The War Against Civilization

The Future IS Now!

Pardon me for being just a little obsessive about the current global jihadi war on our civilization. For the longest time I was so preoccupied with my irrational fear of the communist hordes of Russia and then the Red masses of China that I failed to see the coming of this war. It wasn't until 9/11/2001 did the reality of it sink in for me and for thousands of other Americans. It's too bad that there are millions of Americans who still don't believe this is a "real" war. For them it is something George W. Bush and his neo-con cronies just dreamt up on Sept. 12th. Well won't they be surprised when one by one the Western nations fall to the Islamic jihad. One day it will be here, pounding down our doors. It will be because millions of good hearted Americans won't recognize it for the scourge that it really is until it's too late.

We could ask Bridgitte Gabriel, a Christian Arab who lived through the sacking of Lebanon by the Islamic jihad. Did I say lived? I'm not sure she would have called it living...

Bridgitte Gabriel offers a first hand warning of what is to come, and a plea for the West - particularly America - to stand up and resist the enemy before its too late. In these startling paragraphs from her article at FrontPageMagazine.com she lays it all out:

I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of 13 I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends--killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London. We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.

As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: "infidels."

It is time to stop kicking ourselves and practicing this fools game of self-hatred. We have to recognize that we in the West possess a superior culture and we have to want to save it more than the Islamic militants want to destroy it. Sure, you can go about your daily life worrying about who is going to win the Oscar or which bimbo is having which dumbo's baby as you stand in the checkout line at the drug store to pay for the latest super diet formula, but rest assured the enemy is only thinking of ways to kill you and your children. You can think that I am being overly dramatic and paranoid, go ahead and think that, but you'd be wrong. Where were you when France was burning last summer? Where were you going when the subways and trains were exploding in London and Madrid? How about when the night club in Bali or the hotel in Morrocco was crumbling down. What were you doing when the Twin Towers fell?

Not a real war, huh?

The following are reader reactions to Bridgitte's article and a few other cogent quotes found on the News Forum website Lucianne.com. Some of the comments advocate rash actions that would make us no better than the enemy, yet in a time of war the nuance of fair play is a distinction that could get one killed. I would never subscribe to the total annihilation of Islam, but the ideology - intolerance of, and violence upon - all non-believers must be dealt a fatal blow. It has to be done as it was done before. We had to end the scourge that was Nazism. This time its Islamic extremisim that has to be stopped - before it's too late.

==============================================
Reply 5 - Posted by: buckeye1, 2/20/2006 9:15:49 AM
So, how does a religion like this ever reform? How can it co-exist in a world that rubs against each other? 1000 years ago what happened in the Middle East vould be contained in the Middle East. Today, the Islamo-facists have the ability to move transnationally and provoke international terror.

It seems the only recourse is to use modern day weapons to fight this enemy and to defeat it. How else do you relate to people who kill and rampage over ink?

==============================================
Reply 6 - Posted by: IslandMan, 2/20/2006 9:17:43 AM
It is far past the time for a serious thinning of the turkey herd.

We must kill muslims by the millions...extremists, moderates and even regular non-compus-poopus followers. They must be made to fear being muslims.

I want the muslims in my neighborhood to walk in shame and fear, with their eyes cast to the ground.

I want them to beg for forgiveness.

On a worldwide basis, they must be reduced to a negligible, rag-tag minority.

Enough pompous PC behavior, protect ourselves!

Rid ourselves of this pestilence NOW before they demographically gain legal legitimacy.
=============================================

Reply 9 - Posted by: pizzaman, 2/20/2006 9:36:47 AM

We must kill muslims by the millions...extremists, moderates and even regular non-compus-poopus followers. They must be made to fear being muslims.

Wrong! We won't beat them by becoming them. The difference between our society and muslim extremism is that we attempt to seperate the good from the bad, and protect the innocent. Indiscriminate killing would make us just like the terrorists.
=============================================

Reply 22 - Posted by: PrimalScreamer, 2/20/2006 1:57:34 PM
"We won't beat them by becoming them." We put ladies' panties on their heads while they saw off heads and kill women for going on dates, for crying out loud. Their hate for us is a byproduct of their hatred for the meaninglessness of their lives. We'd be doing them a favor by putting them out of their collective and continuing misery.
=============================================

"[T]here is no atrocity, no barbarity, no act of evil that the human race cannot imagine fanatical Muslims committing."
~~ Dennis Prager

"Let them hate so long as they fear."
~~ Lucius Accius

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
- General William T. Sherman

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."
~~ General George S. Patton, Jr.

"The proper response of the civilized world to terror must be immediate, savage, remorseless, and tireless -- or we condemn our children to slaughter, and to fighting our fight for us."
~~ veritas

---

CW

Made in USA

Take the Survey...

I was cleaning the toaster today and when I turned it over to shake out the crumbs I happened to notice that it had been made in China. Big surprise, right? Well, I had just finished installing one of those Over-the Range-Microwaves made by a proud American company called Whirlpool (who incidently once a had a plant in my home town) only to find that it too had been made in China. Is nothing made in America anymore?

So, I decided to take a walk through my house randomly selecting items and chronicling the country of manufacture. I noted the brand name and which country I believed they were based.

Here are the results: sorted by product type (food excluded)

















Observations:
I was surprized by the fact that Japan factored so little in my informal survey. Apart from that it seemed painfully obvious that China and SE Asia is manufacturing most of our durable goods and where the USA is still holding strong is in consumer products. But the consumer products area is dominated by just a few companies. It wouldn't be a stretch to see these companies also start to move their manufacturing over seas if they haven't already. America still has a large manufacturing base but if we look at the trajectory of our manufacturing output and that of China and SE Asia I think the graphs would be rather apalling.


CW

Muhammad Freaks

Peace, Love and Happiness - Not

Do you remember the 1960's? I do. I was young, having been born in 1961 I was a mere boy when the 70's arrived. I remember the flower power generation and the birth of the peace movement. Even at 9 years old I had become politically aware largely because Hubert H. Humphrey had run for President and he was from my home state.

What's more, I remember the hippies and, of course, the Jesus Freaks. The Jesus Freaks were basically gentle and loving people, able to see the good in everyone. They were charter members of the peace movement because, let's face it, war was such an angry business and Jesus Freaks were never angry - at anyone. While the rest of us Christians may have rolled our eyes at the naive things the Freaks said about life, love and war we were never afraid of them. Jesus Freaks meant no harm and always preached about love and goodwill.

Muhammad Freaks

In today's reality some 40 years later we are facing a different sort of religious freak, and a dangerous one at that. I guess I've never heard them referred to as Muhammad Freaks but it seems an apt description for the way many Muslims behave when the cameras are rolling. Unlike the Jesus Freaks of the American 70's these Muhammad Freaks are anything but peaceful and loving. They preach hate and violence on anyone who is not a "believer". Their rallying cry is "Death to Infidels!". To the average American they appear completely unhinged.

Can you imagine a Jesus Freak holding an athiest hostage with a gun to his head and knife to his throat demanding that he "love thy neighbor"? Well, we have seen disciples of the so-called religion of peace behead non-muslims before the cameras for all the world to see. This is supposed to do what? Win converts? Frighten us all into some sort of subservience to the true believers? All it does is expose them for what they truly are which is intolerant little children who aren't getting their way.

Take for example the furor over the Muhammad cartoon published in a Danish newspaper. It has caused protest riots and violence all across the Muslim world. It is apparently a sacrilege to even show an image of Muhammad. In my opinion it is beyond childish to even expect to be free from being offended. Yet, here we are walking on egg shells in the West to appease the fragile sensibilities of Muslims. They can behead infidels and put the videos on the Internet but a Dutch cartoonist can't poke a little satire toward their prophet? Even as we speak it is coming to light that the whole protest movement over these cartoons was planned and staged by mullahs and ayatollahs in Syria and Iran. Ladies and gentlemen they are playing us like fools.

Speaking of fools, in Tony Blair's England in the days that followed the London subway bombings the first thing they did was pass a law outlawing acts of retribution against Muslims. I'm sorry, but it was Muslim terrorists who just murdered 60 innocent civilians and the political class is worried about offending Muslims...

The English have also banned the images of pigs in public places because the mere sight of pigs is offensive to Muslims. Can someone tell me what is going on? Have the Brits lost their minds?

Isn't it time we see these people and their fragile sensibilities for what they are? They are childish freaks! They are a death cult endangering the peace of the world. Perhaps, if the world still resembled life in the seventh century everyone would be just fine with these Muhammad Freaks. We are now a globally connected world and images and ideas from the West can't be hidden away from view like the bodies of their women.

With the rest of world being so close by way of modern communications and transportation the Islamic fundamentalists can't keep the rest of the world out anymore. So traumatized by the image of a bikini clad woman Muslim men lash out at the rest of the world. One can't argue that the increasingly crude and decadent culture of the West is a good and wholesome thing, but the answer is not to preach hatred, behead infidels and slaughter innocent civilians with bombs, it is to teach and preach love and self respect.

Arab Arrogance

The arrogance of the extremist Arab Islamicists is particularly galling to me. They think of Jews and Christians as dirty, unclean pigs. They feel superior to anyone in the West and their tone in conversation with us "infidels" drips with condescension. There was a time when the Arab world was a major contributor to the progress of mankind, but that progress ended with the rise of Islam. They are losers who expect to treated as winners.

They actually believed that when the mighty Soviet Union, the world's only other super-power, was defeated in Afghanistanit was their Muslim brothers and the power of Allah that made the difference. The truth was that it was an American backed mujahedeen (admittedly, it was a group of many brave Afghani's that manned the front lines) that ultimately stifled Soviet progress in Afghanistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed shortly thereafter Arab terrorists, especially Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, became energized. It spurred them on to challenge and attack America and her allies culminating in the attacks of September 11th. This was their mistake.

When History is Written

Perhaps if Al Gore would have won the Presidency in 2000 the Muhammad Freaks would have been able to continue at will with their cowardly terrorist attacks. Gore, along with his liberal cohorts, were apt to treat 9/11 as a law enforcement issue rather than a war. We will never know what Gore might have done, history will record, however, that America and her allies (her real allies) under George W. Bush did not cower and back down, but rather rose up to smash the Muhammad Freaks where they live. In Afghanistan the Taliban went down in a few short months. Today the country that time had forgotten is a struggling but hopeful democratic nation. Iraq, former bastion of Saddam Hussein and his band of thugs and terrorists, went down in a few weeks and is now struggling to become a democratic nation in the very heart of the Arab Muslim world.

How will the War on Terror end? No one knows, but it is clear that Western appeasement is not the answer. A crushing show of power is the only thing that will be successful. Any backing down or negotiation will be viewed as weakness. We can't worry about offending as we go about our business, we are after all, adults. It is high time the Muhammad Freaks grow up and act like adults too. They could take a lesson from the prophet Jesus, turn the other cheek when offended... And that love thy neighbor thing is pretty good too.



CW

The 3 W's: WMDs, Wiretaps and W

NEWS FLASH: We Are At War - With Us



W

One would certainly wish that while our nation is at war we could all pull together and defeat our enemy with swift and relentless force. We do want to win, don't we? The problem with achieving that kind of resolve and purpose of mind is that we all have to believe we are at war for one, or at the very least those of us at war have to be fighting the same war.

The moonbat left-wingers are not on board with this War On Terror, they never were and they never will be. Even if "their guy (or gal)" was in the White House they would not be eager to engage in anything so babaric. After all this is the "Give Peace a Chance" crowd, with the cute little bumper stickers that say "War is Not The Answer" pasted on their Volvos and Saabs. There is a second group on the left that knows deep down in their hearts that fighting and defeating Islamic terror is not only the right thing to do but also vital to the survival of this modern progressive civilization, yet, they just can't bring themselves to support ANYTHING that George W Bush does - even when he's right. They are a few brave souls on the left, folks like Sen. Joe Lieberman and commentator Christopher Hitchens who can stand beside Bush and the center/right on this issue for the good of the all who dwell in the western world.

I support President Bush in principle. I truly believe he has had the good of the nation in his heart when he has made his most difficult decisions. His enemies can't and won't believe that. Convinced as they are that GW is only out to enrich his friends at Haliburton and ExxonMobil they will never support a single thing he does. How very cynical.

That brings us to the situation we find ourselves in as a country and as a culture at war with itself. Other places in the world, such as Europe and Canada have already been lost to socialism's temptations and it's seductive 'something for nothing' pull. America thankfully has not completely given up in this epic fight against the scourge of socialism. We live in a dichotomy where half the nation wants to be "European" and the other half that still believes in liberty, personal freedom and property rights. The President resides in the latter, with me. While I don't support everything he does I do think he walks on the right (as in correct) side of most issues. I believe he is a good man.

Amazingly, President Bush has chosen not to engage his opponents in a tit for tat game of accusations and name calling. He has kept to the high road and has acted, well, presidential. The Democrats love to claim that anyone who opposes this administration has their patriotism questioned and the right to free speech stifled, but that is pure nonsense and the American people know it. They have used skewed polling questions and their allies in the leftist media conglomerate to hammer Bush and his approval ratings and yet they still haven't dampened his spirit.


WIRETAPS

The controversy over the NSA's program of surveillance of terrorist activity has become a weapon the Democrats intend to use to discredit Bush and everything he does by trying to make him out to be another paraniod Richard Nixon. In fact this type of Presidential power has been used in a time of war since the beginning of the republic. In modern times both Carter and Clinton have used this authority with out all this hand wringing.

I would like to see where the President has used this program to imprison his political enemies, and believe me, he has a few. Frankly, I would like to see where this program has been abused at all. Just because Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are "concerned" and "disappointed" doesn't a crime make. The administration has briefed key members of Congress on a regular basis with regard to this activity. Honestly, would they do that if their intention was to use this program in a nefarious way? What if the President and his National Security team really did have the defense of this nation in mind when this program was authorized.

Despite what his enemies claim this has been one of the most ethical and clean adminstrations in modern times. While several of his cabinet members have left the adminstration unhappily none to my knowledge has been charged or convicted of a crime. Only FEMA director Michael Brown left in disgrace and that was in regard to a freak confluence of events surrounding Hurricane Katrina that no one was actually prepared to handle. Brown, deservedly or not, was a sacrifcial lamb.

WMDs

Perhaps Bush called off the hunt for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction too soon. There has been several recent developments that may shed light on the final disposition of the Iraqi WMDs. In a story published in the New York Sun that states come Feb. 17th President Bush may finally be vindicated. A tape of Saddam and his captains is said to have been uncovered that will "provide a few definitive answers to some very important - and controversial - weapons of mass destruction questions."

In addition a new book has been published by a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada, who claims that Saddam used civilian airplanes to ferry chemical weapons to Syria in 2002. One doubts this book will be reviewed by the New York Times... This is all so very interesting.

I have little doubt that Saddam possessed these weapons and also wonder under which rock he had hidden them. Regardless of the belief that Saddam's weapons posed a growing threat to America and the west his confirmed connections to al Qaeda and more importantly Iraq's geographic location in relation to the twin hubs of Islamic terrorism, Iran and Saudi Arabia makes the Iraq theater a vital battleground in the War on Terror.

Keep your eyes and ears open on or around Feb 17th - we haven't heard the end of this yet, George W. Bush may be vindicated yet.


CW

More On Evolution...

Natural Selection is the Heart of Darwin's Evolution Theory - But there are Some Real Problems...

At the risk of being pummeled I throw out these perfectly reasonable doubts about natural selection being at the root of macroevolution.

Source: Jerry Bergman, PhD

[Support for natural selection depends heavily upon the validity of its analogy with artificial selection (Tinkle, 1976). Darwin might have been justified in utilizing the animal breeding analogy to illustrate a limited process, but the use of natural selection as the major support pillar for macroevolution is problematic. In. the first chapter of The Origin, Darwin discusses extensively artificial selection and extrapolates far beyond what his data warrants (Gale, 1982). The two major problems with this analogy between artificial and natural selection include:

1) Almost all the traits that breeders breed for have nothing to do with survival, and thus nature would not select for them; we breed dogs for certain appearance traits, horses for speed traits, cows for milk traits, and chickens for egg traits.

2) Animal breeders have found that select traits are often lost if random breeding again occurs, or if breeding for other traits is done. Few if any permanent changes in the animal usually occur, only the probability of certain traits appearing is altered.

The problem, both then and now, was going from the known to the unknown. Humans have produced many new strains of animals through breeding which have made our life easier and more pleasant. Although these strains were different in certain major ways from their predecessors, they usually soon reverted back to the previous types if allowed to interbreed with them again. Totally new major traits were never developed, but existing ones were re-arranged and favorable ones retained so that certain traits were more pronounced. This type of evolution (if it could be called such) is often termed microevolution, as opposed to macroevolution. Breeding solid black horses is microevolution, breeding winged horses is macroevolution. This dichotomy is artificial, and a clear distinction cannot always be made-and what is now macro may be classified as micro, meaning possible. Microevolution is what we have achieved, thus have experimentally verified, and this is probably a more realistic definition. Macro is what we hypothesize could be achieved, or which, according to fossil evidence and conjecture, might have occurred in the past, given a set of assumptions about the fossil evidence.

Now that researchers have a tremendous amount of experience in breeding animals, it is clear that it can be carried only to a very limited level, and many traits tend to revert to where we started-fruit fly traits, after eight to ten generations, tend to revert back to normal (Tinkle, 1976). The fact is, extensive breeding by millions of researchers and breeders has not produced a single undisputed new species in 400 years of experimenting (Johnson, 1991). As Eiseley (1958, p. 223) noted:

... careful domestic breeding, whatever it may do to improve the quality of race horses or cabbages, is not actually in itself the road to the endless biological deviation which is evolution. There is a great irony in this situation, for more than any other single factor, domestic breeding has been used as an argument for the reality of evolution.

Deevey (1967, p. 636) concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.

Darwin's error was in stretching this comparison too far, sooner or later we reach limits, and no one has yet observed helpful macroevolutionary changes taking place. Since we do not have several billions of years of direct observation, we have not been able to directly test this assumption. Nevertheless, some animals such as fruit flies live a very short period of time, enabling us to observe multi-thousands of their life generations. Even with a drastically higher artificial increase in the number of mutations, which are supposedly the source of variation which gives rise to the "stuff" from which natural selection can select, no evidence exists that large changes have, or can, occur (Lester and Bohlin 1984).

Even Gould (-1977, p. 39) admits ...... although I wear the Darwinian label with some pride, [I] am not among the most ardent defenders of natural selection" More blunt is Bethell (1976) who concludes, "Darwin's theory [of natural selection] I believe is on the verge of collapse. . . . Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago." Gould, in an article defending natural selection (1977, p. 40-41) admits that, "Bethell argues quite correctly that [Darwin] relied upon analogy to establish it [his definition of survival of the fittest] a dangerous and slippery strategy." Yet, many scientists are still struggling not only to define it, but also to demonstrate that it has a role in megaevolution (Maddox, 1991, p. 653).]

Now, mind you, these doubts and questions are not coming from Christians bent on discrediting Darwin to promote a Creationist agenda SO PLEASE don't come down on me because I happen to be Christian. These are reasonable questions by reasonable scientists. The last thing this debate needs is more nasty Richard Dawkins-like name-calling and condescension. Dawkins is a quick-witted, quick-tounged genius level scientist in his own right, but his style of argument is counterproductive and I'm afraid his fans have fully adopted it.

The whole point I have tried to make in previous posts is that there is plenty of dissension among scientists and biologists regarding some of Darwin's theories far outside of the religious arguments for a divine creation.

Let the pummeling begin.



CW