Saturday, July 29, 2006

James Bond Where Are You?

It is frustrating to venture into the surreal landscape of politics where up is down and what is black and white is turned into grey. The world we live in today is one where the initiator of a war does not have to bear the consequences of his "raison d'etre", i.e. to kill Jews and Westerners. Instead, the victim - Israel - is accused by most of the mealy mouthed European leaders and sundry Arab dictatorships of "disproportionate self-defense". But to hear the leader of the greatest nation on earth talk the talk but not walk the walk is truly disheartening and bodes ill for the future of the Western world. James Bond where are you when we need you?

Danielle Pletka at the American Policy Institute for Public Policy Research writes this:

"Throughout the Middle East, American priorities have lost steam. Mr Bush's signature issue democracy promotion has been thrust aside by resurgent dictators, with few real consequences. Egypt's abrogation of municipal elections and a brutal crackdown on civil rights and press freedoms, for example, brought a threat from the US Congress to cut Egyptian aid but little more than limp language from the administration.

"When America is perceived as weak, challengers will not hesitate to take up arms. Can US capitulation to Iran and to North Korea have been far from the minds of extremists in both Hamas and Hizbollah when they chose to escalate conflict in the Middle East? Will al-Qaeda be far behind?

"So what accounts for the "kinder, gentler" Bush administration? The fighting in Iraq has certainly wearied both the administration and Congress; it could be that there is little stomach for further confrontation. Or, America's mid-term elections are approaching and the administration does not need a new crisis to worry the voting public. Or perhaps a new foreign policy team at the state department simply prefers a pre-September 11 2001 approach?

"No one knows for sure. Without doubt, alienating allies for the sheer pleasure of it offers little reward for the US. Yet embracing allies without achieving results is hardly better. Similarly, plain speaking and diplomacy are almost always preferable to sanctions and war, but only if diplomacy yields a real outcome. The goal in the case of both North Korea and Iran is to end their nuclear weapons and missile programmes. It is not to keep the parties talking while Pyongyang and Tehran continue to develop weapons of mass destruction.

"At the end of the day, Mr Bush may revert to his cowboy roots and exert American power to deny our enemies the weapons they long for. But, statecraft is not poker and pretending to have no cards to play can lead to dangerous misjudgments by friends and enemies alike.


An opportunity has been afforded to the West to finally confront the backers of Hizbollah - Iran and Syria. The question is why is Bush throwing this away to continue with diplomatic mumbo jumbo?

1. Hizbollah initiated a daring and incontrovertible act of war against Israel.

2. It is common knowledge that Hizbollah and Hamas are tools for Iran and Syria.

3. We are supposedly determined to crush Islamist fascists - wasn't that our goal?

I believe most of us yearn for a real hero larger than life. We are tired of slimey appeasers everywhere we turn from the United Nations greatest appeaser of them all Kofi Annan to our our own two bit politicians in Washington looking for the next vote. A James Bond right now would do just fine - thank you.

"... James Bond's popularity is rooted in the fact that he is on a crusade for the good in a morally gray world. The world of James Bond is the stalemated battle of the Cold War. Many of its elements are morally gray, filled with glad-handing politicians and dyspeptic bureaucrats - but the stakes are not. They are black and white - and Bond acts to make sure that good overcomes evil, usually on his terms, alone, with only his wits to carry the day.

"Even though the war Bond fought is long over, and we now know the outcome was assured all along, in this age of new threats and new wars, Bond serves as a symbol that great evil can be overcome by one rational man acting morally." (The Real James Bond by C.A. Wolski in the June 2003 issue of The Intellectual Activist).

The West is the good. Fanatical, tyrannical muslims and the states that sponser them - Iran and Syria - are the evil. Mr. Bush is the leader of the West which means he is the leader of Western Civilization. It is time for him to step up to the plate and do what should have been done by Reagan, Carter, Bush Sr., and Clinton. If we value life, freedom and the future then the hard decisions must be made and the people of the west must put up or shut up. If we put up we have a resplendant future ahead. If we shut up then only death and destruction awaits us.

Monday, July 24, 2006

"The Bill of No Rights"

This famed "Bill of No Rights" was written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian. It still rings true today (Read)

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other bed-wetters.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they r equire a Bill of NON-Rights.

"ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful . D o not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing , we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim , or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training aid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!(Lastly....)A

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

(NOTE: We should not have the phrase In God We Trust - it is irrational and a leftover from our past of mystism, it has no place in the modern world. The Muslim terrorists trust in God and look where we are today! Sarita...)

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish.Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you don't, insensible people will.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

The Indispensable Condition of Peace in the Middle East by Onkar Ghate

"As Israeli soldiers reenter Gaza and bomb Lebanon, and Israeli citizens seek shelter from Hezbollah's missiles, the world despairingly wonders whether peace between Israel and its neighbors can ever take root. It can--but only if America reverses course.

"To achieve peace in the Middle East, as in any region, there is a necessary principle that every party must learn: the initiation of force is evil. And the indispensable means of teaching it is to ensure that the initiating side is defeated and punished. Decisive retaliatory force must be wielded against the aggressor. So long as one side has reason to think it will benefit from initiating force against its neighbors, war must result. Yet this is precisely what America's immoral foreign policy gives the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah reason to think.

"Israel is a free country, which recognizes the rights of its citizens, whatever their race or religion, and which prospers through business and trade. It has no use for war and no interest in conquest. But for years, Arafat and the Palestinian authorities, with the aid of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states, sought not to learn the conditions of freedom, but to annihilate the only free nation in their midst: Israel. Did the United States demand that the Palestinian leadership be destroyed?

"No. Clinton invited Arafat to dine at the White House and Bush declared that peace requires Israel to give in to its aggressor's insistence on a state." (Read)

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Thinking with Memory

"Tel Aviv may be the economic and cultural capital of Israel, Jerusalem its political and symbolic capital. But the Galilee is where Israelis come to play, the forested and breezy getaway from the sweltering coast and the incessant dramas of everyday life in this region. Israelis were prepared to give up sandy Gaza and might also have been prepared to do the same with the rocky West Bank, if only the Palestinians would behave themselves. Yet places make a nation as much as principles do, and the Galilee was one place no Israeli could part with if his country was still going to be worth living in.

"So even as terror-stricken residents of the north flee, the rest of the country is prepared to fight, whatever the cost: A recent poll found that 80% of Israelis support the present military operations, and three-quarters of those would be prepared to launch a full-scale invasion of Lebanon if that is what it takes to defeat Hezbollah. No similar consensus has existed among Israelis since the 1967 Six Day War.

"Up in his winery, Mr. Dalton fears that if the war continues, he will have no one to tend the vines and take in the harvest, and an entire season's worth of business will be ruined. Yet as we stand beside one of his fields, watching an Apache helicopter fire missiles at a Lebanese village visible in the far distance, he muses on what his decision to remain here means. "Being here is part of defending the country. If Hezbollah wins this, the terrorists win this war, and not just against us but against the free world. You think I'm coming down from here? Never" (Brett Stevens - Read)

"Imagine what the U.S. would do if, on its northern border, a terror state-within-a-state pledged to its destruction was established from which flurries of missiles were fired at Chicago, its third-largest city. With that in mind, to suggest, as some have, that Israel is not acting with restraint is preposterous. Unlike Hezbollah, which is indiscriminately launching hundreds of missiles at Israeli cities and towns to kill as many civilians as possible, Israel is using only a fraction of its firepower and is in fact acting with great care to minimize harm to civilians. But because Hezbollah not only targets civilians but also uses them as human shields by hiding its missile launchers in population centers, Hezbollah has deliberately placed innocent Lebanese civilians in harm's way." (Benjamin Netanyahu Read )

We all know how Winston Churchill warned of Hitler's rising power and the danger it posed to Europe. But today as in the 1930's most are blinded by the philosophy of appeasement and inertia. In a speech given by Enoch Powell in 1988 he describes Churchill: "It was not so much the triumph of distant deductive reasoning as the long vista of historical and personal memory which, when others were still blind, revealed to him the nature and inevitable outcome of the resurgent German empire. He was a man who thought with his memory." Read

Just as "talking" to Hitler to dissuade him from his irrational dreams of "empire" was useless so are we beyond the point of "talking", "negotiating" and mostly appeasing fanatical lunatics who crave for death and destruction. A lesson must be taught and it must be taught with infinite finality now before we too have to fight a "WWII" and lose millions of people in the process. These terrorists are serious with their designs of annhilating the west. We should be serious too about utterly defeating them. But for that we need leaders who think with memory.

Friday, July 14, 2006

The Self-Interest of Survival

"Israel's military invasion and naval blockade of Lebanon is being denounced in European capitals and at the United Nations as a "disproportionate" response to the kidnapping this week of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah. Israel's decision late last month to invade Gaza in retaliation for the kidnapping of another soldier by Hamas was also condemned as lacking in proportion. So here's a question for our global solons: Since hostage-taking is universally regarded as an act of war, what "proportionate" action do they propose for Israel?" (read)

How is it disproportionate to attack a country who foments acts of war against another country? Is constantly sending rockets into Israeli territory to be sloughed off? Is kidnapping Israeli soldiers to be shrugged at? How much terrorism and how many acts of war is enough before a country attacks its enemy? Is evil to be allowed to persist just because one side has overwhelming military capabilities? Is no one ever to call a spade is a spade but rather we must all cover our eyes and ears to the fact of Islamist evil?

Evil cannot be evaded by saying the "correct thing" or accepting humility as our only way to reconciliation. Evil must be confronted everywhere and anywhere and at any time. Although we live in a relativistic world that says modern art is just as good as representational art, that a malaria ridden country full of thugs is equal to a western country, that being poor and illiterate is just as good as being rich and that Islam is just as good a religion as Christianity - in the real world we don't live in a sea of relativity. Every second of every day an individual as well as a nation must make honest assessments of life as he encounters it. There are some things that are bad and some that are good and some that are neutral but a judgement is made about everything whether you want to admit it or not because it's a matter of survival.

Israel made a judgement call: They had enough of attacks and they decided to retaliate in their own self-interest. I applaud them for it.