there be an independent evaluation by someone that's not paid by the Saudi Academy," Wolf said.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on March 12, Wolf wrote: "According to AP, 'while the Islamic Saudi Academy deleted some of the most contentious passages from the texts, copies provided to the Associated Press show that enough sensitive material remains to fuel critics who claim the books show intolerance toward those who do not follow strict interpretations of Islam.'"

Read it all.

EVERY LIFE ON THE PLANET

HERE IS A NASTY QUIP FROM a savvy follower of Islam who calls himself Yemenman—in response to a March 2 Jihad Watch article in which Dutch legislator Geert Wilders is quoted as proposing the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe, and instead, proposing a European First Amendment.

I don't think this will pass. First of all, in Islam, Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon Him) is very highly regarded. Not like Jesus or Moses are regarded in their respective religions, Muhammad is the red line you non-Muslims cannot cross.

How can you regulate the situation, say the Danish cartoon situation, if a billion people are boiling mad? Do you go on TV and say, hey, remember the First Amendment? or would you go around the Arab street telling people, "of course hate speech needs to be protected, otherwise why protect speech at all?" This logic works in a liberal, academic setting, but if people's basest emotion (of raw love to the Prophet) are hurt, then get ready for backlash. Causing anger might be "protected" in your fancy Western notion of freedom, but Islam goes straight to human nature and understands it. That is why hate speech is NOT protected in Islam -- it goes against the nature of human. Those who do nothing while their beliefs are trampled (or having their icons dipped in urine, for example) have a thin instinct of survival. They won't last another century.

That's why Islam will prevail. It cuts through all bullshit about freedom and goes straight to human nature. That's why Islam conquered the world barely 200 years after Muhammad's departure. People know that Islam is the real thing, not some theoretic framework made up by philosophers.

I hope this convinces you all that any efforts like those mentioned by Goat Wilders above are doomed to fail. You cannot suppress human nature. Islam is the solution. Aslam Taslim!

Putting aside Yemenman's mockery of the free speech and human nature arguments, the one aspect of his discourse that rings true is his supposition that because the Muslims do indeed intently believe, are taught to believe, are beaten into submission to believe that defending the honor of their "prophet" is their number one priority in life, this strength of focus will outweigh and ultimately defeat the soft "turn the other cheek" impulses of the Western Christian and free speech peoples. Given the dhimmi behaviors of our Western governments, one may easily grant Yemenman this point, not as ultimately true in fact, but at least, as an example of rational thought.

End of compassion for the Islamic barbarians.

Enter the Third Wave of Crusaders with superior technology and awakened masses. Now do the math. Much death and destruction, enough to go around to touch the core of every life on the planet.

Bottom line is this. Freedom is not free. Now is the time for all good men and women who value liberty and freedom of speech and reject totalitarian oppression whether it be from Leftists in your own government or Islamic barbarians armed and dangerous on your heels, to throw off the shackles of reluctance and indifference and finally take a stand for our way of life.

TO CURRY THE CONSERVATIVE RESISTANCE

SINCE THE SALAD DAYS of ABC's "Politically Incorrect," which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Bill Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that's exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn't working out so well.

People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"

This army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens, and we must take it on head-on.

One must get a copy of John Ziegler's "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" to understand the extent to which the traditional media have become an organized enemy aimed at conservatism, its leaders and its institutions. It was the tag team of entertainment (Tina Fey) and news (Katie Couric) that worked to take Sarah Palin down.

We can't win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.

By not going on "The View" and the Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Maher shows - or even David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Fallon, etc. - we are allowing them to define us into a very distorted and ugly caricature. Our most articulate voices, likable faces and best idea-makers need to go into hostile territory and plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of our ideological enemy and the apolitical masses who simply go with the media flow. (Our baby sitter has an Obama bumper sticker on her car, yet admits she knows nothing about politics.)

Upon walking off the stage after Friday's show, I felt like I had gone 12 rounds with Mike Tyson and Roberto Duran. But when I got back to my dressing room, my BlackBerry was filling with messages from people I've never met, many of whom disagree with my politics but were compelled to praise my willingness to enter the lion's den.

One that struck me in particular best illustrates why we must enter even the most unfriendly environments to explain our point of view:

"My political views would probably be best described as a liberal Democrat and I am writing to let you know that I was dismayed at your recent treatment on 'Real Time with Bill Maher.' I felt that you were given very little meaningful ability to speak; when you requested evidence to back up the claims that were being made, you received none and when you were requested not to interrupt by Prof. Dyson (and politely heeded his request) you were then constantly interrupted. As a side note, I have watched the show for several years and have never witnessed the audience applause to be so intrusive and so obstructive to meaningful debate. I suspect that you don't care much about what occurred and likely anticipated it. I definitely care, not least because it has been my opinion that the 'shouting down' tactics and lack of respect for evidence have been characteristics of the right more than the left in US politics in recent years. Overall, I still believe that, but what occurred on the show has given me much pause for thought. Please continue to engage in sincere debate with ideological opponents and please continue to exercise a higher standard of manners."

The next morning, the Starbucks barista recognized me and said he was a liberal. Go figure! Yet he also said my critique of Professor Dyson's knee-jerk use of the race card struck a chord. He also complimented my on-air demeanor.

My trajectory from left to right began with a similar seed of doubt. Coincidentally, it was the race issue and how the media mistreated Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. It's no coincidence I made that a central argument on the show, too.

We must plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the groupthink liberals in our dumbed-down and activist media culture. Yes, "Real Time With Bill Maher" is a hostile work environment for conservatives. But so is Hollywood - writ large. When conservatives withdraw from media and the entertainment business because they are intimidated or don't want to get down and dirty, we lose even more, valuable political ground.

Even though Mr. Dyson filibustered in a poetic jargon only a linguistics student could decipher, and Mr. Maher glared at me in his trademark smirk, and the audience booed my every utterance, I left knowing I won the rigged bout simply by showing up.

Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site www.breitbart.com and is co-author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon—the Case Against Celebrity."

THE INSTRUCTION OF TARBABY IRAQ

"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."

—King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993

BAGHDAD (AP)—Iraq's prime minister says U.S. troops will not be withdrawn from areas of the country that are not completely secure. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tells The Associated Press in an interview that he has informed President Barack Obama and other top U.S. officials that the Iraqi government must agree to any withdrawals "and must be linked to the security situation."

Al-Maliki says that he does not want U.S. troops taken out of any area unless it is "considered 100 percent secure and under control." Otherwise, withdrawals will be postponed....

This vulgar exchange is utterly ridiculous and very sad, despite the best intentions or not of the Bush doctrine and this American soldier. The scene immediately draws my attention to the same situation portrayed in a particularly poignant film I once saw where both American soldiers and a highly acclaimed progressive social engineer of the day mandated late 19th century re-education policy while mostly failing to groom the native culture out of certain groups of survivors of the western tribes, making gentlemen and scholars of many when it would only succeed with the rare gifted one who was capable of maintaining his own culture in secret while succeeding in the new white man's world. Numerous films depicting other colonial empires attempting to train a native population evoke similar feelings of disgust with both sides of the cultural equation.

I realize I am having a sudden neo-liberal moment of doubt, a small crisis of conscience, with this observation, even as I also realize that life itself is far too often an unrelenting clash of civilizations and ideals, but the brute realities of this clash are indeed troubling to endure. Better these would-be Iraqi policemen understand their dilemma and learn to sort things out, or better these American soldiers leave Iraq to its own pan-Islamic devices, and God help us prepare for the inevitable fallout.

OF HUNTERS AND GATHERERS

From The Economist print edition, December 19, 2007...

HUMAN BEINGS have spent most of their time on the planet as hunter-gatherers. From at least 85,000 years ago to the birth of agriculture around 73,000 years later, they combined hunted meat with gathered veg. Some people, such as those on North Sentinel Island in the Andaman Sea, still do. The Sentinelese are the only hunter-gatherers who still resist contact with the outside world. Fine-looking specimens—strong, slim, fit, black and stark naked except for a small plant-fibre belt round the waist—they are the very model of the noble savage. Genetics suggests that indigenous Andaman islanders have been isolated since the very first expansion out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago.

About 12,000 years ago people embarked on an experiment called agriculture and some say that they, and their planet, have never recovered. Farming brought a population explosion, protein and vitamin deficiency, new diseases and deforestation. Human height actually shrank by nearly six inches after the first adoption of crops in the Near East. So was agriculture “the worst mistake in the history of the human race”, as Jared Diamond, evolutionary biologist and professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, once called it?…

COLORFUL INTELLIGENCE

BOSCH FAWSTIN HAS RELEASED another book of anti-jihadist drawings, this one called ProPiganda. Fawstin is a cartoonist who's currently working on his second graphic novel, THE INFIDEL, about twin brothers whose Muslim background comes to the forefront of their lives on 9/11. One responds by creating a counter-jihad superhero comic book called PIGMAN, as the other surrenders to Islam and becomes a Born Again Muslim, following the faith to wherever it leads him.

For a limited time, get one signed copy of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad plus one signed copy of Table For One for the low price of $25.00. Learn the difference between what you believe followers of Islam believe and what followers of Islam really believe, and why they take action to prove the difference.

Buy all Fawstin's books from his blog here.

HOT CHILI PEPPERS IN THE BLISTERING SUN

PAMELA GELLER STRIKES OIL at the new president's feet, and let's just say, that's not a good thing. Our Atlas Shrugs blogger does this one up fine, in true showmanship stylings and aplomb. Don't miss a frame.

CHINA CAUTIONS AGAINST DEVALUATION

Hello America? Were you paying attention as you bought all that cheap garden equipment? China owns part of you. Saudi Arabia has scrambled for whatever's left. You, however, still get to speak English, for now.

CHINA IS TELLING THE US to be careful, not to overspend and keep an eye on the dollar. "There are risks that China cannot control, so they're depending on the U.S. to maintain fiscal prudence and keep the dollar reasonably stable." said Kelvin Lau, regional economist at Standard Chartered in Hong Kong.

Analysts estimate China keeps nearly half of its $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.

"Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries," said Frank Gong, chief China economist for JP Morgan.

Beijing is trying to increase its leverage at the London G-20 meeting by reminding its partners of its role in financing U.S. spending, Gong said.

"Without China's buying (Treasuries) and continuing to fund U.S. deficit spending, interest rates could have been much higher. That could be very destabilizing in this very recessionary environment," he said. "By attracting a lot of attention to this issue, China is already increasing its influence ahead of the G-20 meeting."

Read it all.

THE SPECTACLE OF RACE TWITTERING

In the national debate on Islam, oops, that's right there is none, but here is an honest perspective by Mark Quinn who frequently comments on what most in the West ignore—the obvious nasty nature of Islam.

ONE OF THE MOST frustrating things about the whole debate about Islam and its destructive influence around the world is this notion of racism, perpetuated by the extreme left (liberals) and the extreme right (Muslims), who as we know are all in bed together in some unholy union.

No, it is not correct to call Islam a race. However, if you take a look at the originators of Islam, the Arabic people, you will find no greater example of culture-wide and institutionalized racism. Most of us are extremely frustrated, for instance, when we see the speed with which Islam is growing among people of sub-Saharan African decent. We listen to their naive claims, planted by Muslims, that Islam is the true faith of Africa. We tell them the Arab people enslaved them for centuries, that the entire slave trade itself would have been nil if not for the Arab brokers who started it all. And yet they don't want to listen. The Arabs did far more than practicing "racism" against African people. It was a lot closer to genocide.

And yet, here we are, people who see a legitimate threat from Islam, and we have to endure being called racist when in fact we're the most liberal, modern people in the world. By "we" I mean people in western societies. We intermarry with each other on a fairly regular basis, we provide equal opportunities for people of all races, religions and genders, and generally speaking, we're happy to pull all the strengths of all the cultures of the world to make ours better and unique. I don't think there are too many of us on this forum who would throw a fit if we saw a member of our own race dating a member of another, or if we were working alongside someone from another race.

Now go and try to date a young Muslim woman. Best case scenario, the father would forbid it. Worst case scenario, your bride would be a head shorter.

I'm not so naive to think racism is non-existent in the world. I've seen a lot of prejudice among east Asians with regard to interracial dating. I myself come from an Italian-Irish background, and I know a lot of Italian-American fathers who wouldn't even allow their kids to have black friends come over. But two points on this. First, every decade that seems to fade more and more. Second, there's no such thing as institutionalized "honor killing" in the world at large. Islam might not have strict guidelines about racism, but I think I've made a point about their gross intolerance.

That's why this whole debate is so frustrating. If it wasn't for terrorism, if it wasn't for Jihad, if it wasn't for calls for Sharia Law, if it wasn't for endless demands for special treatment and consideration, if it wasn't for riots over cartoons, any of us would welcome the Muslim people into our societies with open arms.

How many Muslim societies would welcome us, even if we settled in their countries and conducted ourselves more quietly and unobtrusively than so many mice? Go ask the Copts that question, or the Kurds.

So here we are, having to endure this ridiculous argument that we're racist or intolerant, when in fact we've made a gargantuan effort to appease anyone and everyone who settles in our part of the world. Meanwhile, Muslims are an affront to everyone they encounter, and even as they plot our demise in their mosque services and literature, they preach about how horribly intolerant we are.

You almost feel like banging your head against a wall. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

SARKOZY MARCHES FRANCE BACK INTO NATO

FORTY-THREE YEARS AFTER GENERAL DE GAULLE threw American forces out of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, his political descendant, is expected to explain to a sceptical nation today why he is taking the country back into the core of the US-led Nato alliance.

Mr. Sarkozy's decision, outlined after his 2007 election and to be consummated at Nato's 60th birthday summit next month, will restore France's voice in the alliance command that de Gaulle expelled from its Paris headquarters in 1966, along with 100,000 French-based US personnel.

The French military are delighted. They look forward to raising their Nato command contingent from 100 to 800 and taking up the two top posts that Washington has allocated France: The Allied Command Transformation (ACT), the future strategy unit, in Norfolk, Virginia, and the Lisbon command, which is in charge of Nato's rapid reaction force.

On the political front, however, critics say that Mr Sarkozy is renouncing an independent status that was followed by French presidents of all stripes since de Gaulle. Even members of his own Gaullist camp are accusing him of selling out a cherished heritage.

Rejoining Nato's military structure would mean giving up “an element of our identity”, said François Bayrou, the centrist who came third in the 2007 presidential elections.

Dominique de Villepin, a former Gaullist Prime Minister, enemy of Mr. Sarkozy and fan of Napoleon, says that “closing ourselves into the 'Western family' would be to shrink our country, a renunciation of our diplomatic calling”. President Chirac's success in rallying the world against the US-led Iraq invasion would have been impossible if France had been a full Nato member, he said.

Younger French people may find it unimaginable but American forces were part of the landscape from 1944 to 1967, admired and envied, especially in the 29 base towns, where they cruised in exotic cars, lived luxuriously and taught local women to dance rock'n'roll. At Chateauroux 10 per cent of all marriages between 1951 and 1967 were between US servicemen and French women. The film star Gérard Depardieu has fond memories of a black American girlfriend of his teenage years.

In a curt letter to President Johnson on March 7, 1966, de Gaulle said that he was not only restoring sovereignty over defence but also recovering French soil and airspace by removing American forces and aircraft. Demonstrations by 20,000 French workers who were dependent on the US bases did not sway the father of France's independent nuclear deterrent.

Read it all..

REVOLUTION IN THE SOIL

STIRRING SPEECH. But is it meant to be taken seriously?

MARK WARNER ON GUN CONTROL

It only took a couple of weeks to receive my first reply to an action letter I wrote to several members of the US Congress concerning what appears to be a stealth assault on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution by the Obama regime...

Dear Mr. Thy,

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on gun control. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue.

I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate around Second Amendment rights. I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

In the United States Senate, legislation on gun control generally falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I value the thoughts that you have shared with me on this important issue. I will keep your views in mind should any legislation on this matter come before the full Senate in the future.

Again, thank you for writing. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to contact me with your opinions and concerns.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

The most interesting piece of information conveyed by this reply was how Senator Mark Warner signed off this letter, as a United States Senator with no mention of the State of Virginia he was elected to represent, at all. I suspect, should any of Senator Warner's esteemed colleagues indeed reply to my original note, and they happen to mention their respective state constituency they will probably also include their party affiliation, again diluting the original power and prestige each of the States once maintained as partners in this Great Union, a union now tragically scarred and blemished by an unwarranted and unwieldy Federal encroachment of those powers and liberty.

To set things back on firm ground, a spirited patriotic citizen or two might find themselves approving of and supporting a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, not the second. On principle of course, not because one Senator Warner forgot to mention his constituency in a form letter to me. I do thank the senator for his reply.

AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT

The following is a frightening picture of political mayhem in progress, published September 17, 2008, by Dr. Ali Sina, a former Muslim and founder of Faith Freedom International on the dangerous signs he see emanating from the personality of Barack Obama.

The essay is quite long. Be prepared to be stunned and shocked by what you may have perhaps already read in part or heard whispered around the water cooler in snippets or only fleetingly concerning the narcissistic defects of the American president. Ali Sina does not pull punches.

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer

I MUST CONFESS I WAS NOT impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident—a wholesome presidential package. It is so instinctive for most people to want to see blacks succeed. It is as if all humanity is carrying a collective guilt for what the ancestors of blacks endured. However, despite my initial interest in him, I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.

It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, “I love you.” Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It’s only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.

When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, “anything is better than the Shah.” They found their error when it was too late.

Khomeini promised there would be separation between religion and state. He lied and they did not care to look into his past to see whether he actually meant what he said. Had they done that they would have seen that he always believed in caliphate and the rule of Islam. People gobbled everything he told them uncritically. They wanted to believe and therefore closed their eyes so they did not see what they did not want to see. Eyes welled when he spoke. Masses poured into the streets by the millions, screamed and shouted to greet him. People kissed his pictures. Some saw his portrait reflected on the Moon.

Listening to Obama, it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch Khomeini, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell.

Then come the inevitable comparisons to Khomeini to Hitler, and the Obama to Hitler. The thrust of the Sina approach is psychoanalysis. Thus, several pages into the essay, Dr. Sina writes with the strength of insight a passionate biographer has for a criminal subject whom he is nonetheless drawn:

The cause of the narcissist is himself. Everything else is a tool, a stepping stone for the narcissist to ascend to power. Narcissists don’t have any ideology. They champion the cause that has a better chance of making their ascent to power easier.

Vaknin writes: “Narcissists use anything they can lay their hands on in the pursuit of narcissistic supply. If God, creed, church, faith, and institutionalized religion can provide them with narcissistic supply, they will become devout. They will abandon religion if it can't.”

Therefore, the question whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, whether he is pro Palestine, as he has been all his life or whether he is pro Israel, whether he is a black supremacist or an agent of racial harmony, are moot. Obama is anything you want him to be and situation dictates. He takes the side that is more expedient to his cause. To communists he is a comrade, to Islamists he is their man, to Palestinian fighters he is their hope and to the Jews he is a staunch Zionist. The narcissist’s creed is himself. Everything else is negotiable.

The best description of Obama comes from himself. “I serve as a blank screen,” he wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This is the key to Obama’s personality. He will do and say anything as long as it suits him. He will embrace any cause, will align himself with anyone, and will shift his position wherever the wind blows. Narcissists are chameleons.

Obama will do and say anything as long as it suits him. He will embrace any cause, will align himself with anyone, and will shift his position wherever the wind blows. Narcissists are chameleons.

Obama voted “present” in the Senate most of the time, (130 times to be precise) not because they were too difficult decisions, as Rudy Giuliani said at the GOP convention, but because those issues were not relevant to his cause.

Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The “present” vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don’t help him personally? Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into—guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which, he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father .

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?

Narcissists are magical thinkers. They live in a world of fantasy; fantasies of grandiosity and unlimited power. But they are convinced that those fantasies will become reality because they are special and destined for greatness. That is why Obama already sees himself as president and acts presidential. The very fact that he travelled abroad and visited with several heads of states is another sign of this man's delusions of grandiosity. He is not representing the government. Under what pretext he visited those heads of states and entered into negotiations with them?

Read it all.

Addendum: Okay, Barack Obama got elected. Now, while dismantling capitalism plank by plank, he struts about saying that he must repair our image in the world. But let's take a look at some reality slices. After President Obama created an uproar in the United Kingdom by sending back a famous Winston Churchill bust that was given to George W. Bush as a loaner gift after 9-11, he made matters worse by insulting Prime Minister Gordon Brown in a gift exchange. Brown gave President Obama a pen holder carved from the timbers of H.M.S. Resolute, and a first edition of a 7-volume biography of Winston Churchill—but Obama in turn gives Brown the equivalent of an Hawaiian shirt. A box of 25 DVDS included Raging Bull, Casablanca, Psycho, The Graduate...

Must have sent one of his acorns down to the nearest Walmart...

So this is how he is trying to repair our image in the world? How could he be so colossally uncouth? And we are to presume that this is the man of style and taste the Left has so often apotheosized while vilifying the previous occupant of the White House as nothing but a bushwhacking redneck? Give me a break. This man is a punk.

DIVINING THE MESSENGER OF CHANGE

The second paragraph of this comment found at Pajamas Media is rather amusing, and probably more correct than not.

“GUYS, I'VE BEEN severely depressed for the past several days. It’s unbelievable to me that a person with the character (deceit, conceit), beliefs (wealth redistribution, well documented hatred for this country, its past and its values), current behavior (flag, anthem), explicit plans (destruction of this country’s economy, remaking of this country’s constitution) and well documented past and current alliances and explicitly pledged allegiances, how a man like that can come within even a sniffing distance of congress let alone presidency. I think he should be impeached for perjury upon his being sworn into office for “protecting the Constitution” which he declared to be shameful, and for “defending against terrorists foreign and domestic” for his middle-east plans and obvious associations with the domestic type.

All of this because of 20 somethings who took their schooling from Ayers-like “teachers”, 30-somethings who think that all of this is for free and will last forever, 40-somethings who want to look so open-minded that their brains fall out through the opening, 50-somethings who want to look and behave like their 20 something children, and 60-70 somethings for being senile and re-living their never truly existing glorious revolutionary youth.

It’s revolting.

Germans also didn’t quite realize what happened in July 1932.”

THE CHARLATAN'S TENT

MY FAVORITE LINE from the charlatan's tent so far has tumbled out of the mouth from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. When confronted with the fact that Mister President has not done a single thing he promised during the campaign and is instead spending money as if there is no tomorrow while gutting the potential of people by raising taxes, Gibbs replied, “It’s not like you weren’t told. McCain’s campaign said we were going to be doing this right from the start.”

Methinks Gibbs won't last a year, perhaps not even six months. He's a giggling goofball.

THE AWAKENING

Always delighted to find opinions which articulate what we consistently inspire to communicate, Two-Fisted is honored to republish this comment by someone named CF Bleachers found at PajamasMedia. The number and poetry of clarifying points made by Bleachers is astonishing. Read on. Embrace fully one's awareness of the political environment. This will be a bumpy even dangerous ride we have ahead of us. Prepare thyselves.

JENNIFER, BACK IN OCTOBER, I wrote this response to one of Roger Kimball’s articles. I went back to survey my thoughts from that period to overlay them on today’s landscape. Roger had written about Chris Buckley leaving the reservation…(Ann Althouse had done the same), Andy had long ago left the reservation and I responded to Megan McArdle when she drifted into the Obama camp).

(At one point, I even remember a lovely Jennifer Rubin wondering aloud whether the gifted political orator and chessboard master was actually going to govern from the center, I hope it is not impolitic or discourteous to mention it)

Begging your permission, I would like to revisit my thoughts written to Roger and see how they overlay in today’s landscape.

In point of fact, Roger, I assume you do not disagree at all with what Christopher Buckley finds appealing in Sen. Obama, neither do I.

He displays a soft temperament, is at times inspiring with his delivery of ideas, soothing and calming in demeanor. Anyone who disputes this is unable to continue in the quest for principled disagreement.

We tend in this country, to overcompensate away the deficiencies of the last guy in office. Nixon was sort of brooding and had dark corners, Ford was affable and light. But Ford was portrayed as a clumsy oaf, so Carter was the nuclear engineer. But Carter was limp and cowardly, and Reagan was brave and heroic. But Reagan was sleepy, cowboyish and dim, Bush Sr. was erudite and gentler. But Bush, Sr. was a wimp married to his grandma, and Clinton was dashing and bold. But Clinton often ruled by polls and plebiscites and spent time chasing his tail literally and figuratively, (some of which he put on the payroll), so we closed the last chapter with the current President Bush, married to a sweet librarian and not leading by watching polls but rather, destroyed by them. Going it alone was a mantra, a badge of honor. Perhaps, most importantly, this President Bush, in a war of words…most often fought on a battlefield between his brain and his tongue.

So, the most eloquent speaker, who appeals to the “world court of opinion” and prodded on by a media in his pocket and not on his watch…will “cure” the ills that have befallen us.

What Christopher chooses to ignore, are all the signs of what we will have to cure in the next election. He glosses over them as if they are invisible. That is what surprises most, that is what deadens the heart and chips away at the soul.

Christopher is clearly brilliant enough to see and chooses instead to avert his gaze. The thuggery and mean-spririted henchmen who do the dirty work, keep clean the hands and the image of “first class” comportment. The abject slander heaped upon opponents, comes not from the mouth of the candidate…but from the bellowing rage of his campaign.

The crushing of dissent by teams of lawyers, calls to action and “in your face” aggression come not from written directive, but from the planning committee seeking to choke off relevant inquiry. Clearly, Christopher cannot be so mesmerized as to wash this grime away with a simple wave of the hand. He has fallen for the image and he has been distracted by the persona.

So far, up to this point, I’m ok with what I had written. I believe we had not yet seen the degree to which dissent would be ignored, unwelcome and crushed…utilizing Pelosi and Reid to cram down legislation with an in your face attitude of “We won”…many people, including Clive Crook were still holding fast to the belief that principled dissent would be received with open arms.

I love liberals, Roger…as I suspect you do. Many of them surround my daily life. But I despise leftists. A liberal is ruled by compassion, a leftist by deceit.

A liberal wants to try a different approach, a leftist wants to replace the system.

A liberal believes in fair play and honest disagreement, a leftist believes in hiding the truth and crushing dissent.

A liberal believes you may have a point, a leftist believes there are no points other than his.

A liberal says this country is great, but can be greater through dialogue. A leftist believes some other country is great and this country makes him puke.

A liberal wants equality for all persons regardless of gender, color or creed, a leftist wants class and racial warfare.

A liberal wants to take the poor and give them a chance to be rich, a leftist wants to take the rich and make them poor.

Here is where my overlay given today’s facts needs closest examination. Are we in the midst of a compassionate liberal agenda or does it contain the venom and windpipe crushing brutality of a cramdown of leftism? Does it gain height by stepping on the necks of principled dissenters? Does it seek elevation via the digging of trenches for those on the wrong side of class warfare? Does it seek racial warfare through name calling (cowards)? Does it seek to attack the wealthy and make them poor…in order to gain parity, but not equality? Does it seek to mask the truth…suggesting that newly created problems are “inherited”?

And if it does these things, does it suggest that the implementation of this new system is not classic liberalism, but entrenched leftism? I leave that to others to decide, but in forecasting the differences…I certainly wanted to see how this played out.

The liberals are gone, Roger. The leftists have consumed them. I love the liberals, I despise the leftists. What Christopher cannot see…is the leftist magicians on stage, not with their trinkets hidden up their sleeves…but dangling from them in plain view…and daring us to shout out what we see….because, if we do…they will scream that we are racist and paranoid and not nuanced enough to appreciate the trick they are about to pull.

And if a brilliant and informed man like Christopher Buckley can be taken in by the sleight of hand, what possible chance does that leave for those who stand to vote the difference in this election? I’m afraid this magician’s show will make many of our fondest liberties disappear. For that, we will all pay the price of admission.

That price, it appears…comes in the trillions.

ISLAMIC VIOLATIONS OF TRUST, INC.

Dear Gabriel,

The article below reports that a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard was arrested on terrorist-related charges after being fingered by an informant. How the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (The Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC) and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) reacted is a perfect illustration of “properly understanding the times,” as discussed in our Monday and Tuesday emails this week.

Did the MPAC and CAIR denounce the alleged activities of the man who was arrested? Of course not. Following their predictably worn-out script, these two organizations attacked the FBI and law enforcement authorities for “violating the trust” of Muslims by working with an informant who infiltrated a mosque. Here’s one sentence from MPAC’s response:
“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques.”

Notice the insinuation, that the man arrested was “instigated” by a paid federal informant. The man arrested isn’t responsible—the “devil made him do it!” This is the same kind of response organizations like MPAC and CAIR make whenever a Muslim is arrested or suspected of terrorist-related activities. They attack law enforcement, or politicians, or groups and people they call “Islamophobic.” They play the “offended victim” card, complaining that the latest action violates “trust” between Muslims and law enforcement.

This is the same script Islamic militants and leaders have followed for years in Europe and Great Britain.

Here’s what violates trust—Islamic organizations and spokespeople who refuse to acknowledge that there a lot of people in their community of faith who want to hurt America, kill Americans, and impose shariah law on America.

Here’s what violates trust—Islamic organizations and spokespeople who claim perpetual victim status for Islamic radicals, and who claim that Americans are the aggressors, when in fact it is the radicals who are the aggressors and Americans are the victims.

We don’t see FBI informants and undercover criminal investigations inside churches and synagogues, and there’s an obvious reason why. If MPAC and CAIR are genuinely and sincerely concerned about “trust,” they would do well to stop attacking Americans and law enforcement and start denouncing the real violators of our trust—the radical Muslims in our midst who intend us harm.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And that gives us an advantage—because we can predict with a high degree of accuracy what the Islamists will do next. Their “script” isn’t hard to read. We just have to expose them and refuse to play the role they’re trying to foist on us.

THE U.S. MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is reacting to the arrest of a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. An AP report describes the case as follows:

In the California case, information about the informant who spied on the Islamic Center of Irvine came out last week at a detention hearing for a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, an Afghan native and naturalized U.S. citizen named Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, 34, was arrested Feb. 20 on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. He will be arraigned Monday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana. FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Ropel III testified at the hearing that an FBI informant infiltrated Niazi’s mosque and several others in Orange County and befriended Niazi.

Ropel said the informant recorded Niazi on multiple occasions talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to the Afghan mujahadeen. Niazi has not been charged with terrorism and it’s not yet clear if the FBI was focused on anything beyond his activities. Neither the mosque nor any other of its members have been charged. A 46-year-old fitness instructor told The Associated Press last week he was the informant.

Craig Monteilh of Irvine said Niazi talked about blowing up buildings and discussed sending Monteilh to a terrorist training camp in Yemen or Pakistan. Monteilh said his tenure as an informant ended after Niazi and other members of the Islamic Center of Irvine reported him to authorities. A Muslim advocacy group has demanded a federal investigation into whether Niazi was arrested because he refused to become an FBI informant after telling the agency about Monteilh.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has reacted by stating that the use of informants in mosques “stigmatizes” the mosques and erodes trust. According an article on the MPAC website:

Trust is the cornerstone of any partnership between law enforcement and communities. It can only be established and maintained through clear and open communication. Without this, trust is eroded and suspicions arise on all sides. This clearly does not serve anyone’s interests.Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors.

It has also led many mosques and community groups to reconsider their relationship with the FBI, including most recently the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. It is now up to the FBI and law enforcement agencies to re-engage with the Muslim American community, and re-build trust and respect. MPAC will continue to raise these community concerns with federal law enforcement officials in its efforts to help form policies that preserve civil liberties while also protecting our nation.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that is planning to file a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest:

On Tuesday, February 24, the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) will host a news conference to announce the filing of a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest last week of Ahmad Niazi. The news conference will immediately follow a court hearing Tuesday for Niazi in Santa Ana, Calif. Members of his family will take part in the news conference. Mr. Niazi is charged with perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. He claims the charges are in retaliation for his refusal to become an FBI informant. Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR-LA and other community members that, during a raid of a friend’s house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a “living hell.”

MPAC was established in the mid 1980’s by individuals whose backgrounds are likely rooted in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and since its inception has acted in concert with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The organization, like other U.S. Brotherhood organizations, has a long history of fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism. The organization has long enjoyed generally good relations with the U.S. government and functions essentially as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood.

Documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being part of the U.S. Brotherhood. Investigative research posted on GMBDR had determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and is an integral part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with a long history of support for fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. Numerous earlier posts have reported on the relationship between the FBI and CAIR which appears to have been terminated by the FBI.

Both organizations have long histories of opposing almost all elements of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. CAIR in particular has defended numerous individuals accused and/or convicted of terrorism offenses and a number of CAIR employees have also been convicted of terrorism.

A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY FOR PEACENIKS

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) will be holding a Washington DC rally on March 8 at the front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool beginning at 1 PM to address the global challenge of women oppressed and killed in the name of Islamic supremacism. Word is that the leaders of this group will demand that our legislators recognize the threat to women around the world by this supremacist ideology.

Excellent development. And as one particular conservative radio host might say, this is shaping up to be a fabulous "learning opportunity" for many of the peace junkies and other assorted pavement stompers to actually discover that not everyone thinks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the way they think, not even close, and that strong and principled opposition to those people might actually be a good thing.

Even unto war.

PUTTING AWAY FINANCIAL CRIMINALS

WE HAVE NET HOUSEHOLD ASSETS in this country of roughly $50 trillion, give or take a bunch of trillions—more take than give probably—a number that's skyrocketed in the last 50 years. The size and complexity of the financial sector has grown even faster. But the SEC is still basically operating on the scale of the 1950s.

And the FDIC is even worse off, especially considering it's hugely expanded role in the current crisis, a role that will probably (hopefully) get even bigger. In 1992 the FDIC had 15,000 employees working for it. At the end of 2007 it had merely 4,600 employees.

We've been getting away with operating on the cheap for decades, but now it's killing us.

Given the scale, complexity and importance of our economic system, we desperately need to start creating a culture of financial surveillance and accountability. We need an agency that covers the whole money community, stocks, insurance, banks, mortgages. The works. Maybe that can be the SEC. Maybe it's a new invention. However we do it, the key thing will be to hire a ton of people (more like a megaton). This isn't rocket science. You just need enough eyeballs to look at stuff, a reasonable level of education, intellect and diligence in your people, and an institutional attitude that if the regulatee can't explain something well enough for a non expert regulator to get it, that's the regulatee's fault.

And we need to establish a new ethic of real time enforcement. I'm sure there are numerous financial malefactors who should be punished for their role in the current crisis. But when do you think the SEC will get around to coming after them based on its recent record? 2012? 2015? That's not a real deterrent. Justice delayed is justice that's largely ineffective.

The best part of this plan? It kills three birds with one stone. We've got thousands of former Wall Streeters now out of work, we have MBA students and even law students struggling to find jobs, and we get to reaffirm our reputation as the world's financial safe haven that's more transparent than anybody else. We desperately need a white collar jobs program. This is it.

The great tragedy of a depression or really nasty recession is that we don't use all the resources that we could potentially put to work. Here's a great opportunity to create jobs and do something real, that would probably also resonate pretty well with the general public.

A hundred thousand new financial cops on the street, come on Mr. President, what's the downside?

Read it all.

As we the stock market continues to plunge and our savings bleed as a result of this financial massacre, something positive and trustworthy needs to happen soon. This administration continues to stomp all over this nation's heritage of liberty, hard work, and prosperity by calling us racists and cowards and new citizens of this brave new Marxist regime it is busily crafting. Might all find ourselves wrestling with the repercussions of the next tea party?

REFUSING TO LIVE WITH RADICAL ISLAM

From the Creeping Sharia front:

FAREED ZAKARIAH IS AT IT AGAIN. Remember him? The Muslim editor of Newsweek who wrote a book entitled the Post American World. The same book Barack Obama was reading during the U.S. presidential election, which has a chapter entitled “A Non-Western World”, and mentions Obama on page 255. The same Fareed Zakaria who declared the USA #2 in a separate Newsweek story.

We surmised Obama might be modeling some of his foreign policy strategies on Zakaria’s writings, particularly his approach to Iran—see our previous post Obama planning post American world to compare Zakaria’s words on Iran to Obama’s. With the closing of Gitmo, the failure to address the kidnapping of a U.S. U.N. worker in Pakistan, and the chumminess towards soon-to-be nuclear power Iran, and Hamas may bear that out.

In Fareed Zakaria’s latest, Learning to Live With Radical Islam, he subtitles his article: “We don’t have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it’s time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists.”

If Zakaria means that all Muslims are Islamists, he should first prove that all Islamists (i.e., Muslims) are treated as potential terrorists, then we can talk. If he means that all “radical” Muslims are Islamists, then why wouldn’t “we” treat all “Islamists” as potential terrorists? Furthermore, if Zakaria could conclusively define radical Islam that would be extremely helpful. Is radical Islam based on a different version of the Quran or other Islamic texts? A different Mohammid? A different Allah? A different jihad than Mohammad waged?

Any article detailing how “we” should learn to live with radical Islam, rather than defeat it, that begins with an opening paragraph describing how a region of Pakistan is quiet once again because the Taliban took over and implemented sharia law simply doesn’t bode well for anyone. He fails to mention that the Taliban waged a war for the Swat valley and “beheaded opponents, torched girls schools and terrorized the police to gain control of much of the one-time tourist haven”.

Keep in mind however that Fareed Zakaria routinely minimizes the Islamic terrorism threat, al-Qaeda, the odds of being a victim of terrorism, and he does it here again claiming that the Taliban aren’t so bad after all because Fareed says most “Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.” Got that? “Not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world—in fact, most do not.” See world, nothing to worry about here, just a tiny minority of Islamists want to kill us.

Fareed overlooks many a significant point in his article. One, even if it is true that only a small group of Muslims have global jihadist ambitions like al Qaeda, that’s all it takes. Just one group. Just one nuke. Look what 19 Muslims did on 9/11. Maybe Muslims should learn to live with the fact that as long as ANY Islamists (defined any way you want) have global jihadist ambitions that there will be significant consequences. Two, Fareed, given the resources and the opportunity, how quickly would the local jihadis that behead folks, burn girls schools, and adhere to the strictest of sharia law, take their local jihad global? Three, wasn’t Muhammid’s ambition to create a global khillafah or caliphate? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of Islam? For all to submit to Allah’s will?

There are interesting points made in the article but most are glossy at best. He writes about Iraq and claims that General Petraeus’ squelching of a massive insurgency is an example of accepting Islamism. What he fails to mention is the presence, and increase in, U.S. troops that executed the counter-insurgency strategy and made it work.

Zakaria does state that “Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas.” If that’s all he meant, why the cover story in Arabic and the statement ‘how to live with it’? Later in the same paragraph Zakaria takes it on his own to wildly distort reality, reminiscent of Obama’s air raiding villages comment, he states dumping resources (i.e., cash) on the problem rather than, “simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle.” He also fails to mention that it was Islamism that brought the struggle to the U.S., not the other way around.

He concludes:

We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried…people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That’s the most powerful weapon of all.

Fair enough. Yet once people are enslaved to sharia law, weary or not, they are not permitted to “find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license.” Hence, we should not be giving Islamists hope and proposing how we should learn to live with their “radical Islam”, rather we should be proposing how to end it and prevent it from infiltrating our institutions and way of life.

We did not choose to live with Nazism, communism, or fascism, nor should we surrender to and live with Islamism.

Read it all at Newsweek.