Thursday, November 30, 2006

Feminist Logic 101: Man = Predator

An online article from The Independent Institute has brought to light the increasing tendency for men, of all ages, shapes, sizes and colors, to be thought of as predators, simply for being men. The article discusses the relatively new policy of many airlines to forbid men from sitting next to an unaccompanied minor on an airplane. Their reasoning behind this is simple. To quote British Airways, "We were responding to a fear of sexual assaults".

There are jobs that men simply don't apply for any more. Jobs like teaching, day care, anything that deals with children. Is it because men don't like kids? Is it because they don't care? Of course not. It's because they're afraid. All a child (or parent) has to say is that their male teacher touched them, and the man's life is over, whether he did anything wrong or not. He could have patted them on the head, it doesn't matter. Even my mother had to stop hugging her 5th grade students because a parent complained. So imagine how much worse it is for men.

Some close friends of mine have had several disturbing experiences like this with their two little girls. Both of them are daddy's girls to the extreme. They will often hold their fathers hands while walking. There have been times when his wife was not around where people would look at him suspiciously or even follow him in a concerned manner as he headed towards his car with his two daughters in tow. He actually had to tell one guy to back off, explaining that these were his own children.

As mentioned in the article, the male paedophile scare isn't even supported by the data. The overwhelming percentage of all child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is committed by parents or caregivers. Abductions make up such a tiny percentage. And an estimated 25% of sexual abuse cases are committed by women. So does that mean that every fourth woman will be forbidden to sit next to a child on an airplane? And for crying out loud, what kind of moron is going to molest a child in such a public location as an airplane? They're surrounded by people, flight attendants are constantly walking up and down the aisle, and quite often the child's parents are somewhere else on the plane. And if they get caught, where are they going to run? As long as parents keep an eye on what their kids are doing, and don't let their daughters dress like sluts, they have very little to worry about. Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not one of those people who thinks that women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped, or that the men who do such things are in any way excused for their actions. But it's a fact of life that women who dress provocatively are much more likely to attract the attention of a predator, and little girls are no different.

The general trend of man-bashing, including the more recent development of scaring men away from the children in their lives, is a result of hyper-feminism. We are constantly being told that all things male are dirty and uncivilized. That men are too violent. That we can't control our sexual impulses. That we need to be feminized. Little boys are often no longer allowed to rough around during recess. They can't wrestle with their friends. They can't play around in the dirt. They get punished for being even the least bit male. They're supposed to be quiet and calm. Even the most well behaved little boy lacks the ability to be quiet and calm for more than 2 minutes. Little girls can be calm. Little boys can't. It's a basic fact of nature. But the feminist agenda to demonize all things male demands that they either calm down, or be sedated, with lithium, Ritalin, or a host of other ADHD medications. In 42 out of our 50 states, public schools can demand that parents drug their child, and it happens more often than you'd think. And almost exclusively to boys.

What do feminists think will happen to society if men stop being men? Or if they are so terrified to get near a child that they refuse to raise their own kids? And what are we teaching our children about the men in their lives? If little boys are afraid to become men, and little girls are afraid to be near men, what are fathers supposed to do? A feminist would tell you that a woman doesn't need a man to help her raise children. That children don't need a father in their lives. That men are merely the sperm donor, completely disposable after conception. Maybe they should just lock us all up in cages where we can't hurt anyone, extracting sperm as needed to continue the species.

I am a man. I am an uncle. I hope some day to be a father. I am a physically affectionate man. I love children. I enjoy playing with and snuggling my nieces and nephews, and I will do the same with my own children. And may God have mercy on anyone who tries to stop me.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

You would have thought Nancy Pelosi wrote it

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has written another letter, this time addressed to the American people in general. I urge you to read it before continuing to read this post. Go ahead, I'll wait..... Done? Good. Now let's dissect it like a specimen of verminous rodentia.

One of the more baffling things that is repeated several times throughout this letter is the assertion that the Iranian government shares America's commitment to truth, justice, and freedom. Just his stance on Israel disproves this all by itself. He denies the TRUTH of the holocaust, he believes Israel's efforts to defend itself from Palestinian attacks are UNJUST, and he sees Israel's little pocket of FREEDOM in the Middle East as a threat to be exterminated. So, what else did he lie about in this letter? Just about everything. Iran does not share our commitment to any of the values listed in this letter. This man truly is a modern-day Hitler.

It's not hard to notice that this letter seems like it could have been written by just about any Democrat in office right now. I think Ahmadinejad's writers must have spent some time browsing through MoveOn.org. Bush's war is illegal and immoral, Israel goes out of its way to target civilian Palestinians, evil Bush, evil Zionists, blah blah blah. He says that everyone hates terrorists. What he means is everyone hates Jews and Republicans. He tells the Democrats that now they have the power and the responsibility to use their new majority in Congress to make real peace in the world. And yet, just like the Democrats, he offers no suggestions on how to do that. Just like the Democrats, all he does say is that President Bush is doing it wrong.

Now, I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics liberals have to go through to hate Christians AND ignore all the references to God, and America being a God-fearing nation in this letter. Because apparently believing in God is okay, as long as you're not Christian or Jewish. Muslims who believe in God aren't labeled by liberals as intolerant, ignorant, irrational, like Christians are. They aren't accused of vast international conspiracies, like Jews are. Any time they're offered the chance, liberals are always more than happy to show us the completely backwards universe in which they live.

This letter was targeted not at the American people in general, but specifically at liberals. This letter was carefully designed to win support from the Democratic party and the leftist scum that supports it. And there's no doubt that it's working in many cases. The link to the letter is accompanied by some reader responses. Here are some of the more telling comments, unedited, from both sides of the spectrum:

I would say he's hypocrite. His govt's religous intolerance, opression of women, opression of free press and free speech and HIS many, many statments regarding violence (wipe Israel off the face of the earth, etc) hardly qualfies him or leaves ANY room to talk or to criticize another government!
— Jason Spears, Dallas

Dear Ahmadinejad, Thanks you for the letter that undoubtedly summarizes the feelings of most Americans. I, for one, hope that your message can help bring peace and stability to a region torn by War since the beginning of time.
— Brian, Chicago

Bravo! What are you doing from 2008 to 2012?
— Anonymous

Obviously the war on Terror is having the correct affect on Iran. . . . If they want the Democrats in power then what does that say about the policies of the Democratic Party.
— Brad, Winnie, Texas

It seems that the social polarization is well on its way. The majority of the reader responses either praise Ahmadinejad unabashedly, or call him a liar. There are very few that fall somewhere inbetween. But this letter will have much of its desired affect. The leftists now have even more love for terrorists and even more hate for President Bush. They will use this letter as ammunition, claiming that it proves Iran is not a threat. And they'll make it even harder for the president to do his job by making it look like he's opposed to peaceful dialog. Because they really believe everything that monster said. Only a child would be fooled by this letter, and yet look at how many liberals are falling for it.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Honor among psychopaths

A news broadcast, now posted on NewsOK.com, has reported a disturbing example of one of the problems with Islam. A Muslim man in Tulsa Oklahoma named Jamal Miftah decided he had finally had enough after seeing yet another Al Qaeda video calling for jihad. He wrote a column, published in the Tulsa World on October 29, describing his anger and sadness over what people like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden have done in the name of Islam. There's a copy of it here, accompanying a blog on westernresistance.com that discusses the incident. Mr. Miftah calls these terrorists what they are, cowards and criminals, and berates them for taking advantage of Muslim youth for their heinous acts of violence. He begs Muslims around the world to take back their religion and earn back the right to claim it as a religion of peace. You would think that the other members of his mosque would receive this column with praise, and relief that someone had finally said it. That's assuming of course that any of them actually agreed with him.

Apparently they don't. They accused him of betraying his faith and told him that he is no longer welcome at the mosque. They even threatened him. He was told that the only way he would be allowed back is by retracting his column and apologizing for insulting fellow Muslims. And thus we are brought to one of the most fundamental problems with Islam. Their warped concept of honor.

The aforementioned blog on this topic informed me of something I was not previously aware of. Muslims have a concept called takfeer. Takfeer is the act of condemning the actions or beliefs of another Muslim, and it is not taken lightly. Only senior clerics are permitted to do so. They are taught that a Muslim who criticizes another Muslim in front of non-believers will be punished for it on the day of judgement. This is one of the reasons that so many Muslims may be afraid to denounce terrorists. It's not so much that they're afraid of being targeted by them, though they probably are. They are afraid of dishonoring their religion and being made to pay for it after death. That's why so many Muslims will say that they condemn acts of terrorism, or groups like Al Qaeda, but never mention any of the perpetrators by name. It's why some Muslims who may in fact be horrified by the senseless violence committed in the name of Islam will still describe Osama bin Laden as a good Muslim.

This concept of takfeer meshes rather seamlessly with other Islamic ideas about honor. The Pope cited a long dead emperor's quote describing Islam as a violent and irrational religion, and Muslims around the world immediately proved him right by rioting, burning churches, killing westerners and Christians, and chanting about the impending destruction of the infidels. The reason they reacted like this is because the Muslim sense of honor demands revenge for any insult. "How dare you call us violent, we'll kill you for that!" The controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad with a bomb in his turban sparked similar reactions. Revenge killings are still commonplace in most Islamic countries, and the authorities turn a blind eye. Someone insults the honor of another, and the entire clan of the offended party will raid the home of the person who insulted their kin. I recall reading about one such incident in Iraq where all the men in the house were shot, all the boys were hanged, and then all the women and even a girl as young as 8 years old were gang raped. Why? Because it was the honorable thing to do. There's an article on FrontPageMagazine.com that provides chilling examples of gang rape being a sanctioned and legally protected method of punishment for young women and even prepubescent girls who are found guilty of dishonoring their family. Even in European countries Muslims and their entire families have been murdered after doing something that offended the local Muslim community. I pray such a thing does not happen to Mr. Miftah and his family.

Christianity is a religion based on the pursuit of truth and goodness. Embarrassment or saving face doesn't factor into it. If a Christian does something horrible, Christians are the first to condemn them. By name. Christian radicals that have bombed abortion clinics are shunned by the rest of their faith, as their community apologizes for the behavior of one of its own. Islam is much more concerned with looking good than actually being good. It doesn't matter if what your fellow Muslims are doing is despicable, you support them because they're Muslim. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they get along so well with liberals.

Mr. Miftah is a courageous man. Unfortunately he also seems to be one in a million Muslims who loves truth more than honor. Even if the vast majority of Muslims disagree with the radicals of their faith (and I'm not convinced they do), even if they're horrified by the bombings and the executions, even if they want it to stop, the fact that they refuse to actually do or even say anything about it calls into question where their loyalties really lie. If it came down to a choice between supporting or even joining Muslim radicals, or siding with America to put down the vile beasts threatening the rest of humanity, which would they choose? If we get close to crushing radical Islam, or if we are again forced to invade or even destroy an Islamic nation, will the "moderate" Muslims still be on our side? If they can't even insult a fellow Muslim, how can we expect them to sit quietly while we exterminate the darker side of their religion? I think we should be prepared for the distinct possibility of Muslims rising up en masse to blindly "defend" their faith.

On a side note, I went to the website of Tulsa World, the paper that originally published Mr. Miftah's column. All that remains is one reader comment on the column. The link to it now leads to an expired page. The column is nowhere to be found on the entire site. It's not even in the archives. I'm curious to know the exact reasons for the removal of the column.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Step 1: Castrate America. Step 2: Mock its impotence

Are liberals really surprised at the trouble we are having in the war on terror? After all, they worked so hard to cause it, you'd think they would at least take some credit. They've spent so much time and effort trying to castrate this great nation and its leaders, and now they're complaining about our inability to perform.

Earlier this month, The American Prospect featured an article doing just that. In it the author points to our relative lack of progress in the war on terror as evidence of President Bush's incompetence and flawed policies. What he fails to acknowledge is the fact that the seeds of destruction liberals have been cultivating so carefully are finally starting to bear their bitter fruit. He cites the deteriorating situations in Iraq, Iran and North Korea as examples of how our nation's power and status have been squandered and diluted, while making no mention of the vigorous campaign to do exactly that.

Conservatives are more aware than anyone of the dismal state the war on terror is in. It's hard not to notice when everything you work toward is systematically sabotaged. The President has been thwarted at every turn in his efforts to wage this war in a fashion that might actually secure a victory. From the media's shameless and treasonous leaks of sensitive and even classified information to the open support for and fraternization with high profile individuals who would like nothing more than to see this great nation burn, the left has done everything it can think of to derail our efforts in this war.

So let's take these examples one at a time, shall we? Iraq is a mess. Their fledgling democratic government seems unwilling to do anything that might eventually ween them off the teet of American support. The Sunnis and Shiites are hell-bent on destroying one another. The police have been infiltrated by terrorist organizations. And our own troops are being charged with war crimes for doing their job. So what do liberals expect to happen when our military is told that they don't have permission to conduct actual military operations, and if they do they'll be court martialled? Do they expect morale to improve? Do they expect to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies? I'm amazed at the courage of our troops that they aren't afraid to fire their weapons for fear that they'll go to jail. The leftist media spend all their time plastering pictures of dead civilians all over prime time, trying to convince us that as many as 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of American military actions, even though the Iraqis themselves say it's not true. They lie about the conduct of our people in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and spread the enemy's own propaganda about our troops storming into people's houses and raping the women, killing the men, and kidnapping the children, and they wonder why Islamic radicals are streaming into Iraq to fight the evil crusaders. They claim that our mere presence there is what causes and fuels the conflict. I suppose their gas on the fire didn't have much to do with it.

Iran grows bolder by the day. They openly mock the U.N.'s efforts to curb their nuclear ambitions, and are anything but shy about their commitment to the extermination of Israel. Their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continually expresses his support for evil regimes, such as North Korea, Venezuela, and offers safe harbor for Islamic terrorist organizations. And what reason, if any, have we given him to be afraid of the consequences of his actions? Even denouncing him, or making veiled threats, or attempting to get the world community to at least express its displeasure results in venom and ridicule from the liberals. How dare we treat a sovereign nation like that! How dare we threaten a democratically elected leader! Who does Bush think he is, the president or something? The liberals try to turn every suggestion of sanctions or condemnations into an indication that the president is going to carpet bomb every daycare center in Tehran. Every time he tries to bare his teeth at the rabid animal in charge of Iran, the liberals punch him in the mouth and accuse him of being a racist imperialist. And as everyone knows, the worst thing to do with a rabid animal is to show weakness.

North Korea recently tested a nuclear device. They said they were going to. They even told us when and where. Did anyone try to stop them? Oh, please don't, we'll be upset if you do.......... hey, we might even write you a really nasty letter. Well, maybe not, we don't want to provoke you into anything extreme, like testing a nuke.....wait.... Kim Jong-il probably isn't stupid enough to actually attack someone with a nuclear weapon, but he might just be crazy enough. Not to mention the fact that he has already talked to Iran about selling them one. But vaporizing some poor unsuspecting city probably isn't his real goal. He knows from past dealings with the Clinton administration that America can be bullied into handing over hundreds of millions of dollars in food, oil, and cold hard cash in an effort to appease him. We even gave the psycho a nuclear reactor! And he's counting on that trick working again and again. Because even if he's not willing to fire a nuke at someone, everyone knows that Iran is. So all he has to do is threaten to sell his shiny new nukes to Iran, and the leftists in the west will cave, just like they always do. And in the mean time, he's free to continue abusing his citizens like a cruel child with an ant farm. After all, who's going to stop him?

The liberals complaining about the president's failed policies is like someone drilling a hole in a barrel and then complaining that it won't hold water. They've done everything in their power to assure that everything Republicans try to do will fail, and now that they've actually succeeded they insist on punishing the very people they've sabotaged. If you break a horse's leg, you can't whip it for not winning the race.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

A snapshot of American liberalism

Want a quick glimpe of what American liberals really think? Here are some samples from various liberal blogs and news sources:

In response to a blog post suggesting that liberals should shut down the government:
"We either do it now, while we can still communicate on the Internet, or wait until its too late, when all the Haliburton detention camps are constructed, when Bush has invaded Iran and a wave of flag-waving fascists descends upon all those who disagree."

In response to a blog post about Congressman Charles Rangel's defense of President Bush after being insulted by Hugo Chavez:
"What is U.S. Congressman Charles Rangél doing? Is he betraying the Democratic Party? He's bashing Hugo Chavez and defending Bush. It is very disturbing and alarming to see a Democrat, especially a monority, to critize an international Hispanic leader and ally by expressing sympathy for Bush and his racist Republicans. Has Mr. Rangél gone loco? Has he turned into a rogue Democrat? Is he a traitor? Hopefully Mr. Rangél has an ulterior motive. But as Democrats we must be careful not to create the slightest impression that our strong united coalition has a crack in it. I consider all minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics of course, Muslims, American Indians and all to be my brothers in the cause of solidarity). We must remain united. Solidarity is the key to victory. We do not need dissent."

A segment of a blog post detailing what liberals want Democrats to do with their new majority in Congress. This portion accuses the Bush administration of suppressing freedom of speech:
"Our first amendment has taken a terrific beating under the Bush presidency. Americans who wish to protest against their government are restricted to 'first amendment zones', with the obvious purpose of impeding the opportunity for other American citizens to hear them. The Bush administration routinely denies White House access to journalists who report what the administration wishes to suppress. They sponsor propaganda disguised as genuine news. And they even threaten to and actually jail reporters who report information that they don’t approve of. To compound these presidential actions, our national news media has largely become a tool of the wealthy, replacing the independent news media..."

From an opinion piece on LATimes.com, saying that there are no other more feasible options:
"So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power. Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale."

From an opinion piece in the Progressive Daily Beacon on America's rapidly polarizing society:
"How America became polarized is simple. More than thirty years ago, the Republican Party set out on a mission to divide the country. Early on they used race-based wedge issues to make inroads into the South. Come to think of it, if the recent senate campaign in Tennessee is any indication, that whole race-based wedge issue trick remains a vital and vibrant part of today's Republican electoral strategy. When pitting Anglo-American against African-American finally failed to get the big results, Republicans turned to the so-called social issues. They rode abortion for all it was worth. Then the Republicans simply declared war. They call it a 'culture war,' but for them it is a very real war. In some cases, regarding doctors that provide abortions, the Republican war has become a shooting war...and at abortion clinics, a bombing war."

These are their own words, spelling errors and all, modified in no way. I encourage you to click on the links and read these posts and articles in their entirety. Look at some of the reader comments as well, they're terrifying.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Discrimination for the sake of diversity....?

Apparently the left no longer believes in equal protection under the law. At least that's how it would appear, since now it seems to be an unforgivable breach of liberal diversity dogma for a law firm to even represent a client in a case against afirmitive action practices. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, a Minneapolis law firm has been excluded from an effort to increase the ethnic diversity of the legal practice in Minnesota, simply for representing three University of Michigan applicants in a case that challenged the university's race-based admissions practices. The Twin Cities Diversity in Practice group claims that allowing such a firm to participate in their diversity efforts would "hinder" their mission.

This means that the left believes two very disturbing things. First, they believe that only minorities deserve legal council in cases of discrimination, or that non-minorities shouldn't even be making discrimination claims, and second, they believe that anyone that helps them do so should be labeled as racist. Please note in the article that one of the lawyers responsible for the decision to reject the firm in question said that minority law students often associate the Maslon firm with its role in the affirmative action suit. So what? Do they feel threatened somehow? Do they think they can't get into law school without special treatment? Because if they do, THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN LAW SCHOOL!!!

It amazes me that many minorities don't seem to realize that being told by the left that they aren't good enough to accomplish things on their own is a horribly racist insult. If someone told me that being white meant that I was too stupid to get into college on my own merit, I would be hard pressed not to punch them in the face! Some of the early efforts to end discrimination in schools and business were admirable. They simply attempted to prevent qualified minorities from being excluded based on their race. But it quickly snowballed from there, and as laws were passed and policies were drafted, it quickly became standard operating procedure to give favorable treatment to minorities, going so far as giving them bonus points on college entrance exams, and overlooking academic or workplace disciplinary actions on their records. It has now gotten to the point where schools and businesses are hiring disproportionate numbers of minorities in an effort to appease the now bastardized civil rights organizations. This should infuriate everyone of every ethnicity. They're telling us that if minorities are too stupid to do it on their own, and if they're still to stupid to do it with help, then they'll just start knocking the whites down a couple of pegs to make minorities LOOK better by comparison. If that doesn't piss you off, then there's something wrong with you.

Artificially warping society to fit some half-baked idea on what the ethnic spectrum should look like isn't going to change anything. This is another example of the liberal tendency to try and make something appear as if it's improving, rather than actually trying to improve it. It's far easier to bring the standard down than it is to elevate the population. But the left simply doesn't tolerate anyone pointing that out. And if you do point it out, or if you try to do something about it, suddenly you no longer qualify for "inclusion".

Compassion

I actually wrote this piece about a year ago, but I thought it would make a good addition to this blog. It's kinda long, but I hope you enjoy it.

The subject of compassion is one that I learned a lot about working in a hospital. I was a phlebotomist at a university hospital in southern California for three years, working in the lab and collecting blood samples from the patients upstairs and in the ER, before I decided to go back to school and get my degree in programming. Before that, I worked in a veterinary office, assisting the doctor with the animals. Healthcare, both human and otherwise, is a field not to be attempted by those with weak stomachs. I saw some truly horrible things, things I didn’t want to see, but I’m glad I did. Some things can only be learned the hard way.

At the animal hospital I saw dogs that had literally been neglected to death. I saw cats with lead pellets in them. I saw two mangled pit bulls which, despite what one would have guessed, were the sweetest animals, even after being made to fight other dogs to the death. I saw a woman who had made her dog desperately ill, and kept it that way, just to get drugs for herself. During my time there, I assisted in so many euthanasias of dying animals that I lost count. It was heartbreaking, but some of those animals were in such agony that it was admittedly a relief to see them relax, fall asleep, and stop breathing.

At the human hospital I saw a toddler with a serious concussion, a cracked rib, a broken leg, and a sprained arm, all caused by a violent father. I saw car accident victims teetering on the edge of death. I saw a white supremacist with six bullet wounds to the chest and back, who was somehow still alive, if only barely. I saw cancer patients fighting their disease valiantly, and others who had given up. It was always the kids that got to me the most.

My first experience with a pediatric patient was when I was still in training. Myself and two other students had gone upstairs with one of the veterans. She was very good at her job, and we learned a lot from her. She asked us if we were up to helping with a little kid. We said sure. It was a little girl, four years old, cute little thing, and they were still trying to figure out what was wrong with her. She had had fifteen blood draws in less than two days, and she was not happy to see us. Neither was her poor mother. I felt so sorry for that woman. She looked like she wanted to hit someone, but she agreed to let us do our job. She went downstairs, not trusting herself to be in the same room while we made her daughter cry.

It’s amazing how strong a sick child can be. We three students held her down, wrapped in a sheet, while the old pro stuck her with the needle. The fear and pain in that little girl’s screams were almost unbearable. It was clear that she didn’t understand why we were hurting her when she already felt terrible, and why her mother wasn’t stopping us, and we couldn’t explain it to her. I had never experienced anything like it before, and it shook me to my soul. Later that day, while talking to my mother about it, I broke down and cried, trying to explain what it was like. She has had lots of experience with small children, since she was a public school teacher for sixteen years. She told me that the height of compassion is doing what is truly in someone else’s best interest, even if they don’t agree. This applies especially to children. I already understood this on an intellectual level, but I was emotionally unprepared for such a dramatic example as that little girl.

During the rest of my training to become a phlebotomist I had several more experiences with children that tested my own sense of compassion. I would often think back to that little girl, and I finally managed to convince myself emotionally that I was doing the right thing by collecting blood from emphatically opposed children. I decided that I could help them the most by becoming as skilled as possible in my job, so as to make the process as fast and efficient as I could, thus reducing the trauma to the child. I started volunteering for all the pediatric draws I could get, and sure enough, I became exceptionally good at drawing from children, even babies. Nurses on the pediatric units would ask for me by name. I even got pretty good at reassuring the kids, convincing the ones that were old enough that it would only hurt a little bit for just a second, and then it would be over.

Of course, not all of them could be so easily soothed. Most of the time it was several nurses holding the kid down while I got in and out as fast as possible. But there were a number of times when either a parent, or even a nurse, would be upset that we were going so fast, and they would want to slow down and try to calm the child. What they didn’t seem to realize was that the longer we stood there trying to get the kid to relax, the more riled up they would get, and the more afraid they would become, and the more afraid they would be next time. Anticipation of imminent pain is not something that children are good at dealing with. I would try to explain this, and suggest that the faster we got it over with, the sooner the kid could calm down for real, and get some rest. If that meant hogtying the kid and piling nurses on them to give me a steady target, so be it. Sometimes they listened, and sometimes they didn’t.

Then there were the parents that would refuse to let us draw the child’s blood. I watched doctors and nurses beg and plead with parents, trying to explain that they couldn’t properly treat the child without the blood test results. The parents were understandably distraught, but they seemed more concerned with not upsetting the child than with the child’s eventual recovery.

Over the past two years or so, I have come to the conclusion that there are two types of compassion. Blind compassion, and enlightened compassion. Blind compassion is the parent refusing the blood draw for fear of making their child cry again. Blind compassion is the nurse who wants to delicately and gently draw the kids blood while the poor kid screams their head off and hyperventilates for twenty minutes. It comes in other forms as well.

There are far more good intentioned people on this planet than malicious people. The fact that civilization can exist at all is proof of this. And many of these people do what they can to help others. But there is a serious problem in the way many of these people think about their assistance to others. There are many people who believe that poverty can be solved simply by throwing more money into the welfare system. There are people that believe that the horrible suffering in many parts of Africa can be solved if only powerful nations like ours would give a few more billion dollars to the governments of desperate countries. As if all those people are missing is money. It has become politically incorrect to even discuss the real reasons behind human suffering, such as lack of education, corrupt dictators, and loss of basic moral values.

My younger sister had an experience in college that illustrates blind compassion very effectively. In a social sciences class she had, the class was discussing world hunger. There was a young man who worked himself up into a full blown rant, berating the U.S. government for allowing people in other countries to go hungry. He couldn’t understand what was so hard about simply taking a huge load of food over to a needy area and giving it to the people. My sister, being the thoughtful and rational person that she is, interrupted his tirade in order to explain to him the immense logistics that go into moving that much food that far, including the legal and diplomatic difficulties often encountered. As if he hadn’t even heard her explanation, the young man wanted to know what was preventing someone from simply taking a crate of Ramen Noodles (yes, he said Ramen Noodles), getting on a plane, flying to a third world country, and giving the noodles to some starving family. My sister tried to explain what a colossally inefficient use of philanthropic money that was, and how unlikely it was that the third world country of his choice would even let him through customs with a crate of food, and that it was far more likely that they would simply confiscate it, and send him packing. She then gave examples of how even well established and reasonably well funded professional charity organizations, like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army and the Peace Corps, have trouble getting into some places. And once they do get in, they often need military escorts to protect them from a variety of threats. The passionate young man in her class then suggested that we could simply give all the food to the government of the target country, since they would be better able to distribute it where it was needed most. My sister replied that the food would most likely never reach the starving citizens, and would instead be given to the military, or sold. The young man had no coherent response to this, and simply refused to believe that it was that hard.

This way of thinking has become all too common in this country, particularly amongst the Liberal population. Born of the hippie movement, which thought that love and peace would solve all the world’s problems, the idea that material and financial charity is enough has rooted itself firmly in the ideology of the political left. As if love and peace can be pulled out of thin air and spread around the world with a wish and a song.

People who subscribe to these ideas are still under the delusion that “war never solves anything”. Tell that to the Jews. They are under the delusion that if we all just kiss and make up, then everyone will play nice and peace will prevail. Tell that to the Islamic terrorists. Liberals honestly believe that it is morally wrong to invade a country in order to liberate its oppressed citizens. They seem to lack one very crucial piece of understanding. There is real evil in this world, and it won’t play nice no matter how politely we ask it to.

Their warped understanding of true evil has been illustrated by the common use among Liberals of the terms “holocaust” and “Hitler”. They attempt to equate situations they find distasteful and the people involved in trying to make the best of a bad situation to one of the most blatant and clear cut examples of true evil in the history of humanity. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are evil people actively trying to prevent peace and love, who will run rampant unless checked by people willing to do the right thing by fighting them, no matter how distasteful it may be.

A perfect example of this mentality is the Liberal opposition to the current war in Iraq. They believe that the only reason our forces are encountering any resistance at all is that their mere presence there has provoked it. That our enemies are blowing up police stations and school busses because they fear a loss of independence at the hands of Westerners. They have deluded themselves into believing that withdrawing American troops will quell the fears of the insurgent forces and convince them to stop fighting. They simply will not accept the fact that these people do not want Iraq to be free. That the enemy is committed to maintaining the status quo in the area of fear and oppression, and that withdrawing our troops will leave nothing to stop them from doing just that.

Liberals simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that there are evil people who want to do evil things. And when they are confronted by an undeniable example of this unpleasant fact they attempt to explain it in other ways. They say that the terrorists are merely trying to preserve their own culture, and they don’t understand that we are trying to help them. They say that we need to try to understand how they must feel, and that with enough understanding and compassion, we can convince them that we are not their enemies. Even after captured terrorists have gleefully exclaimed their commitment to the extermination of America, and described how the children of the infidels shall burn in the fire of Allah’s wrath, the Liberals remain incapable of understanding that these people are evil.

Now, it’s important that we understand something else. It’s true that not all people who do evil things are themselves truly evil. There were Nazis who had been so brainwashed that they honestly believed that the extermination of the Jews was necessary for the future of the master race, and these people had been poisoned to believe that they were doing the right thing. The same is probably true for many Islamic terrorists. They have been poisoned since birth to believe that the infidels must die, and that they must accomplish this by any and all means necessary, because this is what Allah commands. But behind the people who lacked the ability to see through the poison are the people who are the source of that poison. And these people are truly evil. They understand exactly what they are doing, and they do it anyway. They relish the pain and suffering of other people, and no amount of counseling or therapy will change them. These are the Hitlers and the Bin Ladens who mastermind tremendous acts of pure evil like the holocaust and the September 11th attacks on America. Unfortunately, the pathetic souls that they get to carry out these evils are so poisoned that they are beyond any hope of recovery. They cannot be changed, and they will fight to the death, regardless of anything we try to do to help them. I pray that God has mercy on such people.

But I have strayed from my original topic. Liberals believe that the compassionate thing to do would be to withdraw our troops from Iraq, to avoid exposing the Iraqi people to more warfare. This is blind compassion. War bad. Peace good. This is the extent of the Liberal understanding on the subject.

The Conservative view is that war, when properly executed, is like surgery, and occupation is like physical therapy. There was a cancer in Nazi Germany, and it metastasized into the rest of Europe. Allied forces eliminated the cancer much like chemotherapy does. Chemotherapy is not gentle on the patient’s body. It’s toxic. Fortunately, it’s a little more toxic to the cancer than it is to the patient. The idea is to use chemotherapy and radiation, and sometimes surgery, to kill the cancer before killing the patient. Justified war attempts to eliminate evil while causing as little collateral damage as possible. Expecting zero collateral damage is as unreasonable and impossible as expecting cancer treatment to be gentle on the patient. Once the cancer is in remission, physical therapy attempts to help the patient to recover, to build their body back up to a healthy state. A military occupation attempts to do the same thing. Our forces in Iraq are trying to support that country and its people while they rebuild their homeland. The cancer that was there left it terribly weak and unable to support itself alone. Without therapy, it will decay back into what it was, or worse. The cancer may come out of remission, or a new disease may take hold. Pulling our forces out of Iraq prematurely is morally comparable to discontinuing a patient’s treatment because it’s uncomfortable, but on a much larger scale. Unfortunately for Iraq, it looks as if the cancer is either coming out of remission on its own, or it went deeper than we thought in the first place.

Enlightened compassion is realizing when a painful or difficult solution is the right one, and acting on it, regardless of the discomfort. This is similar to my father’s definition of courage. He says that courage is doing what’s right, even if it’s hard, or scary, or painful. Enlightened compassion is the same thing. And it takes tremendous courage to have enlightened compassion, because some problems are not easy to fix.

Poverty is not merely the lack of material or financial resources. Poverty is the end result of many factors. A lack of education leads to a poor selection of professions, which results in low income. A lack of education also results in a poor understanding of family dynamics which, when combined with low income, results in poorly raised and undernourished children. Moral standards begin to collapse as an environment of crime, exacerbated by poor education, and hopelessness invades the minds of these children. They grow up with a victim’s mentality. Their home life and nutritional standards contribute to poor performance in school, in addition to decreased cultural value placed on education. This is a repeating cycle, which inevitably results in a subculture that places no value on education, has terrible moral standards, and has itself convinced that there is no hope of changing their situation.

Throwing money at real poverty does more harm than good, for several reasons. First, poverty-stricken people don’t have the financial skills or discipline to handle large amounts of money. For example, look at the number of poor people who win the lottery, only to declare bankruptcy in less than a year. Second, giving handouts, while appearing generous, has the side effect of making the recipient feel resentful and entitled at the same time. The more you give them, the more ashamed they become, and as soon as you stop giving it to them, they feel you are denying them what they deserve. Third, money without the ability to make more creates dependency. If someone gets so accustomed to a welfare check that they go generations without educating themselves, they will become totally unable to survive without welfare. And last but not least, it is impossible to raise everyone above the poverty line with welfare. There simply isn’t enough money in the world. They will still be poor, but now they expect you to somehow drag them out of poverty, convinced that you’re holding out on them.

Before you can help the poor, you need to help them change their attitude and behavior. Education is the most important factor in alleviating poverty. They must learn how to support themselves and their family, and their children must learn to value education. Adults can learn trade skills relatively quickly, and begin supporting their families. Children will learn if you give them the means to do so and encourage their efforts. The hardest part is breaking people out of that victim’s mentality.

Unfortunately the political left has far too many people convinced that this would be the wrong thing to do. They believe that the compassionate thing to do is to give them that extra money, and tell them their situation isn’t their fault. Liberals seem bent on reinforcing the victims mentality of the poor and minority groups, which are far too often one and the same. This has led me to the conclusion that Liberals are morally lazy. They are far more concerned with appearing to be doing the right thing than actually doing the right thing. They want their caring and concern to be acknowledged by others so that they can feel better about themselves. They institute social policies that do nothing but reinforce the social problems, but convince themselves that they are doing the compassionate thing. Problems with schools? Here’s some more money. Look, we gave the schools billions of dollars, see how compassionate we are? Students are still having problems, even after all that money? It must be that they are being discriminated against, so we’ll alter the testing criteria to make them pass. Now they’re getting better scores, see how compassionate we are? People in Africa are dying at a horrific rate from AIDS? Let’s send the corrupt governments of the African countries a gigantic check and ask them to use it to help their people. See how compassionate we are? What, they didn’t use it to help their people? We’ll just send them another check and explain to them how important it is to use the money to help their people. See how compassionate we are? Someone is going to be executed? He raped and murdered five school children? Well that doesn’t give us the right to murder him in return, so we’ll do everything in our power to stop the execution, because even psychopaths deserve compassion. I’m sure with the proper counseling he could be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society again. He’s only been out of jail for a month, and already he’s raped and murdered another eight year old? Okay, maybe he really should be removed from society, but we still can’t kill him. After all, psychopaths are people too. See how compassionate we are?

Liberals have managed to delude themselves into believing that difficult problems can be solved easily because they don’t have the stomach for doing the right thing. Poor people need money, so we’ll give them money. Violence to fight violence is just more violence, so we’ll just try to negotiate while a dictator slaughters his own people and makes empty promises. They want to feel like they’ve done the right thing, so they brainwash themselves into believing that whichever “solution” is the easiest must be the right one. And they call it compassion.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Is nothing sacred to these people?

I love the Harry Potter books. I think they're great. Not only are they wonderful lessons for children about the nature of good and evil, they're just wonderful stories with wonderful and convincing characters. I can't wait for the seventh book to come out, and I'm looking forward to the rest of the movies as well. So let's thank God that, even though J.K. Rowling is somewhat liberal, she's a good woman, and she's not a moron. She will never include THIS in her books.

Is there anything these people don't try to stick their grimy little fingers into? It's bad enough that some schools in California have been required to use history text books describing the supposedly numerous contributions people of "alternate gender lifestyles" have made to society throughout history, and encouraged to read books to kindergartners about two princes falling in love and getting married. Now they want Hogwarts to put sex education into their curriculum? What, should the kids learn how to cast a birth control spell? For crying out loud, they can't even stand FICTIONAL worlds being even the least bit wholesome! I'm surprised they didn't try to edit Lord of the Rings to include a gay love scene between Merry and Pipin. I guess historical revisionism wasn't good enough, they want literary revisionism too. I pray these people never gain enough power to force good people like J.K. Rowling to insert trash like this into their books.

Social courage in its purest form

Boston University's College Republicans are attempting to institute a "Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship". Their reason for this is not to encourage white supremacy. It's not to give white kids an unfair advantage. It's to protest and draw more public attention to the ethnic preference trends in education and business. There are countless scholarships whose only qualification for application is the color of one's skin. But not a single one accepts white students. There are countless scholarships for people of "alternate sexual lifestyles", but not a single one for normal heterosexual kids. There are even scholarships for the children of illegal aliens! There are a number of Christian scholarships, but most only apply to actual Christian universities. And those scholarships (and universities) are under attack.

When I went to college, I didn't qualify for any scholarships. I got a few standard government grants, and the rest was paid for with private loans and out of pocket. Mostly my parent's pockets, God bless them. My younger sister pointed out to me the fact that if I was a young unmarried black lesbian Muslim woman with a criminal record, who had three illegitimate children, was hooked on drugs and had been sexually abused as a child, I would qualify for enough scholarship money to put myself through college TWICE!

This brave attempt to shed light on the anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual inequality that is promoted and protected by the political left is going to encounter fierce opposition, and most likely the scholarship will never be formed. But hopefully its core mission of revealing racism in compassion's clothing will be successful. These brave people are putting their careers and academic futures on the line to do what they know is right, and I pray that none of them are made to suffer for it.

Political correctness, or moral cowardice?

The political left has been waging a war against real freedom of speech for decades. They like to claim that they advocate freedom of speech in all its forms, and yet whenever someone says something they don't like, they fall all over themselves to suppress it and discredit it. One of their favorite tactics is the concept of political correctness, the idea that anything distasteful or potentially inflammatory should be sugar-coated or suppressed altogether in order to avoid offending the delicate sensitivities of moral cowards. They refuse to use the term "illegal aliens" for fear of upsetting criminals that are invading this country by the millions. They cringe at the term "Islamo-fascist" because they don't want to provoke the nice, peace-loving Muslims into even more acts of heinous violence. As if they need provoking.

A recent example of the leftist assault on freedom of speech is the campaign to get the Bible classified as hate speech. Canada's leftists have already succeeded in making it a crime for Christian clergy to tell their congregations that homosexual behavior is a sin. Several Canadian pastors have been arrested and jailed for daring to say it anyway. This same law prevents people from saying anything derogatory about Islam in public. At least one Canadian man has been arrested and convicted on "hate speech" charges for daring to say that Muslims posed a threat to Canada. Sweden has similar laws, and several people have been arrested and convicted. And yet, both countries, and the United States, have countless groups and publications dedicated to the slandering and vilification of Christianity.

I also find it perplexing that the Koran has not been classified as hate speech, considering the fact that it details the graphically violent and gruesome punishments Muslims should impose on homosexuals. The Bible does indeed classify homosexual behavior, not homosexual inclination, as a sin, but makes no recommendations of any punishments for it. It also classifies petty theft as a sin, but doesn't say people who shoplift should have their hands chopped off. That's because Christianity recognizes that there are degrees of sin. Homosexual behavior is NOT an unforgivable sin by Christian standards (real Christian standards, not the standards of that psycho and his ilk at the Westboro Baptist Church), it does not irrevocably damn someone, and it does not make someone a bad person. But it is something to be discouraged.

A new trend is developing out of the moral cowardice of political correctness. The thugs of the world are now using the guise of political correctness to literally stifle the process of trying to punish nations guilty of human rights violations. The U.N. has voted to discourage the condemnation and sanctioning of states for human rights violations. Here's an excerpt from an article in the International Herald Tribune:

Its key provision "stresses the need to avoid politically motivated and biased country-specific resolutions on the situation of human rights, confrontational approaches, exploitation of human rights for political purposes, selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations and double standards in the work of the United Nations on human rights issues."

And surprise, surprise! It was drafted by Belarus and Uzbekistan, two countries accused of horrible human rights violations. No doubt it will also get support from Sudan and Iran. And to reiterate my comments on a great post about this article on this other wonderful conservative blog, damn right it's biased and country-specific! You don't see Scotland beheading people, you don't see Japan executing Christians. You don't see Israel committing genocide against blacks. What, if we accuse one country, we have to accuse them all? The U.N. is a corrupt and evil organization. Don't think for a minute that they're just cowards, giving in to the demands of violent thugs. They ARE the violent thugs! They approve of the human rights violations, and they're undoubtedly funneling massive amounts of OUR money to our enemies. We should stop funding them, they get the vast majority of their money from the U.S. Why, so they can call us racist imperialists and declare sanctions against our allies?

Because that's the only thing the U.N. seems capable of doing, declaring sanctions against Israel for non-existent human rights violations, while conveniently ignoring the REAL violations being committed in places like North Korea. And they get away with it, relying on the moral cowardice of the politically correct leftists. The left seems to think that calling real evil what it is counts as a much bigger sin that actually committing the evil. Why, because we might offend the psychopaths? I guarantee, if they have the intestinal fortitude to burn people alive because of the color of their skin, they can handle a little criticism without breaking down into tears.

Political correctness is the result of people who think that emotional discomfort should be avoided at any cost. These are the people that believe child rapists deserve compassion and understanding, that suicide bombing is a perfectly understandable reaction to an offensive cartoon, that it's not the serial murderers fault because he was abused as a child. These are the people who want to put our own soldiers on death row for DOING THEIR JOB! And doing it damn well, I might add. Political correctness is moral cowardice, and it's the perfect front for the evil people of the world to get away with more evil. For a great blog dedicated to the exposure of political correctness at its worst, please go here.

As a side note, I'd like to give some credit to the guy that writes the other conservative blog that I mentioned earlier. He happens to be a gay conservative, and while I may disagree with his position on gay marriage, I salute his patriotism and I applaud his courage in fighting the good fight and standing up to the left, which probably sees him as a "traitor to the cause", in more ways than one. If he ever reads this, I want him to know how much I admire him.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Grand Opening!

Though I don't know how grand it will be, I hope people will eventually find and read this blog. And please forgive the dark template I chose for this blog, but I'd like to impress upon my readers that these are serious topics.

As this is my introduction, perhaps I should tell you why I am starting this blog. First off, let me start by introducing myself. I am a conservative Christian. A Catholic convert to be precise. I'm 26 years old, Caucasian, male, heterosexual, and I have a BS in software development. If you think that means that I'm racist and intolerant and closed-minded, then you've been lied to. Despite the debased state much of it is in, I love my species. Humanity is truly created in God's image, and I think it hurts Him to see what some people have done with the tremendous gifts He has given them. I love my home country, The United States of America, with all my heart. Despite all its many faults, I believe it is the greatest country in the world, and by quite a large margin.

This blog is going to be from a conservative standpoint. Please feel free to post your comments or suggestions, whether you agree with me or not. I will not edit any posts other than my own, so I ask that you refrain from profanity as much as possible. I realize that these types of discussions can become rather heated and passionate, but let's try to remain civil, yes? Also, any threats, to me or anyone else, will be taken seriously and reported to the authorities.

I think that's a pretty good summary. If you have any questions or would like any clarifications, please feel free to ask.

It finally came home to me today just how much trouble we are in. I was listening to the radio on my way home from work, and I heard a short blurb about a soldier who was getting the death penalty for killing some of his fellow soldiers. This got my attention, since I had not heard anything about it previously. As I continued to listen, I heard that an American Army Sergeant by the name of Hasan Akbar, who is a convert to Islam, had committed a terrible crime on March 23, 2003. He had tossed grenades into three tents occupied by sleeping soldiers, and then fired at the ones that came scrambling out. He killed Capt. Christopher Seifert and Maj. Gregory Stone, and injured 14 others. After being arrested, his confession to the crime included a motive. Any guesses as to what that motive was? Hmm? If you haven't already guessed, I'd be willing to bet that there's either something seriously wrong with you, or you just don't want to admit that you know precisely why he did it, just like the rest of us do.

He claims that he attacked his fellow soldiers because he didn't want them to kill Muslims. If you want to read more about this, here's one article on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7210-2005Apr21.html

The reason I decided to start this blog is because THIS IS THE FIRST I HAVE EVER HEARD OF THIS CASE IN THREE YEARS!!!!!!! I like to consider myself a pretty informed guy. I listen to the radio, I watch the news, I read papers and magazines. How did this escape me? I'm sure it must have been published somewhere when it first happened, but why wasn't it on every headline, in every newsroom, plastered on prime time news and shouted from the freakin rooftops? This should have been the biggest story of 2003, round the clock coverage for weeks, interviews and specials and who knows what else, but I've never heard of it before. I wonder how many people have. Either I was in a coma that month, or the coverage was seriously lacking.

Now here's where I'm really gonna piss some of you off. If this had been a white soldier, or a Christian soldier, or both, it would have been the biggest story of 2003. Because he's black, and especially because he's Muslim, the press has barely sniffed at this story. The leftist scum in the American press seem to think that black people, out of all the ethnicities in this country, are immune to criticism. Why? I thought the entire purpose of the civil rights movement, the purpose that Martin Luther King Jr. courageously fought and died for, was racial equality. Well equality means taking the same lumps in addition to having the same rights and privileges. And that same leftist scum in the press has inexplicably decided to side their sympathies with the most violent, intolerant, and hateful religion in the history of mankind. And if anyone out there thinks that Islam is something other than that, I'd love to talk.

For a very long time I tried to believe that Islam was at its core a peaceful religion, only slightly different from Christianity and Judaism. I tried to believe that the people doing horrible things in the name of Allah were an aberration, sick monsters that were twisting Islam into something ugly, as white supremacists like to do with Christianity. I desperately held onto this belief even as it crumbled beneath me, unable to hold its own weight against the constant and growing barrage of evidence to the contrary. I have now come to the conclusion that the small handful of Muslims who are genuinely peaceful and loving toward their fellow man are the true aberrations.

Just a cursory study of the Koran will quickly demonstrate it to be a book filled with the most violent hatred imaginable. People try to defend it, saying that a violent interpretation is taking it out of context, or that it's just supposed to be a metaphor for fierce spiritual struggle. I beg to differ. The only places that the Koran talks about peace and compassion and love are in regards to OTHER MUSLIMS! In regards to the rest of humanity, it really just has one thing to say, and it says it over and over and over: Convert, suffer horribly under Sharia law, or die. That's it. Those are our options. No negotiations. No agreeing to disagree. No "you stay there and we'll stay here and we won't bother each other".

One particularly disturbing feature of the Koran is the statement that it is okay to lie to non-Muslims about anything, as long as it furthers the cause of Islam. Which means that it's virtually impossible to tell which Muslims are peaceful and which are just lying. So we can either take their word for it and leave ourselves wide open, or not believe anything any Muslim says, and be accused of religious discrimination. Either way, our enemies have the advantage.

A lot of people like to say that the Bible says similar things about violence toward other cultures. And they get away with it because of the fact that most people have never read the Bible, and are all too eager to believe that Christians are bad. In the Bible and the Torah, violence is a last resort against an enemy who threatens your very existence or bases their culture on evil. The cultures that the Israelites completely obliterated were cultures that sacrificed their children by burning them alive, cultures that used gang-rape in their religious ceremonies, cultures that practiced ritual suicide and revenge-killings of entire families, and a long list of other unspeakable behaviors. Entire nations that were beyond change, beyond saving. They couldn't be occupied and reformed. They couldn't be sanctioned or threatened. Nothing anyone could do would have changed those cultures. They had to be exterminated. Down to the last child. It hurts to think about, but it's true. In other cases, where your very existence wasn't threatened, peace and patience was advocated, and was explicitly preferred. And the concept of peace and love was greatly expanded upon by Jesus, taking it to an even greater level. Violence was forbidden in all but the most desperate circumstances.

Christianity hasn't changed. Unfortunately, neither has Islam. I'm scared. Scared of what is happening to this world, and to this country. There are several hundred million people in this world that believe their god wants them to exterminate anyone and everyone who refuses to follow their warped and sick ideology. They have no ability to build, to create, to heal. They only have the ability to destroy. Every country in the world that went from being something else to predominantly Muslim has turned from a paradise into a cesspool. They are willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their families to kill as many innocent people as they possibly can, believing that they will be rewarded for it in heaven. They're even willing to slaughter their own people if they don't believe exactly the right things. Islam teaches that infidel civilians are valid combat targets. This is why they think it's okay to bomb elementary schools. And even after everything the world has seen these people do, they still have their advocates.

The liberal establishments of the world have lost their ability to reason. How, you say? Think about this. What are the good things that modern liberalism stands for? Women's rights, equal protection under the law, scientific advancement, and religious freedom (sort of). What are the not so good things that modern liberalism stands for? The normalization of homosexual behavior, paganism, abortion, sexual promiscuity. All these things, good and bad, are things that Islam simply doesn't tolerate. If Islam became a dominant force in the world, and in this country, as so many liberals would like to see happen, everything that they stand for would be obliterated. Women would be covered up and shoved to the back of society. Homosexuals would be systematically executed. Pagans, in addition to every other religious group, would be harassed, if not persecuted. Sexual liberty would vanish, replaced by female circumcisions and executions for extra-marital affairs. Any woman who lost her virginity before marriage would be beaten to death. And any woman who refused sex to her husband would also be beaten to death. Plus, women and non-Muslims would be forbidden to go to school.

So how, you ask, can liberals support this? Because the only thing that matters to them is the fact that Muslims share their desire to destroy Christianity and Judaism. They have blinded themselves to the fact that Islam wants to destroy them just as much as it wants to destroy everything else. So they make excuses. They portray Muslims as the victims, not the perpetrators. They make arguments of moral equivalency. It's America's fault. It's Israel's fault. If we would just leave the Muslims alone, they would stop killing us. Well, we were leaving them alone, and they killed us anyway. And what about India, or Pakistan? Countries with huge Muslim populations, whose governments have bent over backwards to make outrageous concessions to Muslims. Why are they being attacked? They never invaded Iraq. They never interfered in the Middle East. If Muslims are just defending their way of life the only way they know how (and yes, I've heard that argument), why are they attacking people who are no threat to them?

In retrospect, I still think it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but not for the reasons I would have previously cited. Americans have shed their blood in an attempt to bring democracy and peace to parts of the world that have never known either. I saw this as a truly noble cause, and I still do. But it wasn't meant to be. Both countries, though initially acting grateful for American intervention, are now showing their true colors. The regimes that held those countries in an iron grip of fear and terror are no longer present, and yet both countries are quickly sliding back into their old habits. The Afghan constitution actually incorporates Sharia law, and provides the death penalty for anyone who converts away from Islam. For more information about this still unfolding outrage, read this article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/.

Iraq is attempting to insert similar provisions into their new constitution. While these outcomes are tragic to say the least, it has shown the world just how incapable of change these people really are. When freedom is handed to them on a silver platter, they still elect to go with hatred and terror.

I'm sorry that this blog is going to make so many people mad. But these things need to be said. The political left would like nothing better than to see everything that western civilization is based on go up in flames, and Muslims want to be the ones to light the match. We can't pretend anymore that these people can change. We can't delude ourselves into believing that they can be appeased or placated. They will not rest until Islam rules this world with an iron fist or destroys it so that the infidels can no longer have it. We can no longer think of them as rivals or opponents. They are the enemy.

Rivals and opponents can be competed with. They can be negotiated with. They can be cooperated with. There is no need to destroy rivals or opponents. They may not like you very much, they may want to be better than you, they may want to control you, but they don't want to destroy you. An enemy wants to destroy you. An enemy cannot be competed with. They cannot be negotiated with. They cannot be cooperated with. They will not stop until one of you is gone. There is only one thing that can be done about an enemy. They can be destroyed. Completely. Not subjugated, not occupied, not sanctioned. Destroyed. Reduced to nothing more than a chapter in a history book.

The only problem is that western civilization doesn't have the stomach to destroy several hundred million people. I'm not sure I have the stomach for it. But mark my words. The time will come when they will have left us no other choice.

I think you now understand what my positions are. I think it's important for anyone reading this to understand that I am not a violent or angry person. I'm a very affectionate and loving person. It hurts me to imagine the actions that the good people of this world may one day have to undertake. But that isn't going to stop me from saying what needs to be said. I pray that liberals wake up and see the damage that they are doing, and the impending disaster their actions are supporting. The day is quickly approaching when the world will be so completely polarized between good and evil that no one will be able to pretend they are a moderate, and those on the left will no longer be able to claim the higher ground. Evil people and evil ideologies will be exposed for what they are, and no one will be able to deny it. It's time for the people of this world to get off the fence and pick a side. There are only two. I've chosen the Right side. Now you have to pick yours.

Let the discussion begin.