Four more years? I hope not.

From Joseph Farah:

Never forget.

Remember 9-11.

No matter what we achieve in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other front in this war on jihadist terrorism, unless we get bin Laden, we will never have closure over the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The longer it takes, the more we risk.

Bin Laden is a symbol out there – a dangerous living symbol. As long as he is alive on this planet, he represents the personification of anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism. He is a rallying point for millions of radical Islamists who want nothing more out of life on this earth than to stick it to us – to kill and maim as many Americans as possible.

Now, there is no question that President Bush's predecessor in the White House missed many golden opportunities to spare us the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, by taking out bin Laden. Time after time, the 9-11 commission report shows, the decision never even made it to Bill Clinton's desk. The decisions not to attack and kill bin Laden were made by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, a man who later copped a plea to stealing national security secrets from the National Archives.

Nevertheless, Bush will hardly have Clinton to blame if he doesn't get bin Laden after eight years of trying.

It's time to refocus our efforts on eliminating this human plague from the planet.

It's time to redouble our efforts to find him and smoke him.

It's time to pull out all the stops – and if that means attacking him in Pakistan or Iran or any other nation, we do it. If we have to use bunker-buster bombs or tactical nuclear weapons, we do it. If we have to redeploy armed forces from elsewhere on the globe, we do it.

It's time to use all our great technology and all our great manpower and American ingenuity to do something that will make America's day.

I'm surprised no one else is saying this.

It's been too long.

This is becoming something of a national embarrassment. Bush is very fortunate his political opposition wasn't able to capitalize on this failure to get bin Laden in 2004. If he cares about his country, his party, justice and winning this titanic global conflict with pure, unadulterated evil, he's got to finish the little matter of bin Laden.

Americans don't want him dying of natural causes in some cave.

They don't want to see any more videos and they don't want to hear any more audio tapes.

The longer bin Laden eludes capture or death, the more his legacy as the man who declared war on America grows.

This is not just war, it's personal.

Argumentum contra argumentum ad hominem

From BLACKFIVE, on the value of ad hominem attacks:

...Chickenhawk refers to those who are pro-war but have never served in the military. I don't like the term. It's designed to silence debate.

By using the 'Chickenhawk' label, you assume that the only moral authority to have an opinion about war comes from those that have served.

Well, then, is someone that served in the military but not combat, a half-Chickenhawk?

How about someone that spent one month fighting in GW1 versus someone who slugged it out during OIF for a year?

How do you weigh the opinion of a Marine with three seven month tours versus a 3rd Infantry Division Soldier with two twelve month tours?

And, then, eventually, we'll come to the conclusion that the only one to make a decision about combat is the highest decorated veteran alive (Colonel Bud Day, I believe). Let's let him make all of our decisions for us...

I don't know many military men or women out there who would want military service to be the singular defining characteristic of citizenship. We appreciate those that have served, and maybe they're a little higher up the food chain in our eyes, but to say that you have to serve to have an opinion is, basically, [expletive deleted].

For instance, Presidents with combat experience have gotten us into more problems that ones without (how's THAT for a premise). Kennedy (WWII Vet), Truman (WWI Vet)..."

He probably thinks this song is about him

Verse I
The first rule of holes: stop digging!

Vox Day wanted someone to show him where he was wrong in criticizing Ben Shapiro's arguments. In my critique of Day's original article, I very generally noted that Day was at points misrepresenting what Shapiro obviously meant; here I will point out specific errors and misstatements:

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true....

No, Day's mischaracterization of Shapiro's comments is partially true. Shapiro wrote, "The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack" (Day does not refute this--he agrees with it). Shapiro is here writing about most on the Left; he is not addressing the Right, the Middle, or Vox Day (wherever he might be; judging from the generally condescending tone of his rhetoric, he would probably place himself Above).

Regardless of from where the personal attack comes, argumentum ad hominem is in itself almost always used either to distract, obfuscate, prejudice, manipulate, or shame; it is never relevant to the merits of a particular argument (unless that argument is about a specific person).

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches.

It is dishonest if one is to honestly represent or rationally evaluate the merits of a specific argument.

(As noted previously) Besides that, Day is not referring to the definition of "dishonest" Shapiro apparently was using, who wrote:

" It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues....Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument – which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy – explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy."

Perhaps Shapiro should have used in place of "dishonest," something like, "inconsistent with an important aspect of representative democracy."
Day continues:

If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard.

The appropriate value in raising questions about a speaker's credibility lies only in that any doubt regarding their integrity should cause the hearer to discern even more carefully the merits of the argument; a speaker's questionable credibility does not necessarily reflect the merits of what they say.

The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

Here again, Day is either reading carelessly or intentionally misrepresenting Shapiro's language (so that he might take another cheap shot at Shapiro?).

In referring to the Constitution, Shapiro was referring to the Left's position that unless one has served, one cannot have an opinion on the use of military force. This contradicts the Constitution's provision for civilian control of the military. Shapiro did not say the use of "chickenhawk" was unconstitutional in the legal sense, as Day implies. Here are Shapiro's actual words:

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander in chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

Day continues:

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults.

Obviously, Day is taking the term "American" in a sense different from that intended by Shapiro. This is in itself either intellectually dishonest or [just] lazy. Shapiro's actual words make this clear:

Last week, I explained why the "chickenhawk" argument undermines fundamental values of representative democracy, as well as the constitutional idea of civilian control over the military.

Essentially, Shapiro was defining "un-American" in terms of two of his earlier points.

Day goes on:

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved.

Shapiro was talking about the Left's use of the term; he was not discussing Day's use of it.

In Day's implicit endorsement of the comments from a reader of his 'blog which include the observation, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," he demonstrates the (usually) fallacious nature of argumentum ad hominem--a person's argument should be judged on the merits of the argument, not on who is making it.

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations.

The real flaw in Day's article (whether or not Shapiro is actually a chickenhawk), is that he took up the pen at all to give him (as he puts it) a well-deserved "spanking."

I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

Perhaps Mr. Shapiro can sign up to serve with Mr. Day wherever he is currently stationed (unless VD's currently enjoying a "bath" somewhere on the California coast).

Verse II
Speaking of protesting too much...

Ben Shapiro wrote two columns arguing why the anti-war Left's use of the term "chickenhawk" is improper. The first article on "chickenhawk" argued that using the term is intellectually dishonest in discussing the merits of the Iraq War, and the Left use it because they don't have anything substantial to add to the public discourse.

It is and they don't.

In his second article, Shapiro continued his argument against the Left's use of name-calling.

Vox Day wrote an (apparently unprovoked) article calling him a "chickenhawk" and trying to point out why Shapiro's arguments against the term are invalid.

After reading both of Shapiro's articles, one must wonder, "Where did the author criticize (or even mention) Vox Day?" Mr. Shapiro specifically cites the emptiness of the anti-war Left who resort to ad hominem attacks out of desperation, mean-spiritedness, and their hatred for President Bush. Unless there are some behind-the-scenes insults or reproaches to which I am not privy, Day's response to Shapiro is unjustified.

[Guest MikeT courteously points out that Day is responding to Shapiro's call for more pre-emptive action in other nations--for an American Empire; he should criticize that instead.]

And rather than admit he went too far (or just stop), Day tried to justify his inappropriately public and uncharitable rebuke of one of his colleagues in a response to some of my comments.

The use of "chickenhawk" he defends is only valid against particular persons, nothing else. Its use does not demonstrate that person's arguments to be false, which was Shapiro's point in the two columns cited in Day's tirade. That sort of a false argument[ation] is unbecoming someone of Day's [. . .] stature.

No matter how valid his criticisms of any expansion of our "War Against Extremism" might be (or any other action Shapiro might advocate), Day's personal attack against him only weakens the moral force of his own arguments and damages his own reputation.

If the point of the debate is whether or not the military should engage in a certain operation, then make that argument. If the point is that those who do not serve should refrain from calling for more warfare, then make that argument. If the point is that Shapiro is a hypocrite and should do something about it or be quiet, state that (privately).

But Day seems more interested in pushing around someone for whom he has little or no respect than addressing whether or not ad hominem attacks are morally-defensible (in almost all cases, they are not). Day's attack of an apparently decent young man comes off as nothing more than vulgar and petty.

His criticism of Shapiro's character would be more appropriate in a private exchange or even on his own 'blog; WorldNetDaily Commentary does not seem the right forum for the puerile schoolyard bullying evident in Day's article. (And no, an imprecise use of language does not make one deserving of public disembowelment. Grammar lessons, perhaps).

If Day's intention was to criticize constructively, he should have done that privately (and if he did do it privately, he should have kept it private).

As for refuting Shapiro, that VD cites himself as an example of where some of Shapiro's arguments fall short only supports his opponent: Day is an exception that proves the rule. He is not part of the vacuous anti-Bush [anti-American] Left, whose use of the tactic Shapiro was criticizing. Neither is he part of the (as Day claims) 95% of people too stupid to get out of their own way (and therefore susceptible to such fallacious argumentation).

Argumentum ad hominem does nothing to further a particular position (unless, of course, the argument is about a specific person); it only cheapens the worth of comments that otherwise might be deserving of consideration, and it lowers the esteem of the speaker in the eyes of fair-minded observers.

So (ironically), in trying to weaken Shapiro's credibility, Day lessens his own.

Verse III
A line-by-line response

Following is my response to Day's critique of my original post...

I wrote:

If Day's argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ's example.

To which Day responded:

Amil gets right out of the blocks with a blown reading comprehension test. First, that's not my argument. Second, the suggestion of the possibility of a physical or moral defect is far from childish, it is absolutely necessary in order to admit the real possibility that the entire argument does not apply.....

My comment above was obviously a response to Day's introduction only (and I was trying to give Day the benefit of the doubt, of which he is quickly proving himself undeserving).

As indicated by the reference to Shakespeare, he implies Shapiro's repeated criticism of the pejorative is an indication he feels it hits too close to home. VD later calls Shapiro "chickenhawk," "chicken_ _ _ _," and "hypocrite." All of that is unnecessary.

Day here admits that he is attacking Shapiro personally to cast doubt on his argument! Essentially, Day's argument here is: "Shapiro's a chickenhawk, so he's wrong." That's a non sequitur and powerful evidence that Day is victim to his own flawed logic--attacking a person's character (even if the accusations are true) has no actual bearing on the merits of the argument made.

Again, to suggest that hinting at possible physical or character flaws as reasons for Shapiro's lack of service is necessary in refuting his argument is defective reasoning.

Day continued:

I testify to what Shapiro said that was false. His assertion is largely incorrect and is only true in the single context of conservative media commentary, which, ironically enough, features a high percentage of people who many on the Left and Right would consider to be chickenhawks. I took a poll of some of the most extreme right-wing people on the planet - in the last election, Bush came in third behind the Libertarian and Constitution party candidates - and 85 percent believe that the chickenhawk appellation applies to Mr. Shapiro.

And I note that if there is anyone less interested in genuine debate than the conservative commentariat, I have yet to meet them. Malkin was afraid to show even when she was called out in public and asked live on the air to defend her book. I doubt Shapiro has the ... to defend himself or his positions either. Hugh Hewitt won't even permit libertarians on his radio show. Conservative commentators talk a good game as long as they think they're dealing with brain-dead leftists, but they're cowards for the most part. At least the lefties will show up and froth at the mouth for a while. Anyhow, the fact that leftists can't debate properly doesn't mean they won't; you have to remember that to them calling names IS how you debate.

Calling names is how one debates if they're five years old and not very bright, which is part of why Day's public attack is inappropriate and embarrassing.

Day writes that Shapiro's assertion is largely incorrect and only true in a very limited context. As evidence of this he cites the opinions of "the most extreme right-wing people on the planet." Is this a sizeable group of people? If so, why did not the Constitutional or Libertarian candidates win the presidency?

Even if it is a large group of people, Shapiro was writing about the Left's use of "chickenhawk." I nowhere noted his use of the terms "Liberatarians," "Conservatives," or "Moderates" (or even "Vox Day") in his two articles.

(And I doubt Shapiro would criticize its use by one who has served).

Perhaps Day should have read more carefully.

He goes on:

So, Shapiro is demonstrably wrong. My very willingness to debate blows his (and Amil's) talking points-derived notion away. I'm right here... Shapiro and Lowry and all the other war cheerleaders know where I am. Shall we talk about the invasion of Pakistan? Or do you prefer Egypt? To quote our president, Bring It On. And what debate, precisely, is being stifled? From what I've seen, the left seems more than willing to debate the war. President Bush is the one who won't answer any questions.

Here Day demonstrates his carelessness in both reading and reasoning.

I do not have a "talking points-derived notion." I was merely making the point that Day's public personal attack was inappropriate. Some of Shapiro's language may need refinement; in addressing the Left's use of the term (and in taking his words in the ways in which they were obviously intended), he said nothing deserving of the venom issued by Day.

I wrote:

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force.... He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites....

To which Day responded:

I did both, so why the word "rather"? There's nothing dishonest about attacking someone, indeed, I'd think the openness would be rather refreshing in light of all the fake Crossfire-style friendliness. An opinion is one thing, a call to action is another. Shapiro wasn't simply expressing his opinion about the war, he was telling Americans what their duty was and what sacrifices they have to make. And Amil is right, Shapiro wasn't talking about legislation, which is precisely why that argument was so phenomenally stupid. Why does the Supreme Court so often wrestling with questions of constitutionality? Why? Because it is the judicial branch! (In other words, it usually involves laws.)

Day did not expose the fault in Shapiro's argument (unless one calls legitimate the refutation of comments taken in a sense other than what the author obviously intended), since Shapiro was addressing the use of "chickenhawk" by the majority of those on the Left, not rare cases like Day.

It is deceptive to attack someone instead of attacking their argument.

I wrote:

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro's reference to the President's daughters was in the context of the Left's misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

To which Day replied:

Amil skips over the small matter of the First Amendment rights. And there is nothing intellectually dishonest about an ad hominem attack, it is merely irrelevant if it is not accompanied by a more substantive attack, as this was. Shapiro's intellectual sloppiness appears to be rubbing off here, as the attempt to equate moral with American is a monumental failure of both logic and personal observation. Shapiro brought the daughters up as a red herring defense for himself, so my point is not only funny, but appropriate.

Vox Day is proud of sacrificing his integrity for a laugh? Beautiful.

Day likes to refer to the First Amendment, but that appeal does not make his point any more honorable, appropriate, or true, since the Constitutional guarantee also applies to most forms of immoral[, false, and stupid] speech.

Again, a personal attack is always irrelevant unless the person under attack is the subject of the debate. Shapiro's arguments against the Left's use of "chickenhawk" were the substance of his articles, which Day should have addressed instead.

Finally, Day's intimation that I am completely ignorant of American history is absolutely silly. In this context, I obviously choose to define "America" in terms of its highest ideals and the historically good and noble character of its people.

I've seen only the most craven and wretched of the anti-America/anti-Christ crowd try to paint those actually proud of this nation as blind to its faults and failings; that Vox Day would do the same thing [reeks of desperation and a lack of character].

I wrote:

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily manipulated). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation "enjoying" the reign of the Religion of Peace).

On which Day commented:

...Amillenial is only correct about the parenthesized bit, though he leaves out that this group covers 95 percent of the populace so it's rather important if you have any interest in influencing them. Name-calling is primarily shorthand to harm the target for those casual observers, and the more accurate the name the more effective it will be. Given how panicked the chickenhawks are over getting successfully nailed with the name, it's quite obvious that the label is both accurate and effective.

If so many people are so easily deceived, and if Vox Day intends to represent Christ honorably, he should point out falsehood without engaging in it himself. He wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would he?

The ends do not always justify the means. Using the dishonorable tactics of those who oppose what is in America's best interest is unbecoming someone of honor.

I wrote:

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path. If Vox Day wants to play with words, he shouldn't do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid. And liberal use of a thesaurus is no substitute for intellect.

Of which Day observed:

I don't think "coherent" is the synonym for "obvious" that Amil seems to think it is.

I used the term I intended. A cheap shot, now unsurprising from Vox Day.

Day concluded:

If Ben wants to play with the big boys, then he'd better learn to think more carefully and choose his words with more precision. My column today was nothing but a well-earned spanking, perhaps Mr. Shapiro will learn something from it and begin rethinking his asinine calls for empire and sacrifice of liberties.

And Amil, not only do I not use a thesaurus, I don't even use a spell-checker.

"It's not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don't even exercise." -Fezzik

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." -Westley
"Wait 'til I get going!" -Vizzini

"I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains. -Vizzini
"You're that smart?" -Westley
"Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?" -Vizzini
"Yes." -Westley
"Morons." -Vizzini

-The Princess Bride (1987)

That Day feels the need to state this perhaps sheds some light on what motivates him to shamelessly attack someone in need only of some maturity and a serious talk, not public evisceration.

(By the way, has anyone else noticed Day's fascination with "bathhouse ___," "big boys," and "spanking"? Perhaps Vox's obsession with Ben Shapiro comes not from his ideas, but his -- eyes.)

Vox Day is an intelligent person with a bully pulpit; he ought to use it to encourage and instruct, not to bully.

Originally posted 8/29/05 at 11:58 PM

Argumentum ad hominem, rather than reasoned debate

Vox Day, a columnist at WorldNetDaily, rather than addressing another columnist's arguments against the use of the term "chickenhawk," attacks him personally in The chickenhawk clucks. He begins:

It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good reason for not serving his country in its moment of need.

Day should have stopped there. What follows is completely unnecessary and suggests that Vox has his own issues needing resolution.

Besides that, military service is not the only front on which the War of Self-Defense Against Islam needs to be waged. The moral rectitude of our Cause also must be vigorously defended, especially when so many of those who will also be under Islam's blade are dishonorably and dishonestly attacking our fighting at all.

For all I know, he may have a weak heart, a wooden leg, a predilection for San Francisco bathhouse sex or some other condition that prevents him from joining the military. But devoting two columns to criticizing a single word strikes me as a lady protesting a bit too much.

If Day's argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ's example (Whom Day claims to follow). (When certain self-styled intellectual and moral experts engaged in ad Hominem attacks against Him two millennia past, Jesus encouraged them to testify to what He said that was false. That's still good advice, even to Day.)

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. It is not leftists but the military that has long despised civilians who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen. William Sherman said: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

I doubt that Shapiro would argue that members of the military cannot use the term (and anyone who serves on the battlefield deserves the highest honors his or her fellow citizens can bestow); his assertion that the use of "chickenhawk" is "a leftist attempt to silence debate" is in most contexts today true, which is the context in which Shapiro was making it. It is intellectually dishonest of Day to imply otherwise.

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force. As for the "Constitutional argument," it appears Mr. Shapiro was arguing that to imply without military service one is disqualified from having a valid opinion on war is inconsistent with the Constitution's own principle of civilian control of the military. He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites that violates the Constitution, as Day jests. Now that's silly.

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove you're not a coward.

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro's reference to the President's daughters was in the context of the Left's misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved. I have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle, have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum of their preference. Yet I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive – am in accord with the notion that "chickenhawk" is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily manipulated). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation "enjoying" the reign of the Religion of Peace).

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro's precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

American Empire is immoral; self-defense against Jihad is not. That aside, Day's argument sounds petty.

The America [sic] Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path.

If Vox Day wants to play with words, he shouldn't do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid.

And liberal use of a thesaurus is no substitute for intellect.

An open letter to Hugh Hewitt on restoring credibility and the God we worship

Hello, Hugh,

I would repectfully recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer. Having him as a guest on your program to discuss his book would be very helpful to restoring your credibility on the topics of Islam and The War Against Extremism. It would also better equip those (apparently few) members of your audience unfamiliar with the real Islam to defend themselves against an ancient and ruthless foe.

(A link to his site, Jihad Watch, on your 'blog wouldn't hurt either.)

I would also respectfully suggest that your reliance on "theologians" to answer the question of whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same deity reveals the same unfamiliarity with Qur'anic Islam (as opposed to CAIRic Islam) you displayed when you gave a spokesman from that Jihadist organization a platform on your show.

It is blasphemy to try to equate Christ with Allah, and only deceit or ignorance would make such an effort. Because a counterfeit religion tries to gain acceptance by leeching onto the Faith "once for all delivered to the saints," we should accept their claims uncritically? Would you give Mormonism that consideration? Would you allow Jehovah's Witnesses the same courtesy? Why then why would you swallow whole the falsehoods of a religion that has historically slaughtered those unwilling to submit to its ideology?

Any elementary (and honest) comparison between the Qur'an and the Bible would reveal that if it is the same god Christians and Muslims worship, that god is either a liar, a weakling, or insane:

The Bible tells us our Father said of Jesus, "This is My beloved Son; listen to Him." Jesus confirmed Peter's confession of Him as the Son of God.

The Qur'an says that anyone who says Allah has a son is an unbeliever.

Both religions' claims are mutually-exclusive. Either one is true and the other false, or the other is true and the former false, or both are false, but both cannot be true. If it is the same god, then that god is either wickedly deceitful, unable to preserve his word, or mentally unstable.

If the Bible is true, Allah is lying. If the Qur'an is true, YHWH and His Christ lie.

A comparison of the two religions' founders also reveals why Christians and Muslims cannot be worshiping the same god:

Jesus said, "Love your enemies."

Mohammed said, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and committed no sin.

Mohammed was a murderous, deceitful pedophile. (Lest you try to accuse me of an "extreme" position, Mohammed killed, maimed, and had assassinated thousands of people, taught and practiced "War is deceit," and consummated his marriage to his six-year-old bride when she was nine. All this is recorded in Islam's own accepted traditions).

The two religions' histories also reveal they serve very different gods:

The Church was slaughtered for centuries after its founding, "turning the world upside down" and expressing the love of Christ in word and deed.

Islam spread for centuries by slaughtering others (and it hasn't stopped).

Have the courage to face Qur'anic Islam honestly and clearly. Yes, the implications of a religion whose text commands its billion-plus followers to fight against, subdue, and kill "unbelievers" is frightening, but what is the alternative? Hide our heads in the sand until we have no heads left to hide? (Beheading is commanded by Allah.)

Regards,

Amillennialist

On the War Against Extremism, the Religion of Peace, and the answer to your uncertainty

Dear President Bush,

I have been a steadfast and ardent supporter of you in both your presidential campaigns. I contributed financially to your re-election. I have defended you in numerous political discussions, even to the point of enduring abuse for it.

Mr. President, if we are to succeed in the War Against Extremism, we must recognize the enemy. From your public statements, those of Dr. Rice, and the apparent establishment of Sharia in Iraq, it seems that you do not recognize that our current conflict is just the latest phase of the ancient struggle against Jihad.

Since Mohammed, Islam has waged war against those whom it considers infidels. Historically (and according to the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence), the non-Muslim has only these choices under Islam: convert, submit (and pay the jizya), or die. This may seem a politically-incorrect thing to say, but it is true.

Allah commands the faithful Muslim to, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), "...fight...the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29), and, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39).

Jihad has raged for fourteen centuries. Today it is being carried out all around the world. It will not end as long as people believe the Qur'an is the word of a god.

Mr. President, unless and until we recognize the enemy and expose it for what it is, we will lose this war. We cannot waste one American life to establish in another country the religion that is trying to convert, subdue, or kill us, for that is what we are doing in Iraq now, as is clear from the work of our ambassador there and the apparent conclusion of their efforts to draft a constitution--the establishment of Sharia.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize the truth about Islam is not new. It has been blinding United States' policy for several administrations.

The following comments make this clear (originally from El at LittleGreenFootballs, courtesy of Caryolyn2 at JihadWatch):

-Arming, training and using Nato airforce to help KLA islamic terrorists in Kosovo and Bosnia [X]Check

-Funding Palestine islamic thugs [X]Check

-Pressuring Europe to integrate Turkey [X] Check

-Pressuring Israel to relinquish its land and make concession after concession [X] Check

-Sacrifice US service men & women as well as billions of dollars to erect an Islamic Iraqi state [X)Check

-Being best buddies with the Saudis [X] Check

One got to wonder what it would be like if the US was not at war with terrorism.

You were right to urge Americans to refrain from punishing innocent Muslims in the United States. You were right to attack the Taliban. You were right to go after Saddam and his WMD (no doubt sent to Syria). It was noble to require that our military restrain their use of force to protect innocent Iraqis (even to their own detriment). You were right to believe that the rectitude of Liberty would inspire that nation and those around it. Under your leadership, our nation has had many great successes.

However, all of that will be for nothing if we do not recognize the enemy.

-Do not waste all of that effort, and blood, and money by failing to recognize what motivates our enemy (the teachings of Mohammed and his god).

-Recognize the "extremists" for what they are (faithful to Allah's numerous commands to fight against, convert, subdue, and kill unbelievers).

-Combat their ideology (with what? I don't know, since the Qur'an cannot be used effectively to refute itself).

-Stop trying to equate Judaism/Christianity with Islam.

-Stop pressuring Israel to surrender to Islam (in the form of the "Palestinians," whose stated goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth).

-Stop wasting American blood and dollars to build another Sharia state.

All that begins by telling the truth: the "extremists" are really just following the fundamentals of Islam and imitating its founder, Mohammed, in their use of violence against unbelievers. It is the truly "moderate" Muslim (and not the one practicing taqiyya or kitman) that misrepresents the Qur'an. The "Islamofascists" (or whatever other indirect term one might use) are those who are obeying Allah in their duty to fight against the Infidel.

It is clear from your past comments that you consider Allah to be the same god as the God of the Bible. Are you aware that Allah says in his Qur'an that anyone who says God has a Son is an unbeliever? That would mean he is saying your Lord (and mine) is an unbeliever because He said of Himself, "I am the Son of God." Would the God of the Bible call His Only Son "an unbeliever"?

When you equate the God of the Bible with the god of the Qur'an, you not only reveal a deadly unfamiliarity with the Qur'an, but you also lie about the true God. When you equate the words of the Qur'an with the Sermon on the Mount, you not only lie about Christ, but you endanger the souls of those who might hope in Him and so be saved.

Islam is not like Christianity. Allah is not like YHWH. The Qur'an is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the Holy Scriptures. Mohammed is no comparison to Jesus Christ.

Mr. President, I urge you and all your Administration to learn about the nature and history of Islam. A site like JihadWatch is an excellent resource. The book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer is a great new primer on the real Islam, not the one groups like CAIR (several of whose members have been indicted on and/or convicted of terrorism-related crimes) would have us think it is, to our own great harm.

I know you are a caring and faithful man. I know you do not send thoughtlessly young American men and women to risk life and limb. This is a war we must fight, or we will fall to Islam, just as Christian lands fell in ancient times.

If you will recognize the nature of Islam and tell the truth about it publicly, you will begin the (in some ways, much more difficult) ideological struggle against Jihad.

It's a fake fatwa, and you're helping the enemy

From 630 WMAL:

"630 WMAL Suspends Michael Graham

In a statement released last night, 630 WMAL president and general manager Chris Berry announced midday personality Michael Graham would be indefinitely suspended pending an internal investigation into Graham's July 25th remarks that Islam is a terrorist organization.

'Talk radio is an excellent forum to discuss issues important to our society. Nevertheless, the statements that Michael Graham made on July 25 crossed the line,' Berry said. 'He has been suspended pending an internal investigation. We do not condone his position, and we believe his statements were irresponsible.'

Shortly after the second round of bombings in London last week, Graham began telling listeners Muslim leaders were complicit in terrorism, since they had not said or done enough to curb extremism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a press release late Monday condemning Graham's remarks and urging the station to repremand him. The station has received hundreds of emails and calls since then, both supporting and criticizing Graham.

Yesterday, CAIR and other American Muslim leaders gathered in Washington to announce a fatwah, or religious edict, against terrorism, citing criticisms that Muslim leaders had not said or done enough to curb extremism. "

WMAL should reinstate Mr. Graham and apologize to him.

This station is taking the side of those who would destroy our Life and Liberty in their obedience to a god who commands:

"...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5),

"fight..the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29), and

"...fight...until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39). (These verses are just a) sampling.

WMAL is helping CAIR, a front for Jihadists, and many of its leaders have been charged with, or convicted of, terrorism-related crimes.

Our nation will not be able to defend itself as it should if its people are not only unaware of the nature and purpose of Islam, but actually aid its adherents in establishing Shari'a.

A sad irony

Courtesy of Power Line:

"The arrest of one of the failed London bombers apparently has been a breakthrough, as nine more people were arrested earlier today, all in south London. It was also revealed that police found twelve unexploded bombs, some packed with nails, and four detonators in a car belonging to one of the terrorists who died in the July 7 attack.

In this rather grisly context, the AP's gratuitous 'religion of peace' reference seems a little jarring:

'Residents in Tooting said police arrested three men who lived in an apartment above a takeout restaurant selling halal burgers. Halal is meat from a herbivore slaughtered in a humane way — as Islam requires.'

No nail bombs for cows, I guess."

Is it the slaughtering or the humanity that is required? It depends on whether you're speaking of human beings or cattle.

The Qur'an commands fighting, killing, decapitating, and dismembering unbelievers, but I don't recall anything about doing it humanely.

That would mean Allah values unbelievers less than livestock, wouldn't it?

The myth of the 'moderate' Muslim

Excerpted from JihadWatch.org :

I have long maintained that those who identify themselves as moderate Muslims must resolutely attempt to convince Muslims that the theology and ideology of jihad is wrong, or their moderate statements are essentially useless -- and that jihadists will always be able to quote Qur'an and Sunnah against them. Jihadists, as I have often said, view the aggregate of moderate Muslims simply as a recruiting ground. I have also often noted here that support among Muslims for moderate Muslim groups such as Free Muslims seems to be notably slight. This is because, as I have said again and again, there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. But the mainstream media, left and right, has persistently ignored this, even though the facts abundantly attest to its truth. Now Salim Mansur in the London Free Press (thanks to Nicolei) tells these truths again:

Since at least Sept. 11, 2001, the non-Muslim world at large has been waiting for that segment of the Muslim population designated as "moderate" to resolutely denounce terrorists who, in defiling its faith-tradition, have subverted Islam into a cult of death.

The expectation there is a large, identifiable segment of "moderate" Muslims is a transposition to the Muslim world of the idea of "moderation" in politics and religion that sustains democracies.

It is also a natural expectation that the sort of extremism associated with "jihadi" (war-mongering) politics of Muslim terrorism and suicide bombings would generate a counter-offensive by "moderate" Muslims, repudiating such violence and isolating extremists politically and socially, while supporting the global war on terror.

But this has not happened. On the contrary, as atrocities mount, Muslims generally have remained -- their private anguish aside --publicly complacent, and their religious leaders divided on what should be the proper Islamic response.

...Instead of witnessing "moderate" Muslims resolutely taking back their faith-tradition from extremists and murderers, the world has grown numb to endless apologetics and polemics explaining away "jihadi" politics as a misguided, though inexcusable, response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West.

The truth is there does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate" by their repudiation of Muslim extremists. [emphasis mine]

Violence has been an integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their faith-culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then deemed apostate and subject to harm.

Consequently, what might pass for "moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material support, and to which they return for sanctuary....

Looking at the words and actions of an individual believer of whatever religion (or even a group of adherents to a particular faith) does not necessarily give an accurate representation of that particular faith (although it should be considered in evaluating it).

What defines a religion and the basis on which it should be judged is its sacred texts. From these the beliefs, and therefore, words and actions, of its people flow.

A faithful Muslim, no matter how decent, moderate, or patriotic, cannot argue against Jihad against unbelievers because Allah in his Qur'an commands it. That would be like a Christian arguing against the commands of Christ. You can't do that and still be a Christian (no matter what you might want to call yourself).

Were Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden justified? Some thoughts on Representative Tancredo's recent comments

Tom Tancredo, a member of the House from Colorado, was asked about a Muslim attack against U.S. cities using nuclear weapons. He stated that a nuclear response against Islam's holy sites might be appropriate.

Many otherwise sensible commentators disagreed. Two of my responses to one host's thoughts are posted below, not so much in defense of the Representative's statements, but to expose the wrong-headedness that apparently informs that host's positions.

This was sent this morning to Representative Tancredo:

Our "War on Terror" is actually a War of Self-Defense Against Jihad.

I believe that the enemy our nation faces in this life-and-death struggle is actually Qur'anic Islam. Suras 9:5, 9:29, and 8:39 clearly command the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims.

These (and many other) commands of Allah, taken together with the life of Mohammed and 1400 years of global Jihad, demonstrate that those whom the politically-correct call "radicals" and "extremists" are actually practicing true Islam. It is the "moderate" Muslim whose practice is at variance with the "great world religion" and its scripture, founder, and history (and no doubt some of these "moderates" are actually practicing taqiyya).

A retraction of, or apology for, your hypothetical statement as to what the United States might do in response to a nuclear attack would show weakness to our enemy.

Those normally-sensible Americans calling for you to recant are taking a position consistent with Jihadist-front groups like CAIR, who are working vigorously to deceive the American people about the true nature and purpose of Islam. Such calls compromise what otherwise might be an effective deterrent.

Thousands of innocent Japanese were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many innocent Germans were targeted in Dresden. Would those criticizing your statement today have made the same arguments sixty years ago? If force against civilians can be justified in those cases (especially in the case of using nuclear weapons against Japan), why is it not justified today (against what is arguably a much more malevolent and dishonorable enemy)?

Since it appears overwhelming, unspeakably-terrible force is the only thing Jihadists respect, such a response may be a necessary evil in defense of our innocents.

The first Rule of Holes...

...is: Stop Digging!

(Or, alternatively, "Ignorance is bliss--until the knife is at your throat")

Hugh Hewitt couldn't leave well enough alone by limiting his dhimmitude-inducing nescience to his radio program; he also updated his website with a few comments that require a response:

"First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that 'extremist fundamentalist Muslims' attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if 'extremist fundamentalist' Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about 'extremist, fundamentalist' Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."

"Extremist fundamentalist Muslims" is merely a synonym for "devout Muslims." Besides, it's redundant.

Mr. Hewitt's argument here belies the fact that Qur'anic Islam inspires and sustains the killers.

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not. Yet it is both of these, the words of Allah and the sayings and doings of Mohammed, that the jihadists are fulfilling when they fight against and kill non-Muslims.

The only sense in which these individuals are extremist is that they are (currently) a relatively small number of people who actually are carrying out jihadist operations. But they must have additional ideological, logistical, and financial support. From where does this come? No doubt, other Muslims. And how many more in the Islamic world must lend them their prayers and their emotional support?

As evidenced by the 7/7 murderers, the degree of a Muslim's devotion to the Qur'an is directly proportional to the threat they pose to the non-Muslim world ("He recently became very religious").

It is only because a majority of Muslims are either unwilling or unable to carry out Jihad that they do not engage in it. (A third group are no doubt unaware of Allah's commands to do so. If they were, many of these would no longer be Muslim.)

Finally, doesn't "fundamentalist" mean they are adhering to the fundamentals of their scriptures? It does, as any cursory examination of Islam's "sacred" texts and history will bear out.

"Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with 'Stand tall Tom!' calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers...."[emphasis mine]

This is the sort of repugnant moral equivalence Hugh usually condemns when others engage in it. It is completely indefensible here.

Our American military are not the monsters Durbin implied. Islam is the violent religion its god commands, and our nation needs to be prepared to do whatever it takes to crush Qur'anic Islam.

Hugh ought to answer these questions: Why are the "anti-Islam crowd" against Islam? Could it be they know something he doesn't? Or are the overwhelming majority of his Monday listeners ignorant, hateful bigots?

No doubt Hugh is surprised that his normally intelligent audience boycotted Monday's show.

He continues:

"...And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith."

Yes, it is regrettable that some of our American heroes will suffer. But whose fault is that? The one who warns against the danger, or the ones who actually create the danger and necessitate such an extreme response?

As Hugh will discover if he researches Islam at all (and no, reading self-serving public announcements--possibly taqiyya--and having "Muslim" friends--probably Muslims In Name Only--doesn't make one an expert on Islam), it is not America attacking their faith, but their faith attacking America. They will have to choose, and a devout Muslim's first allegiance is to the Qur'an and to the Ummah, not to the United States.

"...Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived."

After 9/11, many devout Muslims saw the "success" of the attack as a gift from Allah and a validation of their religious service. What would the destruction of their holiest site mean, but the defeat of their god and their theology of power?

"I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong...We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists."

What facts contradict the idea that the "War Against Terror" is really a "War of Self-Defense Against Jihad"? Anything from the Qur'an or Hadith? No.

Those "Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers" are the "devout" Muslims, and they are right. The Qur'an commands it and Mohammed practiced it. Islam has carried out Jihad against the Infidel throughout its history.

Anyone who can read can see this for himself.

When Allied forces destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fire-bombed Dresden, I'm sure the same questions Hugh asks above could have been asked then, "Why, ...if the 'extremist fundamentalist' government of Japan is guilty would we declare war on all Japanese? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Nazis if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."

It is war. What will deter the jihadists from attacking American cities with WMD, whether nuclear or otherwise? What will be the response from our President if 50,000 people are incinerated? Another warning? A strongly-worded note? To whom?

You must determine what matters to the enemy so that you have something with which to exert leverage.

...And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.

But that kind of butchery is commanded by Allah in his Qur'an. That sort of butchery was practiced by Mohammed and it has a long tradition throughout Islam's history, even to this very day.

What sense does it make to blame the victim here? Somehow we've encouraged such violence? How did we encourage 9/11? How did we encourage the U.S.S. Cole or our African embassies? How did we encourage the '93 WTC attack? How did those children in Beslan encourage their own blood being shed? How has any non-Muslim group encouraged such violence through the past 1400 years?

By not being Muslim.

What sense does it make to blame the victim? How does lying down and crawling deter the jihadists?

How does removing any option, even the most extreme, do anything but reassure our enemies of America's weakness?

An otherwise brilliant man blinded by multiculturalism and ignorance of Islam

In discussing today Tom Tancredo's comments on what to do if jihadists were to use nuclear weapons against American cities, Hugh Hewitt, an outstanding political commentator, revealed a huge blind spot regarding Islam.

It is an ignorance demonstrated by many in the West that, if allowed to persist, will result in either the death or dhimmitude of "unbelievers" everywhere.

Mr. Hewitt is right when he argues that many Muslims are decent, law-abiding people. He is right to want to avoid killing innocents, and he is right in arguing that a cataclysmic attack against Islam's holy sites would enrage those who otherwise would give little or no support to the Jihad Against the West.

Here is where Hugh is dead wrong:

First, open war is upon us, whether he would see it or not. We are not at war with Islam; Islam is at war with us, just as it has always been.

This is because the Qur'an commands it. Sura 9:5 says, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them;" Sura 9:29 reads, "...fight the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya;" and 8:39 exhorts, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah."

For 1400 years, Islam has waged holy war against non-Muslims all around the world. The global jihad continues today. All non-Muslims need to recognize this before it is too late. Having otherwise well-respected, influential commentators like Mr. Hewitt deny this truth dangerously weakens us in our life-and-death struggle against Islam.

Second, Mr. Hewitt apparently views Islam through the prism of Christianity (as do many in the West).

For many people, since Islam is a religion, and over and over again we hear about how Islam means "peace" and values "tolerance," and because many Muslims in the West appear to be decent people, Islam is believed to be just like Judaism or Christianity. People automatically assume that Islam shares the same values as those two (actually) great religions.

It is not! It does not!

If you need any more evidence than the commands of the Qur'an, the examples of Muslim perfection found in the Hadith, and fourteen centuries of bloody Jihad against the infidels, the four Englishmen who made their profession of faith on July 7th should be enough.

Third, the Reformation of the western Church was a move toward obedience to that faith's Scriptures. When a Muslim kills a non-Muslim for refusing to convert or submit to Islam, it fulfills Allah's command. What Islam needs is not a reformation (back to Qur'anic fundamentals), but a deformation away from the Qur'an's numerous commands to fight and kill unbelievers.

Fourth, instead of investigating the validity of the arguments of those who challenged his position, Hugh resorted to ad hominem attacks. That kind of non-argument is the last gasp of those supporting the untenable.

Instead of trying to equate one's ideology of choice with factors over which one has no control (ethnicity, national origin, etc.) , perhaps Mr. Hewitt should research terms like taqiyya and kitman and the doctrine of Abrogation. Maybe he should delve into why traditional Islamic theology divides the world into two lands: dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the Abode of War).

Hugh might discover that the "tolerance" afforded non-Muslims under Islam has been a less-than-second-class citizenship. He might discover the meaning of "dhimmi" before he becomes one himself.

Mr. Hewitt demonstrates his lack of Islamic credentials by denying what those who have studied Islam's "sacred" texts and history know to be true.

The answer is, "Because Allah commands it"

Hugh Fitzgerald asks and answers the question: 'Why do they hate us?' From Jihad Watch:

The question itself -- 'Why do they hate the West' --is the wrong question, and inevitably encourages the wrong answers.

The correct question is: 'Why do they hate the rest?' Anytime anyone, anywhere, talks about 'why they hate America' or 'why they hate the West' they have already, unwittingly, conceded much of the case.

But like the Ptolemaic (geocentric) theory, that could not account for the data or have predictive value as did the Copernican (heliocentric), those who keep focusing only on 'the West' will not be able to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Again and again it must be pointed out that the greatest victims of Islam have been Hindus, with some 60-70 million killed, and tens of thousands of temples destroyed. The Greco-Buddhist civilization of Afghanistan was largely destroyed by Muslim invaders. The Hindus and Buddhists who once inhabited the East Indies have been steadily reduced, under constant Muslim pressure, as a percentage of the population. The attacks all over Asia, and all over Africa, of Muslims against Christians (not only the Sudan, but the Jihad, with Egyptian pilots strafing Ibo villages, that was the war to suppress Biafra) and animists, need to be constantly recalled.

Not the 'War Against the West.'

But 'War Against the Rest' -- all the Rest.

If Israel was, in the last half-century, the Infidel victim that received the most media attention, this was only because the tiny Infidel state of Israel is located right in the Middle East. Similarly, the Christians of Lebanon, though they did not possess a state of their own, have been targets, especially the Maronites of Lebanon.

If America has been the main target, it is not because of American foreign policy but because America is the most powerful, and most unyielding, and must unsusceptible (chiefly, but not entirely, because it has far more believers in muscular Christianity, not the etiolated pro-"palestinian" kind, and far fewer followers of the Western cult of "tolerance" that the Dutch, to their own great surprise and sorrow, have suddenly and still confusedly realized leaves much to be desired, and is no substitute for knowledge of the enemy).

What Do Women Want? is a title with which we are familiar.

What Do Muslims Want?

That is a title that needs a book to be written under it. Okay, I hereby copyright it, pour tous pays sauf l'U.R.S.S., (which rumor has it no longer exists, so I needn't worry)

Phrase the question wrongly, and hark what silliness follows.

Phrase it correctly -- and you are in, like Flynn.

One of those taking part in the discussion here answered: "They hate us because they think we're corrupt and evil. We have pornography. We have drug use. We have homosexuality."

Is that it? Do the Sudanese blacks, all those Nuer and Dinka tribesmen, spend their time sniffing cocaine or watching Linda Lovelace? Did those 60-70 million Hindus who were killed, or Buddhists, or those devout Christians, singing their hymns, routinely blown up in Pakistan and Indonesia, or those Christian nurses punished in Saudi Arabia for singing Christmas hymns, or those naughty Copts in Egypt, who dare to remain Copts, and ditto with those Maronites in Lebanon -- are these people "hated" and persecuted and murdered by Muslims because they were "corrupt and evil...have pornography...drug use...homosexuality"?

What a failure to comprehend. No, let me put it to you bluntly: the Dinka and Nuer, the Hindus and the Buddhist monks in Thailand, the Christians opening their hymnals in Karachi or Lagos, the Hindu villagers in Kashmir and Pakistan and Bangladesh, are not now, and never were, "corrupt and evil...[with] pornography...drug use...homosexuality."

It is not cocaine and rainbow parties which caused Muslims to persecute and murder non-Muslims everywhere they conquered, and today, even within the countries called "Muslim," to keep the non-Muslims in their place.

It is the fact that they were, they are, Infidels. That's it. Whether we are in our Sunday-go-to-meeting best, or looking like Paris Hilton, looking at Rembrandt, or solemnly examining at the Tate Modern the unmade bed, underpants, tampax, and all the unseemly rest, that recently won a prize as "art."

Infidels. The prim and the libertine, le cru et le cuit, the wise man and the fool. It doesn't matter. Infidels -- that's our original sin. And unless we submit, as dhimmis or as "reverts," we will have hell to pay. Don't think that putting your soul in an upright position will save you, will prevent those Muslims from trying to highjack the civilizational plane you are on -- it won't work.

No, Mr. and Mrs. and Miss Infidel, and all the ships at sea, wherever you are, you can do no right by Islam. Don't even try.

A toast, Mr. Henry ...

To America's Sons and Daughters
who have left hearth and home
to defend our Life and Liberty:

May God grant them Grace, Mercy, and Strength!

Huzzah!

A Shameful Exercise in Slight-of-Mouth

As the recent verbal war in Washington, D.C. unfolds, the ever-duplicitous Left is succeeding in doing just what they had hoped: They're deflecting attention away from the betrayal of America by a leader of the Democratic Party.

Democratic officials and their Media minions are implying a moral equivalence between the following very unequal assertions: First, Richard Durbin equated the American military with Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot; and second, Karl Rove pointed out what is demonstrably true: liberals would rather blame the victim for 9-11's butchery than take the fight to our enemies.

In other words, Durbin's clearly treasonous attack against our military is of no greater offense or validity than Rove's factually-correct summary of two very different responses to Jihad in America.

The only thing these two statements share is that people were offended and wanted an apology (though for different reasons)--Democrats were offended because someone dared to tell the truth about their moral cowardice, and Americans were offended because a politician attacked the honor and integrity of American heroes.

[It is telling that when running for President, Democrats run from the label "liberal" like schoolboys from their books, but when liberals' lack of moral clarity and courage is pointed out publicly, Democrats take offense. Who's fooling whom?]

Even Rich Lowry, a token conservative on The News Hour, allowed the false comparison to be made today without protest.

That shouldn't be too surprising--Lowry had recently appeased one of Jihad's cells in America (CAIR), when he retracted his publication's support for the sale of a text telling the truth about Islam.

Perhaps, Lowry has more in common with America's Left than he might want to admit.

Taxpayer dollars being wasted NOW

When Bill Moyers was the host of NOW, one had to watch only a few minutes to see that a particular story was going to be irrational Leftist hit-piece against the religious and/or politically-conservative.

An example of pervasive and consistent Liberal bias, NOW is one reason many have been calling for greater ideological balance on PBS.

With a new host and an interesting contrast in guests, Craig Hedges and Roy Moore, I gave the show another chance recently.

The host's own biases were obvious in two ways: when Hedges made false and irrational accusations against Christians, they went unchallenged; when Moore stated his beliefs, those were met with inane follow-up questions or a fluttering of the eyelids (the kind when, as a result of either guilt, fear, or disdain, a person can't look someone in the eye).

Hedges equated "the Religious Right" (really any Christians who believe the God of the Bible--which means all Christians, for how can one call themselves a follower of Christ and not follow Him?) with:

-the oppressive Muslim theocracies of the Islamic world (a popular new strategy among the Left),
-intolerance (the Left is so tolerant of those who have a different worldview, especially a Christian one!)
-Fascism (how can following the One Who said, "Love your neighbor as yourself" equal a government trying to control all aspects of the lives of its citizenry? It is the religion of Christ that gave birth to the Ideology of Freedom that is uniquely American)
-anti-Reason (Hedges used the commonly-unchallenged lie of "facts belong to Science")
-Stupidity: Hedges also made the inherently self-contradictory claim that though the Bible erred, it has power and beauty. (What nonsense! How can a lie be powerful and beautiful at the same time to one who knows the truth?)

Hedges also expressed his concern with the Religious Right's preoccupation with violence, saying that Christ didn't avenge (apparently, contrary to his claim, Hedges hasn't really read that little thing called the New Testament).

The second segment of the program was an interview with Alabama Justice Roy Moore, who clearly, succinctly, and articulately defended his position that Freedom of Religion is guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans, and that the government has no right to abridge that freedom. He also made clear that a posting of the Ten Commandments is a proper acknowledgement of the God of the Bible who founded this nation (and Who is recognized in the Declaration of Independence and every state constitution in the Union).

After a comment by Justice Moore regarding judicial activism (judges usurping the constitutional role of the legislatures by making up law) with regard to homosexual marriage, the host followed-up by asking him, "Is that what you're afraid of?"

Every American should fear tyranny.

How can this be ...

. . . since Islam is the "Religion of Peace"?

From WND, Mein Kampf bestseller in Turkey:

The infamous manifesto penned in prison during the 1920s by one of history's greatest despots has become a bestseller in Turkey, a troubling sign of increasing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

Since January, Mein Kampf has sold more than 50,000 copies, rising to No. 4 on the bestseller list. The book outlines Hitler's plans for world domination and his intense hatred of the Jewish people.

"A lot of people in the West don't realize this has always been a popular book among radical Muslims," says Steve Hagerman, founder of Turkish World Outreach. "They think it's a tragedy Hitler didn't win the war. This is symptomatic of growing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in the country."

Hagerman is concerned about a resurgence of conservative Islam in Turkey, which he believes is promoted and funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Turkey is a different place right now," Hagerman observes. "The military, the radical Muslims and the secularists are becoming more and more anti-American," he says. "Literalist Islam is teaching the Muslims to hate the Jews and to hate democracy. Their belief in Muslim eschatology is that the world is destined to be conquered by Islam."

Let's do the math: "radical Muslims" = "conservative Islam" = "Literalist Islam" = hatred of Jews = hatred of democracy = the world will be conquered by Islam.

This is because the Qur'an is the most vile piece of hate literature ever devised by man. Islam has caused vastly more death, pain, and destruction than has Nazism, Communism and any other "-ism" you can name.

At least Hitler never claimed to be speaking for a (malevolent and perverse) god.

They ought to do something about the disease of Political Correctness

From Hospital board backtracks on Bible ban:

"According to the BBC, the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust said it wanted to look at how to accommodate all religious texts in its hospitals and said it was concerned about Bibles spreading diseases like the superbug MRSA."

Originally, the Bibles were considered a health hazard because of an (alleged) inability to sanitize them. It seems they've fixed that.

If the removal of Bibles was to reduce the risk of spreading disease, wouldn't providing more literature increase the risk?

Apparently, they only "dis-ease" with which they are concerned is that which is caused by the word of God.

"Fundamentalist" implies an adherence to principles fundamental to an ideology

An article that appears to be worth exploring begs the question: Do the words of the Qur'an align more closely with the claims of groups like CAIR, or with the Islamic "fundamentalists"?

Booker T. Washington suggested that if you give people the facts in an interesting manner, they will draw the proper conclusion.

Draw your own after reading Jihad: The Teachings of Islam from its primary sources - the Qur'an and Hadith.

The great inconsistency of moral relativism

In a thoughtful piece, William F. Buckley reflects on the court-ordered execution of Terri Schiavo:

"What caused the political commotion was the sense that we were presiding over an execution. Terri Schiavo remained 'alive' until we stopped feeding her. Then she began a fall through a trapdoor descending toward death. She was being committed to a death of an agonizing kind, surely? One that began with the removal of the tubes, and would continue until starvation and dehydration brought on the end of the heartbeat.

"Some years ago, in a forum on euthanasia, my guest was the Rev. Robert L. Barry, who had studied the subject extensively. Father Barry argued that the deprivation of food and water brings on physical pain whatever else the human condition. Was the court system in Florida, then, acquiescing in death by pain for Mrs. Schiavo?

A doctor consulted by one television analyst brushed aside the question, in language not readily transcribed by a layman. He seemed to be saying that Mrs. Schiavo would not suffer pain as the term is commonly understood. But that question was not directly accosted by the judge, who said only that Terri's rights had not been abrogated."

Americans believe that God gives each of us the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and that these are not to be taken unjustly.

Where is the justice in killing an innocent and helpless woman?

Would those who advocated Ms. Schiavo's death by deprivation support the same punishment for convicted rapists, child molestors, terrorists, or other murderers?

If not, why not? Surely those atrocities are infinitely more deserving of such a end.

Where's a clue when you really need one?

In what has become characteristic of the Left, Bill Press rambles incoherently (or duplicitously, it's hard to tell anymore) about the need for someone who knows the dirt on our current administration to come forward in this article. He writes:

"And that's the big story of Mark Felt's confession. Not: Why did he dare tell the truth about Nixon, way back then? But: Why doesn't somebody tell the truth about George W. Bush today? Where's Deep Throat when we need him, now more than ever?"

To have someone reveal an administration's crimes, an administration needs to commit some.

Where was the Left's zeal for truth-telling and justice when Clinton was in office? When Kerry was running?

"As bad as they were, Nixon's crimes weren't the worst committed by an American president. Indeed, former White House Counsel John Dean another hero for warning Nixon about a 'cancer growing on the presidency' argues that George W. Bush is very much like Nixon in his penchant for secrecy, only worse. In his book, 'Worse Than Watergate,' Dean wrote:

'George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate, and it bodes even more serious consequences ... I must say this administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous.'

Every administration must keep some information private. Such secrecy does not necessarily indicate corruption.

We live in frightening times, but what's really scary is that an ancient evil, Jihad, is on the rise; we have a President who is fighting back (much more vigorously than an appeasement-first Left would have); and whom does the Left attack? Not the Muslims who would with a smile and a shout of "Allahu akbar!" slit their throats in obedience to Allah's command, but the one defending them!

"But the only way to blow the lid off the misdeeds of the Bush administration is to come up with our own Deep Throat. Somewhere in the Bush White House, for example, there is someone who knows the list of special-interest lobbyists who met secretly with Cheney to develop the administration's energy policy."

It wouldn't hurt to have some actual misdeeds. (Not defending our borders and spending taxpayer dollars like a drunken liberal are misdeeds, but not to the Left.)

"Somewhere in the White House, CIA or Pentagon, there's someone who was present when Bush and Cheney decided to lean on a pack of lies about nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, chemical-laden drones, mobile weapons labs, long-range missiles and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida in order to sell the American people on the war in Iraq."

And who created the "pack of lies" on which Bush and Cheney leaned? Clinton, Gore, Kerry, England, France.... Everyone believed Saddam still had WMD (apparently even he did).

The only evidence you need for W's innocence is the fact that the Left have had to resort to all sorts of distortions, fabrications, and out-right lies to try to hurt the President--the avalanche of "tell-all" books before the 2004 Election, CBS's Rather fraudulent document scandal, and the MSM's most recent Qur'an "desecration" fantasy.

Death throes, but not for Islam

Death throes . . . - The Washington Times: Commentary - June 03, 2005:

"Fascism has long vacated its birthplace in Europe. The fragments of the former Soviet autocracy are democratizing. The caudillos are gone from Latin America. The last enclave of dictators is the Middle East. Yet after Saddam's capture in a cesspool, their hold is slipping, too.

There will probably not be an Assad III or a second Mubarak.

The real suspense is whether the Gulf royals can make good on their promises of reform and elections. Will they end up like pampered Windsors or go the ignominious way of Iran's former shah? In desperation, the apparatchik journalists in the state-controlled Arab press damn the United States, the avatar of change. Syria breaks all relations with America, even as it leaves Lebanon, and is terrified of the Iraqi experiment.

Then there is bankrupt Islamic fundamentalism. The zealots can always tape a beheading or turn out a few thousand to burn an American flag. But the Taliban are gone from power. Iran faces popular disgust at home, while its desperate nuclear plots are awakening even a comatose Europe. And the promise of a return to the eighth century has always had an appeal limited to a few thousand pampered elites, like Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. These losers figured they might become Saladins if they convinced an Arab populace the Jews and America, not their own corrupt regimes, kept them poor. Now they are reduced to ranting about the evils of freedom and democracy.

Oil, terror, anti-Semitism and hating America gave the fundamentalists some resonance, but there were never any ideas. The Islamicists offered nothing to galvanize the Arab masses other than nihilism. That doctrine feeds and employs no one. Instead, we witness the creepy threats and the pyrotechnics of a lunatic ideology going the way of bushido and the kamikazes."

As much as I respect and admire Mr. Hanson's knowledge and expertise, on the issue of Islam he appears to be unaware of what makes it tick--the "lunatic ideology" to which he refers (what I call "Qur'anic Islam") is going nowhere. It has thrived for the last fourteen centuries and it will continue indefinitely (barring something approaching a miracle) because it is founded upon and fed by the words of Allah (the Qur'an) and the sayings and doings of its "prophet" Mohammed.

Unless and until the Qur'an ceases to be considered the actual word of a god, its faithful will continue to obey it.

Jihad only smiles while it's recovering, regrouping, and regaining its strength--then it smiles as it cuts off your head.

The "wall of separation between church and state" is to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion

But facts never deter liberals from pursuing their agenda: ACLU asks jail for Tangipahoa school officials.

The "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in either the Declaration or the Constitution. It was a statement of reassurance by Thomas Jefferson to a group of pastors that the government would not interfere with their (and our) Constitutionally-guaranteed Freedom of Religion.

That enemies of American Liberty have been so successful in completely perverting the meaning of this "wall" is testament to America's ignorance of its Constitution and its lack of will for defending it.

An Iranian Christian is facing the death penalty for the unspeakable crime of ...

... becoming a Christian and sharing that faith with others: Christian convert waiting for his apostasy trial asks for prayers.

The Qur'an is very clear--"...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...," and "...fight until all religion is for Allah." The only other options allowed by Islam's god are submission (feeling "humiliated" and paying the Jizya), enslavement, or conversion.

Apparently, in addition to being peaceful, Islam is tolerant too.

Please pray for this man and his family. Pray that those in power (government, media, academia) start telling the truth.

An intolerant, right-wing, religious extremist

"...brood of vipers!"

"...white-washed sepulchres!"

"...den of thieves!"

Who would have the insensitivity to say such things?

Who would be so intolerant as to judge someone else's "truth"?

Who would dare to call someone's "personal choice" "sin"?

Jesus -- the same person who ate with outcasts, forgave sinners, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and raised the dead.

He is kind and compassionate to those who admit their sin and turn to Him for mercy, but with those who will not, Jesus is direct.

Some people think that it is impolite or rude to tell a necessary but unpleasant truth. And there are many times when it is proper to ignore others' everyday failings, for as the Scriptures say, "We all stumble in many ways," and, "Love covers over a multitude of sins."

But when failing to speak up allows someone to be harmed, it is a Christian's duty to tell the truth, with gentleness and respect.

Today, many Christians are worried about offending people. Many are afraid to be called names. Many would choose popularity with the ungodly over pleasing God.

Jesus said that when men speak well of us we should be concerned, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

But when men speak ill of us because we are doing and saying what Jesus would have us say and do, we should rejoice, for that is how their ancestors treated God's prophets.

Christians need to stop worrying about offending people and to start telling the truth, because people are dying. The eternity that awaits those whose sin is still on their own heads is hell (and I'm not speaking figuratively).

God grant His people the courage -- and the love -- to tell the truth.