How neatly the pieces seem to fall into place. Specter announces his party switch, strengthening the Democrats in the Senate, just as liberal Republican Supreme Court Justice prepares to retire from the court. Coincidence? Sure.

This gives Obama a free hand with his first Court appointment, now who could possibly fill Souter's slot? Well there is Noah Feldman, Souter's own former law clerk, who's been tipped for the court despite his young age for some time now.

Feldman has numerous assets to recommend him. He writes for the New York Times Magazine. He rabidly hates Jews and he's a proponent of Sharia Islamic law. What else can you ask from a Supreme Court Justice?

Even if isn't Feldman now, I'm sure Obama will dig through his radical grab bag to find someone just as ugly to hijack the court to the far left. And we may not be too far away from the first Muslim Supreme Court justice and the real onset of Sharia law in America.

And just to give us a preview, Tariq Ramadan, the official voice of "moderate Islam", whose refused visa to the US generated outrage during the Bush Administration, has told women, "they should “garder toujours les yeux fixés sur le bitume” (keep their eyes fixed on the pavement)" when walking down the street.

Tariq Ramadan is not some sort of cave dwelling cretin in Afghanistan or lunatic ranting Imam out of Sydney or medieval cleric out of Egypt's Al Azhar Islamic University. He's smooth, suave and polished. Prospect and Foreign Policy ranked him as 8th among the world's top 100 intellectuals and wishful thinkers have described him as the Martin Luther of Islam. He is the product of a European university education and is billed as the face of Islam in Europe.

He's also the grandson of the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, which helped create Al Queda and Hamas, and a supporter of stoning and terrorism.

And this face of Islam in Europe warns women to keep their eyes on the sidewalk when walking outside. This is the same warning given to many women who travel to Muslim countries, where making eye contact with a man is considered a brazen and insolent act and justifies physical and sexual violence against her-- in the Muslim mind.

And now from the Dar Al Islam to Eurabia, that standard still holds true.

Meanwhile an interesting new documentary has come out (not currently on the internet) that describes the experience of Soviet officers in the Lebanon War, and reveals that numerous Warsaw Pact or Warpac officers were functioning on the ground during Israel's first invasion of Lebanon. Of course these days Russia's presence in the region is less subtle, with a naval base in Syria and troops in Lebanon.

Israpundit meanwhile has an interesting article by a former KGB Lt Colonel detailing why Russia is allied with Islam, and it really is worth a read

A key distinction between Russian and American attitudes towards Islamic terrorism is that while for America terrorism is largely seen as an exterior menace, Russia uses terrorism as an object as a tool of the state for manipulation in and outside the home country. Islamic terrorism is only part of the world of terrorism. Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world Communism.

This leads to the logical connection between Russian and Islamic terrorism. The late Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned in London in November, 2006, told me that his former FSB colleagues had trained famous Al-Qaeda terrorists Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Juma Namangoniy during the 1980s and 1990s. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, has been responsible for the murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States. Before his death, Juma Namangoniy (Jumabai Hojiyev), a native of Soviet Uzbekistan, was a right-hand man of Osama bin Laden in charge of the Taliban’s northern front in Afghanistan.

Juma Namangoniy was once a student of the Saboteur Training Center of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB in 1989-91. The school was notorious for the international terrorists who matriculated from it. It now belongs to the FSB, and since only KGB staff officers were allowed to study there, Juma Namangoniy’s presence clearly suggests that he was much more than a civil collaborator.

Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, five months before the attack. But Iraqi intelligence was just a client of Russia’s intelligence service. It brings a new understanding to the fact that President Putin was the first foreign President to call President Bush on 9/11. One may conjecture that he knew in advance what was to happen.

Strategically Russia is surrendering to the Muslim world. The Russian population is declining rapidly, being undermined by 70 years of Communist experiment and the cold indifference of post-communist rulers. Annually, Russia is losing 900 thousand people who are being replaced by Muslims from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Islam is now the second-largest religion in Russia, where it may total up to 28 million adherents. Because of this, Russia was able to join the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 2003.

Russia’s great qualitative population change represents both a departure from the past and a strengthening link with it. The synergies between the history of Russia’s national policies of terrorism and the radical Islamic terrorism that it is spreading around the world are natural partners that may severely impact on America’s own future.

I don't necessarily endorse everything in the article, but the USSR using the KGB unambiguously created much of the modern pre-Islamic terrorist infrastructure, particularly in the Middle East. There would be no Palestinian Arab terrorism epidemic as we know it, without the USSR.

Furthermore when you consider how Putin's Russia financially profited from the high oil and gas prices during the War on Terror, there is more than one motivation at work here.

However in the practical tug of war between Islam and Communism, Islam is clearly winning. Just as it did in the Middle East. Left wing political systems are mainly in vogue among failed states in Latin America and faltering ones in America and Europe.

Putin's Russia is National Socialist rather than Communist, though the lines between the two can be blurry, and Putin has no problem exploiting Communism or Islam, to damage America and American allies, while expanding his sphere of influence.

That makes this a complex game indeed.

Meanwhile in Israel the Samaria Regional Council head is wisely pointing out that Israel needs to decentralize its urban populations in order to address the threat of rocket attacks and possible nuclear strikes.

This was an issue for the US during the Cold War that was never acted on. The USSR however did take steps to decentralize its population, building entire cities dedicated to certain types of production, and pushing well into the Arctic.

Samaria (Shomron) Regional Council head Gershon Mesika says that the wide open expanses of the hilltops and valleys of his municipal council are the answer to the dangerous population density in the Tel Aviv region.

The army and other government bodies recently held an exercise for emergency scenarios in Samaria. Among them was a drill for the emergency absorption of thousands of Jews in the region.

“At present,” Mesika writes in an article that will appear in the Our Land of Israel weekly publication this Friday, “the reality is that over five million people live in Gush Dan, the area known as ‘between Hadera and Gedera’ [roughly 540 square miles which encompass Greater Tel Aviv]. Aside from the environmental and planning problems this causes, it sharpens the dangers we face from non-conventional weapons.”

“The more we encourage citizens to leave the low-lying and crowded Gush Dan area and move to Samaria, the more the State of Israel will thus reduce the non-conventional threat it faces – especially the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear plant in Bushehr.”

“It’s true: We should enact the Yitzhar-for-Bushehr plan – but not in the sense in which some anti-Israel forces would have it [Israel’s withdrawal from Yitzhar and the other Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria in exchange for Western pressure to close down Bushehr], but the opposite. The government of Israel must initiate a large-scale construction campaign in the Samarian region and start building new communities in its wide expanses, which are ready and waiting to absorb millions of Jewish residents.”

Naturally this is perfectly logical, and completely "unacceptable" to the "peace process" that is built on shoving every Jew in Israel into the equivalent of the Tel Aviv bus station. When the US ambassador proclaims that Jews should forget about living in Jerusalem, and when a family in the Shomron builds a new house for their son to move into, the international press screams about EXPANDING SETTLEMENTS and justifies the next terrorist attack by Arab terrorists on a Jewish family by pointing to that EXPANDING SETTLEMENT-- the battle against a logical solution is truly uphill.

The political war against Jews living in the territories has been brutal, ugly and irrational. And the concentration of large populations into urban areas poses grave strategic dangers. A more concentrated population is more vulnerable and less mobile. That was a strategy the Nazis utilized to great effect with the ghettos. Now international diplomacy insists on rounding up Jews into new ghettos inside Israel itself, virtual Bevingrads hammered out in "The Name of Peace".

Charles Krauthammer meanwhile challenges the liberal consensus on using torture to extract information from terrorists

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former attorney general Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 . . . fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Could we not, as the president repeatedly asserted in his Wednesday news conference, have obtained the information by less morally poisonous means? Perhaps if we'd spoken softly and sincerely to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we could equally have obtained "high-value information."

There are two problems with the "good cop" technique. KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 who knew more about more plots than anyone else, did not seem very inclined to respond to polite inquiries about future plans. The man who boasted of personally beheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife answered questions about plots with "soon you will know" -- meaning, when you count the bodies in the morgue and find horribly disfigured burn victims in hospitals, you will know then what we are planning now.

The other problem is one of timing. The good cop routine can take weeks or months or years. We didn't have that luxury in the aftermath of 9/11 when waterboarding, for example, was in use. We'd been caught totally blind. We knew there were more plots out there, and we knew almost nothing about them. We needed to find out fast. We found out a lot.

The only real rebuttal left is a Shephard Smith style rant WE'RE AMERICANS, WE DON'T TORTURE. The question of course is why not. Being Americans means protecting our own, not protecting terrorists. The very idea that being American means choosing to coddle terrorists at the cost of American lives is a left wing perversion of American values.

The ADL meanwhile is condemning Wilders for his speech suggesting that Islam be banned. Considering that the United States was never even able to outright ban the Communist Party per se, even at a time when Communist agents were actively operating in the US and Europe, engaging in espionage, sabotage, assassination and even possibly planting nuclear bombs on US soil. Certainly conveying the information needed to build nuclear bombs that could have killed a hundred million Americans.

We didn't ban the Communist party, but we should have. Freedom of Religion is absolute, but it does exist on the assumption that the religion in question is not a criminal ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. And that is exactly what Islam, like Nazism or Communism is.

Freedom of Religion was meant to protect religious freedom, not protect religious terrorism.

The biggest argument for banning Islam... is the way Islam treats non-Muslims. Islam does not recognize the freedom of other religions, and it seeks to rule by force or guile anywhere it goes. These facts are not in argument.

The myth of a moderate Islam, one whose adherents reject all violence and terrorism, is just that... a myth. A myth fostered by cleverer Muslim Brotherhood agents such as Tariq Ramadan and the "moderates" and liberals in America and Europe, who keep hunting for the moderate Muslim like Diogenes with his lamp for the one honest man.

See also Atlas Shrugs' passionate defense of Wilders

So does Yid with Lid, via the JIDF

My own take is that ADL represents Jews the way NOW represents women. The ADL is basically the outgrowth of a fraternity lodge that once filled a need, but today is just another liberal organization that exists to pay its officers six figure salaries and mostly toes the liberal line. The left has gotten very good at creating or co-opting organizations that claim to represent various groups, and then use them to project its own propaganda outward. We're overrun with groups representing various professions, genders, ethnicities and races... which in reality only represent the same old agenda.

Meanwhile there's an interesting Spectator article looking at how Obama is coddling Pakistan and endangering India.

Today, Pakistan’s rapid Talebanisation tops India’s concerns. After all, the brunt of escalating terrorism from Pakistan will be borne by India, which already has become, in the words of ex-US official Ashley Tellis, ‘the sponge that protects us all’.

The Af-Pak problem won’t go away without a fundamental break from the American policies that helped create this terrifying muddle. The US military can never win in Afghanistan, or even secure a ticket out of that country as Obama wants, without first dismantling the Pakistani military’s sanctuaries and sustenance infrastructure for the Taleban and other state-reared terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (the group who carried out the Mumbai atrocities) and Jaish-e-Muhammad. As Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley pointed out just before leaving office in January, ‘You can’t really solve Afghanistan without solving Pakistan.’

As goes Pakistan, so goes the region. If Pakistan goes full Islamist, we can expect to see a quantum increase in terrorism. As it is Pakistan has served as a source of nuclear weapons and terrorism for a while now. But that's nothing compared to what would happened under a true green Islamist regime.

Back in America meanwhile, we can expect euthanasia and the Qualys to come a knocking, see Dog Ross' look at the inevitable euthanasia for the elderly under national health care with the same consequences as in the UK.

In other words, faceless bureaucrats in Washington -- not your family -- will decide whether your grandparents live or die.

While our health care system is certainly imperfect -- because all humans are imperfect, including doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies -- they are more perfect, more competent, more informed, more capable than all of the bureaucrats to whom they'll be forced to report: a bureaucracy that will make all decisions about your health care.

Obama and the Statist Democrats promise health care for everyone, but they will not -- and they can't possibly -- deliver it.

And we know this, because this is what occurs in Canada and Britain and other centralized bureaucracies, where you simply can not have access to advanced health care, period.

And where will Barack Obama be in ten years, when the rest of us are struggling with a massive, out-of-control, federalized medical system that doesn't give a damn about individuals and is busy rationing care, denying care to the elderly?

He will be retired as a very young man; a very wealthy young man, who will have imposed his Marxist ideology upon this society and then walked away from it.

And of course add on the cost of immigrant's health care, and the balance has to come out of the native elderly. See my article Alfred Must Die So that Mahmoud May Live. The names may be different in America, but third world immigration, particularly from Mexico and Somalia, when combined with a national health care system, will mean death for the elderly.

Harry's Place meanwhile has an article taking a look at the embedded progressive anti-semitism in Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children

The anti-Zionist conceit that, as long as you are talking about Israel, you can say whatever you want about Jews, is laid bare here. It is not even possible to discuss whether or where this play crosses a line from criticism of Israel into antisemitism, because the play does not present us with a specific criticism of an Israeli policy or action. The Guardian’s illustration of a Jewish family seder table is far more appropriate than a photograph of the Israeli cabinet table would ever have been.

The dishonesty and amorality of the adult voices in Seven Jewish Children is striking. Nowhere are right and wrong considered, when deciding how to answer their children’s questions. Never does an adult in the play consider whether their suggested answer is true or not, nor whether this should have any bearing on which answer is given. Their only thought is which answers will best shield Jewish children from difficult moral questions. It is as if Jewish children are brought up in a moral vacuum, with Jewish power and vulnerability the only things that matter.

Michael Billington, the Guardian’s theatre critic, noted that the play “shows us how Jewish children are bred to believe in the ‘otherness’ of Palestinians”. Howard Jacobson described this as an example of “how easily language can sleepwalk us into bigotry.”

Billington’s use of the word “bred” should have shaken Guardian readers and editors from their slumber. After all, if used in connection with black or Muslim children, then the racism alarms would sound loud and clear. In fact, wittingly or not, Billington used exactly the right language to describe the message of Seven Jewish Children.

Of course consider that liberal icon Bill Moyers used very nearly the same formulation about Jews, calling violence "genetically encoded" into Jews.

Had Moyers made such a statement about Blacks or Muslims, he would have been fired within 5 minutes making it, followed by profusive apologies from PBS management. Moyers' picture would have been at the security desk to insure he never even enters the building again.

But of course he made it about Jews, so it was ultimately okay because it reflects the New Anti-Semitism, one that drags back all the tropes of the old, the blood libel, the protocols of the elders of aipac and all that baggage, with a progressive face.

If someone were to dust off a good Nazi production and replace the German names with Arab ones, it would do bang up business in London nowadays.

Speaking of Israel Matzav reports that the AIPAC case has been dropped, but the real mission, besides destroying Larry Franklin's career was accomplished, and that was to intimidate pro-Israel voices in the US. The attack on Harman which appears increasingly hollow, just shows the process moves on to a new stage.

Meanwhile in time for Israel's 61st, Yid with Lid has a roundup of blog posts on Israel.

Islamic Danger to Americans has his own take on my article Winning the War on Terror" from yesterday.

Lemon looks at Israel in the Shark Pool

The Keli Ata Blog talks about Obama fattening up the Jewish turkeys

Shawarma Mayor takes on the World Bank.

Jammie Wearing Fool looks at how another of Obama's smart diplomacy targets just humiliated him.

Fresno Zionism says Hillary Clinton confuses the cart with the horse

Debbie Schlussel takes on Michelle Obama's spending hypocrisy.

After six long and productive years, Boker Tov Boulder appears to be retiring on a somewhat downbeat note.

It's funny/odd that my blogiversary coincides collides with the ever-so-grand culmination of Barack Obama's First One Hundred Days as President. When asked "What does your wife do? " The Husband often answers, "She is saving the world." I wish I could have. I wish I could have saved America from Barack Hussein Obama. In a hundred days he has turned this country upside down and inside out, and ruined it... for generations to come. He will set up a cardboard socialist regime in its place, run by radical leftist baby boomers and Muslims. A cheap dictatorship with no gravitas. There will be no more Thomas Jefferson or Founding Fathers. No more principles. No more freedom. In no time at all, America will be Cuba writ large.

Even now, Government is the only act in town. If you want your business to continue, then you do business with or through the Government. That's where the money is, and the only growth. Soon you will have to go to the Government if you are sick. Good luck with that.

You can feel the freedom seep away (along with relative safety and general prosperity). Sure, you can still smoke cigarettes - the President does - but they are suddenly unaffordable by way of new taxes (another reason I have to quit blogging). The new taxes will go to your government health care for which you won't qualify since you smoke. And sure, you can still build one of those (Ew-dirty) coal-fired power plants, but the government will bankrupt you if you try. Besides, they already have that revenue ($64.5 billion a year) built into the Budget. All in the name of Crises -- cum opportunities.

What's half a million unemployed coal miners, anyway? People don't care for them to begin with, so when the unemployment figures come out, you just repeat some "bushtorture" and Halliburton buzzwords, maybe a little Madoff or "executive bonuses," and get ACORN to whip up a demonstration - duly regurgitated by the media which surrendered truth to power long ago. It's easy... you summon up the ghost of Dick Cheney as Darth Vader and throw some red (herring) meat to the liberal masses. Or you can give a speech about race and vilify the few remaining "typical white people." Meanwhile, you make it nearly impossible for them to buy, sell or have the guns and ammo they're always clinging to. And religion? Pff. How non-progressive can you get? Christians are ridiculed right of out of any conversation in the public forum. And everyone knows the Jews are scared (it seems to be in our DNA now, not to rock the boat while it sinks). And sure, you can protest all this - like the tea partiers did over out-of-control spending and the specter of the hyperinflation to follow - but the media will ridicule and demonize you and the FBI will investigate you. Do you get my drift? Sure, there's a Constitution, but you just ignore it, act like it doesn't exist, and corruption can easily triumph over The People. It already has.

I have stopped by to leave my message of support for her hard work blogging on the things that matter over these years, and the blogsphere will be a poorer place without her.

Islamic Terrorism has become to the early 21st century, what Communism was to the late 20th century, the ultimate existential threat that the civilized world was forced to grapple with. In this article I will take a look at a few of the existing approaches, and their pros and cons, for winning the War on Terror.

---

1. Steal Their Thunder - It isn't the approach that comes to most average people's minds when it comes to dealing with terrorism, but it is the one favored in practice by most Western governments. "Steal their thunder" is a conventional enough defense strategy, in particular as practiced against Communist and Socialist groups, defusing their popularity by adopting a portion of their agenda as part of policy reforms.

The thinking behind this approach is that adopting some of a populist but extremist party's agenda, will defuse its base of support and quiet the undercurrent of frustration that fuels their followers. Since the conventional policy thinking is that Muslims can be divided into a large "moderate" majority, and a small extremist minority who are causing all the trouble, appeasing moderate Muslims by working to accommodate their beliefs and integrate them into the national culture... will steal the thunder of Muslim "extremists".

Pros: On paper this approach doesn't require any casualties, just being good neighbors and making more room for a new culture. It also has the benefit of a pedigree going back several centuries, its defenders would claim that it helped neuter Communism in Europe.

Cons: Before, stealing their thunder, it's wise to consider whether we actually want that thunder in the first place. Europe may have avoided becoming Communist, but it has gone so far to the left, that it is no longer a competitive business environment and its index of human freedoms only looks good by comparison to a third world country. Skewing Europe and America toward Islam, would mean further diminishing freedom, and tolerating the ugly and brutal practices inherent in Sharia. And that is assuming it would actually work.

Worker's movements were domestic, Islamic immigrants are not. Accommodating them would require a profound loss of identity and giving in to a conquering minority that would in time become a majority.

---

2. Cordon Sanitaire - If we can't change Muslims, we can address the threat by creating Fortress States that cordon away the West from Muslim immigrants, while possibly deporting many existing Muslim residents. This would create an effective quarantine keeping Muslims away.

This is the plan favored by many European right wing groups, as it addresses the most immediate threat to them, the large and violent Muslim populations that are changing the face of Europe. While such a plan is described as extremist, most European Muslims are first and second generation immigrants, many of whom were encouraged to come in order to serve as a workforce. With the recent economic decline and Europe's loss of manufacturing capacity over the year, they are simply an expensive and difficult burden. France's surplus Muslim population, topping the millions, is a good case in point.

Pros: Dealing with the problem of a large Muslim population is vital for Europe's survival, especially when the discrepancy between native and immigrant populations is taken into account. Restriction and deportation would prevent Europe and other first world nations from being overrun.

Cons: Quarantine doesn't solve the larger problem of a newly aggressive Islam. Isolation can temporarily keep immigration and domestic expansion at bay, but that presumes a universal willingness to maintain that watch, and assumes that no more liberal government will come that will undo all that. Both assumptions are unlikely.

Nor does quarantine alone address what would happen when terrorists armed with unconventional weapons from Muslim states carry out attacks in order to force an end to the quarantine.

A quarantine solution alone would likely prove to be another Maginot Line, comforting in the short term, but ultimately futile.

---

3. Corrupt Them -It worked well enough for Communism, and it's simple. It lets Western nations stay Western nations while plying the "Noble Savages" with liquor, consumer items, sex, popular culture and all the works. The assumption is that Islam can't survive a hard core diet of the debauchery that helped destroy Western culture and pride.

Pros: It lets us keep doing what we're doing already. Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy, was an Iraqi slogan not that long ago.

Cons: For all their handwringing about Western degeneracy, Muslims are are already debauched, and invented forms of debauchery we've yet to get on to. A great deal of the drug traffic either originated or currently flows through Muslim countries. Imams and Mullahs in the Muslim world maintain control over alcohol and prostitution to line their own pockets. Homosexuality is far more common in the Muslim world than it is in the West, despite their reluctance to throw parades dedicated to it. So is pedophilia. Islamic paradise consists of sex with virgin demons. Narcotics such as Quat and Hasish are widely consumed by the general population.

About the only thing we can offer them are consumer goods, which the Chinese can too, and democracy, which they habitually use to elect Islamic psychopaths. So let's table this one.

---

4. Civilize Them - We can call this one by its fancier name of nation building, but it amounts to the same thing. We come in, clean up their mess, teach them about Democracy, talk them out murdering their daughters, and replace their failed states with secular Republics.

Pros: Cleaning up Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt would probably neuter Islamic extremism. But of course there's also Indonesia, Kuwait and Bahrain. And it's anyone's guess where Jordan will be in a few years. Never mind Gaza.

Cons: We tried it in Iraq and it's pretty demanding. Even an actual Empire would find the job challenging. Not impossible, but it would require avoiding our failures in Iraq, a massive mercenary corps, and being willing to live up to the worst liberal stereotypes of us... all for a noble aim. Doable, yes. Fun, not so much.

---

5. Kill Them - This one is pretty straightforward. We have the lead in both conventional and non-conventional weapons. Any nation hosting Islamic extremists would have a year to take care of the problem, or we would take care of them. No nation building, just massive destruction aimed at their technological and transportation infrastructure reverting them back to 19th, if not the 18th century.

Pros: It solves much of the problem, especially when combined with a quarantine.

Cons: We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly, while maintaining an alliance that would defy Russia, China and the First World nations that would accuse us of genocide. The real name for this war might well turn out to be World War III. It would take a Churchill or a Roosevelt to launch something like that, and while the world would be radically different afterward, it might well turn out to be radioactively different too.

Of course that still beats having out grandchildren grow up as slaves of the Ummah.

---

6. Divide and Conquer- As much as Muslims love to kill infidels, they love to kill each other even more. No one hates each other like family, and probably the only reason that Muslims didn't actually conquer a lot more of the world, was their inability to stop fighting with each other.

Divide and Conquer has worked well enough in Iraq, but it's not just Shia vs Sunni. The Muslim world is full of religious and tribal differences that can be exploited. With the right minds addressing the problem, schisms can be created, feuds can be sparked and the next 9/11 would happen in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan instead of New York.

Pros: Cheap and fun for the whole family. Or as Patton put it, "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country . He won it by making other bastards die for their country."

Cons: 9/11 and a lot of Muslim terrorism is actually an outgrowth of conflicts within the Muslim world. When Bin Laden feuded with the Saudi royal family, he flew planes into New York and Washington. When Hamas and Fatah fight, they both send suicide bombers off to blow up Israeli targets. Even internal Muslim fights will always wind up involving us sooner or later.

On top of that internal Muslim warfare is the likeliest state of affairs to produce a Caliphate, which would turn out to be the ironic opposite of our original agenda.

---

7. Scare the Hell out of Them: Remember when Muslims were afraid of Bush, instead of throwing shoes at him? After 9/11 there was a sense that America might do anything at all, and fear rippled across the Muslim world. Then we sacrificed thousands of soldiers to police Iraqi neighborhoods, rebuild generators and provide clean water. Naturally the shoes followed. Nobody is afraid of Mother Theresa, even if she happens to be packing heat.

Pros: Fear is a great deterrent. No one sits down next to the crazy person on a bench because you don't know what he might do.

Cons: To keep people afraid, you have to find ways to keep upping the fear level. Or pretend to be psychotic.

---

8. Get Tough - One way to get the enemy to stop advancing, is to stop retreating. Right now the only one of these solutions that First World nations are prepared to embrace is, Steal Their Thunder, and even Civilize Them is considered controversial. Getting tough against all levels of Islamic conquest, from foreign insurgencies to domestic imposition and immigration, means refusing to tolerate any more.

Giving in or resigning yourself to the inevitable is the surest way to lose any conflict, violent or non-violent. Most of these solutions imagine a government and a public willing to face the crisis. But that can only happen when they realize that there is a crisis, and that retreat in the face of it will not be tolerated.

All these solutions naturally have their pros and their cons, as all solutions do. But for the moment Getting Tough is the solution we can realistically work for, and what that means is refusing to give up, surrender and go away and wait for the inevitable. It means fighting the good fight, and refusing to tolerate the intolerable, on the grounds that pundits and politicians demand that we should.

All the other solutions demand government action. This one is tailored for individuals, in communities and workplaces. To borrow a liberal term, Think Globally and Act Locally. Know about the Global Jihad and do what you can to refuse to tolerate it locally. That is where the resistance and any prospective solution begins.

What does an independence day mean anyway? As a culture grows softer, it simply comes to mean another holiday, festive foods, fireworks and a day off from work. In the purely hedonistic misinterpretation, independence means a chance to celebrate your own creature comforts without thinking about the sacrifices they cost and the sacrifices needed to perpetuate that personal independence, made possible by a greater national independence.

Individual independence requires national independence. To be free, you must also live in a free nation. And for a nation to be free, it must be made up of free people.

Yet what happens when independence becomes just a word. When a nation isn't really made up of free people anymore, or when it's no longer quite free?

I return tonight from saying Hallel, from prayers that celebrate the independence of the State of Israel as a divine gift. In a little more than two months from now I will stand beneath the coruscating explosions of colorful fireworks in the sky over the city for the Fourth of July. And yet it would be entirely practical to ask whether there is anything to celebrate anymore?

The map of Israel that hangs on the wall of the synagogue has been turned from a miracle into an act of wishful thinking, thanks to the concessions to terrorism made since the early 90's. Israel has been hollowed out and encircled by a terrorist state. At the same criticizing those same policies is considered "extremist" and in some cases borderline illegal. Israel is rapidly shrinking to its 1948 "Independence Borders", as if America were being reduced to the original 13 colonies.

Meanwhile in the United States, the popular culture has shifted from celebrating America, to celebrating the egotistical figure occupying the White House. A Fourth of July under Obama will be less about America, than it will be about a lying amateur politician who successfully turned himself into a celebrity and now sits at the center of American government, despite his unfitness to hold that position.

America and Americans meanwhile are far less "independent" than ever. The constantly expanding Federal Government is reducing freedom at both the State and the individual level. Meanwhile international treaties have further reduced the autonomy of even the Federal government. The socialist credo that calls for government without end is not freedom, it is the tyrannical antithesis of freedom. And yet that is what rules over America today, far more securely than any British monarch ever did.

So what independence is there left to celebrate? In the hedonistic misinterpretation, we celebrate the independence we have at the present, but that is not what a celebration of national independence is truly about. Either in America or Israel. Independence is not rooted in the moment, but in the ideas that give it birth. And those ideas can be and must be reclaimed.

A celebration of independence is a reminder, a signpost that allows us to look around at our governments and our lives and compare them to those founding ideals, both in how we fall short and in how they fell short-- and to use those comparisons as building plans to make each country a better nation.

A nation is not merely a government or a flag. It is not a symbol. It is an ideal built up through blood and toil, and through law and aspiration. And when those ideals falter and when freedom seems remote, independence day is a reminder that what was done once, can be done again.

As bad as things can get, nothing is forever lost because a nation is embodied in those ideals which gave it birth. Buildings can shatter, land can be conquered, men can die-- but when those ideals are held deeply in the minds and hearts of even a small number of people, then nations can rise from the dust once again.

That is the decisive lesson of Israel's own independence. And even if Israel falls, it shall be rebuilt again. Even if America falls, it shall be rebuilt again. Perhaps not under the same name or the same flag, but what was done once can be done again. That should be an abiding inspiration to us all.

Europe drove out the Muslim hordes once. Despite the millions of Muslims that have overrun Europe today, what was done once, can be done again.

A minority of American colonists rose up against a foreign tyrant, and underequipped fought a hopeless battle, against the soldiers that had been sent to protect them, against foreign mercenaries and against their own loyalist brethren. And they won. What was done once, can be done again.

A handful of emigrants traveled to the distant land of their forefathers held by the Turk and the British Empire. They drained swamps, wrote poems, herded and farmed, built and labored until they raised a flag high and against the wrath of an Empire and that of every Arab state in the Middle East, and every Muslim state beyond, created an independent nation. What was done once, can be done again.

None of these acts were perfect. None of the people who did them were perfect. They were flawed and argumentative. Some were corrupt, some were radicals, some made tragic mistakes, and many had little idea of what they were doing or what the future would truly hold for them. In that they are just like us, standing on the cusp of history, hearing the waves of time crash around us, and wondering what to do, and whether this struggle we are engaged in has any hope at all.

The answer comes on independence day. What was done once, can be done again.

A nation's integrity doesn't rest in its military, or its economy or even its self-interest. These are all dependent on its core ideology or belief system. Without that, even the strongest and most secure of nations is nothing more than a paper tiger waiting for a breeze to blow it over.

A nation's core ideology must answer three questions.

1. This is who we are

2. This is why we are here

3. This is what we plan to do in the future

Like virtually every Western country, Israel's own core ideology, Zionism, has all but withered away.

Virtually every major party in Israel is either post-Zionist, pre-Zionist or anti-Zionist. The major governing parties, Likud, Labor and Kadima, have become post-Zionist parties, occasionally dressing up in the flag and cloaking their agenda in the colors of Zionism. This leaves the pre-Zionist Haredi religious parties such as Shas and UTJ (which paradoxically would not exist were it not for Zionism), concerned only with sustaining their own particular communities from the treasury. And of course the left wing and Arab Anti-Zionist parties such as Meretz, Shinui or Balad.

Israel's crisis is not a military crisis or even a demographic crisis. Both are solvable problems, to which the solutions are fairly apparent. Israel's crisis is a crisis of faith. A crisis of its core ideology, Zionism.

The great struggle between the conservative Herut and the socialist movements, transmuted into the clash between Labor and Likud, has become irrelevant as Labor and Likud have lost any real ideology or principles. Sharon understood this reality and employed it to demolish both, creating Kadima out of the rubble, a party based purely on corruption and greed, devoid of any ideology or principles.

Labor's principles were devoured by decades of its own corruption, while the Likud lost its principles by failing to pass them on to the next generation. The link between Herut and Likud exists now only as a fiction. The middle aged Likudniks might be able to tell you who Jabotinsky was, and might even know what he stood for. The younger generation is lucky if they can recognize his name.

Labor meanwhile remains as the public face for a network of corruption carried through by the state's socialist institutions, some now privatized. Both Likud and Labor now stand on the brink of irrelevance. They are not post-Zionist so much out of ideology, as out of a lack of ideology. Sharon's creation of Kadima took into account that the bulk of Labor and Likud MK's had come to represent nothing more than corruption and greed. So he created a party just for them. Kadima, the party of post-Zionism.

How have we fallen so low?

The answer lies in a dilution of the meaning of Zionism, from a plan to build a thriving Jewish state in Israel, to fighting for its survival within increasingly shrinking borders. Israel now approaches the 1967 borders. Once it reaches those borders, the next stage will be the dismantling of Israel, perhaps to the borders of the proposed UN compromise.

Today what most people associate with Zionism is fighting for Israel's right to live. But fighting to live is not an ideology, it's a desperation strategy. If you must fight to live, then you're already on your deathbed.

When the Zionist dream turned into reality, like most realities it had plenty of warts and ugly spots. It was not a utopia and the day to day details often weren't pretty at all. Idealism gave way to naked greed, to a culture of being constantly on the make, and laughing at the folly of idealists. The Knesset, this one and so many before it, represent that ugly side. They are post-Zionist because they are post-idealistic. They are a gathering of politicians without ideas, only agendas.

Today only religious zionism remains as the largest outpost of Zionism in Israel, but even within religious zionism the death of idealism has long since set in, and the truly committed are a minority within a minority. They remain the last source of Zionist parties in Israel, but they have circled the wagons around the settlements as the last stand of Zionism in Israel. And that too highlights the same problem, to fight for your right to exist is not enough.

Reviving Zionism runs right into the vision problem again. Zionism cannot simply mean standing up to terrorists or refusing to give up land. Those are negatives. They are things that you are agaisnt. Not things you are for. To revive Zionism requires a positive vision, one that envisions Israel as it should be.

The left beginning with Rabin and Peres succeeded in articulating a positive post-Zionist vision, which took its tack from the post-Western visions that fueled the New Britain or the America of Immigrants. The New Middle East in which Israel would be simply another nation, open borders and open trade, that appealed perfectly to a generation tired of war, and eager to enjoy the good life of their European counterparts.

The post-Zionist vision has since crashed and burned, but the Likud has offered no opposing positive vision, only criticisms that it has gone too far. And that is why the left has managed to continue steering Israel from one concession to another, and from one disaster to another. When Rabin and Peres took office, they didn't simply gain control of Israel, they gained control of the nation's ideological belief system.

The Arab wars wore down Israel from without, while the left stabbed the country in the back from within. The combination paved the way for every succeeding disaster between Oslo and Hamastan. To end this reign of error, requires reviving Zionism with a positive vision.

A Zionist vision based on resisting terrorism is not enough. Instead the question must be answered, "Where do you see Israel in 25 years and what do we have to do to get there?"

Zionism gained currency once because it expressed a positive vision of collective national destiny. Because it linked the land of Israel to the Jews and the Jews to the land. Because it proclaimed that there was no solution to the Jewish problem except in Israel. Those things are still true, the problem is that too few people say these things anymore unless they're old men or wearing knitted Kippahs.

The challenge of reviving Zionism is to make it relevant again, not simply as an antidote to terrorism. What the left understood all too well, is that telling people that we must fight to hold onto the land, raises the inevitable question, why keep fighting just to hold onto the land. If Israel is nothing more than a plot of land we live in, then it has no more meaning than a plot of land in Europe or Africa. The dilution of Zionism removed that context and turned Israel into nothing more than land. Land without ideas is nothing more than dirt, and no one can be expected to die for dirt.

That means answering these three fundamental questions in a way that ties into the concerns, dreams and hopes of a new generation;

1. This is who we are

2. This is why we are here

3. This is what we plan to do in the future

The left's post-Zionist answers were, that we are just another Middle Eastern people here to make money and have a good time. And that in the future we will drive from Tel Aviv to Cairo and then to Ramallah, eat, drink and hit all the nightclubs. Israel will be Hong Kong to the Middle East's China. And there will be good times for everyone except the stuck up datim.

Simple answers that appealed to people. Those answers stopped being relevant after the first suicide bombing, but that has not stopped the trend of post-Zionism from dominating Israel's cultural landscape, because there was no renewed Zionism to displace it.

If Israel is to survive however, like the four questions asked by the sons of the parents at Pesach, a new Zionism must answer those questions.

It must answer those questions in a way that speaks to the experiences of a generation born and raised in a cynical political environment. It must answer them in positive terms, rather than negative ones. It must answer them in a cultural landscape fragmented by ethnic divisions. It must look toward the future and articulate a vision that is one part dream and one part reality.

It has been done before and can be done again. Religious Zionism has part of the answer, but only a small part of it. Its vision is too narrow and difficult for the majority of Israelis to embrace any time soon. A religious vision based on a religious life is not enough. Israel must have a vision of Zionism that appeals as much to secular Jews as it does to religious Jews.

It must begin from the premise that the land and the people are one. And it must go back to the roots and wellsprings of Jewish striving that broke forth in the 19th century, and build a new beginning for us all.

The essence of the left's political grip on three generations has been to distill completely irrational ideas into short catchy slogans. The slogans take about two seconds to recite and about five minutes to properly disprove. This intersection of advertising logic and propaganda has enabled the left to pollute our political culture with dangerously insipid slogans, many that impact our moral justification for defending ourselves such as, "We need to be better than them", "War is never the answer" or that all time classic, "The ends can never justify the means."

Popularized by Aldous Huxley, whose mix of psychedelic drugs and anti-war activism showed that he was a man truly ahead of his time, the slogan argues that all war is wrong. Huxley took this literally boldly addressing large anti-war rallies in England, not long before Hitler rendered the point moot by demonstrating that no matter how much one side may not want a war-- sooner or later when confronted by a ruthless enemy it will have a choice between becoming slaves or fighting a war.

So do the ends justify the means? If we take the negative literally, all force is immoral. If a burglar ties up and threatens your family, you have no right to shoot him. After all the ends don't justify the means. To the pacifist, to argue otherwise puts you in the same category as the goosestepping stormtroopers who marched into Poland.

As irrational as the pacifist premise that all force, all resistance, all war... is immoral; it is at the heart of most anti-war arguments. The entire system of philosophy, the works of Tolstoy, Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, are built on arguing that all force is immoral... whether in self-defense or out of resistance to evil.

Of course no nation, no people, could survive for very long on such a philosophy. But nevertheless the opposition to America, Israel or any other country acting in defense of itself is based precisely on the argument that all violence is wrong, whether it is a policeman shooting an armed gunman, or a Predator drone targeting a terrorist's vehicle or the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks being waterboarded in order to gather intel about Al Queda's future plans.

But even those who do not go that far in their thinking, nevertheless accept the original premise, that force is a bad thing. Now that might be true if we all lived in a non-violent utopia where no one ever harmed anyone else. But we don't, and aren't likely to anytime soon. That leaves violence as a fundamental and important tool for both individuals and civilizations.

And here we come to the fundamental breach in the moral wall of the anti-war left. When Huxley campaigned against war by England, he was making it easier for Adolf Hitler to conduct war against Poland and Czechoslovakia... and eventually England as well. When Gandhi counseled England to surrender to Hitler, he was doing the same exact thing, only more directly.

Tolstoy put it most plainly when he described his philosophy as "Non-Resistance to Evil through Force". But of course the failure to resist evil in meaningful ways perpetuates evil and force as well.

When Gandhi blamed the Jews for asking for help, rather than going to the gas chambers willingly, in the hopes that this would make the Germans feel bad about what they were doing... he was putting forward the idea that people were not only accountable for their own violence, but for how they react, even passively, to the violence of others. Yet that same accusation finds its target much more fittingly at Gandhi's own door, and that of the entire philosophy of the anti-war movement.

By failing to directly resist and prevent evil by force, they perpetuate a far greater evil and a far greater force. By denying that the means of preventing greater violence sometimes requires lesser violence... they bring about that greater violence.

The Anti-War movements remain fundamentally complicit in causing many of the very wars they complain about. Their non-violence causes and creates violence by preventing the use of force that would nullify that violence at a much lesser cost. By failing to make those distinctions, their ignorance reaps a blood price from their host societies and from other vulnerable countries as well.

Worse yet it cynically ties the hands of those who might stop the violence, while giving a green light to those who actually perpetuate the violence. The left puts forward arguments that delegitimize acts without context in simplistic slogans to avoid serious discussion of the necessity of those acts.

The left's moral argument against the War on Terror rested on both delegitimizing the acts regardless of context as unacceptable, and of the United States as an immoral entity who was permanently in the wrong.

This same two sided blade approach is routinely used against Israel and in the domestic policies of many European countries. It argues both against the specific action and against the moral legitimacy of any First World nation as a colonialist entity that has no right to exist.

Thus the United States is "wrong" for torturing terrorists, because torture is always wrong. And it is wrong because United States foreign policy is to blame for terrorism... not the terrorists themselves.

Similarly the death penalty is wrong because killing is always wrong and because crime is the product of social conditions and racism created by the authorities and perpetuated by law-abiding Americans.

In the case of Israel, the same argument is applied as-- Israel's targeting of terrorists is collective punishment and therefore wrong, and Israel in any case has no right to exist because it is a colonialist entity.

That is why debating the specifics of a particular action with the anti-war left is always a losing proposition. It doesn't matter whether it's killing terrorists, imposing sanctions or even condemning terrorism. The left cannot be convinced because it rejects the legitimacy of the system that applies the actions themselves.

War however is contextual. By deciding that the stronger is always the perpetrator and therefore the illegitimate originator of the violence, the left substitutes strategy for morality, and ignores the true context of the situation, reshaping history until it fits a neo-Marxist narrative. By dividing action from reaction and aligning in a pattern of responsibility that links to the strongest side, the Anti-War left repeats the same moral follies and intellectual fallacies which caused them to help pave the way for Nazi terror across Europe in WW2.

(Sultan Knish was not available to write a blog post today. In his place we present this insightful piece from guest columnist Meghan McCain)

How I Can Save the Republican Party

Meghan McCain

So today I was like in the bathroom, brushing my teeth and thinking about what's going to be in my memoir (which by the way I just sold to Hyperion for 600 thousand. Nice, right?) and I had a great idea how to save the Republican Party. What was that? No I'm busy right now.

You know my generation doesn't like the Republican Party and the name is totally a huge problem. Who wants to vote for people named "Republicans" anyway? What is a Republican? What does that word even mean? I opened up a dictionary and it said something about a Republic, which is some kind of magazine or something. And if I don't know what it means, no one knows what it means. So why do we even have the name? It's like all those weird signs on the back of a dollar bill which I swear begin to hypnotize me if I look at them for too long. So I totally am in love with the Republican party, but the name has to go. We need to call it something short and cool, like Google. I mean if the Republican Party was called something like Google or Prada or Yahoo, it would have a much better image.

Hold on a second I have to get the phone... yeah what? No I'm ordering in. Is this thing still typing? No don't type that. How do I shut this off? Okay back to the issues. You can't graduate from the Fashion Institute of Technology and not learn a thing or two about politics. Also I spent a lot of time with my dad, who's big in politics and stuff. He has his own office in Washington D.C. and ran for President a few times. So I'm completely up on this stuff, you don't have to worry.

Lately I've been working on helping the Republican party (which I totally love) back on track with my columns, and my blogging and twitter. And also going on CNN and morning shows to denounce everyone in the party who sucks. Which is basically everyone except my dad. The Republican party is stuck. It has a dumb name and no one likes us. Which sucks because we could totally rock if they gave us the chance. But we need to make some major changes around here.

First thing we gotta dump all this family values stuff. No one likes that except old people. And who needs their votes anyway? If the party's gonna connect to people under 25, we've gotta be the party party. (Memo, what if we just call ourselves "The Party" with no name. Like "Le Bag" or "The Club". I should totally twitter that.) Also we have to stop being against illegal immigration. I mean where are we going to get the help from? There's some things you can't pay American citizens 3 dollars an hour to do. Like put citrus peels wrapped in cabbage leaves between your toes.

And intolerance. I have lots of gay friends and I hate that we've become the intolerant party. What's the big deal about recognizing gay marriage anyway? It's like reporters who keep spelling my name Megan McCain, instead of Meghan McCain. Hello, there's an H in there. Are you people blind or something? Why can't you recognize that it's Meghan. It's the H that makes me special.

And we gotta do something about the economy. It's not like I'm strapped for money or anything. (600,000 dollar advance from Hyperion, Hello!) but once I went to buy some lipstick and I left my American Express at home and that moment I knew how poor people felt. Some of them don't even have American Express cards!!! ):

I have lots of great ideas like that, but the Republican party is old and won't listen to me. That's why I have to go out there and tell off all those stupid radio talk show people (Hello, who even listens to the radio anymore? If Rush Limbaugh wanted to matter, he should be on Twitter like me. 25,000 followers and counting! :D) and Karl Rove and the Christians.

The only way the Republican party is ever going to matter to bored rich twenty somethings like me, is if we stop being old and start being cool. Forget Joe the Plumber, we need Will Smith. Lincoln, take a hike. Hello, no one uses pennies anymore. Or five dollar bills. Except maybe in North Phoenix.

Anyway I gotta go write my memoirs now. I've got a whole two chapters in them about not being able to find a date, and I'm working on a third one now telling off people who think I'm fat. Sure you might not think that's important, but I do. And like that black guy who has his own holiday, I have a dream.

I have a dream that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be our candidate in 2012. The candidate of "The Party." And he's not even going to have a platform. We'll just have magazine covers with his face on it on every poster that will say "Arnold 2012". Nothing else. Because you don't need policies or issues anymore to be President, just a cool image. And action figures. Stop thinking and start talking a lot about yourself. It's not about America anymore, it's about You. And mainly me. It's about being exciting and cutting edge. Everyone wants to be a celebrity (not me, because I already am :) and if we harness that power, we can win. I just know it.
But first we're going to have to get rid of everyone who isn't with it. I'm working on that right now.

Off to do CNN.

XOXO

Meghan

Megan McCain is a columnist for the Daily Beast, whose insightful columns continue to educate dozens of Americans about the dangers of hair extensions and Republican extremism, and will shortly be talking to a very drunken Jack Cafferty shortly about how much trouble she's having finding a date for her book release party.

ABC News aired a tape showing the brother of the crown prince of the UAE and the Emir of Dubai brutally torturing a farmer in a way that was supposed to be unique to Saddam and his progeny.

A video tape smuggled out of the United Arab Emirates shows a member of the country's royal family mercilessly torturing a man with whips, electric cattle prods and wooden planks with protruding nails.

A man in a UAE police uniform is seen on the tape tying the victim's arms and legs, and later holding him down as the Sheikh pours salt on the man's wounds and then drives over him with his Mercedes SUV.

"The incidents depicted in the video tapes were not part of a pattern of behavior," the Interior Ministry's statement declared.

The Minister of the Interior is also one of Sheikh Issa's brother.

The government statement said its review found "all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department."

Naturally. The UAE is a dictatorship. The only differences between the UAE or Saddam's Iraq lies in military strength and the image they choose to present to the world.

Meanwhile much of the same media and Hollywood celebrities who wax indignant about the US waterboarding of Al Queda terrorists, bought into the whole Dubai mirage, investing huge money in property, including the "world islands" that are now speedily turning worthless.

There is no such thing as a moderate Arab Muslim state. There are only those who put on a moderate appearance because of their weakness. When you get down to the ruling family, there is no real difference. The UAE and their Dubai wonderland is ruled by the same bunch of jumped up desert thugs turned billionaires as Saudi Arabia or Jordan or the former Iraq.

Pull back the curtain and you can see the torture chambers. The real ones, not the kid gloves that the US handles Osama Bin Laden's terrorists with. Terrorists partly funded by the UAE and their royal family.

To those who say criminal prosecution of terrorists is the answer, witness how criminal prosecution in the UK utterly failed to hold the Easter Bombing terrorists, who are now free and wending their way through England's court system for possible deportation.

This while Obama is preparing to move Gitmo terrorists into your neighborhood.

The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of the detainees into this country, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Their release is seen as a crucial step to plans, announced by President Obama during his first week in office, to close the prison and relocate the detainees. Administration officials also believe that settling some of them in American communities will set an example, helping to persuade other nations to accept Guantanamo detainees too.

But the decision to release the Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, is not final and faces challenges from within the government, as well as likely public opposition. Among government agencies, the Homeland Security Department has registered concerns about the plan.

There are 17 Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gers) at Guantanamo. A U.S. official familiar with the discussions over their release said that as many as seven could be resettled in the U.S., possibly in two or more small groups.

Officials have not said where in the United States they might live. But many Uighur immigrants from China live in Washington's Virginia suburbs, and advocates have urged that the detainees be resettled near people who speak their language and are familiar with their customs...

Yes including their peculiar custom of strapping on bomb vests and exploding themselves in public areas, such as say in the Washington area. Better be sure you pronounce Wee-gurs right.

Speaking of scary things in the Washington area, Boker Tov Boulder has more on Obama's corps of the living brainwashed volunteers

Not only will this 'army' of community organizers eventually involve as many as 8 - 9 million people, it will be MANDATORY for anyone who gets federal student loans.

Welcome to the Obama Youth. Check your mind and conscience at the door.

Meanwhile Debbie Schlussel takes a closer look at Obama\Pelosi targeting Harman\AIPAC just in time for Obama's own gathering showdown with Israel.

While the NSA wanted to wiretap the Congressman who had contacts with a terrorist while in the Middle East, they nixed it because they thought it wouldn't go over to wiretap a U.S. Congressman.

Yes, the NSA had court approval to wiretap Harman . . . because the NSA sought it. Why didn't the NSA seek court approval on the pan-Islamist Member of Congress? Why the double standard?

And the targets of the Harman transcript release are interesting, too. The target isn't just Harman. Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen--the two men under indictment, former employees of pro-Israel lobby AIPAC--were entrapped at the direction of David W. Szady, head of counterintelligence for the FBI from 2001 to 2006. Szady, well known as an Islamo-sympathizing, anti-Semitic FBI agent, was intent on exposing Israel in a negative light. He dreamed up the whole scheme, using Weissman and Rosen, to show "balance" to his Islamic world buddies--to show that America was not just going after them (as if America has gone after much of them at all). The FBI honcho also had a vendetta to settle because he was upset that Israel was cooperating with the NYPD in counterterrorism investigations that led to NYPD arrests of terrorist in New York--arrests that showed up the incompetent FBI and its floundering counterterrorism efforts.

The Pentagon employee, Lawrence Franklin, was also entrapped because he was one of the few in the Pentagon who actually got it on jihad and the Iranian threat, one of the few who was known to be pro-Israel. This was a "kill three birds with one stone" operation. A brilliant man with several graduate degrees and expertise on the Middle East, Franklin has been reduced to serving as a car parking valet at night.

And though the alleged transcript--which reports claim shows Harman promising to ask the Justice department for leniency for Rosen and Weissman--has yet to surface, reporters and bloggers are slobbering over the allegations, repeating them as fact.

In fact, Rosen and Weissman didn't need Harman's calls for "leniency." They never committed espionage and even the federal judge on the case sees it as a frame-up job. The judge has asked the Justice Department why the case should continue, and there is every indication the Department will soon drop this witch-hunt. The release of this transcript from two years ago was done deliberately to hurt Rosen and Weissman and their chance at a chance at real justice after two years of persecution. There is no evidence that Harman ever followed through on helping their case or ever contacted the Justice Department on their behalf. But the release of the transcript was designed to put them (and Israel) forever under suspicion that the charges in their case were not dropped because they are baseless but because of bribery of a U.S. Congresswoman.

That's not to mention the fact that Jane Harman was far more hawkish than most Democrats, a reason Nancy Pelosi didn't pick her for Intelligence Committee Chairman. Harman supported the NSA wiretaps. She was hawkish against Islamofascism. And she strongly supported Israel. But why should conservative bloggers who claim to support these things care, when they can easily savage this Democrat and Israel a spying, bribing enemy in one fell swoop?

Meanwhile in Israel, the Religion of Peace, which of course respects the Jewish forefathers, whom they claim as their own, and is no way Nazific, scrawled Swastikas on Joseph's Tomb.

This comes after Palestinian Arabs brutally seized the tomb in an extended firefight, with the Israeli government backing down to international pressure and abandoning its own soldiers under fire. It has been the heroic efforts of individual Jewish pilgrims who risked their lives to maintain access to the tomb.

In 2001, within less than an hour of the original Israeli retreat, Palestinian rioters overtook Joseph's Tomb and reportedly ransacked and then partially destroyed the structure.

he tomb is located just outside the modern city of Nablus, or biblical Shechem, in the northern West Bank. Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, which granted nearby strategic territory to the Palestinians, Joseph's Tomb was supposed to be accessible to Jews and Christians. But following repeated attacks against Jewish worshippers at the holy site by gunmen associated with then-Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat's militias, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in October 2000 ordered an Israeli unilateral retreat from the area.

Immediately following the Israeli retreat, Palestinian rioters overtook Joseph's Tomb and reportedly began to ransack the site. Palestinian mobs reportedly tore apart books, destroying prayer stands and grinding out stone carvings in the Tomb's interior. Palestinians hoisted a Muslim flag over the tomb. Amin Maqbul, an official from Arafat's office, visited the tomb to deliver a speech declaring, "Today was the first step to liberate (Jerusalem)."

One BBC reporter described the scene: "The site was reduced to smoldering rubble – festooned with Palestinian and Islamic flags – cheering Arab crowd."

Today Jerusalem. Tomorrow the world.

For 7 years after 9/11, American concerns about "extremism" were usually preceded by the word, "Muslim". Today the Dems are back in power and "extremism" is once again preceded by "Right-Wing". But buying into the notion that our focus should be on "Right-Wing Extremism" means buying into a 9/10 mentality. And for anyone regardless of their political affiliation, who had their eyes opened on 9/11, this cynical attempt to divert attention from the real threat of Islamic Terrorism, in order to scapegoat the political opposition should be easy enough to reject.

From early on part of Obama's strategy has been to pit the so-called moderate Republicans against the party's conservative core. This has been less of an electoral strategy, than one focused on getting his political opponents to fight among themselves. Liberal Republicans form a small part of the party's electoral base, but a large number of its public face. Conversely Conservative Republicans form the broadest part of the party's electoral base, but a small part of its public face. Pitting one against the other has meant pitting a vocal and public minority against the party's silent majority. All the while Obama's tame press corps could stand back and pen articles on how the Republicans were tearing themselves apart, knowing that some of the dimmer Meghan McCain Republicans would happily come on board to give them some choice quotes.

But the Republican party isn't tearing itself apart. Neither is the blogsphere. There is a division happening between those who are getting back to the issues and standing up to a corrupt out of control administration-- and those who are spending all their time criticizing them for it. That division is between the relevant and the irrelevant. The mitosis that leaves one dead cell and one active and living cell. That is of course what grass roots movements are all about.

Contrary to the official press coverage, this isn't a split between the right and the left. It is a split between the self-defined moderates who have nothing to offer but alarmist campaigns against the "right wing threat" and a grass roots movement that is sick of an out of touch Republican party that has swung too far to the left and compromised core beliefs on government spending, government power, immigration, individual freedoms and the war on terror.

Grass roots means a public movement pushing for reform. The so-called "moderates" by contrast represent the old way that has failed, resistant to change and incapable of rationally arguing their position, they instead resort to mud slinging and demonization of their opponents as dangerous and violent.

The 2008 Republican candidate gave the "moderates" just about everything they could want. McCain was socially liberal, pro-illegal immigration, opposed to the religious right and could easily pass as a Conservative Democrat at a casual glance. And he failed and the way of the moderates failed with him. No one can forget McCain repeating "My friends" over and over again, or going on about bipartisanship. And few really want a repeat of that in 2010 or 2012.

The "moderates" had their chance and they blew it. Now the Meghan McCain side of the party, rather than meaningfully participating in resisting the wrongheaded policies of the Obama Administration, is busy trying to delegitimize those who are actually returning to the roots to build a movement that can reshape the party and give it the edge it needs to take back America from big government spending, terrorist appeasement and politically correct tyranny.

But all that the Meghan McCain side of the party has accomplished is to make themselves irrelevant. The only people listening to them now are fellow liberals and whoever still watches CNN. Their regular denunciations have no meaning because they are destructive, rather than constructive. The only thing their rhetoric accomplishes is to marginalize them from any role in the party's future. And while the grass roots may often be abrasive or vocal, if you have to choose between the Glenn Beck side of the party of the Meghan McCain side of the party. It's not a very difficult choice.

There is a far right, but it doesn't consist of Beck or Limbaugh. It consists of people who may occasionally play Republicans on TV, but who are little more than fascists and terrorist supporters in suits and ties. Their actual views overlap heavily with their left wing counterparts. The likes of Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan have more in common with Ward Churchill and Ed Schultz, than they do with where the Republican party is headed. Their supporters have big plans to infiltrate, manipulate and control-- but just as in the primaries their reach has a way of exceeding their grasp.

"Right Wing Extremism" is of course a threat. But it is a threat mainly to the political establishment that led the Republican party to defeat. It is a threat to the Obama Administration and to his cronies. It is mainly a threat to those who insist that Republicans be Democrats with more homey appeal and slightly tougher rhetoric. That worked well enough for Bush, but the people demand more.

In 2008 it wasn't the moderate Democrats who won. It was the extremists. If the Republicans win in 2012, it won't be the moderates who will win either.

That is why responding to the Meghan McCain side of the party is a waste of time and a distraction. It accomplishes nothing except to give Obama's people another victory. The future will not be built through civil war, but by those who see the issues that matter and fight for them.

Yom HaShoah has come and gone again. A day for looking back at what has happened and a day for looking away from what will happen.

In Skokie, millions of dollars have been spent to build a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, even as Iran is spending its millions on building another kind of memorial to the Holocaust, in the form of nuclear technology that will be used to finish that piece of history that Ahmadinejad claims never took place.

It is of course an easy thing to build a memorial. You hire the architect, raise the money, buy the land and then cut the ribbon. It is a much harder thing to do something about the need for those memorials in the first place. That is what learning the lessons of the Holocaust is about. Yet instead of learning the lessons, the American Jewish community has thrown itself into memorializing a horror that they could have helped prevent, if they had shown the guts to stand up to the icon of liberalism, FDR.

But it is of course easier to buy another memorial. Easier than looking into your hearts and asking yourselves whether two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community is still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House... when the lives of millions of Jews are on the line.

The reassurances from American Jewish leaders that Obama means well, that he will not sell out Israel and that he cares should sound familiar. The American Jewish leaders of the 30's and 40's echoed the same sentiments. Even as FDR's Asst Secretary of State was busy pressuring Costa Rica not to take in Jewish refugees, even as the St. Louis was turned back and its passengers were sent to the gas chambers, even as every effort made to aid or save Jews from the Holocaust was frustrated and shut down with the active complicity of the liberal American Jewish leadership who were loyal to FDR uber alles.

The same people who refused to join the 100 Rabbis on the march to the White House, who denounced the Emergency Committee for the Rescue of European Jewry and who let Jewish refugees in the ghetto of Harbin starve to death rather than undermine FDR in any way-- went on to light candles and issue their hypocritical sanctimonious statements of mourning for the dead. The dead that their decision to choose liberalism over the blood of their brothers helped to kill.

When FDR finally died on the throne, the same people would go on to lionize Harry Truman as a great friend of the Jews. Never mind that the man refused to even allow any Jewish person inside his house, including his own biographer. The next generation of American Jewish leaders would do the same for President after President leading up to Clinton, who armed and built up a terrorist state inside Israel's borders. And naturally Obama, the newest liberal icon in the White House. Our new "best friend".

More candles have been lit. More memorials have been built. But the lessons of the Holocaust continue to go unlearned.

The Holocaust was not a unique event in Jewish history. It was only unique as far as the technology used by the Nazis gave their massacres and planned genocide a scope and range that was mostly unprecedented. Mostly, but not completely. Since Rome worked to ethnically cleanse Israel, transforming it into Palestine with the help of Arab mercenaries, the cycle of atrocities has repeated itself over and over again. Generation after generation. Culture after culture. Nation after nation. The Holocaust was simply the biggest, best planned and grandest massacre of Jews to this day. It was not a break with Jewish history, it was a continuation of Jewish life in exile.

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the details of how it happened don't really matter. Had Hitler not come to power, had Germany not turned National Socialist, the Holocaust would have happened anyway. Stalin had one planned too before his death. Had it not been Hitler or Stalin, it would have been someone else. It still might be.

The Holocaust did not happen because of intolerance or fascism, as most liberals would like you to believe. It happened for the same overriding reason that any person or group of people is murdered. Because the Jews lacked the means of defending themselves against it.

There have been two Jewish responses to the Holocaust, on the one hand promoting tolerance and assimilation and on the other hand the State of Israel. Tolerance has done nothing to prevent the hatred and murder of Jews. In many cases it has actually served to promote it. Assimilation is little more than a secularist Masada, a proclamation of "we'll destroy ourselves, before you can destroy us." The State of Israel stands as the only meaningful response to the Holocaust.

Rather than building stone memorials and going back to business as usual, the State of Israel is not only a living future for the Jewish people, it is a response to the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because it could happen to a people who couldn't defend themselves. The State of Israel with its armies and borders was the best physical defense against it happening again.

Today the two responses to the Holocaust are battling out to the death, Tolerance and Assimilation vs the State of Israel. And the State of Israel is getting the worst of it. The teachers of tolerance blame Israel for the failure of their own ideology, manifest in the rising hatred of Jews around the world. If Israel wouldn't exist, somehow Jews wouldn't be hated, their thesis goes. As if Anti-semitism had been discovered lying around in a dustbin sometime after 1948.

But it is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel. The left has pushed Israel to the wall, because it represents the inversion of their ideology, it represents the reality that the best hope of the persecuted is not in multiculturalism or in tolerance classes, but in taking responsibility for their own safety and survival. And now a new Pharaoh of Liberalism has taken the throne in the White House.

Obama's reign represents a chance for American Jews to redeem their inaction during the Holocaust or be damned for choosing liberalism and a second Holocaust.

---

---

18:22 Monday, April 27, 2021

Ever since Prime Minister Jafar's speech a month ago, in which he stated that we had a moral duty to bring democracy to the American people, these troops have been en route to the United States. No one in the Desert Lions Mechanized Brigade had any idea what kind of opposition they would face when they arrived as part of the struggle to liberate America from President Hussein's rule.

Landing in the vicinity of Jeremiah Wright International Airport, the expected opposition has thus far failed to materialize. Few in the once vaunted American military seem to have any desire to die for President Hussein. The streets are mostly empty, except for the murals of "President For Life" Hussein on almost every building.

The countless murals of President Hussein, the magazines with his picture, his face on hundreds of books, remind me of the stories my father told of growing up under Saddam Hussein's rule, before the Americans liberated us. There are occasional television broadcasts but they consist of nothing more than regime propaganda. Even as the armored carriers of the Desert Lions ride down their streets, their newscasts insist that there are no Iraqi troops on their soil.

The infrastructure remains badly devastated, the result of over a decade of Democrat Party rule. It is shocking to see the decline of America from the movies I used to watch as a boy. All the wealth seems to have gone into the Georgetown mansions of President Hussein's associates, who also ran much of the country's industry into the ground. The rest of the population lived on government stipends balanced out by heavy taxation.

The shelves in the stores we pass are mostly empty. Many food products enjoyed throughout the free world are banned in the United States, some such as transfats, HFSC, animal meat and eggs because they are considered immoral or conducive to what President Hussein calls "global warming". Global Warming is also the reason given why Americans have electricity for only half the day and are not permitted to drive cars during certain hours. It is also why there are no planes visible, except those belonging to close associates of President Hussein.

Here and there we can see looters scurrying between buildings. The Smithsonian appears to have been looted, partly by bandits and partly by the regime itself. Michelle, the dictator's wife, was reputed to use priceless artifacts from the Smithsonian's Egyptian Collection as accessories during her frequent shopping trips to Milan and Paris.

As it is nighttime, Washington D.C. is dark. The Desert Lions are entering Columbia Heights and we expect possible opposition there from the Obama Youth and the Democratic Guard.

---

---

01:31 Tuesday, April 28, 2021

All is seemingly quiet but that might be deceptive. For now we have come across nothing worse than the occasional mob brandishing posters of President Hussein and screaming insults and threats at us. A few have attempted to throw Molotov cocktails in our direction.

We have made base camp in Shaw Sector. A few of the locals have come by to stare at our tanks and ask us if we have work for them. When President Hussein nationalized the private sector, he also instituted universal employment. But most workers were paid for in Welfare Dollars, which were useless outside the government stores. And the government stores themselves were routinely empty of all but a few basic government mandated staples.

While officially everything from guns to alcohol to uncensored printed materials are banned, they are also widely available, and we have been offered many of these for sale by vendors calling out, "Whiskey, Democracy, Sexy." Though President Hussein's government has banned almost everything, there is a huge black market here in banned goods. It is possible to buy anything from a hamburger to a machine gun to a copy of George Orwell's 1984, mere blocks from Hussein's former centre of government.

While Hussein's so-called "Green Communism" instituted by the ruling Democrat Party has impoverished the country, it has also stimulated this underground black market.

I spoke briefly with one such vendor today by the name of "Carl". Carl told me that whiskey is driven up from what he calls, "moonshine stills" in Southern Maryland hidden in consignments of government welfare trucks. Printed materials are produced from rogue hacker information archives. Within an hour these archives can print any banned and censored materials and have it ready for distribution. Firearms come from the DMZ at the Rio Grande and through Northern Atzlan. Smugglers bring them on wooden boats and then pass them on north. The weapons themselves are crude, mostly copies of Russian hardware, manufactured in Atzlan, but they are reliably deadly.

As America's former capital, Washington D.C. was nevertheless the center of thousands of murders each year. While the American government maintained a vast internal security force operating out of the Department of Homeland Security, this force was primarily focused on political crimes. With the official disarming of the populace and the elimination of state and municipal authorities, only Federal Peacekeepers remained as a national police force, and they were woefully inadequate to the job.

Under President Hussein's regime, the average American citizen could expect to be routinely spied upon by his neighbors, have his phone conversations automatically recorded and be constantly monitored by closed circuit cameras everywhere he went in order to be assigned ever increasing fines for his "carbon footprint". However he could also expect to be mugged, beaten, raped or robbed by a criminal element, whose ranks were bolstered by the widespread unofficial unemployment, without any response from the Federal Peacekeepers at their Civil Control Stations.

As a result the average American has learned to be cautious, furtive and armed if possible. There is no law, only terror and the threat of the DHS torture rooms, or the Minnesota Gulags. The real everyday dangers in America lie in running afoul of either the illegal criminal elements or one of the many powerful associates of President Hussein or powerful figures in the Democratic Party.

Drinking some of their illegal whiskey now and staring into the distance, I wonder whether we will ever be able to bring democracy and peace back to this shattered land again.

---

---

10:19 Wednesday, April 29, 2021

There is word of heavy fighting by the Scorpions and Eagles around Chicago, President Hussein's current capital. The elite units of the Democratic Guard were positioned inside Chicago's crowded streets using ordinary citizens as human shields. The death toll has been horrifying.

In New York and Atlanta, we have found rape rooms and far uglier things within the Civil Control Centers which President Hussein used to control every aspect of daily life for the average American. Fortunately few of the Peacekeepers seem to want to fight us. For the most part they have taken off their buttons emblazoned with Hussein's image and blended into the general population. Literature that we have recovered from their headquarters heavily peppered with quotes from Mao suggests that they may be planning an insurgency. But that is a worry for another time.

It is the few Democratic Guard units who are our biggest concern. While President Hussein starved most of the American military and outright massacred a number of brigades using chemical weapons, the Democratic Guard brigades were given the best equipment. These brigades were led by the sons of top Democratic party officials, including the son of Vice President Biden, and composed of men personally loyal to President Hussein. They have been imbued with a fanatical dedication and devotion to him. I have seen them die with his name on their lips.

We encountered a dozen tanks of the Democratic Guard at dawn. The firefight was brief but fierce. The quality of American military equipment has drastically declined, but nevertheless the Democratic Guard was equipped with the best weapons from a decade ago. Walking amid their burning tanks after the battle was done, I saw bodies wearing Obama Hussein buttons and pins. Burning currency with his face on them fluttered in the wind.

And overhead his face looks down on me from countless murals. There is death everywhere. The one prisoner we took is huddled now with a copy of the thing he loved most rescued from his tank. It is a copy of one of President Hussein's books. The prisoner keeps rereading it over and over again, whispering to himself, "Hope and change. Hope and change."

I think his mind has broken. Or perhaps he is a fair representative of the indoctrinated supporters of this tyrannical regime.

---

---

05:19 Wednesday, April 29, 2021

Suicide attacks have become routine now. The airwaves are full of messages from President Hussein calling on his followers to fight to the last. The reporters no longer claim that we are not here, but they insist that we are being driven back. Each broadcast contains lists of Civil Control Centers to report to. Non-compliance is said to be punishable by death. I saw a group of schoolchildren being rounded up this way marching with bomb packs on their shoulders, chanting Hussein's name.

Much of Chicago lies in ruins. Atlanta is burning and Newark is a madhouse. The insurgency has already begun to exact a grim toll. We are working to restore electric power, but as soon as we get a generator working, maddened fanatics from the Obama Youth brigades manage to shut it down again, screaming that we are polluting the earth with carbon emissions.

While the reporters continually talk about Hussein, no one has seen a live message from him in days. This is an aberration as he made it a daily habit to deliver speeches to the nation in prime time viewing hours. It suggests to the unit commanders that he has gone into hiding and may be directing the insurgency from there. Photos have been distributed of what he might look like with a beard or disguised as a woman. Not that they are needed. The murals everywhere, his face on every denomination of coin or bill, and the constant portraits and the two holidays in his name, make it impossible for anyone to forget his face.

The war goes on and the dead are buried. We are struggling to bring peace, but day by day the war only looks worse. I do not know if we will succeed in bringing democracy to America. Only that we must try. And the key is finding Hussein. He is out there somewhere, perhaps hiding in a hole in the ground. And when he is found, we can begin the process of creating a transitional government to restore democracy to America.