Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Wimpy Infidels

I’m a proud infidel and I won’t apologize. There are bumper stickers on my car and on my truck declaring that. Therefore, there are people who want to kill me and my response is - bring it on. As a public service to my readers I’m informing you that if you’re not a Muslim either, there are people out there who want to kill you too and they’re willing to die in the effort. It won’t help that you may be a sensitive, nuanced, caring pacifist whose bumper stickers say “War is not the Answer” or “Kerry/Edwards ’04” or that you’ve completed advanced sensitivity training courses, or that you’re a staunch promoter of multiculturalism and call Islamofascists “militants” instead of “terrorists.” They’ll kill you anyway. If you’re jewish, you’re at the top of their hit list. They were taught in elementary school that Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs.

The only thing that will get you off the hit list is a conversion to Islam. That means you have to abandon beliefs that homosexuality is normal, that sex outside of marriage is okay and that men and women are equal. You also have to give up constitutional rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, habeus corpus, bail, trial by jury, and so on. If you should ever decide you don’t want to be a Muslim anymore, you would be an apostate. The penalty for apostates is death.

You still think war is not the answer though and you want to negotiate with them, right? Good luck. We tried that for more than twenty years before September 11th. You could ask Jimmy Carter about negotiating with radical Muslims. He tried for 444 days back in 1979/80. The mad mullahs of Iran humiliated Carter and he lost his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan. Then, just to rub salt in his wounds, the mullahs released the American hostages on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration. Were the mullahs afraid of what Reagan might do when he became president? Maybe, but they needn’t have been. After declaring during his campaign that he would never do it, he was soon negotiating also, trying to secure the release of other American hostages taken by Iran’s shadow army, Hezbollah. Then Hezbollah killed 400 US Marines with a truck bomb at Beirut airport and Reagan meekly withdrew US forces from Lebanon. Reagan talked tough, but he put his tail between his legs when things got difficult.

Few Americans noticed that at the time, but radical Muslims around the world sure did and they made plans to hit us harder. Reagan, Bush the Elder and Clinton suffered further hits but none of them made a decisive move against our enemies. Bush the Younger didn’t either until after September 11th.

Islamofascists hate western civilization. They’re willing to kill and die to destroy it. But how about us westerners? Are we willing to die defending it? Do we believe enough in our way of life to kill them before they kill us? It doesn’t look like it. Too many Americans hate western civilization too. Our colleges and universities have been scrapping western civ courses for decades. “Who wants to learn about all those dead white guys?” they ask. Military recruiters and ROTC programs are banned from our elite colleges. Professors like Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado believe our enemies have been right to kill us. Hundreds of professors from all over the country sign petitions in support of Churchill. Osama Bin Laden’s number two man, Ayman Zawahiri, says President Bush is a liar and a failure on videotape, but you hear the same thing from radical professors on almost any campus in America. You can read it on liberal Democrat web sites and hear it from Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi too. Depending on the day, Zawahiri sounds just like Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy. Does that mean I’m questioning their patriotism? Darn right. Their courage too.

The world view of so many European and American liberals is that people from North Africa and the Middle East have been oppressed by western countries, that Bush and Cheney are terrorists and Muslims are victims, that all cultures are equal, that war is not the answer and give peace a chance. What’s slowly becoming apparent to them lately is that their dearly-held beliefs aren’t useful when trying to understand Islamofascist hatred of western civilization. They simply don’t apply anymore, if they ever did. When liberal elites in Europe and America say, “I hate western civilization too,” it doesn’t endear them to our enemies. Concepts like cultural relativism and moral equivalence have no currency in this struggle. Islamofascists have special disdain for those who don’t believe in anything strongly enough to die for it.

To Islamofascists, liberals are just wimpy infidels who will be easier to kill than the proud ones.


Anonymous said...

Excellent article.

Anonymous said...

Well written!!!!!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Great Article. Most of the intellectual establishment is either oblivious to the danger or in denial. Unfortunately, it will take another catastrophic attack before these professors and think tank types come to their senses.

Civilization was challenged in WWII with the Anglo-American alliance confronting and vanquishing evil. A generation was willing to sacrifice to meet this challenge of barbarism. Let's face it in order to defeat the tripartite fascist threat we became a quasi-garrison state with tens of millions in uniform.

After the war full civil rights were restored and expanded.

Is there such a generation which is now prepared to "save" Western Civilization?

Appeasement seems to be the norm, mixed with some isolationism.

It is 1938, there is much confusion, but soon we will be jolted and will be forced to "stare into the abyss." There will be no more talk of giving terrorists their Miranda Rights and we will return to a quasi garrison state. We are a liberty-loving people, and once the tripartite axis of evil is put in its place, we will again re-emerge from a garrison state with full restoration of civil liberties.

How this plays out in terms of civil liberties will depend on the gravity of the threat balanced, by the Courts, against need to preserve individual rights.


Anonymous said...

Hello Tom,

As usual, your posting was excellent. However, there was one line that starkly stood out for me, and frankly speaking, could determine what direction this nation takes in the next 50-100 years. That line was:

"Who wants to learn about all those dead white guys?” they ask. "

Considering the sweeping demographic changes that are going on now and more importantly, in the coming decades, we MUST take all measures to see that that attitude does not gain traction in the future generations. I don't care what part of the world one comes from to this nation, if people coming here and their kids develop that attitude, it will not bode well for the (territorial and spiritual) integrity of this nation, the concept of being one, united by the flag and the anthem.

As a foreigner in this nation and its numero uno cheerleader, I sincerely hope the coming generations learn to appreciate and acknowledge this nation's founding fathers and other great (wo)men who have led it in times of crises.

Frankly, I am very concerned that the mass emigration that has taken place from non-Caucasian nations post-1965 immigration "reform" (thanks to Sen Ted Kennedy), has engendered a thought process wherein people are not really keen on learning and appreciating the sacrifices and efforts of "dead, white men". I am not an oracle and I am not a Caucasian but my heart sinks when I think of that line that you have written.

In America's prosperity and stability lies the prosperity and stability of all freedom loving nations. America is one bulwark against the world's oppressors and is a beacon light for strength through innovation. I hope that light will never ever be doused due America's own people not wanting to learn about "dead, white men".


Tom McLaughlin said...

I agree Steve. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and Roosevelt tried German spies in military courts and executed them, but civil liberties returned after the Civil War and after WWII. Lincoln and Roosevelt are considered our best presidents by most people I talk to willing to venture an opinion. Each also had his detractors and many were vicious. Lincoln's were fully as vicious as those of George W's today.

I guess I choose to hope that Victor Hanson's analysis of what we'll do in today's war is the one closest to what will happen: that we westerners will reach a point where we've finally had enough and then woe to the jihadists. The western way of war is devastating when it's finally waged all out and Hanson has written extensively about that. The sad thing is that it may take a nuke attack on one of our cities to bring it about. September 11th looked like it was going to be enough to rouse us, but evidently it wasn't.

It's a pleasure to read your post, Sriraj. Were you surprised at the "dead white guy" remark? At the state universities in Massachusetts I went to, it's been the prevailing sentiment for quite a while now I hate to say. When history curriculum is discussed at public elementary and secondary levels where I teach, I still hear it. Too few decision makers in public education today appreciate that those dead white guys who came up with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were very wise indeed. The system they created is indeed the hope of the world - the "last best hope" as Lincoln put it.

I hope Joni Mitchell's lyric "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" doesn't apply here, but sometimes I suspect it may. The haters of western civilization among us like to exercise the rights those dead white guys guaranteed for us but don't want to continue making the sacrifices necessary to preserve them.

Europe is learning the hard way about what can happen when an immigrant population refuses to assimilate. American liberals admire European liberals so much, maybe they'll pay attention to what advanced multicultural policies have wrought there.

I'm guessing you're from India. Am I right?

Anonymous said...

Hello Tom,

So many things to add to your comments...

First of all, yes, I am from India and am an Indian citizen. I"ve been in this country for the past five and half years or so, and the more I read about it and see it, the more I am appreciative of it. You may have heard this from many an outsider but I don't mind saying it again -- y'all have no idea how good it is in this country. Learn to appreciate and admire it and its great founders. I wish, in some weird way, we could have "outsourced" the Washingtons, Franklins, Jeffersons, Hamiltons, etc of the world to India. I guarantee that India would've been a much better country than it is today.

Secondly (and this is my crazy theory), I sincerely believe that in the West (particularly in the US), there is a sense of justice, trust and integrity and might I add, a sense of naivete about these ideals, that still exists. However, the same cannot be said about the eastern Hemisphere. I urge you to understand this very important point. For eg -- you mentioned Carter trying to negotiate with the mullahs. Let me add Pres Reagan granting amnesty in 1986, naively believing that this would "solve the problem" of illegal immigration. What about LBJ's war on poverty and all that...? There is a sense of do-good attitude that (in my humble opinion) traces back to the virtues of Anglo-Saxon/Puritanical values that have shaped this nation from its early years -- work hard, be good to yourself and to others, have faith in God, forgive those who may have erred, etc. Liberals in this country think they can negotiate with people in the Eastern hemisphere and that is one major mistake that they make. The eastern hemisphere is so ancient and has been through so many ups and downs that they have lost their sense of "naivete" long time back, which means they do not have a very important element in negotitation : INTEGRITY. In contrast, the nation of America is a very young one -- it is like a young child, full of optimism, hope, obeying the rules and a certain degree of naivete. Plz think about what I am trying to espouse. The mullahs in Iran, the dictator in N Korea, the militants in Southern Lebanon, the party officials in China have NO INTEGRITY. There is no way in the world that pure dialogue will work with these jokers. Plz think about what I am saying.

Plz try to mull over this because I come from that part of the world. The dynamics of a thought process there is very different from your average Joe in Topeka or Seattle or Jacksonville or San Antonio. That is why I am so irked that they had a trial for Saddam. Because the Americans are all about fairness and justice and all that, to prove to themselves that they are "not like the others". And Saddam has made a mockery of it.

I strongly believe for the West to win this war, one has to start thinking and acting like the opposite side. This is a HUGE cultural mindshift that needs to occur. We are trying to play it fairly and squarely, within the "rules of the game", if you will. What we need to realize is that for the contra-party, there is NO such thing as "rules". Plz understand what I am saying. It is diffcult for people raised with Anglo-American values to grasp what I am saying.

In other words, the West needs to shed its idealistic, naive values (unfortunately, I might add) and try to culturally orient itself, to understand the mindset of the enemy it is dealing with -- not engage in combat, as it would have if it were fighting an enemy like Germany or Italy, etc. One simple question -- in WW2, who treated prisoners the worst -- the answer is the Japanese. Yes, the very same Japanese who are one of the richest countries culturally, were the most ruthless when it came to handling prisoners. In vietnam, the Viet Cong treated American soldiers horribly. HOw about the Killing Fields of Cambodia? My point is, in times of crises, all these guys shed their religious/good values aside and fought. Today's Islamist is no better. So, stop pampering them in Gitmo (I was so irked by the fact that Americans are not allowed to touch the Koran when handing it over to prisoners. What nonsense is this? These b**tards should not even be given the Koran, in the first place. They are prisoners and not customers in Days Inn, for God's sake.)

What we need is some tough guys willing to undertake some tough decisions and not worry about how much initial payment they'll get for their book deals post-retirement, or how much they'll get per appearnace in the speakers' circuits.


Anonymous said...

Hello Tom,

I have to share this with you....

Living in the Atlanta metro area, I am a huge fan of the libertarian radio-host, Neal Boortz. This morning, Neal directed his listeners to this website, which should open the eyes of those people in the US, who are protecting the "rights" of Islamists in this country. Plz visit :

Just read some of the shocking stuff that Islamofascism is generating in Europe. This is "must read" material.



Tom McLaughlin said...

Talk about coincidence, Sriraj. When your post popped up on my email (which it does whenever anyone posts a comment), I was reading from that very website! I got a link to it from the Gates of Vienna blog over the weekend, which is also terrific if you haven't found it already.

Gates of Vienna had a fascinating discussion of various people speculating about what is to come in Europe as this "intifada" continues is urban areas there. One of the contributors to the Brussels Journal was involved in that discussion. I've bookmarked both and I'll be visiting every day.

You claim that easterners have no integrity whatsoever? Are you making an absolute statement like that for emphasis or do you mean it literally? If you do, then the only effective policy would be a modern update of Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" approach or Commodore Perry's "gunboat" diplomacy. Is it really that dreary over there?

You're a native and I have never traveled in the east, but what about the Japanese? Their sense of honor seems deep-rooted, at least in their warrior class. I agree that many Americans can be naive, especially those who think we'll put an end to war someday. They sing: "Imagine there's no country. It's easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living life in peace . . . " That's moonbat thinking, quite prevalent among Democrats, but not all Americans are like that. We still have warriors among us. I know some, in spite of how our education system tries to sissify them.

As Victor Hanson says, we're slow to anger, but watch out when we decide to act. The election in three weeks is going to be very interesting indeed.

Anonymous said...


While I agree with much of what Tom McLaughlin says in his Front Row Seat commentary last week, I find it interesting that he mentions hatred of infidels (a religious term for nonbelievers of that religion) at the very beginning and in his last sentence but everything in between is focused on hatred of Western civilization (a political/cultural term).

Which is it Tom? Do they hate us because we are infidels or because of our culture? This is an important distinction that I think needs to be made.

Let’s go with the infidel idea since it is mentioned but largely ignored, and let’s try not to mix irrational religious beliefs with cultural choices.

The Koran makes it very clear that one of the requirements for true believers of Islam is to rid the world of infidels. What nobody in this country seems to want to admit or discuss is the fact that the Bible also states that if you are true to your faith you will do what is necessary to rid the world of infidels even if it is your own son or daughter (Deuteronomy 13).

Luckily, at least since the Crusades, the Inquisition and Europeans arrival in North America, Christians have been trying to convert infidels nonviolently (but still with the threat of a Judgment Day when all infidels will be damned to hell, which sounds pretty violent to me).

Tom, would it be considered negotiating with the enemy if Muslim and Christian leaders met to discuss each side letting go of it’s irrational faith and belief in their 'eliminate infidels', ‘my way or the highway’ religion?

Robert Dow

Tom McLaughlin said...

"Which is it?" you ask. Do they hate us because we're infidels or because of our culture? It's both. They hate us, and their hate isn't rational. Therefore we can't waste our time looking for "reasons." It's not reasonable. Our culture is the antithesis of theirs as I explained in the column. We're the "Great Satan" as the forerunner of violent jihadists, the Ayatollah Khomeini, claimed. One cannot negotiate with that.

You suggest both Christianity and Islam are irrational and you're free to express that opinion in the US, but you wouldn't be free to do so in an Islamic country. You'd be killed. It's easy to call Christianity irrational here in the US when you know nobody will kill you for saying it. You can even seem "progressive" in some circles. "Brave" American media outlets wouldn't even publish the Muhammed cartoons for fear of Islamic retribution. Their purported reason was respect for Islam, but they had no problem publishing Serrano's "Piss Christ" or the Virgin Mary in elephant dung because they know Christians aren't going to react violently.

That isn't bravery; it's meek submission to jihadist terrorism masquerading as bravery.

Pope Benedict XVI addressed the relationship between faith and reason in his speech last month and suggested that Islam eschewed such a connection. Irrational and violent Muslim reaction to Benedict's quote of a 14th century Byzantine emperor in the speech and their apparent ignorance of the rest of his remarks would seem to have proven Benedict's point. He alluded to the marriage of Catholic theology to Platonic, Socratic and Aristotelian reasoning for the past fifteen centuries and claimed that the Enlightenment, and indeed Europe itself, was the inevitable result of that marriage.

Your post confuses me Bob. First you acknowledge that it's been centuries since the Inquisition, but you suggest that Christianity is still coercing converts? Then you suggest that Christians and Muslims to get together and abandon or "let go" of both their religions? Get real, Bob.

If you were to read Benedict's speech, you'll see that he condemns the use of violence to convert anyone to faith. Part of the Koran does also, but other parts champion it. Radical jihadists attacking us obviously adhere to the latter.

Anonymous said...

Passage Deuteronomy 13:6-11:

    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Tom McLaughlin said...

And the point is? Is that you Bob? I don't want to play guessing games.

Anonymous said...


I just can't type fast enough to match with the thought processes buzzing in my brain, whenever I visit your blog. That is the main reason for me refraining from posting comments on your blog. There's just way too much to comment on and my fingers can't keep up....

However, there is this fascinating editorial that I found on "The Australian". Americans should not forget that the Aussies have had their own issues with new Muslim migrants (esp from Lebanon) but they have been very vocal (not chained by political correctness) in criticizing the looney aspects of Islam, esp in a Judeo-Christian country like theirs.

Plz visit :,20867,20632997-7583,00.html

I love the Aussies for telling it like it is and I pray for the day, when, in the US, we will have people voicing their opinion on Islam in a frank and forthright manner, without any fear of being criticized by the politically correct elites.


Tom McLaughlin said...

The Aussies are like Americans used to be before they succumbed to the PC Police. They make good westerns too.

Maybe it's because they feel more vulnerable being an outpost of Western Civilization in the east and they need to keep their powder dry. I fear Americans are complacent because we feel relatively safe.

Yes, Aussie politicians can speak plainly and still get elected. I suspect American politicians could too, but none so far has tested this hypothesis. That could change in 2008 though.

Anonymous said...


Thanks to the wonderful game of cricket (a legacy of the British), a lot of us cricket playing nations have had the distinct pleasure of observing the "Aussie way" of doing things. We absolutely love them because they are frank, forthright, direct, boisterous and in many ways, unhinged. A genuine hero for me is their PM, Mr. John Howard. Unfortunately, in the US, even so-called "intelligent" people do not know much about other parts of the world to develop a sense of appreciation for the good guys and derision for the bad guys. PM Howard has been ballsy and the biggest supporter of this War on Terror -- a fact that is appreciated by our President (but not by the people in this country) and his team. I wish the right-leaning media outlets and bloggers paid their compliments not only to Mr Howard but to the Australian people, who have been vocal about their anger on fundamentalist Islam -- the PC police have not (yet) removed the gonads of one and all, in Australia.

In response to an earlier query from you re: integrity in the Eastern hemisphere, I had a lot to write but just was not sure as to where I'd start and where I'd end. But, thanks to Col Oliver North's program on Fox, last Sunday evening, my point was proven. Think of two words, Tom : Tet Offensive. When a "gentleman's" truce had been agreed upon, you had the commies break it and the Americans who wanted to abide by the agreement. Plz think about this incident and apply it to my post re: this matter in a contemporary setting. The New York Times wants to negotiate with these people. That is precisely their mistake. They are trying to apply "western" values to an "eastern" theater. It will not work and it will never work. Pres Bush and his team are a brave bunch. I know where they are coming from but I'm afraid a lot of neutered American people, softened by decades of prosperity, do not. I pray for this Pres that history will see him as a great visionary. He is way ahead of the curve and I pray that history will give him some respect -- long after we're all gone.


Tom McLaughlin said...


I'm reading Mark Steyn's "American Alone" and it's great. It echoes many of your comments in several of the above posts. He also has a blog called Steyn Online, which I visit often.

The PC crowd loves to hate Bush, because he's so inarticulate at press conferences and he doesn't pronounce nuclear correctly. They think he's a dunce, but yet at an unconscious level, they know he's reading the world situation correctly and their own liberal world view is collapsing, especially in Europe, that place liberals have looked to for so long as the seat of enlightenment. It's maddening for them.

Should they get the reins of power again after next Tuesday, they'll be expected to do something. They'll be expected to implement some ideas, but they don't have any. If you think it's sad out there now, wait until after they take over committee chairs and drafting legislation.

If the Republicans win and the Baker commission comes out with something viable in Iraq, maybe we can get off the dime over there. The jihadists are hoping for a Democrat victory and a pullout, but if that doesn't happen, what will they do? It's going to be interesting.

I was supposed to go to Israel in October, but the trip was cancelled in August because of the Hezbollah war. It's on again for May, but the way things are shaping up, it may be cancelled again. I'd really like to be there and sniff around before it all blows up.

Anonymous said...


Couple of quickies:

1. There has been this attention in the media as to how the Dems have fielded candidates who are moderate or leaning conservative, in many states in order to get Middle America's votes. My only fear is that Middle America (upset over the progress in Iraq) may vote these candidates in, BUT what people will not realize is that these candidates are nothing but stpping stones for radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, John Murtha, Bernie Frank, etc to plum posts and committees.

2. On Israel : I hope I'll be able to go there some day. To be at the confluence of three major world relgions and add history and a certain 'exotic' appeal to the region, I hope things will get better for more people to visit that region.


Tom McLaughlin said...

I saw something on congressional candidates who are sheep in wolves' clothing in the Washington Times, I believe. It seems to have worked pretty well for them. Now we're going left again.

Guess it had to happen. Maybe the Dems will summon enough votes in the Senate to cut funding for the war in Iraq. They control the House now. John Conyers can start an impeachment investigation as Judiciary Chairman with subpeona power. With the RINOs like my two senators here in Maine, maybe the Senate will bend over for them too. We'll see. It won't be pretty, but I guess it's necessary for the left to wake up if they're ever going to.

I'm really looking forward to spending ten days in Israel. Our tour guide has been leading trips for twenty years and has a feel for the place. The UK's John Keegan predicts another outbreak of Israeli/Hezbollah warfare next month and I think he's right. Maybe it'll be over by May and I can still go.

Anonymous said...


I was glued to Fox News last evening. Brit Hume has got to positively be the best Washington observer in this nation. Tom, I sat and thought about this verdict issued by the electorate. I saw individual races and how certain 'groups' voted. I am making observations on what this is an indicator for this nation, in the coming 50-100 years. I am no expert by any means but I'd like to know your reactions, since, you are obviously more knowledgable and wise.

I foresee this nation, in the coming decades leaning left-of-center. My reasons:

1. Prosperity -- one of the pitfalls of extreme prosperity, is that folks have forgotten to appreciate it. In fact, I think post baby boomer generation, who grew up in a lot of prosperity compared to their parents, America has become rotten and spoiled. People simply take things for granted and this has led to expectations of instant solutions to even the most difficult of problems (Iraq, for instance -- to expect a 'quick' solution in Iraq is fallacious.) When those expectataions are not met, people immediately start crying hoarse. The Amercian economy being so strong, that it has managed to absorb all the shocks in Iraq, the average Joe has NO idea as to why Pres Bush and his team are there in the first place. They are there, in my humble opinion, to prevent the rise of Islamofascism to affect America tomorrow, that is affecting Europe today. When are we going to wake up, Tom? Will it take, God forbid, another WTC disaster? The similarities to the Roman civilizations of the past, are chillingly striking. When expectations are not met, we run to the govt for solutions.

2. Mass immigration post-1986 -- at the risk of sounding prejudiced, one has to go back in time and rebuke Pres Reagan's team on the amnesty granted to illegals in 1986. That opened the floodgates to people in lower echelons of Third World countries to come to the US. While liberal elites may look at this phenomenon in a condescending manner and say how 'great' America is, what they do not realize is that America has absorbed the 'losers' of other countries and made them its own. When you have people who do not have much education/culture in them, how do you expect their kids to be any different? In effect, we are absorbing millions of such buffoons in this nation, who are giving birth to not-so-bright people. And I would expect this trend to continue in the coming decades. What does this mean? We are slowly becoming a nation of people who have no appreciation for its history, or the leaders who led it in times of crises. We are becoming a nation of mass consumers only, with absolutely NO sense to critique or analyze what is dished out to us. When this nation will not have a very bright electorate, this is going to translate, in my opinion, to people leaning towards policies that are left-of-center. I see this nation going towards this direction. Pat Buchanan has been warning us of this phenomenon -- the Balkanization of America in the coming years is going to dissolve the sense of an overarching 'Americanness' that unites us -- what a tragedy it will be when people will not care for patriots like Samuel Adams and Davy Crockett. I remember Pat writing in one of his columns several years back, that this nation will be more of a salad bowl than a melting pot, as promoted by the elites. It means that there will be less wise people to challenge these liberal elites and more idiots willing to lap up whatever they say/do.

3. Women -- women, by nature, do not want to be involved in confrontation. We simply cannot have that attitude when dealing with battle hardened Islamic dogmatists. Survey after survey shows that more women are going to graduate from colleges in the coming decades. This is going to translate to more economic and poiltical empowerment of women. And, I am not so sure if that's necessarily a good thing, esp when it comes to taking tough decisions (like Pres Bush has). Women, trying to play it safe and be more 'emotional', will translate into more 'populist' policies. as espoused by left-of-center Democrates, coming into fruition. This means, America will lose on being a lean, mean cutting-edge nation. A classic eg is this whole Michael J Fox fiasco in Missouri. Although he claims he was not seeking anyone's sympathy, that's exactly what it translated into. The moment Rush Limbaugh tried to challenge Fox, he was demonized by one and all. This is classic fooling of the electorate without addressing the meat of the issues. I see this trend in the coming decades. When we start giving up reason and logic for emotion, we are prescribing ourselves a recipe for doom and disaster. I'm sure all the misoandrist bra burners of yore must be laughing at what damage entitlements like Title IX and so on, have done to menfolk in this nation.

Having sounded like a Cassandra, I still think this nation can be a beacon for all freedom loving nations, if it undertakes some simple steps -- tort reform is one such major step. If we could limit punitive damages (like Gov Barbour promoted in Mississippi), it will have a ripple effect on other things in society. We must either have a flat tax (as espoused by Steve Forbes and implemented in Baltic nations) or a national retail sales tax ( promoted by Neal Boortz and Rep John Linder). If the IRS is abolished, this country will go a long way to attract businesses, foreign capital and encourage entrepreneurs. Pat Buchanan has often commented on having a moratorium on new immigration. His assesment is that we must allow the next few decades to enable immigrants and their kids to get 'Americanized', akin to what happned between the early and mid 20th century. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Term limits on Congressmen and Senators -- isn't it ironic that the Executive branch of govt has term limits but the Legislative does not? The arrogance with which career politicans behave is demeaning and frankly, against what George Washington wanted (which, if my knowledge serves me right was the rejection of this nation's capital being a clique of career politicians). Privatization of the educational system -- Tom, I know you teach in a public school but if you've followed some of John Stossel's horror stories when it comes to teachers' unions and their shenanigans, my simple answer is to privatize the school systems, let competition determine quality and most of all, get people off the govt's teat, which is sickening to observe. My gut instinct, after last evening's whopping, is very negative for our kids and grandkids. I hope you could prove me wrong.



Anonymous said...

Tom, I know it has been a while but at the end of my letter responding to your editorial called ‘You’re also on the hit list’ I suggested that Christian and Muslim leaders let go of their religions. I meant to say that they should let go of the irrational parts of their religion, (I never said it would be easy) especially their desire to rid the world of all who do not believe what they believe about God. Religion has the potential to, and does provide, many positive influences.

I can not believe that I need to spell this one out for such an intelligent man. Yes, that was me that sent Deuteronomy 13:6-18. You are saying that the Koran condemns and champions the use of violence. Why can’t you admit that the Bible does the same? Is Benedict also conveniently ignoring certain parts of the Bible?

Clearly, the ultimate goal of both religions is the same - rid the world of infidels so that their way (both of them being THE WAY) will persevere. Members of Islam are CURRENTLY using violence to try reaching that goal, members of Christianity are not CURRENTLY using violence, but as far as I know they have not abandoned their belief in Judgment Day, which to me sounds like a pretty violent event!

You responded to my suggesting both Christianity and Islam are irrational by making it clear that I would be killed for saying that if I was in an Islamic country but you never responded to the actual point I was trying to make.

How about this, just answer the following question with a yes or no (although I would love to hear your reasons if they are not ‘red herrings’....irrelevant arguments that distract from the original objective)....okay here is the question....Do you think Christianity and Islam are rational? (i.e. burning bushes, parting waters, a vengeful/wrathful God that will damn you to hell if you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God come Judgment Day)?

Robert Dow

Tom McLaughlin said...


The Old Testament depicts God as sometimes vengeful and wrathful. The New Testament shows Jesus advocating "Turn the other cheek."

That's the part I have the most trouble with. I can understand the Old Testament God more easily because if someone strikes me on the right cheek, I believe in hitting him back on both cheeks harder and more often and then kicking him in the ass for good measure. My foreign policy would follow similarly. So far, I haven't been a stong enough Christian to follow Jesus's lead very well on that score, but that's not to say I don't believe it.

Is Islam rational? That depends on what your definition of "is" is (Sorry, I couldn't resist). Islam isn't rational, no. If "rational" to you means empirical, then Christianity isn't either. Jesus turned water into wine and I can't, so I can't prove the rationality of that by reproducing the feat in a laboratory. I'm not the Son of God.

But one of the biggest reasons I'm a Christian is that I don't want to depend on the rational part of my nature excusively. There are other ways of knowing and the spiritual ways are often superior to the rational ones. Some things have happened to me that I cannot explain scientifically and I won't even try with someone who isn't willing to suspend disbelief.

The point here is that Christians are not going to kill you if they can't convert you. Radical Muslims will. There's nothing in the New Testament suggesting compulsory conversion. Christians are supposed to walk away and shake the dust from their feet if they're not successful evangelically.

If by Judgement Day you don't believe and are condemned to Hell, that's tough shit for you. If you don't believe in Judgement Day, that's your right. I suggest you read up on Blaise Pascal for advice on the question.