Monday, December 01, 2008
Islam, again.
Rob Taylor at Red Alerts:...the one religion on earth that can claim credit for more murders than Nazism and Communism combined** is the “Religion of Peace.” While the smoke had yet to clear on 9/11, when the train platforms still smoldered in Spain, while the British pulled bodies out of the twisted wreckage of double deckers, miseducated windbags from a thousand liberal Arts colleges were wagging their fingers at the rest of us for daring to think the inspiration for the holy war Muslims are waging comes from their “holy” book and the religion which spawned it.
And even now while the streets of Mumbai are awash in innocent blood there are those who cling to the delusion of peaceful coexistence with a religion designed to make peaceful coexistence impossible. Islam is not a “Religion of Peace” and Islam in fact means something closer to “submission” than peace. It is submission to Islam from the non-Muslim world that Muslims seek; to me this seems far from a peaceful goal. The West must decide if it will abandon thousands of years of social progress and embrace the depravity of Militant Islam or stand up and fight a foe more determined than any we have faced in the last 200 years. It is a delusion to think otherwise.
Muslims riot and burn churches and we do nothing. Muslims raised money for the Mumbai attacks in British mosques and Britain will do nothing. American Muslims are celebrating the attacks and we will do nothing. There is an “epidemic” of Muslim taxi drivers in England raping women fares, and England attacked the mother of a young girl who wanted to ensure her daughter’s safety rather than stop the rapes. Europe is allowing Islamic polygamy all in the vain hope that such wild accommodation will calm the excitable Muslim street and then we can finally get on with living together in harmony with our friends in the “Religion of Peace.”
As much as we've earned the approbation of the Muslim street for having taken on the terrrrists and supported Israel, we seem to get no points for coming to the aid of Muslims in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere. I don't think that even were we to - properly - withdraw our forces to our own borders and cease to be the world's police force that we would get much "peace" from the religion of peace. Muslims do not coexist with other religions. They convert or conquer. Ask the Christians in Iraq, or "Palestine" or the many conflict zones in Africa. Ask the Hindus in India - not that they are above a little persecution of their own - about the "religion of peace" and you'll begin to get an idea of the extent of the problem with Islam.
I suspect that in the end, it will be them or us.
And most of "us" don't even know we're in a fight.
****
Update: Up way too late cruising the net and I find -
Mark Steyn at NRO says, "It's the ideology, Stupid!" - "This isn’t law enforcement but an ideological assault — and we’re fighting the symptoms not the cause. Islamic imperialists want an Islamic society, not just in Palestine and Kashmir but in the Netherlands and Britain, too. Their chances of getting it will be determined by the ideology’s advance among the general Muslim population, and the general Muslim population’s demographic advance among everybody else."
*"While groups from all religions have engaged in various forms of violence and terrorism, the figures make it clear that in the past decade Muslims have been involved in far more of these activities than people of other religions. One of the things that attracted a lot of attention in The Clash of Civilizations was my use of the phrase "the bloody borders of Islam." But if you look around the Muslim world you see that in the 1990s Muslims were fighting non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, and other places. Muslims have been fighting one another also. The International Institute for Strategic Studies surveyed the armed conflicts going on in the world in 2000, and its figures show that twenty-three of the thirty-two conflicts under way involved Muslims. Why is this?" - Huntington
**Given socialism's body count, I find this tough to believe.
Labels: Islam, politics, religion, Ron Paul
Saturday, February 09, 2008
The inevitable is now
It has become painfully obvious that Ron Paul cannot be the Republican nominee. In his latest e-mail update he acknowledges that unhappy fact and all but throws in the towel:
Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.While I am disappointed that once again I will have no horse in the 2008 election, I can't say I'm surprised. I suppose I should be happy that once again a liberal - and by "liberal" I mean in the sense that our founders would have understood the term, not as it's been highjacked by the so-called "progressives" - has once again engaged the national conversation, but I'm really not. All the talk added up to more of the same.
I suppose some may look upon my obsession with constitutional government and fiscal sanity as quixotic. Hell, Jules Crittenden thinks I ought to hold my nose and support the Repugnican nominee.
Well, screw that.
I am, once again, either sitting this one out or going third party. Ron Paul will not run a third party candidacy; too bad - but it makes sense. It's what he maintained form the start, and he is after all trying to keep his congressional seat as a Republican - I intend, and so should you, to send a contribution his way for that purpose. In the meantime, although I am removing the links to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, I will not cease to agitate for limited government and fiscal sanity.
Says Dr. Paul: The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.
Long Live the Revolution!
****
The search now begins for a worthy 3rd party candidate to support. It may well be Nobody in '08.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Proof that not ALL National Review Online...
columnists have gone over to the dark side - endorse Romney? Are you kidding me?
John Derbyshire endorses Ron Paul:
If you think that our efforts against jihadist terrorism constitute World War Four (I don't), you will not want Ron Paul for president. (Jonah Goldberg's article "The Tradition of Ron Paul" in the Dec. 17 issue of National Review is key reading in that context.) If you think there would be a whole world of difference between what Hillary Clinton would accomplish in the Rome-of-the-Borgias down there on the Potomac, by comparison with what Rudy, or Fred, or Mitt would accomplish, you won't be supporting Paul.
If, however, you think that much of the underbrush that has grown up around our national institutions this past 40 years needs to by pulled up by the roots and burned, before it chokes the life out of our Republic, then Paul's your man.
There isn't much difference between idling over a cliff or going hell bent for election - over the cliff you'll go. Better to stop before you get to the edge and reverse course. As C.S. Lewis has said: if we've taken the wrong path, the true progressive is the one who turns back first.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Catholics for Ron Paul
Yes, based on the principle of subsidiarity and prudential judgement we know that any social ill is best addressed at the most local level. We also know that when an issue is absorbed by a higher level of authority, the local level tends to become pathetic and passive because "it is no longer my problem." Compassionate liberals who vote for big government programs to solve social problems don't volunteer or give nearly as much money to charitable organizations as small government conservatives. This is because subsidiarity matters. - Catholics for Ron Paul
Rather at the level that is most appropriate, beginning with the individual, the family, local, then state, then federal. There are legitimate roles for each of the levels. When one usurps the proper function of another, then societal dysfunction is the result. Ron Paul understands this.
Most of us are so used to the all-pervasive State that we no longer even question the proper role of government. Libertarians of all stripes have been making this argument for years, only to be labelled as kooks or worse. It appears that Paul may finally making some headway, at least he's introducing libertarian - and, if only coincidentally, Catholic - principles into the debate.
He may not be your father's candidate - or even your grandfather's - but your Founding Father's would recognise Paul as a compatriot.
Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.
Labels: Ron Paul
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Check out the Ron Paul video -
After that, check out some Evanescence vids. Old fart that I am, I like Evanescence.
Labels: Ron Paul
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
