Monday, October 31, 2005

In-your-sleep moralizing

In the article below, Mr. Hanson demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left leaners and the anti-Americans in this globe we call earth. Read the article and post your comments.

By Victor Davis Hanson

October 29, 2005

To paraphrase the Ancient Greeks, it is easy to be moral in your sleep. Abstract ethics or soapbox lectures demanding superhuman perfection mean little without deeds. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other global humanitarian groups recently expressed criticism over the slated trial of the accused mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Such self-appointed auditors of moral excellence were worried that his legal representation was inadequate. Or perhaps they felt the court of the new Iraqi democracy was not quite up to the standards of wigged European judges in The Hague.

Relay those concerns to the nearly 1 million silent souls butchered by Saddam's dictatorship. Once they waited in vain for any such international human-rights organization to stop the murdering. None could or did. Now these global watchdogs are barking about legalities -- once Saddam is in shackles thanks solely to the American military (which, too, is often criticized by the same utopian-minded groups). The new Iraqi government is sanctioned by vote and attuned to global public opinion. Saddam Hussein was neither. So Amnesty International can safely chastise the former for supposed misdemeanors after it did little concrete about the real felonies of the latter.

We've seen many examples of this in-your-sleep moralizing. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan pronounced from on high that the American effort to remove Saddam was "illegal" -- this after moral paragons in the Security Council like China and France chose not to sanction the enforcement of their own resolutions.

Mr. Annan presided over a callous, scandalous oil-for-food program that starved millions with the connivance of international financial players, among them his own son. Again, it is easier to grandstand on television than curb illicit profits or be firm with a killer in the real world.

Europeans especially demand heaven on earth. The European Union is now pressuring the United States to turn over its exclusive control of the Internet, which it invented and developed, to the United Nations. So far the Americans, so unlike a Saudi Arabia or China, have not blocked users from net access, and freely adjudicate the World Wide Web according to transparent protocols.

That would never be true of the United Nations. If Iran or Zimbabwe were to end up on the Human Rights Commission, then they would be equally qualified to oversee the computers of millions of Americans. The same European elites who nitpick the United States about its sober stewardship of the Internet would be absolutely impotent once a China or Syria began tampering with millions logging on.

We see still more in-your-sleep moralizing when it comes to the topic of global warming. The heating up of the planet -- and the American rejection of the Kyoto Protocol that was supposed to arrest it -- is a keen source of anti-Americanism, especially in Europe. Of course, global warming is a real problem, especially in Arctic regions. China has become the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases next to the U.S., accomplishing in 20 years what took us 100. Yet European governments will not say much to China -- it holds too much Western debt and is a lucrative market. Plus, its generals sometimes crazily talk of sending off nuclear missiles or annexing Taiwan outright.

What do all these recent examples have in common? In the world of utopianism, we see that refined reason, not force, reigns. That may be admirable, but, unfortunately, abstract moralizing has little to do with a real world in which brutes abound.

So instead, to maintain the idealistic facade, sleepwalking moralizers chastise those who listen and are civilized -- but see nothing, hear nothing and speak nothing about those in the moral abyss. Not so long ago, they argued in Brussels over the next EU resolution condemning violence in the Balkans, while Slobodan Milosevic butchered another 10,000 next door.

Then there is the psychological element. When one is fearful and impotent, reassurance is found in processes, resolutions and lectures, both here and abroad -- anything to find conviction that one is at least doing something when in reality doing nothing. So one can scream about a mythical flushed Koran in Guantanamo while silently shrugging that another 50,000 were killed by Islamic fanatics in Darfur.

Americans are easy targets of Kofi Annan, Amnesty International and Europeans. Our military in the shadows alone protects Westernized civilization, which makes these groups' existence both possible and sustainable. Private jets, international finance and global commerce -- the world of the United Nations diplomat, concerned corporate CEO or international celebrity activist -- is a product also of the U.S.-sponsored military-commercial-industrial system. Everyone from Mick Jagger and Bono to Michael Moore and Madonna partake in it and are enriched by it. But such dependency and familiarity with the solicitous parent America apparently can breed contempt .

So Americans increasingly tune out the U.N., Amnesty International and other once-respected bodies like the Nobel Prize Committee. That's unfortunate, given the noble charters of these groups. But for all these agencies' moralizing, they increasingly prove quite immoral themselves.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Messianic madness of nuclear Osama

Heavenly signs, bin Laden's Mahdi complex raise current threat of 'American Hiroshima'
October 23, 2005
By Joseph Farrah© 2005

Signs in the heavens and a popular notion in the Islamic world that Osama bin Laden is the "Mahdi," a long-awaited messianic deliverer, increase this month's risk of mega-terror attacks on the U.S. – including raising the threat of al-Qaida's nuclear "American Hiroshima" plan, says an author and expert in a report released today to WND.

Paul L. Williams, author of "The Al Qaeda Connection" and a former FBI consultant, warns in a report that first appeared in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin terror attacks on the U.S. before Nov. 2 would have special spiritual significance.

"Islamic clerics point out that the signs in the heavens are propitious for such an event," writes Williams. "This year, Muslims will experience solar and lunar eclipses during the holy month. These great heavenly signs, according to Islamic visionary Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Sahib, foretell the coming of the "Mahdi," the mighty warrior of the Apocalypse, who will defeat the army of Yajuj wa-Majuj ("the infidel unbelievers"), led by the Dabbah or "the Beast." He will lead the Muslims to great victory and bring forth the Day of Islam, when all of creation falls before the throne of Allah."

Millions of Muslims worldwide already regard bin Laden as the "Mahdi," say Williams and other analysts of Islam.

"Islamic tradition says that the Mahdi will be a descendant of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima," writes Williams. "He will have a distinctive forehead, a prominent nose, and a black mole on his face. He will arise from Arabia and will be called from a cave by Allah to serve as the savior of all true believers."

Williams points out bin Laden's followers see significance in his high forehead, the prominent nose, the black mole, his origins in Arabia and his calling from a cave in Afghanistan.

"Bin Laden speaks of the president of the United States as Dabbah, the beast he must slay, and of the American people as the Yajuj wa-Majuj, the nation of Gog that he must destroy," reports Williams. "In his edicts and official correspondence, he no longer signs his name as Osama bin Laden but as Osama bin Muhammad bin Laden."

Is bin Laden the "Mahdi"? Many Muslims think so. And these are prophetically significant times for those who believe. A solar eclipse occurred Oct. 3 and a lunar eclipse followed Oct. 17. This is a unique phenomenon that only occurred once before -- during the Ramadan of 1894. At that time, Muslim scholars said that the next occurrence of twin eclipses will signal the appearance of "the divinely guided one" and the end of human history.

"One Muslim, who views bin Laden as the Mahdi, is Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd," explains Williams. "Al Fahd recently issued a religious ruling or fatwa on behalf of the clerics of Saudi Arabia that granted bin Laden and other terrorists the permission to use nuclear weapons against the United States."

In the fatwa, titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction against Infidels," al Fahd ruled that international law should not be taken into consideration while determining if America should be nuked. Islamic law, he says, overrides all man-made laws.

"Al Fahd justifies the mass casualties and destruction that would be caused by the 'American Hiroshima' -- the al Qaida plan to detonate seven tactical nuclear weapons in seven major U.S. cities -- by arguing that an estimate of the number of Muslims killed by Americans would total almost 10 million," writes Williams.

In addition to the Double Occultation of the sun and the moon, many Muslims see other signs that Allah seeks the destruction of the United States, including the devastation wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita....

"Allah has punished America with winds and water," one imam is quoted in the GIS report as saying. Another imam reportedly quipped that America, as evidenced by the natural disasters, is "under the curse of the Jews."
This is an excerpt from an email I received based on Joseph Farrah's G2 Bulletin.
The emphasis being that Mohammedanism is not a peaceful religion, indeed the islamofascists concept of victory is the eradication of America & Israel. Read the recent headlines about the President of Iran pertaining to Israel as verification. For more political articles visit

Friday, October 21, 2005

Democrats or Republicans: The Fight For The Moral Fiber of America

By John R. Houk

There is a vast polarity in the agendas of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Which agenda is truly beneficial to American families? The American Family is the backbone that makes America great. The first American families were people looking for freedom to live in a society that would have moral fiber. These families found strength in Biblical morality. The moral family made for a stronger moral community. The Thirteen Colonies that became the United States of America were populated with families that based their lives on Biblical morality. Even the Deists of the intellectual classes reached out for Biblical morality as a basis for law and order.

Consider quotes on this issue from some of our Founding Fathers:
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” (Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.)
James Madison
Primary promoter of the Constitution (Federalist Papers) and fourth President of the United States of America
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel”. (Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
Thomas Jefferson
Writer and signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States of America
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.” (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)
“I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.” (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)
I could print volumes of quotes on this theme of Christian morality in early America. Nonetheless, I know you get the point. For a society or nation to be good, its goodness must derive Divinely. In America, this means a Judea/Christian derivation. Now comes the shouting from both liberal and conservative politicos: “What about separation of Church and State?”
Let me make this clear! There is absolutely no place in the United States Constitution or in the First Amendment in particular, where words mention directly or indirectly the “separation of Church and State.” The First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Any person with access to an English dictionary is able to interpret this meaning. Congress (i.e. the legislative branch of American government) shall not (i.e. cannot and is not able to) make a law ESTABLISHING a religion (i.e. in American terms, a denominational Church) as the religion that American citizens must worship or support financially. Congress also, shall not (again, cannot and is not able to) prohibit (i.e. forbid or prevent) the free exercise of its citizens of practicing religion. American citizens are thus turned loose to a freedom of religion. Nowhere is there a prohibition of religion in public life – government or non-government – as long as the government does not appear to establish a particular religion. In fact, the Founding Fathers expected religion to be highly influential in government. In fact, the Founding Fathers expected this influential religion to derive from the Judeo/Christian biblical morality.
Now, here is the interesting agenda pertaining to American families and children in the past Democratic Party platform:
“Family is the center of everyday American life. Our parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America's great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.” [Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.27]

In the very same platform, the Democratic Party approves of abortion as a political right of a woman to choose life or death in an unborn child. [Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36] Why? Because a liberal activist Judiciary interpreted Constitutional law based on secular humanism rather than biblical morality.

In the same platform, the Democratic Party approves stem cell research to fight diseases such Alzheimer’s, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, etc. [Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 ]This sounds lofty and moral. The difficulty is this, it is choosing to harvest embryos (i.e. unborn children) for the research. There are several hundred thousand frozen embryos in existence waiting for approval for study. Approval opens Pandora’s Box to harvest more embryos (potential human lives) in exchange protect other lives. Secular Humanism would claim that embryo is nothing but a human organ. Biblical morality claims it is or was to be a human soul.

The Democratic Party platform approves “full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.” [Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 ]

Biblical morality is very specific in Romans 1: 24-28,

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
[NIV Bible]

Leviticus 18: 22, " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20: 13, " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’

Genesis 18: 20 -21, “20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19: 4-5, “4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Genesis 19: 13-13, “12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
[All Old Testament Quotes – NIV]

Secular Humanism dilutes morality by brushing biblical authority off as archaic philosophy. The American Medical Association stand is this: “opposes, the use of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.” [H-160.991 Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population.].

The American Psychological Association stand is this: “The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality.” [Taken from the American Psychological Association statement on homosexuality which was released in July, 1994.]

In 1997 The American Psychological Association has even gone further in their assessment on homosexuality: “On August 14, 1997 the American Psychological Association passed a resolution to restrict psychologists and therapists from engaging in the controversial practice of "conversion" or "reparative" therapy, which attempts to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. The resolution was passed out of concern that some clients are being coerced by family members, employers or church officials to take part in therapies that have not proven to be effective.” [Source:]

The Democratic Party appears to buy into this secular humanistic profession by the AMA and the APA. This imposed secular morality has depreciated American culture. The Democratic Party platform calls for “Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith”. It is evident the faith spoken of is not faith in the God of Judeo/Christianity. The call for strong families guided by faith is deceptively gilded.
The Republican Party strongly leans to re-establishing biblical morality into American culture and society. The past Republican platform recognizes abortion as a vehicle to deny rights to life of an unborn child. This is the central reason President Bush is against stem cell research and the reason he calls for avenues that are more ethical. The Republican platform calls for a “human life Amendment” to give the right to life to unborn children.

The Republican platform supports marriage as a union between a male and a female. The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment that would protect this definition. Specifically, the platform says this: “The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.” [Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85]

The Republican platform recognizes that children are properly nurtured by a male father and female mother. This recognition declares same sex marriages and same sex parenting as an aberration to biblical foundations.

At this point, I have to admit that I do not agree with the entire Republican platform or all of President Bush’s agenda. However, the Republican stand for Christian principles overrides any other disagreement I may have. The Democratic Party agenda is to secularize my America and your America.

Americans wake up to the moral dilution of secular humanism as espoused by the American Democratic Party. If the Democrats insist on judicial activism, my fellow conservatives let us insist on conservative judicial activism. Assuredly, a Democratic president would submit liberal secular humanists to the courts. Furthermore, you would hear no cries of injustice from the liberal left leaning American Media pertaining Democratic Party moral deficient court appointees. The Republicans have won the right via the votes to do the exact same thing the Democrats would seek in a liberal agenda.

The courts have taken prayer out of schools, legalized abortion and most recently has ruled the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Soon the Judiciary will rule it a hate crime for Christian pastors and evangelists to preach from the Bible pertaining to homosexuality or disagreeing with other religions. The Judiciary through the vehicle of the A.C.L.U. has supported true hate crimes such as Nazis parading in Jewish neighborhoods, getting Christians fire from jobs when their employers require homosexual support, require the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuality, and on and on.

Friends this must end. Let us take the fight to the liberal left and the Democratic Party for that matter. It is time to support an Amendment to the Constitution that specifically keeps the government from establishing a particular state religion. However, allow the free exercise of the general Christian heritage of America or at the very least establish a person’s right to pray or practice non-harming faith whenever or wherever one wishes to, without the worry of the persecution of atheists or the singularity of particular religious domination over an other religion.

John R. Houk © October 2005