I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Friday, April 17, 2009

"Sinners in the hands of an Angry God"




Right-Wind Extremism Report Issued Despite Objections
Fox News


WASHINGTON -- Civil liberties officials at the Homeland Security Department did not agree with some of the language in a controversial report on right-wing extremists, but the agency issued the report anyway.

The intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week said some military veterans could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence. That prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans' groups.
--------------------------------------------

As history has repeatedly proven, once a nascent protest movement begins to succeed and achieve a certain level of public acceptance and validation, it can easily devolve into an entrenched political entity, virtually indistinguishable from any other entrenched political entity, with its own newly-acquired set of selfish goals and objectives. One of their most important goals inevitably becomes self-perpetuation -- often by even more ruthless means than the original tyranny against which they successfully battled. At some point, this political survivalist mentality can, and usuallydoes, completely subsume the lofty goals of the original movement. Thus a new -- and perhaps even more dangerous tyranny is born. A tyranny, like all tyrannies, whose primary mission is to sustain itself at all costs.

How many times during these last few turbulent centuries have we seen this fateful scenario play itself out on the world's stage -- in Robespierre's France, in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba -- all with invariably murderous consequences?

But what happens if the primary goals of the original protest movement are actually realized? Does the movement then merely melt away and quietly re-assimilate itself back into that society which it has successfully transformed? Hardly. The movement's leaders have too much invested in the Cause to simply disband their troops and ride off into the sunset. Through the Cause these leaders have achieved power, and power seldom voluntarily walks off the stage.

With their original goals accomplished and their real or theoretical enemies defeated, what possible purpose can be served by their continuing existence? They have now essentially become Rebels Without a Cause. How, then, can they perpetuate their own legitimacy?
The answer of course is to ignore the reality of their victories and create new enemies -- or to somehow skillfully resurrect the old ones.

Virtually every successful revolutionary movement which has morphed into a tyranny has sustained itself in this manner. The once fanatical revolutionaries are now battling counter-revolutionaries. Their entire raison d'etre has now become to prosecute this never-ending battle to purportedly protect the achievements of the Glorious Revolution from its innumerable reactionary enemies. This is an unalterable prerequisite to their survival; there can be no successful tyranny without enemies. Thus the Revolution becomes a perpetual 'work-in-progress', a never-ending war. Now, ironically, to admit success would be to admit defeat. They must continuously convince their followers, or subjects, that they are constantly under siege from these relentless counter revolutionary forces. The leaders are now to be viewed as society's protectors, protecting the helpless vulnerables from the predatory Enemy. And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one.


Excerpted from Elect Obama, Destroy America.

------------------------------------------

It appears that we, we traditional Americans, are in dire straits. We're on the wrong side of history. Through our selfishness and rampant imperialism we have put ourselves at odds with the rest of the world. But fear not, although we have greatly sinned, salvation is at hand. We must be prepared however to undergo a painful national catharsis. But, thankfully, we are not alone; we will be led though this cultural upheaval by the mighty hand of Obama. Although the above quote refers to the undeniable social, cultural and political achievements of the sixties, it is I believe equally applicable to the present Obama Administration. Carried to victory on an almost hysterical tidal wave of revolutionary rhetoric, calling for drastic social and governmental change ,"Change we can believe in", it would hardly be a stretch to call the Obama victory a bloodless revolution, a monumental effort to create an entirely new America. If we accept this reasonable analogy, then the above criteria fits like a glove. ‘And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one‘. Should we really be surprised that the Administration is now in the process of producing a putative national enemy, Right-Wing subversives hell-bent on the destruction of the State.

This necessity of the nascent revolutionary state to produce a viable enemy has, as we have seen, played itself out on history’s stage many times in many eras. Let us just examine one: Hitler Third Reich.

The Burning of the Reichstag and Hitler’s Enabling Act

Reichstag fire



The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933, which was blamed, somewhat incredulously, on the Nazi's most formidable foe, the Communists. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazi, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.


Obama's Great Stretch


Oklahoma City bombing



Unfortunately for the Obama gang there have been no significant Right Wing attacks on the government since Timothy McVeigh's bloody Oklahoma City Bombing of April 1995. No matter. The fact that it happened once establishes precedent. Now all you have to do is drag out all those FBI photos of Skinhead Neo-Nazi groups marching with swastikas to effectively construct a viable 'enemy'. Having established this existential threat to the government, the next logical steps would be to begin prosecutions and internments, while simultaneously building up a large paramilitary force, swearing allegiance to President Obama himself, a force considerably larger than the regular standing army. This cynical act of totalitarian prestidigitation is called usurpation, or even more to the point, tyranny.

My friends, if you were beginning to feel subsumed by an omnipotent Nanny State before, just you wait. Your most preposterous nightmares are standing at the door.



Question: Given this undeniable historical precedent, are we going to just stand by mute while the Obama Administration pulls off this blatant power grab? Or are we going to fight back? Perhaps the Tea Parties are just the beginning. Perhaps we're stronger than we realize.
God bless America. - rg


"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" Jonathon Edwards sermon. 1741

Durban II Draft 4/15/09

As the Durban II Draft evolved, its redundancy has been reduced, but its objectionable elements remain intact. It singles out Israel for unwarranted condemnation and demands criminalization of truthful criticism of Islam. For those reasons, I urge President Omama and Secretary of State Clinton to stand by the decision to stay away from the Racism Conference We must not lend any legitimacy to that travesty. I urge the House & Senate to pass resolutions condemning the Durban II Draft Document and to refuse to subsidize it with our tax dollars.


Draft outcome document as at 15 April 2009 at 9:00 am as amended by the Chair (4/15/2009)

1. Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph one is unacceptable because the referenced text singled out Israel for condemnation, ignoring the human rights violations, genocides & racism of other nations. It is also unacceptable because it demands criminalization of criticism of Islam. President Obama recently cited this paragraph as his main reason for deciding not to participate in the conference.

7. Reiterates that poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion and economic disparities as well as foreign occupation are closely associated with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty;
"Foreign occupation" is a code phrase for Israel bashing. The "racist attitudes and practices" which produce poverty flow directly from the Qur'an & hadith.
11. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions resulting in denial or undermining the rights of persons associated with them and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism and urges all the UN Member-States to implement the paragraph 150 of the DDPA ;
Paragraph 11 is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. It complains, by code words, of the Danish Cartoons and FITNA. The cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was, by his own admission. FITNA displays quotes from the Qur'an, juxtaposed with their practical application. The only right impaired by FITNA was the cartoonist's copyright because one cartoon was used without permission. The intolerance and violence belong to the adherents of Islam, who, stirred up by rabble rousing rants at Friday prayer service, rioted in the streets.

The referenced paragraph from the DDPA reads as follows.
150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities;
Thus paragraph 11 demands, by reference, that national laws be passed and executed to criminalize criticism of Islam. This demand, which is incompatible with our First Amendment, is another reason for non-participation cited by President Obama.
12. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;
The first sentence of paragraph 12 is aimed directly at the Danish Cartoons and FITNA. In actual fact, the Qur'an, Islam's canon of sacred scripture, is replete with "religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence".

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's condemnation of FITNA makes the matter absolutely clear, leaving no doubt. The last clause in par. 12 is an obvious lie. The intent is to criminalize all criticism of Islam, including its mandates of perpetual war, genocide and terrorism. If we can not discuss the doctrines and practices of our enemy, we can not effectively advocate national defense against Islam's campaign of terror.
15. Expresses its appreciation for progress made in addressing the situation of the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance identified in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, while regretting that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including their contemporary forms and manifestations, still persist;
"Contemporary forms and manifestations" is a code phrase for criticism of Islam. Take note of this declaration contained in the preliminary document. [Emphasis added.]
4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;
Objection to Islam's continual aggression is conflated with racism. You can substitute objection to Islam wherever "racism" or "contemporary forms and manifestations" is printed in the Durban Draft.

16. Acknowledges that there should be no hierarchy among emerging and resurgent forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and that all victims should receive the same necessary attention and protection, and accordingly appropriate treatment;
Paragraph 16 is part of the effort to wrap Islam in the false mantle of victimhood. In their view, Muslims offended by the Danish Cartoons suffer equally with the Jews murdered by Hitler.

38. Urges States parties to the Convention to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations;
The quote below comes from Wikipedia. It describes our reservation to ICERD.
The U.S. has attached a reservation to its 1994 ratification of the treaty noting that specifically the treaty's restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were incompatible with the guarantees of such freedoms incorporated into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[20][21]
[Wikipedia]

SECTION 5: Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives at all levels for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to foster the implementation of the DDPA and to address challenges and impediments hereto, including in light of developments since its adoption in 2001
Remember that "related intolerance" means criticism of and objection to Islam's perpetual aggression.

52. Stresses the need for mobilizing the political will of relevant actors at all levels which is essential to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
Paragraph 52 is a code expression demanding legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam, in clear contravention of the First Amendment.

53. Reaffirms the positive role that the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
Paragraph 53 praises the condemned man before executing him. The expressions are Orwellian in the extreme.

54. Calls on States to undertake effective media campaigns to enhance the struggle against all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, inter alia, by disseminating and giving adequate visibility to the DDPA and its follow-up mechanisms; [adopted ad ref]

55. Calls on States to take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph 54 demands a propaganda campaign. Paragraph 55 demands national legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

56. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to secure expeditious access to justice, and to provide fair and adequate redress for victims; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph 56 translates into a demand for punishment of the cartoonists and Geert Wilders, with legislation allowing Muslims to sue them for "damages".
57. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society and stresses further the role these rights can play in fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide;
Paragraph 57 shows us how clever the OIC thinks they are;. giving faint praise before wielding their sword.

59. Urges States to punish violent, racist and xenophobic activities by groups that are based on neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist and other violent national ideologies; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph 59 is obviously a coded attack upon the Dutch Freedom Party and a similar party in Belgium.

66. Calls upon States to ensure that any measures taken in the fight against terrorism are implemented in full respect of all human rights, in particular the principle of non-discrimination and in this context urges all Member-States to implement relevant provisions of the General Assembly resolutions 60/288 and 62/272;
Paragraph 66 is a coded condemnation of our half hearted attempts at homeland security subsequent to 9/11.

67. Expresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources;
Paragraph 67 is redundant; restating paragraph 12 above.

68. Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures;
Paragraph 68 is redundant, restating paragraph 12 above.

98. Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination;
If paragraph 98 were sincere and enforced, Islam would be outlawed.

101. Calls upon States not to resort to profiling founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic, and religious grounds and prohibit it by law;
Paragraph 101 is redundant, restating paragraph 66.

133. Takes note of the proposal of the OHCHR, in cooperation with regional stakeholders in all parts of the world, to organize as a follow-up to the OHCHR Expert Seminar on the links between art.19 and 20 of the ICCPR a series of expert workshops to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred, in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards;

Art. 19 of ICCPR declares rights to "hold opinions without interference" & "freedom of expression" and outlines certain limitations thereon. Art. 20 prohibits "propaganda for war" and "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence".

What is the big deal about the "Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards"? Its report, of course. The committee generated a proposed protocol to be added to ICERD. The protocol would criminalize "defamation of religions", as demanded by the OIC. I am unable at present to find the text of the proposal. These references hint at it. A/HRC/10/L.8, Press Release , Joint NGO Statement.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Nightmare Act

W.A.M. ALERT -DREAM ACT as usual means the opposite:
A NIGHTMARE in the works - it will take all of US to stop it!

Legislators Plan Unfair Citizenship Benefits & Unwarranted Advantages to Non-Citizens:

Many activists are already aware that our crazy Congress is currently attempting
to increase immigration rights and citizenship benefits plus other perks - virtually overnight-
to illegal alien youths (defined to age 35!) on the claim that it is not their fault their parents
broke the law!

The insanity of this illogical conclusion can only be construed as a cover for building the un-Democratic
party's base by up to another 35 million! This figure is based on current projections of the number
of "students" and their families who will apply and receive rapidly implemented rights and benefits
from this bill, if it is signed into law. Because these measures are so unscrupulous - and politically
motivated - W.A.M. has prepared a special NO DREAM ACT PETITION plus ACTION TOOLS!

See informative W.A.M. Take A Stand summary of this bill here including Important Local
Meetings Schedule - which Congress is using to inflate the perception of public support for
these measures. These meetings have not been publicly promoted, specifically, to keep
DREAM ACT opponents away!

It is now up to each and all of us to participate in strategic W.A.M. ACTIONS to stop
this nightmare from happening. Together, we still stand a real chance of blocking
these measures - if we ALL join together in these concerted ACTIONS now.

There is no time for hesitation or delay - with your help, W.A.M. can
impact and influence this outcome before Capitol Hill sails it through-
which they aim to do upon completion of their "spring break."




Jacquerie
WAM Coordinator

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Into the Maelstrom: Converging Crises


Can't you feel it? Events are moving faster and faster now. We're sailing into the whirlpool. Threats which once seemed faraway and merely hypothetical are now growing exponentially, swirling around us, drawing us ever closer into the vortex. And we seem helpless. We procrastinate and equivocate. We can't make up our minds. We're lost in a hopeless labyrinth of ambiguities and euphemisms.

Meanwhile, circling us like sharks sensing blood, our enemies are sensing our weakness. Ahmadinejad steps up his threatening rhetoric: They will become nuclear, they will have their bomb. The UN and NATO are either anti-American or useless. The hopelessly conflicted IAEA is impotent: pro-Muslim Al Baradi faults the West and sides with Iran. Kim Jong Ill drops out of the non-proliferation talks and give the rest of the world the finger. Russia and China sense their main chance and are eagerly building up their arsenals. All of the petty potentates are rattling their sabers. The ragtag Somali pirates, the motley teenage Al-Shabaab, are calling our bluff and threatening revenge. The reinvigorated Taliban is busy with their bloody Reconquista of Afghanistan. The crises are converging. Can't you feel it?

Alas, our captain and crew are woefully inexperienced and morally conflicted and the helmsman has lost his grip on the wheel. Are we really doomed to founder? Where is that brave pilot to guide us through this dark night and bring us into safe harbor? Where is that barely remembered voice of manliness and courage? Who will replace the fallen helmsman before it is too late?

We call out but no one answers. Are we really all alone? Abandoned by an incompetent captain and a useless crew? Are we, the passengers, our only hope of salvation? To save our great ship must we all become mutineers?

The great whirlpool is drawing us steadily into its deadly grasp. Soon our decisions will be made for us by forces beyond our control. Our enemies grow more emboldened while our nominal allies vacillate or turn their backs. Terror groups will become nuclear. Israel will be crippled or annihilated. North Korea will develop long range nuclear capability and blackmail the world. Russia and China will thwart us at every turn. Western Europe will fall to the Muslim menace and sharia law will be incorporated into our legal system. Our street gangs will run rampant and our borders will remain porous. Americanism will become a lost idea.

Is this how our great ship will founder? Are we truly helpless in the maelstrom? Someone please tell me I'm just being melodramatic, that things aren't as perilous as they seem, that the maelstrom is nothing but an overblown metafor. That we'll pull through somehow, we always do.

Someone?
Anyone?

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

A Brief Conversation With an Offended Muslim







A note from Radarsite: Today I received this email notifying me of a belated comment to Gary Fouse's informative Jan 2009 article on the hijab and its significance. I went back and read the comments to see if I could figure out which one upset her the most. I think it was the one about the women "not knowing any better", although I'm sure she took offense to that plea for aid for Geert Wilder. I didn't comment at that time to Gary's article but I will respond to this email, as it was addressed to me. Here, then, is the emailed comment and my response. - rg

------------------------------------------

"I realize this is an old post of yours, but I happened to stumble upon it in a google search and was sort of horrified by the responses that you got to this.

So here's an answer from a hijabi (one who wears hijab). Hijab is what we call fard- meaning it is obligatory. That doesn't mean that it is allowed to be forced on a woman, in fact the Qur'an forbids this (but most so-called "Muslim countries" wouldn't know real Islam if it did a dance in front of them while shouting at the top of its lungs- but that's another rant all together). It IS actually mentioned in the Qur'an, but somewhat vaguely so. Within the Qur'an, women are instructed to wear loose clothing that does not show their shape, it explains who a woman should cover in front of and who she doesn't have to and gives the instruction that a woman should use her scarf (which many Meccans already wore on their heads before Islam) to also cover her chest. It is more elaborated in hadiths (recorded sayings and teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him). Muslim women are supposed to wear hijab, not just for the sake of modesty, but also so that they will be recognized as believing women as well as Muslim women. The covering of a woman's hair is a tradition that we inherited from the Jews and the Christians (although many of them no longer practise this). By wearing hijab we are identifying ourselves as continuing that tradition.

I would argue that most women choose to wear hijab or do not mind to (I've heard some Iranian women comparing it to wearing a tie to work- in certain situations certain dress codes are required). In "Muslim countries", most women are more concerned about their general rights and freedoms rather than a piece of fabric. People focus on the scarf but don't realize that the concept of covering the body is cultural (I mean this in general, not only in regards to hijab). For instance, in the west it has become culturally acceptable for a woman to walk around in shorts- 100 years ago there would be no chance in hell that a woman would do such a thing. On the other hand there are some areas of the world where it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to walk around without a top on, or even completely nude! To suggest that Muslim women simply "don't know any better" is ridiculous and suggestive of Western supperiority- which is utter bull. I'm a proud Canadian, but I still know that there's somethings that my country could do better on (just like I know that Saudi Arabia has A LOT of things that it could and SHOULD do better on).

Hope this was helpful to you. Feel free to continue asking questions and sorry for replying to such an old post, but those replies really bothered me. " (UniMuslimah)

---------------------------------------------------------
A response from Radarsite: So, our presumably-western-educated, proud Canadian Muslim woman is "sort of horrified" and "really bothered" by the comments made to that Radarsite article? Well, here we go again, folks. Another offended Muslim condescends to enlighten the ignorant infidel. And I for one am getting pretty damn sick of it.


Wearing the hijab, she blithely informs us, isn't much different than men wearing a tie with their suit to work. Or..

women walking the streets in shorts. It's just a matter of culture and taste (something which we infidels seem to be sorely lacking).

Many Muslim women actually feel more comfortable in a hijab.

Of course we all know how Muslims treat their women with the greatest respect.





Remember these two lovely Muslim daughters, 17 year-old Sarah Yaser Said, and 18 year-old Amina Yaser Said

Take note of the expression on the face of this lucky child bride. What does that look say to you about women's rights under sharia law?



And we must not forget those beloved Muslim children who are being brought up to respect human life and other people's religions...


Nor are we to presume that this purposefully unassimilated, shrouded Medieval presence, hidden from our view in their inviolable clandestine mosques and in their rapidly expanding, all-Muslim, sharia governed enclaves pose any threat to us or to our way of life, or that the hijab could quite logically be considered a uniform. A uniform representing an alien foe, a deadly enemy whom we are presently fighting in at least two bloody wars, who has repeatedly vowed to either dominate us or destroy us. An enemy whose sacred Koranic goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate under sharia law, to do away with all Christians and Jews, and to bring the world back into the chilling darkness of the seventh century.


Well, it wouldn't be the first time we've naively let the serpent into the nest, would it?


The German-American Bund Rally at Madison Square Garden, February, 1939.
[see The Serpent in the Nest: Cair and the German-American Bund]

That all-too-familiar Hezbollah salute

No, I'm afraid there's another presence lurking under that deathly shroud and it's not here to enlighten us, but rather to destroy everything we hold sacred, our freedoms, our democracy, our religions, in short everything that makes us Americans.

And despite that reasonable cultured tone of our Muslim apologist, we cannot allow ourselves to forget for one moment that there's a long history here. A long bloody record of virulent antisemitism and conquest and murder and hate and revenge. A dark history of making common cause with some of humanity's worst oppressors.


And that long bloody history is still being written. Isn't it?
























No more

No more debates. No more posting offended Muslim's disingenuous apologitics. No more submitting to condescending lectures on the glories of peaceful Islam. No more room in my comments section for multicultural liberal traitors. No more pros and cons. It's time now to get serious. Time to fight back. And to hell with those so-easily-offended Muslim sensibilities. As some other angry American put it: We learned all we need to know about Islam on 9/11.

PS: I don't remember where I stole that great "Cosmotaliban" pic, but I humbly thank whomever was clever enough to create it. If you get in touch with me I'll gladly give you full credit. - rg

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Piracy thwarted, captain safe: Lessons learned?




Richard Phillips escapes unharmed, assisted by U.S. Navy SEALS.

By Stephanie S. Garlow - Special to GlobalPost
Published: April 10, 2009 20:32 ET
Updated: April 12, 2009 15:23 ET-A +ABUZZARDS BAY, Mass. — The Massachusetts Maritime Academy instilled a sense of leadership in Richard Phillips — it also taught him how to navigate by the stars and how to avoid crashing into ships.

They were valuable lessons that some 30 years since he graduated from here earned him the rank of captain in command of his own ship. But there are some things you can’t learn in school — like how to be a hero.

Phillips proved yet again the strength of his character when he escaped from the armed pirates holding him hostage by jumping from a lifeboat into the Indian Ocean. He was helped by underwater U.S. Navy SEALS, according to a statement by the U.S. Navy. Phillips, 53, is unharmed on the USS Bainbridge.

The three pirates in the lifeboat were shot dead in the operation. The fourth pirate was negotiating on board the Bainbridge and was arrested.

Phillips has proved several times in recent days that he knows how to lead.

For Phillips captaining a ship turned out to mean more than safely maneuvering around shallow shoals or managing a crew. It meant taking on the pirates who dared for the first time in centuries to attack an American-flagged ship.

Phillips rallied his sailors to overcome those pirates and sacrificed himself for their safety. Now, the pirates hold him hostage aboard a lifeboat surrounded by the U.S. Navy. And Phillips, who grew up in the Boston suburbs, attended the Maritime Academy on Cape Cod and now lives in Vermont, has become a hero as the world watches the drama unfold.

“That’s a very brave thing for anyone to do and the right thing for a captain to do,” said Trevor Fouhey, a junior studying marine transportation at the Maritime Academy, referencing reports that Phillips exchanged himself to secure the safety of his crew.

Other students in the school’s mess hall echoed that sentiment, calling Phillips a hero and praising his selflessness. Several expressed hope that they would have done the same thing in his position.

Pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama Wednesday morning, briefly boarding the ship before the crew retook control. But the pirates escaped with Phillips and are holding him for ransom.

Those who knew Phillips were optimistic that the situation would end well.

“He would be a determined kind of person that would probably say, ‘I am going to get out of this one way or another,” said Pat Waite, a friend of the Phillips family.

Waite said Phillips grew up playing ball with her sons. “After school and evenings during the summer, a group of boys would get together and play softball and baseball and basketball,” said Waite, who still lives in Winchester, Mass., where Phillips grew up.

She said one of her sons sent her an email today that read: “Rich Phillips used to beat me up.”

Edward MacCormack, a classmate of Phillips’ at the academy, said Phillips is a “standup guy who’ll make the best of it.”

Read the whole Global Post story here.


----------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: What glorious news! For months now Radarsite and all of our many patriotic friends around the world have been waiting for a moment such as this. And here it is. And it is wonderful. How ironic that this heartening and courageous hostage rescue should come under the leftist/pacifist Obama administration. If, however, he did give the authorization to act, then even I must give him proper respect for his decision.

Finally we've shown some moral fiber. Finally we've unleashed the formidable forces of our superior military. And doubt not that the world is watching. And the world is rethinking their relationship with a resurgent America. This is of course just one episode in a much larger historical context, but it is an important one. One that makes me proud to be an American.

Obviously, this major problem of ongoing Somali piracy isn't any closer to being solved but it's a big step in the right direction. Now we must assert ourselves, now we must show the world our strength and our resolve. We must have the courage to finally break away from the blatantly biased, Muslim supporting UN, who have done their best to hogtie the Western nations in their efforts to defend themselves from this scourge of Muslim piracy, and who only seem concerned with the rights of the criminal pirates.

Much has been written over these past few days of our nineteenth century American precedent in dealing these "Barbary pirates". And the parallels are indeed cojent and encouraging. But there is an even earlier, and perhaps even more relevant, if lessor known, precedent for the forces of Western civilization successfuly solving the problem of piracy. The following paragraphs are taken from the original Radarsite series, "America and the Fall of the Roman Empire". I can only hope that we have the wisdom to learn from these worthy precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------


It has become fashionable to draw parallels between the supposed misadventures of our “New American Imperialism” and the “Fall of the Roman Empire” -- a comparison that conveniently overlooks the fact that it took over a thousand years for the Roman Empire to ‘fall’. One of the most glaring inconsistencies of this comparison is that the Roman Empire was an unapologetically ruthless military power, which experienced no liberal pangs of guilt about its hard-won conquests. Indeed, to the typical Roman, who enthusiastically relished the daily bloody spectacles of the arena, the whole concept of having moral qualms about the manner in which they had acquired their vast Empire would be incomprehensible.

The Roman formula for conquering new provinces was fairly straight-forward. The Roman legions would simply annihilate any opposing force (no matter how long it took, or what it cost them in lives and treasure), systematically root out all remaining insurgents, and impose a locally administered Roman-style government, which would eventually build Roman-style buildings in which to conduct Roman-style business.

Once their territories were conquered, however, the Romans would govern them with a relatively light touch (despite a spate of anti-Roman, pro-Christian “biblical movies” produced in the 1950s -- usually starring the late Charlton Heston -- that invariably portrayed the Roman soldiers as sadistic brutes). So long as the local citizenry behaved according to the proscribed boundaries of the Roman model of civilization, adhered to the basic tenets of Roman jurisprudence, paid their taxes (which, for the most part, were considerably less than they had been paying under their previous rulers), and offered ceremonial homage to the Emperor once a year, the Roman attitude towards the local customs and religious practices was generally fair and unobtrusive.

However, Roman authorities would react swiftly and mercilessly to any perceived threat of dissent. In 146 B.C., in the city of Corinth, in the Roman protectorate of Greece, two Roman envoys were set upon by an unruly crowd of malcontents and were beaten up. The Roman response was quick and unequivocal.


The Senate dispatched the brutal Roman General Mummius who, with his four Legions, attacked the city of Corinth. He killed all of the men of military age, enslaved all of the remaining populace, burned the city to the ground and then, ceremoniously sowed salt on the earth so that nothing would ever grow there again.

An over-reaction? Perhaps. However, needless to say, after Corinth, anyone considering attacking a Roman citizen would, most likely, have serious second thoughts.

Indeed, if we are looking for parallels between our present-day American society and the Roman Empire, we need look no further than this episode of the two Roman ambassadors in Corinth, and compare the Roman reaction then to our government’s ignoble non-response to the plight of our helpless 70 American citizens who were held hostage for 444 days in the infamous 1979 Tehran Embassy takeover.


What then, if anything, can we learn from the history of the Romans?

First, when discussing the moral lessons symbolized by the 'Fall of the Roman Empire' we should perhaps consider how long it actually took to 'fall'. If one accepts the traditional date for the founding of Rome of 753 B. C., and the traditional date of the 'fall' of 476 A.D., then that means that the Roman civilization lasted for something like 1,200 years, while the actual process of the 'fall' arguably took about 300 years.

Transposing these figures onto America's timetable, this would mean that we might start losing ground around the year 2705, and could be in serious trouble by the year 3005. It seems to me that it would be a little difficult to realistically describe this 1200 year process as a 'fall'. I think it could better be described as a pretty big success story.

Additionally, this particular episode at Corinth occurred approximately 200 years before the Empire really reached it's peak, and, far from hindering the development of the Roman world, this incident, and many others like it, only served to strengthen its reputation and intimidate its potential rivals.

For 444 days, while our hapless President Jimmy Carter dithered and dallied with endless and empty diplomatic negotiations, our helpless 70 American citizens suffered the painful privations and unknown perils of their captivity. Only when a new president was sworn into office, an altogether different kind of man, whom they suspected might actually resort to force, were the hostages released.

These, then, are the lessons from Corinth in 146 B.C., and from Tehran in 1979 A. D. Somewhere between these two extreme reactions there is an eternal truth.

Rome vs. the Pirates

As early as the Fourth Century B.C., the Romans began construction of their famous network of ingeniously designed roads (the Via Appia, the most famous of all Roman roads was begun in 312 B.C.). Roman roads soon traversed the Empire from the furthermost outpost in Britain to the easternmost Provinces of Pontus and Bithynia.




Not only did they build them, but they used them -- at first for strictly military purposes, but later on, for private and commercial transportation. Where it proved necessary, they protected them.












Then, in 67 B.C., acting on orders from the Roman Senate, the famous Roman general, Pompey the Great successfully swept the ubiquitous pirates from the waters of the eastern Mediterranean, where they had always preyed upon the major trade routes.

Not only did he destroy their ships at sea, but, acting under a special warrant from the Senate, his legions pursued the pirates inland to their home bases and destroyed these also. Thanks to Pompey’s effective campaign, for the first time in recorded history, the shipping lanes of the eastern Mediterranean became relatively safe.

----------------------------------------------

History has shown us that if a nation/state musters up the necessary will the pirates can be defeated. Of course, for us in the twenty-first century the big question is, will this leftist, appeasement-oriented Obama adminstration somehow find the necessary fortitude to follow through on these essential steps? We know our military is capable and ready. But is our pacifistic Democratic Party and it's culturally conflicted president? We shall see. - rg