Huckabee is either word challenged or an idiot

At a public rally yesterday, Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee reacted to the Bhutto assassination by expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.”

Did he mean "apology" or did he mean "condolences" or "sympathy?" Can you imagine if Huck was employed by Hallmark: "We express our sincere apologies for the death of your beloved mother. We really didn't mean to do it."

"Apology" in the MS Word Thesaurus means "admission of guilt", "request for forgiveness", "confession", or "act of contrition." Oh yes, and "regret". Not the kind of regret like "I'm sorry that happened", but the kind of regret that means "I'm sorry I did it."

There he goes again, expressing his true colors of one who blames the US, our culture, our values, for all the world's ills. We are somehow complicit in the assassination of Bhutto. Yes, that's it - we antagonized the adherents of "the religion of peace" into being less than peaceful once again.

To demonstrate this as a possibility, here is a quote from Time magazine...

"But there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. 'Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration,' he says. 'People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration.' "

Wow...Time magazine dug up Hussain Haqqani to proclaim that we bear responsibility because we didn't provide security for an opposition candidate in an Islamic nation? Oui!!! Is this what Huck is apologizing for?

Huck, a true Democrat, showing who he is even earlier in his campaign than Jimmy Carter did. Or does Huck just have a dismal vocabulary?

Chilling

It's bad enough that Islamists assassinated Benazir Bhutto, the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan yesterday. What is chilling is the preference of the average Pakistani on the street for a political leader...

46% for Osama Bin Laden, the acknowledged mastermind of 9/11 and the "destroy the west" mantra.

38% for current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

9% for US President George Bush (this is hardly a surprise since his polls are not much higher in the US.)

What does this tell us about the direction of Pakistan and their nukes? Additional background is provided here.

Couple this with the second most popular baby's name in Great Britain: "Muhammad", the forebear of "the religion of peace." (Where is my little "puking" emoticon when I need it?)

If I Were Romney's Speechwriter...

...I would include the following main points in his "religion speech":

I would explain that the several core beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cause it to possess a doctrine and history that is arguably one of the most consistent with the founding values of this nation. These include:

Free agency: Freedom or Liberty. The right to act freely to do the right thing or the wrong thing.

Responsibility: The responsibility, before God, to do the right thing in accordance with Scriptural principles of love, forgiveness, diligence, perseverence, and personal responsiblity and accountability before God.

Importance of the Family: Next to trust in God, the family is the most important set of relationships, forming the foundation for learning, responsibility and civility. Few institutions stress the need to keep the family unit strong more than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Eternal progression: The innate desire of people and the will of Heavenly Father to consistently become more Christlike, more Godly in our attitudes and actions. If evangelicals condemn this doctrine, they are condeming the Biblical mandate to be Godly. If not more like God, then what? More like Satan?

Faith/works: Acknowledge that the Bible teaches both faith and works as essential components of a unified doctrine. Mormons believe Christ died for our sins, and at the same time understand that we must persevere in faith in striving to be more Christlike through good works. If evangelicals condemn this doctrine, they are condemmning major portions of the Biblical mandate for the perseverence of the saints.

Origins of the Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded in America, born out of the principles of religious freedom and tolerance.

Tolerance toward all religions and no religion: Recognizes, based on the historical experience of the church, how wicked religous persecution can be. (This is in stark contrast to the religion of Islam, which has demonstrated itself to have the polar opposite view toward religous tolerance.)

United States was founded by divine providence: The Churchs' doctrine parallels the beliefs of the founding fathers of this nation that this country has a divine purpose and a divine destiny.

All of these core values of the Church ought to be highlighted to inform the voters of Romneys own core values.

What I hope Romney does not do is apologize for his religion, or suggest, as did John Kennedy, that his religion will take a subservient role, a "back seat" to his role as President. A President's faith should inform and enhance his Presidency. Romney's faith provides ample evidence that upholding and defending the constitution of this nation is entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He knows that this nation was formed out of these shared religious principles. The nation did not become "a god" to replace God. Individuals, including our Presidents, should remain free, in fact held accountable, to have core values that are greater than the nation that they are chosen to lead and serve.

Huckabee vs. Nation of Laws

For the record, Mike has been one of my top two preferred candidates. He has been growing on me as he has been growing in the polls. (You can guess who my other favorite is.:))

Besides being drawn to a candidate who is conservative, demonstrably moral, a lucid speaker with good presence and a quick wit, I need someone who recognizes the stupidity of flaunting our immigration laws.

Two events occurred today that shook my confidence in Huck:

1) His terrible record on enforcing immigration laws while governor of Arkansas was revealed – see here, and
2) I listened to his interview on the Sean Hannity show this afternoon where he justified the actions of illegal aliens.

This is the way the interview went: Sean was debating Mike on the need to enforce our immigration laws. Mike played the “poor victim” card in defending the actions of aliens entering this country illegally when he said, "...if I needed to feed my family, I'd do the same thing..."

This was a dumb as s--- response on two levels:

1) He is assuming most illegals enter this country because their families back in Mexico are “starving”. More accurately, they sneak into this country to take advantage of our largess and pitiful law enforcement to enhance their standard of living. It is doubtful starvation has anything to do with their reason for being here in most cases.

2) He justifies breaking the law on flimsy grounds. There is nothing wrong with an individual working to enhance his standard of living. But is “enhancing your standard of living” justification for breaking the law? Is “feeding your family” even a basis for law breaking? Can you imagine the anarchy that would prevail if we all practiced what Mike preaches? Don’t we all want to enhance our standard of living. Let’s see, which law is easiest to break without folks doing anything about it? Oh, I forgot. They really won’t do anything about it because they feel sorry for me – they might even think I’m starving when I’m not.

If Huckabee was portrayed as a “conservative” up to this point, his sentiments here sure destroy that myth. His attitude amply demonstrates liberal values:

- Assume people are starving even when they aren’t
- Assume we need to help them, even if there are other ways for them to be self-sufficient
- Just about anything justifies flaunting our laws.

For a plain ‘ol US citizen to justify ignoring our laws is bad enough. But for a Presidential candidate to justify law-breaking at the same time he proposes to lead “a nation of laws” is insane. Anarchy, anyone?

Evangelicals have warped sense of priorities...

...especially where Mormons are concened. For many Evangelicals, being anti-Mormon is more improtant than being concerned about right to life or the Islamic threat. Very strange.

I used to watch Pat Robertson a couple of decades ago in my darker days. I used to respect the man during that period. Some may speculate that when a man reaches 77 years of age, his decision-making abilities begin to recede a bit. The starker reality is that many "evangelical", and especially "fundamentalist Christians" tend to be ignorantly, and rabidly anti-Mormon (aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

Talk about flip flop! His endorsement of Rudy was a head-spinner!

Robertson has a long history of preaching against abortion. That had been one of his most passionately held opinions in his decades of televangelism. The only reason I can discern for Pat's pathetic priority, and one that reflects the attitude of most fundamentalist Christians, is his disdain toward Mormons. He apparently prefers to support an abortion candidate than the candidate who is by most accounts more closely aligned with his conservative social values than any other: Mit Romney. Why do you suppose this is so?

Some "evangelicals" I have known have a very narrow view of Christianity. If you don't believe the precise doctrine they believe, you are not "Christian", as they define it. Many spend more time worrying about Mormons than Muslims! They lose their ability to distinguish between degrees of good and evil. And they do this out of blind prejudice rooted in ignorance.

In Pat's case, he apparently spends more time worrying about Mormons than about abortionists who kill babies or Islamic doctrine that fosters hate, terror and intolerance.

"Values". What the heck are they?

The presidential campaign is rife with the "values" thing. Both Democrats and Republicans claim they understand the importance of "values", the need to defend our "values", to have strong "family values", ad nauseum.

What vague, meaningless tripe. What do they mean? Values are like belly buttons: everyone has them. Radical Islam has values, Al Capone had values, Brittany Spears has values. Even I have values.

What we don't hear much is a definition for "values." Unfortunately, most of the traditional values we've long held are out of vogue and the brunt of jokes and disdain. Traditional families, traditional gender roles, traditional moral behavior are all out of favor. The big pop-value now appears to be absolute tolerance of just about anything. A word for that is amorality. A made up synonym is "avalueity". This gets close to the meaning of most political messages.

Could this be why we don't hear any definition given on the stump: We've lost our "value-system" in this nation? Absolute tolerance for anything results in a valueless culture. A valueless culture is difficult to defend or promote. This explains, in part, why a large portion of our population cannot sustain a war more than a few months. We think that our values (whatever they are or used to be) are no better, maybe worse than, anyone elses. We are into self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are major populaton groups on earth who love their values more than we love ours (even if we could agree what they were), who believe their values are worth fighting for, and literally blowing themselves up for.

Granted, our military and many conservatives have a strong traditional value system that motivates and sustains them. But a large, influential, and growing portion of our population has lost their values compass.

How well does this scenario bode for our nation: A culture without values to motivate and sustain its' will, perseverance, and endurance versus a culture with values so strong and deeply held that they turn themselves into human bombs and are numerically the fastest growing population group and religion on the planet. I am speaking of Islam.

We are in a "values" war. And we will be on the losing end if we cannot rediscover values worth defending and promoting. The three decades of mocking and joking and ridiculing (e.g. Garrison Keillor, famed liberal, culture-mocking star of "A Prarie Home Companion" and late night comedy generally) and challenging the deeply held values of the past 200 years is not helpful to our survival. Nothing of any great society-sustaining ability has replaced those values that we have ACLUed out of existence.

I'm all for not taking ourselves too seriously and the occasional joke about our culture. The problem is, these jokesters and mockers and challengers really mean it. They really do seem to hate our historical culture and the values that founded our nation.

An excellent book well worth reading or listening to is "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" by Mark Steyn. He identifies our "values" problem as the greatest challenge to our success in the face of Islamic resurgence. To all of our valueless libs, can you say "Dhimmi" dummy?

I Don't Blame Musharraf

Pakistan is a "moderate" Islamic nation, it has been our ally in the war on terror (which really should be renamed, more accurately, "the war on the religion of hate and intolerance") and it has lots of nukes.

There has been increasing terrorist activity by the Jahadi wing of Islam in Pakistan (blowing up non-Muslim businesses, etc.) not to mention their hosting (involuntarily???) Al Quida in the Paki-Afgan mountains. Our nation has urged President Musharraf to do something meaningful in response to this recent run up in Jahadi activity in his nation.

So now Musharraf is doing something: clamping down on dissident activity, e.g. civil rights attornies, the media, and others who are making his fight against terrorism difficult.

And the United States and Britain are objecting. Michell Malkin calls this a "train wreck".

It appears we are expecting Musharraf to fight Islamic terror in the same way we do... without knowing who the enemy is and without teeth. And we will withhold our billions in aid if he does things his way and not our way. Wow. Yes, trainwreck.

Do I need to spell out the likely outcome if we bribe him to do things "our way?"

If he insists on doing things HIS way...

* We will withhold our billions in aid and the radicals Musharraf was resisting will fill the vacuum
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

Or, if he bows to OUR demands...

* He will be ineffective in his fight against the radicals
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

We don't yet, as a nation, realize who the enemy is, and thus we haven't discovered the measures necessary to combat it. And we want to handcuff Musharraf in the same way we handcuff ourselves. I hear the train a comin'...

The God of Science, Atheism, and Reason

I’ve heard various discussions about science and atheism being “forms of religion” or “another religion” in contrast to the traditional religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. Why? Because both are “faith based.” Science is a belief system where all of reality, past, present, and future, is based on the belief that science and human reason hold all the answers worth knowing. This belief is so strong as to be held in a religious sense, denying any evidence to the contrary. In other words, science and reason become “faith based”. This may sound circular, and perhaps it is. After all, by definition, if one believes in reason, nothing is reasonable outside of it.

Recently, I heard a discussion by a former pastor, now an atheist. He claims atheism is not a form of religion. Atheism is based on pure “reason.” Therefore, he reasons science and reason are beyond a religion – above, superior to, and exclusive from religion. He apparently rejects the concept of “faith” altogether. He will deny he has faith in science or reason. Science and reason just are. They don’t require faith. Faith would pollute, distort, and destroy them both.

Religious people rely a great deal on science and reason as well. In fact, intelligent religious people have learned to integrate science, reason, and their religious faith. I have “reasoned” that people who deny “faith” are narrow, self-deceived, and eliminate a majority of potential answers to the mysteries that permeate human existence and purpose.

Atheists live in a world that only science has revealed. Their world is unstable, unpredictable and incomplete because science, its theories and facts, are unstable, unpredictable and incomplete. Scientific “facts” are constantly changing with each new scientific peer group affirmation. Who were the “scientists” of 2,000 years ago? Astrologists. Predictors. How long has “modern science” been in existence? Depending on who you believe to be the “father of modern science”, Galileo, or Robert Hook, today’s version of science began in the mid-1600’s. Science itself is a form of reason in a state of flux. What might science and reason reveal a thousand years from now? Something very different from what we have now is a certainty. What does that say about the accuracy and reliability of science today? It is less consistent and predictable than most world religions!

It’s amusing to see the atheist deny God, make science and reason their God, and then deny that they make science and reason their God. They deny God. They deny faith. They apparently live only in the present and reconstruct the past and guess the future based on as much faith as the most devout theist. Yet their “scientific methods” have been around for less than 400 years. Sounds like a severe case of Napoleon complex and presumptive superiority to me.

And on the topic of reason, which is the atheist’s number one value (aka “God” if they believed in one.) A reasonable person would have trouble believing reality, past, present, and future, can or should be based only on science, knowing that science is so relatively new, so changeable, and so utterly incomplete. It seems to me, being a reasonable person, that there is much more reality all around us than what science has revealed. Reason goes further. Reason has created religion. Reason has created faith. Reason leads to the belief in a distant past that science will never figure out and in a distant future science refuses to imagine. I’ll go yet further. It is reasonable that there are forces that communicate in subtle ways with humans. We don’t know the exact nature of these forces, they could be genetic, airborne, radio-frequency, or an undiscovered sixth sense. In the meantime, we call the force “spiritual.” We call the messages “revelation.”

The realities of life are tenuous and incomplete with only science as the revelator of all truth. The realities of life are richer, whole and hopeful when completed with faith that only God can create.

Bush is consistent on border insecurity.

This is the situation. A bunch of Kurdish folk in the northern portions of Iraq have it in their heads that the southern part of Turkey belongs to them. So they begin infiltrating southern Turkey and act somewhat like the Sunni and Shia do...they blow up things and people inside Turkey (after all, they are all Muslim).

Silly Turkey. They get the idea in their heads that they need to put a stop to the terrorist violence from the Kurds. The only reasonable way they see of defending their southern border is to eliminate the offending Kurds at their source: inside Iraq. So Turkey announces their plan to defend their border.

True to form, "defend no border Bush" comes trotting out and cries out "No, wait! Don't defend your border! Give us some time. We'll work things out!" Bush has taken seven years in this country to work out our border problems - I hope Turkey realizes where that has gotten us. Can you imagine 12 million Kurds in southern Turkey?

What hypocisy. What a double standard. We can invade Iraq from upteen thousand miles away and it is self defense. Turkey proposes to take some troops 2 miles into Iraq to defend themselves from ongoing murder and mayhem, and it's called interference.

This irony was enough to cause me to write to the Turkey Embassy in Washington DC and cheering them on to do whatever it takes to defend their border from terrorists. I wish we would do the same in our nation!

I was torn whether to title this blog The "Leave No Terrorist Behind" Policy or "The Only Good Border is an Open Border."

Bush Ignorance and Islamic Deception

Following are two examples of propaganda about Islam: The first is misconception out of ignorance; the second is misdirection out of a desire to deceive. Both are dangerous.

First, the misconception – quoting what President Bush believes about Islam (the entire referenced article is here):

"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person.

Among the several serious problems I have with President Bush are these: First, his statement above reveals his ignorance of Islam, calling it “a religion of peace”. The facts speak otherwise, which he chooses to ignore. He embraces the deception (takiyya) as illustrated in the second example, following. For some inexplicable reason, he chooses to ignore these facts:

1) The hundreds of terrorist acts conducted monthly around the world by people calling themselves Muslim (see previous post).
2) Islamic doctrine of violence against the infidel (non-Muslims) based squarely on the content of the Koran. The so-called Islamic radicals (Islamists) properly interpret, teach and promote what the Koran teaches and what has historically been practiced.
3) The relative silence, the lack of outrage of so-called “moderate” Muslims against the teachings of their violent, hateful, intolerant brethren.

Bush is a useful idiot in regard to Islam. With regard to Christianity, he is willing to slander his professed faith by comparing one violent act of a so-called Christian with the continuing, almost countless, violent acts of Muslims around the world. This kind of ignorant spouting by our President should not be tolerated – he is a danger to our nation.

Mr. President is apparently ignorant of the basic doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam. He is superimposing his peaceful, loving, tolerant Christian understanding of religion on a religion whose pure doctrine promotes violence, hate, and intolerance. Oh how I wish he would read Robert Spencer’s book, “Religion of Peace: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t.” or Gregory Davis’ book “Religion of Peace?: Islam's War Against the World.”

Ok. Enough about our President. Now for our second example: Misdirection. This one is from a blog new to me called Muslims Against Sharia. “L.A.” from that blog site posted the following response to my previous post. He first highlighted this quote from another person who has observed a problem with Islam…

"Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that Islam is the enemy. Period."

This is L.A.’s response…

The above quote is one of the milder examples of how many Westerners view Islam these days. This quote is a part of the comment to the article titled "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims." posted on the Gates of Vienna blog. The article talks about radical Muslims in the West claiming to be moderates. It also brings up very interesting points. "[T]he government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.", "The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman", and "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't."

But that's where the Gates of Vienna is wrong. The main problem is that the term 'Moderate Muslim' is poorly defined. There is a clear distinction between a 'Moderate Muslim' and an 'Islamist' and the distinction is in the ultimate goal. An Islamist believes in Islamic Supremacy. Islamist terrorists and their supporters want to achieve it by waging Jihad. Non-violent Islamists want to achieve it by peaceful and democratic means. The means are different, but the goals are the same: Islamic World Domination. Moderate Muslims do not believe in Islamic Supremacy. For someone not very familiar with the subject, the distinction may be subtle. But in reality, it is the most important, because everything that Democracies hold dear is based on this distinction. This is the Koran vs. the Constitution, Islamic State vs. Secular State, and ultimately, Dhimmitude (Subjugation to Islam) vs. Freedom. I cannot stress enough how important this distinction is!

Now, comes an uneasy task of weeding out false moderates. Hopefully, with a clear definition of a 'Moderate Muslim' that task could be a lot easier. Coming back to the title of this post. Muslim community as a whole is not the enemy. Part of it is. A large part. But not all of it. The next time you ask yourself a question "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims?" don't trust their assurances; look at their record. No matter how well false-moderate Muslims such as CAIR or MPAC polished their facades, they have a record. Whether it is their support of terrorism or advocating Islamic supremacy, any Islamist group or figure who's been around long enough, at one time or another has shown its/his/her true face. Just because some government official or some talking head declares someone to be a moderate Muslim, it doesn't make it so. There are several counter-terrorism and Islam experts who keep track of Islamists. Most of these experts happen to be non-Muslim, but there is also a list of moderate Muslims who could be used as trusted sources for these inquiries. The list of those prominent Muslims is posted at the upper right corner of our blog. So now, my non-Muslim friends, when you have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims, you can no longer use your ignorance as an excuse to declare that Islam is the enemy. [bold added for emphasis.]

L.A.

As much as I would like to believe L.A. and what he represents, I can’t help but suspect the above statement may be a perfect example of misdirection, an application of the Islamic “Taqiyya” which is the Islamic practice of deceitfully concealing their faith or beliefs during periods of persecution.

The question remains, my Muslim friends, do we really have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims?

A question that non-ignorant, but alarmed Islamic scholars would pose: How can the REAL moderate Muslims remain Muslim when Islamic doctrine supports the Jihadists, the Islamists, both today and throughout most of Islamic history? Are REAL moderate Muslims equivalent to so-called “nominal Christians” who may attend church and call themselves "Christian" but really couldn’t care less about what their relgion teaches? Are REAL moderate Muslims "nominal" Muslims?

Until I get a believable answer to this Islamic doctrine question, my “crap detector” will continue to sound the alarm.

I do have to admit, their blog site is worth a look. There is some interesting, even humorous stuff on there.

What the do "Moderate" Muslims Really Believe?

The President of Iran inspired me. So now I’d like to take a few minutes to beat a dead horse that refuses to die. The not so dead “dead horse” is the Great American Fairytale that Islam, at its heart, is a religion of peace - that the great majority of "moderate" American Muslims condemn Islamist terror.

We saw a Muslim in action at the United Nations: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We discovered he is great at lying and denying or distorting facts - for Islam. He is a Muslim. He is duping many in this nation into believing he is a moderate person.

The continuing “politically correct” but apparently ignorant media and otherwise pre-occupied masses continue to repudiate opinions such as those expressed by Pete in Minnesota:

“Without Muslims we have no 911 attacks. We have no embassy bombings in Africa. The Islam, the Christianity, of 1000 years ago is interesting, but we live in the present. There are 3 kinds of Muslims today. A very small minority who genuinely detest the violent faction. The avowedly violent faction: there can be no making peace with them. And a huge group in the middle who deep down think they will be better off if the violent faction comes to power.

"The West has 2 options: it can submit to Allah, or it can kill millions and millions of Muslims, until Muslims realize that "live and let live" is the best approach. Islam is not a religion: it is a political movement that seeks world domination. I am saddened by the slaughter to come."

If the Jihadi's persevere (which they promise to do) and successful strikes occur in this country equaling 9-11 or worse (which they promise to achieve), we have no choice. Consequently, I have to agree with Pete.

What is a "moderate" Muslim? Read here for some fresh insight.

Here is an article which helps explain why we have no choice if we want to maintain our freedom:

Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the novel America's Last Days, states:

“According to [a] …recent Pew Center survey, a quarter of younger Muslim-Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances. That’s right. They support suicide bombings. 25% of Muslim-Americans refused to give an answer when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. 5% of Muslim-Americans said they had a favorable view of the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the White House or Capitol building.

"If we accept the Pew Center’s estimate that there are 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, then 5% of that number would be 117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. A number that should not only send chills down our spines, but cries out for eternal vigilance.”

I believe these numbers are very conservative. Many of the majority, but mildly sympathetic "moderates" are likely to turn more hostile to Amerca's ways as the screws tighten as they must.

The Jihadist minority are not radical because they are making things up. They are radical because they believe in their religion. They believe what the Koran teaches. They believe what Muhammad, their prophet, taught. The so-called “moderate Muslims” have no basis for their moderation. The moderates are the apostates. The teachings of their religion belie moderation. They have nowhere to go as Muslims except to believe in the message of their religions’ extremists, because that message represents what their religion truly teaches.

Here is some bit of good news from The Associated Press:

"DENVER (AP) — Negative opinions about Islam are on the rise, Mormons are viewed as Christian but different and Pope Benedict XVI trails his predecessor in popularity, a poll of Americans released Tuesday said.

"The survey of 3,000 adults from Aug. 1-18 was conducted for the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"The number of Americans who say Islam has little or nothing in common with their own religion has spiked to 70 percent in the past two years from 59 percent, the poll found.
Another significant shift has taken place: In 2005, 36 percent of the public said Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence among its believers. That number has risen to 45 percent."

Are Americans gradually waking up? I can only hope so.

As a capper, here is an excellent book worth reading:

"America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It", by Mark Styne as detailed here.

It portrays what will happen to America if we keep our head in the sand about the true nature of Islam. It may already be too late for Europe.

Tancredo's Position on National Defense

Tom Tancredo is best known for his strong statements on behalf of secure borders and not spending taxpayer dollars supporting illegal immigrants. He also has a very rational position concerning Iraq and our national defense. Here it is...

Defense...
"In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense.

Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.

We are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations. That clash is fought on many fronts-some military, some diplomatic, and still others, ideological. On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major strategic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.

We must take whatever steps are necessary to assure our ability to respond quickly to events in the area as the process of creating this new balance of power goes on. But the quicker that process starts, the better.

In his speech to the nation on the war in Iraq, the President said he was establishing a "November benchmark" for the Iraqis to complete the task of controlling all provinces of the country. This should be more than a benchmark. I believe it should be used as the time frame for our disengagement from Iraq. We can maintain a military presence in the area to act as a quick response force with a mission to destroy Al Qaeda elements while simultaneously aiding the new balance of power in the region to develop.

I am not alone in my thoughts about what to do in Iraq. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, concurred.

"I think it's clear that the United States has met the obligation that it incurred when it overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's to try and provide some conditions of security for the Iraqis to determine what kind of country or what kind of society they want in the future. We have met that obligation. That obligation does not need to be extended. And this is really the last chance for them. After that, we need to pursue very narrowly what our strategic interest is. And that's making sure that terrorism doesn't find root in that country."---
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." We have purchased an opportunity for Iraq and the entire Middle East with the blood and treasure of America. It was a noble endeavor for which all who served can be immensely proud. It is now time to see if the Iraqis can take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased."

Do I think Iraq will take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased? Hell no, they won't. They don't have a clue. It's not that they don't have the ability. They don't have the desire. Two or ten years of US occupation will not reverse 1,500 years of uncivilized, deviant religion-based mad dog behavior. Case in point. A $50,000,000 reward has been established for the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This reward has been in effect since 2004, with no takers. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because Pakistanis and Afghans don't like money? No. It is because the zealots surrounding Bin Laden believe in their cause more than in money. If any Christian in this country felt as strongly about his faith as the Islamo fascists believe in theirs, they would be jailed for committing hate crimes. Our religions to not tolerate zealots. They are labelled intolerant bigots. We cannot fathom being as zealous for our faith in the west as most radical Muslims are about theirs. As long as this nation, our leaders, do not understand that distinction, and they don't, we have no more business being in Iraq.

We are not there to "win" (whatever that is). We are there to sap the vitality and morale out of our own armed forces - or so it seems. I agree with those who are tired of the rhetoric of our president when on one hand he claims how critically important it is for our nation to win this war in Iraq, yet for the past two years he had not shown a strong will to win by committing the resources necessary to complete our mission. As in Vietnam, our troops are hamstrung by politically correct strategic and tactical constraints. Some of our troops fear killing the enemy because they may get charged with a crime, as some of our soldiers have. We don't understand the enemy. We do not allow ourselves a level playing field. We will lose doing what we're doing. Stepping back from this battle does not mean we lose the war. It means we come up with more intelligent, better informed methods, and hopefully, a stronger will to be effective.