IT'S CALLED JIZYA, FOLKS...

SITTING IN THE DOCTOR'S office for a routine visit, I looked across the waiting room, and there was political pundit Chris Matthews of the NBC news show Hardball dressed casually and in beat-up old white sneakers. After five minutes or so of trying to avoid staring at him, I sauntered over to the magazine table and grabbed up an old issue of Time Magazine. Of course, the first article I find has a sidebar comparing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's rather similar outlooks in their race to the presidency.

The sidebar had caught my attention by stating in that Obama's big idea found articulation in his foreign policy, and could be summed up by one phrase: more foreign aid. In other words, Time Magazine believes along with Obama that terrorism is the result of poverty, a lack of education, and general non-sense like that, even though doctors and lawyers continue to get nailed in the act of jihad, from blowing up airports to funneling money to terrorist organizations.

The Middle East—thanks to the oil beneath its sand—boasts some of the richest nations on earth, nations that are doing nothing to share their wealth with their own people, but instead spend billions in promoting its diabolical religion from a book which is nothing but a military manual dressed up in pseudo-religious language.

There is nothing sublime or transcendent about Islam. Islam is an "in your face" no-holds barred problem.

So I am confident that Barack Obama believes in jizya, that is to say, the subordination tax that is required by the supremists in sheep's clothing of all infidels. But then again, most leftists and Democrats believe in some sort of shifty financial shenanigans.

Stop this madness! Reading this article was the last straw. I can no longer fathom a vote for this man from the southside of Chicago. I have traveled the gauntlet from being an enthusiastic supporter (I heard that 2004 speech, and called my wife in to hear this orator), to an indifferent bystander hoping for more (Ron Paul, where are you), to a staunch opponent of this man (anybody but Barack). In fact, it is my diligent position that we must stop ALL foreign aid to these enemies who do nothing but buy weapons and funnel funds to the jihadists with our blood monies. We are already in near terminal bankruptcy.

The Saudis own us and they own billions of our petrodollars. The Chinese, Japanese and others are literally killing us with this trade deficit, which continues to grow each passing year. We cannot afford to keeping throwing money on the fire. The housing collapse is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how fragile our economy is when stacked against the deck of nations who are delighting in their current advantage, while America continues to waltz in with its pompous noblesse oblige throwing national treasure and human capital at those who would not only stab us in the back, they are already stabbing us in the face.

And I haven't even mentioned Obama's declarations of initiating a fireside chat with Amadinejad. Because all he would get for his efforts there would be taqiyya, and that's a camel of an entirely different odor. Although this does beg the question, how much does Obama actually know about Islam? Besides the fact that his Kenyan kinfolk belong to the sect...

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

Let me preface this by saying, I am speaking as a Jew and a bit of an amateur historian of sorts. One of the more interesting historical eras was the era of the Third Reich and how the great nations dealt with its rise.

We know, like much of Islam today, early into his reign Hitler was no match for England and France, much less the Soviet Union and America. Like Islam, Hitler needed time to acquire arms and to build his military machine. Then it was tanks, planes, rifles and other military equipment. Today it is weapons of mass destruction.

Hitler knew the powers in his day, particularly England and France, had weak, pusillanimous leaders like the Iranian president rightly pegs Mr. Bush. Don't fool yourself, Bush is a weak little man at the helm of a very powerful military, commercial and industial power. Only Bush is so compromised and so corrupted by his and his family's long standing relationship with the Saudi Royal Family jihadists, Bush is afraid to exercise American military power.

Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad is buying time and gaining legitimacy. With Hitler it was the 1936 Olympics in Germany and American hero, Charles Lindbergh's many visits. Ahmadinejad was just invited to a prestigious University.

Then there was the Munich appeasement, whereby England and France hoped to buy off the Furher by sacrificing tiny Czecholovakia to the Nazis. We know what that achieved, don't we Proud Infidel?

Well, Bush is doing much the same thing by sacrificing Israel to the jihadists. Some people believe Bush is a friend of Israel's. I believe he is an enemy of Israel's. To me as a Jew, Bush is a vicious enemy of the Jewish state. Now unlike Czech's Benes, Bush has his traitorous puppet prime minister in Jerusalem to do his bidding but don't think for a minute what Bush is doing is moral or right.

It is downright evil, contemptible and pusillanimous. Mark my word, should Bush and Rice be successful in Maryland [Mideast Talks] this November, it will only be a matter of time before there is a huge massacre in Israel by the Muslim jihadists. Bush will leave Israel defenseless strategically.

This is criminal I believe in the heavenly books (those up in heaven) Bush will go down in history as the criminal that betrayed Israel, our only ally in the Middle East.

—Monk

RAMADAN AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Imagine if FDR had invited Hitler and Goebbels to toast Aryan Supremacy

The United States has a proud history of standing with Muslims and "mainstream citizens across the broader Middle East," President George W. Bush said during a dinner to mark the end of the daily fast during Ramadan.

Huh? Let's dig up a few Thomas Jefferson and James Madison papers on the topic.

Today, the president said, the world is at war with violent extremists who seek to stop the advance of freedom in Muslim societies around the world. “They attack holy sites, destroy mosques and minarets, and kill innocent men, women and children including Muslims who do not share their radical views. They believe that by spreading chaos and violence they can frustrate the desire of Muslims to live in freedom and peace. We say to them, ‘You do not represent Muslims. You do not represent Islam. And you will not succeed,’” he said."

Despite years of denying what the evidence seems prepared to prove, I now believe that our president is a Manchurian candidate, a stooge. A Saudi stooge, plain and simple. There is a long list of negatives that can be leveled against the President; but on the positive side of the ledger Bush will long be remembered as the President who brought down Saddam Hussein and who allowed this evil dictator to be brought to justice. Because this is precisely what the Saudis wanted him to do. Enter the House of Saud to cajole those mercenary Americans to come in, topple Hussein, and save the royal ass. A loose cannon without strong ties to Islamic superstition, Saddam Hussein had continued to bully his neighbors, earning their fear of him, but thanks to the Saudi-influenced Bush agenda now it's just the Saudis against the Iranians.

It is clear Bush doesn't represent America. He represents multi-national corporate interests and apparently has little walkaround grasp of the constitution, history, religion, ethics, or Islam. Or worse, he has cogently sold out the first four to the fifth, Islam for the sake of business as usual.

Remember those words issued from the Oval Office after September 11, which counseled that Americans needed to simply go about our regular business. Keep shopping. Here's some tax refund money to help you stay in the groove. Business as usual. Saudi Arabian business, that is...

THE FIRE SALE OF AMERICA

Here's a fucking thought for you in the cocksure crowd. There's one thing that seems apparent to me. The Democrats seem intent on giving America away, and Republicans seem hell bent on selling it to anyone, but the Saudis and Chinese, in particular. I'm not going to back these fragments up with any data. There is already plenty on this blog to read on these leadership failures. Use the labels and keywords to search, if you're truly ingterested. Frankly, it looks to me like everyone is suited up for the big game and ready to throw the other team off the field. Well, these news here is, the game is rigged. Both sides are playing the same game based on cowardice and greed. The politics of envy rules the day. The players themselves are not really divided in this game where centrist radicalism is the only strategy with a chance to thwart the outcome of this long continous slide into the mud of foul politics, but these players merely want to be in control, and bring their buddies to the party. For the rest of us, this fact is readily apparent. We however just can't seem to hoist a leader capable and willing to tell it us the truth, to encourage those of us who want to kick the old mess into the sewer where it belongs, so the that the true America written on paper and only slightly modified through the years can stand up and resist its enemies, both those inside and those still outside the lands which we are duty bound to defend.

Or we might as well turn the other cheek right now, and watch our heads roll into the gutter of cowardice and dishonesty along with the rest of those talking heads...

US GOVERNMENT LOSING ITS MARBLES

Is this for real? As news breaks hat the Bush administration continues to sell America to our enemies, Hugh Fitzgerald, clarifies the issues at hand. Read his article, and shudder at the sheer audacity of our government to wink & nod every time the Saudis feign a cough:

The Bush Administration announces in the same breath that "over ten years" Israel will receive "$30 billion in weapons," and that Saudi Arabia will get "$20 billion" in weapons to stave off Iran (over what time period? 10 years, like the Israelis? Or more like a year or two?). And it announces also that, furthermore, a country that is in every way hostile to us, Egypt, will receive "$13 billion" in weapons as a gift.

What shall we say about this? Israel is not only a temporary ally but a permanent ally. It is a permanent part of the West and central to the West's history, at this point, and must be kept alive not only for our own moral sanity, but also because its disappearance, or reduction to dhimmitudinous despair and reliance on Arab Muslim willingness to allow it to survive would whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. But this weapons transfer, billed as "$30 billion," in fact is misleading. Over ten years that amounts to $3 billion a year in weapons aid, which is only one-quarter over the amount now given, and gratefully received. (And need one point out how many advances, in aerospace technology, and in everything from unmanned aircraft to explosives-resistant vehicles that ought to have been, but were not bought, by the Pentagon for use in Iraq, are developed by the Israelis for their, and of course our, use?)

Saudi Arabia, per contra, is our enemy. A permanent enemy, because it is a country whose people are suffused with the most uncompromising, violent, and malevolent—for Infidels—version of Islam. For in Saudi Arabia they take their Islam very, very seriously. Saudi Arabia is not worried about an invasion by Iran. Such fears are phony. The whole hysteria, coordinated with Egypt and Jordan, about the "Shi'a crescent" is merely designed to get the Americans to focus only on Iran (and its current accomplice, Syria) and to ignore the much larger threat, outside the local business in Iraq, that Sunni Islam poses to Infidels. It is designed to get them to ignore also that above all other states, Saudi Arabia is the world's Muslims’ chief financier, paying for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da'wa, and the buying up of Western hirelings who in the capitals of the West—and certainly in Washington—work to do the Saudi bidding. They work to prevent intelligent understanding of the menace of Jihad and of Islam to our legal and political institutions and to our physical security.

It is absurd to think that the Saudis will master this equipment, but not absurd to think that such weaponry could fall into the hands of Arabs and other Muslims who can master some of it. In any case, the mere possession of such weapons would have to be taken into account by Israeli military planners, and will make their own task even more hellishly difficult, and they don't deserve to have that outcome. When the United States protested about a sale of aerospace technology, developed by the Israelis, to China, Israel, at great cost to its own fledgling aerospace dreams, promptly cancelled the sale -- thereby angering China and permanently damaging any hope of future sales to such a market. But Israel listened and heeded our desires. We, however, or at least this and other American administrations, have not ever heeded Israel's pleas on the same score.

And what is also bad is the signal to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia should be read the riot act. Saudi Arabia should be told it is not "our ally," and if it wishes to be defended, it will obviously have to rely, in the end, on us -- not on weapons that could fall into hands even more malevolent than the Al-Saud (just as the weapons we sold the Shah, that "pillar of stability" in the Persian Gulf, fell into the clutches of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Thus if these weapons are delivered, we would have to be ready to intervene in order to make sure those weapons were not seized, or transferred, to others. Saudi Arabia was a loyal supporter of the Taliban (and one of only two countries to recognize the Taliban government, besides Pakistan). Saudi Arabia must be forced to stop funding mosques and madrasas, stop funding the hate literature against Infidels that have been found in those mosques and those madrasas, stop funding those campaigns of Da'wa that target prisoners, that target all the psychically and economically marginal.

The Saudis do not now do, and never have done, the United States any favors. We buy their oil at the market price. They have fooled successive American policymakers, who wanted to be fooled. They were helped along in being fooled by so many who, directly or indirectly, at the time or soon after, have been paid off by the Saudis, the government, or its institutions, or rich individuals.

The way to "protect" the Al-Saud and the oilfields is quite different. It is to sell Saudi Arabia an insurance policy. We will guarantee the safety of the rulers and of the oil. It will cost: let's say $50-100 billion annually. Too much, you say? Well, since Saudi Arabia takes in about one billion dollars a day, and since the rich Saudis have invested a lot overseas, have perhaps a trillion or more socked away, they can certainly afford $50-$100 billion. Okay, how about a little souk-haggling, in that case? Let's give them a deal—$75 billion a year. How's that? As long as you agree with the concept, we can at a later date decide just how much we intend to recoup, for the Iraq calamity and squandering of $880 billion, from the fabulous rich Saudis.

And what about Egypt? Can it seriously be maintained that Egypt needs those weapons because the army of Shi'a Iran may march right across northern Iraq, and Jordan, and Israel, and march right into Egypt? Really? Or is it possible that Egypt needs those weapons because Iranian troops will be coming up from the Sudan? Or that somehow the Sunnis of Egypt, who are deeply distrustful and intensely dislike the Iranian Shi'a for being non-Arabs and for being Shi'a, would somehow be converted by Shi'a missionaries? And if that were the case, why would giving Egypt the most advanced weaponry help in stopping those missionary efforts?

Egypt has fought four major wars with Israel, and has been responsible for nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks in the period 1949-1956 on Israel. It has been, and remains, the most dangerous neighbor Israel has. Egypt does not go to war not because its people have reconciled themselves to Israel's existence—if anything, they have become since the Sinai handover even more virulent in their officially-sanctioned and officially-promoted hatred of Israel and Zionists and "Jews." Yet the Administration thinks that giving weapons to Egypt, a country whose poor will not benefit one whit from the airplanes and missiles Egypt will receive, will somehow be accepted by the American people and by Congress, that we will all be unable to see right through this.

The lumped announcement of the one legitimate arms delivery planned—that to our ally and friend Israel—at the same time, in the same breath, with the announcement of the gift of advanced weaponry to Israel's constant threat Egypt, and the sale of advanced weaponry to the funder of the worldwide Jihad, Saudi Arabia, shows an Administration that is terminally exhausted. It cannot think straight about Islam. It cannot begin to start to think straight about the dangers it is creating for an ally, and for the larger Infidel world. It can't begin to get a grip and think in terms of the Camp of Infidels and the Camp of Islam, and how to do whatever it takes to weaken the latter and strengthen the former.

Instead, it has swallowed the Sunni Arab line about the need for countering the Shi'a threat (as if there were not, for Infidels, a greater Sunni threat), which means the threat to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and to Bahrain, and among the Shi'a agitating in Lebanon, or those Shi'a minorities in Yemen and Kuwait. And of course they also mean the threat in Iraq, if the Shi'a are permitted to keep their new gains, and the Sunnis to be forced to accept the new order. That is why, just as the Shi'a exiles were the ones who helped inveigle the Bush Administration to go into Iraq, it is now the turn of the Sunnis, to inveigle us—against our own best interests—to stay.

The Administration keeps amazing us with its ignorance and inability to see the whole picture.

And in its list of recipients of the arms, the Bush Administration puts one in mind of the scene in a Woody Allen film, in which he is in at a kiosk in New York telling the newsdealer that "I'd like a copy of The Times Literary Supplement, and The New York Review Books, and The Hudson Review and also Partisan Review and, oh, could you just throw in a copy of Slut."

SADDAM GONE, NOW WHAT?

So another vicious dictator bites the dust. Few people realize that the Baath Party headed up by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was actually formed upon the principles and organizational structure of the Nazi party. Iraq, because of its oil and hatred of Jews, was an important battleground between the Axis and Allied powers in World War II.

Nazi propaganda was broadcast throughout Baghdad, and Iraqis often went on rampages against Jews throughout the war. One of the most ardent Nazi supporters during WWII was named Khairallah Talfah. Talfah was Saddam's uncle. After the war, many of the key Iraqi Nazi supporters, all of whom evaded prosecution, wound up involved in Saddam's rise to power. This special examines the key individuals of the Iraqi-Nazi connection, the little-known battle for Iraq in WWII, and the strange link to Saddam Hussein.

Let me state again for those who haven't followed my foreign policy murmurings with keen attention to detail—I was vigorously against both the original invasion of Iraq by American forces in 1990, and even more adamantly so, again in 2003. But eventually, I too, reluctantly acquiesced to the idea that after getting ourselves into this mess, as honorable stewards of the peace, we should be equally committed to rectifying the situation as opposed to abandoning Iraq to its own devices.

My patriotic duty as a free-thinking citizen has never been easy, cut and dried, or rubber stamped by any political prize fight or dog tag. I am a self-confessed news junkie. I soak up every break neck opinion I can find, and of course, this approach not only makes my task of informed patriotism more difficult, it makes my task nearly impossible. In these particular times when the country is nearly evenly divided, yes, polarized, listening to partial truths tortured and hair-split bu so-called pundits who usually are no more than well-paid shamans spinning spells that everyone can detect as ridiculous but few will ever reject as the norm.

The history of politics shows us all too often how the politics of history is nothing short of a shameful game sold to the public as the reality of inclusiveness.

So during this phase of inner struggle in trying to nail down my own position on Iraq, what I required was my own sense of clarity, separate from any preconceived notions of who deserved to declare what brand of victory in an overwrought war where democracy as we know it will not be shown to grow on the sandy soils and rock cliffs of hardened tribal and religious differences just because a few dancing neo-cons happen to think Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson were decent fellows with a right good idea, and wouldn't it be great if we could invent a little friend, a sidekick really, in the Greater Middle East to help bring financial stability, fledgling peace, and of course, let's not forget to keep that black gold flowing at a fair price too, without all this other unimportant religious nonsense getting in the way...

Which distilled as usual to my biggest complaint. My biggest complaint this time is that as usual (since WWII), the American invaders—let's not be coy—were not truly fighting to win, but were instead warring by ridiculous rules of engagement that left our troops with a distinct disadvantage. It seemed as if we were merely babysitting the Iraqi commoner, bribing the Iraqi elite with promises and booty, hpoing to win, show or place in some unfounded popularity contest to win "hearts and minds" while losing many or as few lives and much treasure as the American taxpayer can squeeze out of a consumer economy for the pleasure of doing so.

Bottom line. Why START a war if you're not PREPARED to FIGHT? And this lapse in strategy wasn't all Rumsfeld's fault. The West clearly has no stomach for war. And the enemy is observing this and preparing for their strategies to meet THEIR needs until it is their time to strike. The enemy is learning that we just don't like to fight back. And we call them cowards.

Yes, the Bush objectives shifted with the sand dunes. No weapons of mass destruction found. So America gritted its teeth while the President squinted and declared that it was a good thing to hunt for and knock off this vicious dictator and murderer of his own people, Saddam Hussein. Even though I never muttered the thought publically, I must admit that it had crossed my mind that this man of affectations and airs many despots tend to adopt, might have been just the iron rod Iraq needed to keep the peace there. After all, hadn't we all seen photos of a shorter toothed Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with this same dictator. Didn't the US sell Hussein arms, even the chemicals he used to make his chemical weapons he fired on Iran in his war with them, a war that cost millions of lives and ended in a stalemate after ten years?



What is American friendship worth these days? Of course, now that the Iraqi despot has finally smoked his last cigar, Saddam apologists are crawling out of the woodwork.

But after watching the History Channel's program last night on Hussein and his Ba'ath party's connection to Hitler and the Nazis in WWII, I was completely transformed in my opinion. Assessing the Kurd situation properly, it is clear that there was no reason on earth to spare Hussein. Would I, as an American, have initiated a war with Iraq to simply depose the ruthless Saddam Hussein—no! Once in a war I can not escape, having captured him, would I have convicted him for crimes against humanity and sentenced him to death—absolutely.

Is America safer without Hussein? Probably not. Is Israel safer without Hussein? Probably. Hussein was a cold, reckoning, secular fascist with nationalist and regionalist aspirations, who sometimes it is said fancied himself as the second coming of ancient Babylonian King Nebucannezar. He wanted to control ALL of the Middle East in building the new Arab man. If that was all he wanted to do, we might could have lived with him, just as we have lived with and even supported many other cruel regimes. Saddam had several consolidating wars yet to fight to strengthen and lengthen his powers but Israel, and America's defense of her, would have become factors soon enough. While many may believe that Hussein might have achieved his Arab objectives without bothering the West or Israel, I suspect that inciting global anxiety and puppeteering the destabilization of world markets, particularly oil, would have been a weapon in his arsenal he would have certainly threatened and eventually used to thwart interceders like American or Great Britain, if he'd been given the chance. He more than likely would have taken out Israel first as a short-cut to fighting those other wars with the Saudis, or Iranians, depending on the anti-Israel sentiment to annoint his consolidated new role as kingpin of the entire New Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Saudis, continue to be the covert threat they've always been in funding Wahhabi mosques and university halls for Muslim studies all over American and the West, while maintaining a ruthless culture of religious intolerance on their own soil, also buy up politicians on both sides of the aisle and media outlets of every stripe to further their stealth invasion of the West. Wahhabism is a particularly militant form of Sunnism, and is being taught to Muslim children across the globe.

Yet American leaders still insist in calling the Saudis, friends of America.

As hardcore Sunnis the Saudis fear the hardcore Iranian Shi'ites, who as we all know are probably closer to nuclearization than any of us would hope. As greedy overlords the Saudis are in danger of overthrow from within their own sect, as Osama bin Laden has been quite critical of Saudi royals in the past. Saudi Arabia when not raiding Africa for slaves, imports most of its workers from around the Muslim region and elsewhere while the bulk of its own citizens live a life of gaudy elitism, and thus they would prefer to toss back a handful of their billions of petrodollars to have American troops face down Iran, to have America do the Saudi's own dirty work.

So as my president makes plands to announce his own new approach to the Iraq crisis, here is my updated position on Iraq. We should seriously consider leaving Iraq. We have failed in our objectives. The exploratory police action is finished. No weapons of mass destruction found. No democracy to be had, despite any number of purple fingers waved back at us. America must either fight like soldiers and not peacekeepers and American forces must leave this land to its own civil strife. No real news there, right? Leftists have been shouting this from day one. However, I now believe that the war is coming here to American shores. Bush and company even stated something along these lines years ago, so let's get prepared here, street by street. We as a nation are not in fighting form. We are in breach. This is an outrage to our heritage and our future.

As our leadership continues to waffle on security, shuffling its feet while ignoring the American people's sustained call for a revamped immigration policy, more and more of us are becoming painfully aware of what the US, Europe, India, and scattered other global fronts are facing with this "moderate" Muslim menace, which when observed with an informed clear mind unclouded by misplaced empathy and grotesque paternalism is nothing less than watching the relentless passive-aggressive trojan horse that will one day shriek out its war cry sealing its name—Islam—which of course does not mean peace, but is translated, submission, like the bloody beast it is.

I am not alone in fearing that America will wait until we lose a city or two on our own shores before we muster up the courage to wage all out war against this most vicious and untraditional enemy.

BOTH SIDES NOW

Just to be clear about this. I tend to rant against the leftists because I know more of them in my personal orbit, but the righties own a good bit of blame here, too, in turning a blind eye to the Boys of Sharia Law. We live in a capitalist world, and money doesn't just talk, it screams in bold bloody italics, and we need to be diligently concerned about the problem this presents us in the muddy middle because the multinational corporate elite is fixated on Arab and Islamic money and uninterrupted markets.

That's why the elite embraces the oily lies of Muslims on the move, both in Europe and in North America.

George Dubya got his start in business thanks to help from the bin Laden family. And I read some source recently claiming that the distinguished law firm of Baker Botts works just three clients—Exxon Mobil, the Bush Family and the Saudis (whom they also serve as a lobbyist in DC), but their official boilerplate is more telling as follows:

"Baker Botts is a global firm with approximately 700 lawyers serving clients of all sizes in a wide variety of industries all over the world. A global energy and technology firm with world-class lawyers, we have reach that extends beyond U.S. borders and have delivered outstanding legal service since 1840. Baker Botts is a recognized national leader in complex litigation, white collar criminal defense and appellate advocacy. From negotiating complex transcontinental pipeline projects throughout the world to navigating rapidly changing technology and business environments, Baker Botts' collaborative teams consistently provide excellent client service."

Yep. Oil slicks and politicians are selling us out. Read this important commentary on the swindle.

No ideological blinders here my heroes—the problem lurks from both the Left and the Right. It's time to start driving those nails into the coffin of political correctness and business as usual in winning this war forward without one arm tied behind our backs as both parties and their respective natural allies would have it.

In other news, Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's book—The Radical Center— arrived today. So I'm off to the reading chair...