The St. Croix Review speaks for middle America, and brings you essays from patriotic Americans.
Joseph Fulda is a freelance writer living in New York City. He is the author of Eight Steps Towards Libertarianism.
Ralph Peters, in his September 7, 2006, New York Post column, has pointed out that only "a minority of a minority" of Muslims are in sympathy with the fanatics of Islam, who regard Wahhabism as the "true Islam" and take every one of its tenets literally. Peters goes on to note in his column that those who come to America leave behind them the environments which they escaped and become loyal citizens: "The problem," he writes, "isn't the man or woman of faith, but the cultural environment. Once free of the maladies of the Middle East, Muslims thrive in America. Like the rest of us."
My first experience with a practicing Muslim came in 1994 at Fairleigh Dickinson University, where I agreed to teach a single course as an adjunct faculty member for one semester. (The experience itself is described in this journal in October 1995, pp. 39-41.) This student would offer me rides across the bridge into Manhattan, and no matter how hard I tried, he refused to accept even the bridge toll. (My normal practice was to pay students who drove me less than a taxi would cost me, but enough to compensate for their expenses and time at a level considered quite respectable for a college student.) Now, this might not be thought so unusual during the semester, even though it had never happened to me before. The real surprise, however, came after the semester was over. I took work for almost two years at a software firm doing some of their technical writing. That company, entirely coincidentally, rented space in an office tower located on the Fairleigh Dickinson University campus where I had taught. Every time the student saw me walking towards the bus stop, perhaps five times in all, he treated me with the same respect as he had when he was my student-and drove me home gratis. Many Muslims, like many Asians and like Orthodox Jews (such as myself), treat their teachers with extraordinary respect. This particular student (who was on a visa from Saudi Arabia) treated me with the utmost respect, very possibly more than any other student I had had.
Much more telling is a more recent experience that occurred after September 11. My wife and I were invited to a friend's home for the Sabbath, and due to a combination of the small margin of time we left and the complete lack of the cooperation of the subway system, we decided we had no choice but to turn back. At that time of year, when the Sabbath starts early, but not extremely early, disembarking from a subway train at that time coincides with the taxi drivers' change-of-shift. A good number of cabs refused to take us for that reason.
Finally, a religious Muslim agreed to take us-even though he, too, was rushed because he had to turn over his cab to the next shift's driver. It was very late. I knew, as did my wife, that we would be at his mercy. So I struck up a conversation. I told him we were Orthodox Jews, who keep holy days just like Muslims do. My wife added that although Jewish women do not cover their entire faces with a veil, they are required upon marriage to cover their hair. His response was that this was "very good." Normally, the Sabbath is accepted some 15-18 minutes before sundown, as our way of showing how beloved it is to us. But the final 3 minutes of this extension are part of the Biblical requirement to bring the holiness of the Sabbath into the week, and it was within those 3 minutes that we arrived home. During the fifteen minutes prior to that, we explained all the rules of the Jewish Sabbath to the Muslim driver. He listened intently. He took the money, including-of course a generous tip from us-without our having to give it to him, which we could not. He did not a take a penny more.
He opened the car door for us, so we did not have to, and which we could not. He carried our bags from the street to the building-because carrying in a public domain is prohibited to Jews on their Sabbath. He then proceeded to carry our bags upstairs, because some items in the bag are better not moved on the Sabbath (e.g., a shaver, which cannot be used on the Sabbath, should not be moved at all.) We urged him to take the elevator, explaining that although we could not take the elevator, there was no reason for him to carry two people's heavy bags up staircases. His response was "If you must walk up the stairs, I will, too." We invited him in for a snack and drink, but he declined because we had made him so late for the change of shift. If this does not describe a servant of God, I do not know what does. *
"I love a dog. He does nothing for political reasons." -Will Rogers
John D' Aloia Jr. is a retired navy captain and submarine commander. He is a columnist for several newspapers in Kansas.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana.
Could the world and national situation of today actually be a repeat of some other date in history? Many think so, including Ross Douthat, author of an August 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he wonders what year in history we are repeating. The op-ed's title is "What Year is it? 1938? 1972? Or 1914?" Douthat discusses a series of landmark 20th Century years and who today is shaping their comments, policies, and actions based on the year they believe we are reliving. Is it 1938, when England tried to appease Hitler, an act he took as a weakness to be exploited? Or the dark hours of 1942 when we were seemingly on the short end of a war with both fascists and a divine emperor? (Douthat holds that 1942 is the year corresponding to the President's position today.) Is it 1948, the beginning of a long Cold War broken by hot periods such as Korea and Vietnam, where containment was the principal policy? Is it 1972? That seems to be the position of those who fear repression at home more than they do any foreign enemy. Could it be 1919? Several prominent pundits believe so, likening President Bush, in Douthat's words, to: "Woodrow Wilson, a feckless idealist bent on sacrificing U.S. interests and global stability on the altar of messianic liberalism." A belief that talking will solve our problems is rejecting the inescapable evidence that our Islamic enemies are more interested in the eradication of all who will not bow to their god and the imposition of Islam on all. (To believe in 1919 also requires blinders to the fact that the United Nations is no more effective than was the League of Nations.) Douthat's column ends by speculating that perhaps it is 1914, when all seemed well with the world. He wrote:
. . . as the crisis deepens, it's worth considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us, whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming.
More germane today is an abyss the world faced 13 centuries before 1914, an abyss it did not recognize, the 7th century beginning of the Islam-versus-the-world battle. It was an abyss that since then has consumed an uncountable number of souls employing the same strategy being employed today--won't submit and convert? Die.
Several weeks ago, I sensed 1938 appeasement in the air. The possibility that an abyss could exist was being denied. I saw Chamberlain's specter roaming inside the beltway. "Peace in our time" it moaned over and over again. Munich morphed into Turtle Bay. Pictures of the Founders still adorned the walls of Congress, but the Founders' soul and spirit had been banished from the capital. Was the warning--and challenge--in Benjamin Franklin's retort "if you can keep it" about to be sorely tested?
In reality, two very critical dates are being left out of the secular musings and introspection--July 13, 1917, and June 13, 1929--dates when the world was provided the means by which it could avoid the abyss. On July 13, 1917, in Fatima, Portugal, Our Lady appeared for the third time to three children, Lucy, Francisco, and Jacinta, telling the entire world, through them, how to obtain peace. The core of Her message was:
To prevent this [future war], I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
Our Lady fulfilled Her promise on June 13, 1929, when she appeared again to Lucy, now a nun, and told her:
The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.
For unknown reasons, each and every Pope since that time, while recognizing the validity of Our Lady's appearance at Fatima, has avoided and ignored Her message. Our Lady of Fatima, we pray that your request will be heeded by the Holy Father.
In the vernacular, nothing ventured, nothing gained. *
"It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued . . ." --James Madison
Bernard Lewis is Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He has written more than two dozen books, including The Arabs in History, What Went Wrong? and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.
By common consent among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte-who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease. General Bonaparte-he wasn't yet Emperor-proclaimed to the Egyptians that he had come to them on behalf of a French Republic built on the principles of liberty and equality. We know something about the reactions to this proclamation from the extensive literature of the Middle Eastern Arab world. The idea of equality posed no great problem. Equality is very basic in Islamic belief: All true believers are equal. Of course, that still leaves three "inferior" categories of people-slaves, unbelievers, and women. But in general, the concept of equality was understood. Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the west. Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced. But liberty was something else.
As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term. You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement. Some years later an Egyptian sheikh-Sheikh Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe-wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom. He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. By equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world.
What is the possibility of freedom in the Islamic world, in the Western sense of the word? If you look at the current literature, you will find two views common in the United States and Europe. One of them holds that Islamic peoples are incapable of decent, civilized government. Whatever the West does, Muslims will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. Therefore the aim of our foreign policy should be to insure that they are our tyrants rather than someone else's-friendly rather than hostile tyrants. This point of view is very much favored in departments of state and foreign offices and is generally known, rather surprisingly, as the "pro-Arab" view. It is, of course, in no sense pro-Arab. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future. The second common view is that Arab ways are different from our ways. They must be allowed to develop in accordance with their cultural principles, but it is possible for them-as for anyone else, anywhere in the world, with discreet help from outside and most specifically from the United States-to develop democratic institutions of a kind. This view is known as the "imperialist" view and has been vigorously denounced and condemned as such.
In thinking about these two views, it is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age. The idea that how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt-all of these have no roots whatsoever in the Arab or in the Islamic past. Let me quote to you from a letter written in 1786-three years before the French Revolution-by Mssr. Count de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. "Here," he says, "things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases." "Here," he says, "the sultan has to consult." He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on. And this is a slow process. This scenario is something radically different than the common image of Middle Eastern government today. And it is a description that ceased to be true because of a number of changes that occurred.
The first of these changes is what one might call modernization. This was undertaken not by imperialists, for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who had become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world. These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. Their intentions were good, but the consequences were often disastrous. What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination. At the same time, which was even worse, they limited or destroyed those forces in the traditional society that had previously limited the autocracy of the ruler. In the traditional society there were established orders-the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups. And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society. This is not democracy as we currently use that word, but it is certainly limited, responsible government. And the system worked. Modernization ended that. A new ruling class emerged, ruling from the center and using the apparatus of the state for its purposes.
That was the first stage in the destruction of the old order. The second stage we can date with precision. In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: to stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon-a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East-was now wide open to the Nazis. The governor and his high officials in the administration in Syria-Lebanon took their orders from Vichy, which in turn took orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastward into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party. The Western Allies eventually drove the Nazis out of the Middle East and suppressed these organizations. But the war ended in 1945, and the Allies left. A few years later the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the Communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments, and it proceeded pretty well. That is the origin of the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years. That, as I would again repeat and emphasize, has nothing whatever to do with the traditional Arab or Islamic past.
That there has been a break with the past is a fact of which Arabs and Muslims themselves are keenly and painfully aware, and they have tried to do something about it. It is in this context that we observe a series of movements that could be described as an Islamic revival or reawakening. The first of these-founded by a theologian called Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who lived in a remote area of Najd in desert Arabia-is known as Wahhabi. Its argument is that the root of Arab-Islamic troubles lies in following the ways of the infidel. The Islamic world, it holds, has abandoned the true faith that God gave it through His prophet and His holy book, and the remedy is a return to pure, original Islam. This pure, original Islam is, of course-as is usual in such situations-a new invention with little connection to Islam as it existed in its earlier stages.
Wahhabism was dealt with fairly easily in its early years, but it acquired a new importance in the mid-1920s when two things happened: The local tribal chiefs of the House of Saud-who had been converted since the 18th century to the Wahhabi version of Islam-conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This was of immense importance, giving them huge prestige and influence in the whole Islamic world. It also gave them control of the pilgrimage, which brings millions of Muslims from the Islamic world together to the same place at the same time every year.
The other important thing that happened-also in the mid-20s-was the discovery of oil. With that, this extremist sect found itself not only in possession of Mecca and Medina, but also of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. As a result, what would otherwise have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country became a major force in the world of Islam. And it has continued as a major force to the present day, operating through the Saudi government and through a whole series of non-governmental organizations. What is worse, its influence spreads far beyond the region. When Muslims living in Chicago or Los Angeles or Birmingham or Hamburg want to give their children some grounding in their faith and culture-a very natural, very normal thing-they turn to the traditional resources for such purposes: evening classes, weekend schools, holiday camps, and the like. The problem is that these are now overwhelmingly funded and therefore controlled by the Wahhabis, and the version of Islam that they teach is the Wahhabi version, which has thus become a major force in Muslim immigrant communities.
Let me illustrate the significance of this with one example: Germany has constitutional separation of church and state, but in the German school system they provide time for religious instruction. The state, however, does not provide teachers or textbooks. They allow time in the school curriculum for the various churches and other religious communities--if they wish-to provide religious instruction to their children, which is entirely optional. The Muslims in Germany are mostly Turks. When they reached sufficient numbers, they applied to the German government for permission to teach Islam in German schools. The German authorities agreed, but they said the Muslims had to provide the teachers and the textbooks. The Turks said that they had excellent textbooks, which are used in Turkey and Turkish schools, but the German authorities said no, those are government-produced textbooks; under the principle of separation of church and state, these Muslims had to produce their own. As a result, whereas in Turkish schools in Turkey, students get a modern, moderate version of Islam, in German schools, in general, they get the full Wahhabi blast. The last time I looked, twelve Turks have been arrested as members of al-Qaeda-all twelve of them born and educated in Germany.
In addition to the rising spread of Wahhabism, I would draw your attention to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The word "revolution" is much misused in the Middle East; it is used for virtually every change of government. But the Iranian Revolution was a real revolution, in the sense that the French and Russian revolutions were real revolutions. It was a massive change in the country, a massive shift of power-socially, economically, and ideologically. And like the French and Russian revolutions in their prime, it also had a tremendous impact in the world with which the Iranians shared a common universe of discourse for the world of Islam. I remember not long after the Iranian Revolution I was visiting Indonesia and for some mysterious reason I had been invited to lecture in religious universities. I noticed in the student dorms they had pictures of Khomeini all over the place, although Khomeini-like the Iranians in general-is a Shiite, and the Indonesians are Sunnis. Indonesians generally showed little interest in what was happening in the Middle East. But this was something important. And the Iranian Revolution has gone through various familiar phases-familiar from the French and Russian revolutions-such as the conflicts between the moderates and the extremists. I would say that the Iranian Revolution is now entering the Stalinist phase, and its impact all over the Islamic world has been enormous.
The third and most recent phase of the Islamic revival is that associated with the name al-Qaeda--the organization headed by Osama bin Laden. Here I would remind you of the events toward the end of the 20th century: the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of the defeated armies into Russia, the collapse and breakdown of the Soviet Union. We are accustomed to regard that as a Western, or more specifically, an American, victory in the Cold War. In the Islamic world, it was nothing of the kind. It was Muslim victory in a Jihad. And, if we are fair about it, we must admit that this interpretation of what happened does not lack plausibility. In the mountains of Afghanistan, which the Soviets had conquered and had been trying to rule, the Taliban were able to inflict one defeat after another on the Soviet forces, eventually driving the Red Army out of the country to defeat and collapse.
Thanks to modern communications and the modern media, we are quite well informed about how al-Qaeda perceives things. Osama bin Laden is very articulate, very lucid, and I think on the whole very honest in the way he explains things. As he sees it, and as his followers see it, there has been an ongoing struggle between the two world religions-Christianity and Islam-which began with the advent of Islam in the 7th century and has been going on ever since. The Crusades were one aspect, but there were many others. It is an ongoing struggle of attack and counter-attack, conquest and reconquest, Jihad and Crusade, ending so it seems in a final victory of the West with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire-the last of the great Muslim states-and the partition of most of the Muslim world between the Western powers. As Osama bin Laden puts it:
In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers-the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two. Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.
And then followed what has become the familiar description of the Americans and the usual litany and recitation of American defeats and retreats: Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, one after another. The general theme was: They can't take it. Hit them and they'll run. All you have to do is hit harder. This seemed to receive final confirmation during the 1990s when one attack after another on embassies, warships, and barracks brought no response beyond angry words and expensive missiles misdirected to remote and uninhabited places, and in some places-as in Beirut and Somalia-prompt retreats.
What happened on 9/11 was seen by its perpetrators and sponsors as the culmination of the previous phase and the inauguration of the next phase-taking the war into the enemy camp to achieve final victory. The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise. They were expecting more of the same-bleating and apologies-instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. But if one follows the discourse, one can see that the debate in this country since then has caused many of the perpetrators and sponsors to return to their previous diagnosis. Because remember, they have no experience, and therefore no understanding, of the free debate of an open society. What we see as free debate, they see as weakness, fear and division. Thus they prepare for the final victory, the final triumph and the final Jihad.
Let's spend a moment or two defining what we mean by freedom and democracy. There is a view sometimes expressed that "democracy" means the system of government evolved by the English speaking peoples. Any departure from that is either a crime to be punished or a disease to be cured. I beg to differ from that point of view. Different societies develop different ways of conducting their affairs, and they do not need to resemble ours. And let us remember, after all, that American democracy after the War of Independence was compatible with slavery for three-quarters of a century and with the disenfranchisement of women for longer than that. Democracy is not born like the Phoenix. It comes in stages, and the stages and processes of development will differ from country to country, from society to society. The French cherish the curious illusion that they invented democracy, but since the great revolution of 1789, they have had two monarchies, two empires, two dictatorships, and at the last count, five republics. And I'm not sure that they've got it right yet.
There are, as I've tried to point out, elements in Islamic society that could well be conducive to democracy. And there are encouraging signs at the present moment-what happened in Iraq, for example, with millions of Iraqis willing to stand in line to vote, knowing that they were risking their lives, is a quite extraordinary achievement. It shows great courage, great resolution. Don't be misled by what you read in the media about Iraq. The situation is certainly not good, but there are redeeming features in it. The battle isn't over. It's still very difficult. There are still many major problems to overcome. There is a bitter anti-Western feeling that derives partly and increasingly from our support for what they see as tyrannies ruling over them. It's interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments. I've been told repeatedly by Iranians that there is no country in the world where pro-American feeling is stronger, deeper and more widespread than Iran. I've heard this from so many different Iranians-including some still living in Iran-that I believe it. When the American planes were flying over Afghanistan, the story was that many Iranians put signs on their roofs in English reading, "This way, please."
So there is a good deal of pro-Western and even specifically pro-American feeling. But the anti-American feeling is strongest in those countries that are ruled by what we are pleased to call "friendly governments." And it is those, of course, that are the most tyrannical and the most resented by their own people. The outlook at the moment is, I would say, very mixed. I think that the cause of developing free institutions-along their lines, not ours-is possible. One can see signs of its beginning in some countries. At the same time, the forces working against it are very powerful and well entrenched. And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.
I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us. *
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant." --Plato
Kriesel (e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.), of Somerset, Wis., is a retired U.S. Army Colonel who commanded Special Forces, Military Intelligence and Psychological Operations units.
America recently commemorated the 2973 Americans who died in the infernos of September 11, 2001. The attack on 9/11 was a transformational moment in our history. Like Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or the assassination of President Kennedy on November 23, 1963, all Americans know exactly where they were when they learned that planes were crashing into the World Trade Center in New York.
For me, it wasn't a surprise that we were attacked. Much of my military career was spent studying the Middle East and the rise of militant Islam. However, like most military planners and intelligence officers, I was astounded by the success of the operation. It is not the type of operation you pull off with amateurs. In that regard, 9/11 will go down in history as one of the most meticulously planned, superbly executed terrorist attacks ever conducted.
The attack on 9/11 was not only an operational success; it was and remains one of the most devastating psychological operations ever conducted. The attacks struck fear into the heart of America and gave encouragement to Islamist militant groups throughout the world. The attacks were also viewed by millions of Muslims as Allah's will. They continue to believe that it was Allah's punishment for the West's flagrant desecration of Islam and the sin manifest in our culture and way of life.
Since 9/11, I have spoken widely on the challenge we face from the global Jihad and the rising threat from Islamic militants. I am often asked, "Are we winning the Global War on Terror?" I try to explain that we are not fighting a "Global War on Terrorism." Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity to be defeated. In other words, you can't win a war against terrorism.
The question that should be asked is, "Can we stop the global mass movement that is now rising within Islam?" To answer that question, we must understand ourselves as well as the enemy we are fighting.
It is becoming clear that we can no longer tolerate the politically correct behavior and speech codes that prevent us from honestly examining and openly discussing the threat posed by militant Islam. Political correctness blinds us to the fact that the Muslim religion is being used to support a murderous ideology that seeks to impose an Islamic utopia on the world. It also explains our reluctance to use all available means to confront the threat from Islam. Simply stated, there is a pacifist strain within the West that argues for understanding, tolerance, and "dialogue" with the terrorists. By now it should be clear that there can be no dialogue with these men.
The best example is that of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker who was assassinated in Amsterdam in 2004 by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch Moroccan who was born and educated in Holland. Bonyeri killed Van Gogh because he made a movie ("Submission") that Bouyeri and Muslims considered insulting to Islam. Bonyeri shot Van Gogh in broad daylight while onlookers watched in horror. As Bouyeri bent to cut his throat, Van Gogh pleaded, "Can't we talk about this?"
That was a wake-up call for Holland. There were numerous other warnings that a sinister Islamic threat was gaining strength around the world. These warnings include the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the tragic night club bombing in Bali, the beheading of Christians by Abu Sayyef Islamists in the Philippines, the embassy bombings in Africa, and the train bombings in Spain and London in 2004 and 2005, and the now routine Islamic violence directed against Jews and Christians throughout the world.
The pattern is generally the same--shock, disbelief, and then the question, "Why? Why would anyone commit such a horrific atrocities against innocent men and women who have no chance to defend themselves."
Immediately after 9/11, there were few answers other than those from radically anti-American professors who said that we deserved the attack. There were other so-called experts and apologists for Islam who sought to explain that we had offended the Muslim World that was causing it to lash out against us. President Bush and others sought to reassure us that we were attacked by a small number of fanatics who had hijacked a peaceful and tolerant religion. None of these answers is satisfactory.
The main reason America was attacked on 9/11 is that it is the leader of the Western world and stands in the way of the world dominion Allah has ordained for Islam. The Jihadists firmly believed that they were fulfilling the demands of their religion and the instruction given to them by their Prophet Mohammad and as recorded in their holy book, the Qur'an. The attacks also had the support of millions of Muslims and were widely celebrated throughout the Muslim world. To believe otherwise makes us extremely vulnerable to the mass movement that is again rising within Islam.
Let me try to explain why Americans do not fully comprehend or understand the challenge posed by renascent Islam. Our lack of comprehension derives from the postmodern, morally relative world that we live in. American society has been subjected to this culturally destructive project since the late 1960s.
The Postmodern Project seeks to completely deconstruct Western man and Western Culture. It aims to discredit the United States and the West by portraying them as imperial, colonialist cultures that oppress and exploit the pristine innocence of more primitive societies and cultures, most especially the victimized people of the Middle East. The project is profoundly anti-Western and within our borders, intensely anti-American.
Postmodernism is the Trojan Horse of moral relativism and political correctness in all its forms. It is managed by speech codes on campuses and by self-imposed media restrictions that forbid rational and open discussion of Islam's negative characteristics. If you openly draw attention to the violence that seems to be coming from Islam, you are immediately called racist or more recently, "Islamophobic."
You will seldom hear truly open discussion or examination of the underlying precepts within Islam that support and encourage Muslim Jihadists and suicide bombers. Such discussion or criticism is off-limits even though criticism or ridicule of Christianity or Judaism is fully approved and common on our campuses, in our mainstream media and in the public square.
We have also been "conditioned" by our media, by academia, and by Islamic front organizations such as The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), The Muslim American Society, to accept the PC myth of Islamic peace and tolerance. Fortunately, the West is waking up. By word and deed, Islam has proven that it is neither tolerant nor is it peaceful! The widespread Islamist attacks and Muslim extremism throughout the world have created an emerging realization that this widespread violence is coming from within Islam.
A key part of this awakening must be the realization that we are in the early stages of a renascent mass movement within Islam. This modern Jihad (Holy War) represents a renewed effort to achieve Islam's historic mission of submitting the world to the will of Allah. The West and all non-Islamic countries have faced this threat since Islam began its conquest of the world in the 7th century. The modern Jihad is merely a continuation of this violent legacy. Only now it is using terrorism as a psychological weapon to counter the overwhelming military and economic might of the West.
The near-term global objective of the modern Jihad is to regenerate a mass movement within Islam that supports the historic Muslim goal of establishing Dar al-Islam (the house of submission) where all Muslim nations and eventually the world is ruled by shari'a or Islamic law and government.
The modern Jihad was formally declared on February 23, l998 in a fatwa or ruling declared by Osama bin Laden and the World Islamic Front. The fatwa has been generally ignored in American media and within academia. It shouldn't be ignored because it calls for the destruction of all Americans whether soldier or innocent civilian. The fatwa declares:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim . . .
Our struggle with the Islamic Jihad is complicated by the difficulty of estimating the number of Muslims who directly or indirectly support the militants. In any case, we are dealing with some very large numbers. The population of Muslims across the globe is estimated at between 1.2 and 1.5 billion. Many analysts estimate that only 10 percent of Muslims actually support the Jihad and the militants. If that is the case, there are over 100 million Muslims potentially available for Holy War. The number of warriors available for Jihad will be even larger if the Jihadists are successful in generating a fully realized mass movement.
Where does the Jihad now stand? Some argue that we are at the beginning of WW III citing 9/11 as the opening salvo of that war. I would argue that the war actually began in 1979 when Iranian militants seized our embassy in Teheran and held Americans hostage for 444 days. We also chose to ignore the numerous probing attacks we were receiving before 9/11.
I also agree with those who say that 9/11 was our modern Pearl Harbor. At 8:46 a.m. on that terrible September morning, we lost 3000 men and women to the enemy. This closely approximates our casualties at Pearl Harbor at the beginning of WW II.
Dunkirk in WW II is another analogy that applies to our present struggle with the Islamists. An argument has been made that a modern Dunkirk in the Middle East will occur if the terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq force a premature withdrawal of our forces before stability is restored. If that were to happen, it is likely that another Holocaust will result as Jews in Israel are slaughtered in a genocidal Muslim rage and Christians are cleansed from the region.
Many will object to this scenario as too alarmist. I would argue that an Islamic Holocaust is already taking place in many areas of the world where Christians and other religions are suffering from Muslim persecution and violence. It is occurring in:
* Egypt where Coptic Christians are under a genocidal assault by the Ikwahan al Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood).
* The Indonesian Molluccas where Muslim "Komando Jihad" troops are trying to cleanse the islands from all that is Christian. They have killed thousands of Christians in the past decade and have driven an estimated 500,000 people from their homes.
* East Timor where thousands of Catholics were killed by Muslims in the 1970s. By November 1976, the death toll is estimated at well over 100,000.
* The Sudan where the murder of Christians living under shari'a government is routine. An unrestricted genocide is underway in Darfur Province where Muslim Janjaweed fighters have slaughtered over 100,000 innocent tribals. The number killed grows daily as the world watches.
* Nigeria and Kenya where Muslims are murdering Christians trying to resist the establishment of shari'a (Islamic religious law and government) in those countries.
* Pakistan where it is becoming increasingly murderous for Christians as radical Islamists kill missionaries, priests, and nuns on a routine basis.
Noted scholar Samuel P. Huntington has described this conflict with Islam as a "Clash of Civilizations." Huntington's 1996 book should be required reading if for no other reason than his prediction that conflict between the West and Islam is only "the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in the modern world." Huntington concluded that the Muslim religion is the most menacing force on the international scene and is a long-term threat to world stability.
There are many who disagree with Huntington and argue that his thesis is exaggerated and too alarmist. However, terrorist trend lines clearly show that Huntington is correct in his pessimistic assessment of the threat we are facing. As we see in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world, the virulent hatred and intolerance rising out of Islam is fueling the fanaticism associated with all violent mass movements.
There are moderate Muslims who still maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. They argue that the extremists do not represent the majority of Muslims who only want to live in peace. However, it is increasingly difficult for moderates and apologists for Islam to deny that modern Islamic extremism represents a dark side of the religion that lends itself to exploitation by the leaders of the Jihad. This deeply ingrained violence within Islam directly supports the modern Jihad and finds expression in al Qaeda as the "base" for all modern Islamist movements.
It is incorrect to think of our struggle as a battle to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world. Actually, our struggle with the Islamists involves changing the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world.
The West can begin by bringing diplomatic pressure and international sanctions to bear on Muslim countries that do not reject the hatred and violence directed against Jews, Christians, and other religions. Political and religious leaders in the West must demand that Muslims demonstrate that Islam is a tolerant religion as proven by deeds as well as words. Muslims should be required to forcefully reject the anti-Semitism and extremism common in mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) around the world. The United States should join with Great Britain and other European countries that now immediately deport Muslim clerics when they preach hatred and violent Jihad.
Secondly, the West should demand reciprocity for religious freedom and expression in all Muslim lands. All Muslims must be asked to "do onto others" by demonstrating that their religion can accept pluralism and the democratic norms now observed by the civilized world. The West should no longer tolerate a one-way religious street. Saudi Arabia, for example, should be required to allow churches and synagogues to be built. We should also demand that Christians be allowed to openly worship in Mecca or anywhere else within the Muslim world. Economic and political sanctions should result if religious freedom and expression is not allowed elsewhere within the borders of Islam.
Thirdly, the West must find a way to force a reformation within Islam. There are moderate Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, who want to reform and move their religion out of the 12th century. They must be protected and supported when they speak out against their violent co-religionists. They should be encouraged to begin the "independent reasoning" (ijtihad) necessary for a reformation within the Muslim religion. A reformation occurred within the Christian faith in the 16th century. Something similar must occur within Islam in the 21st century or the violence will continue.
Finally, democracy must prevail in Iraq even though many argue that trying to establish democracy in Iraq is a distraction that takes our eyes off the real enemy. I do not believe this to be the case. The attempt to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq is the "canary in the mine shaft." If Democracy dies in Iraq, the world will be condemned to a very bleak, shari'a driven future.
It is obvious that the Islamists are putting us to the test in Iraq. Their aim is not to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. Rather, they are trying to generate a guerrilla war in Iraq similar to that experienced by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. As with the USSR, the ultimate goal of the Jihadists is to force a humiliating withdrawal by U.S. and Coalition forces. We simply must not let that happen and withdraw in the face of adversity as we did in Vietnam, Beirut, and Mogadishu. To do so will only confirm the predictions of Osama bin Laden and his Islamist warriors.
The relentless suicide bombings in Baghdad and the recent bombings in Kabul coupled with the apparently senseless attacks on mosques, innocent civilians, and infrastructure indicates that the Islamists fully realize what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand the power of democracy to free men's minds. A functioning democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is their greatest fear. And be assured that all of Islam is closely watching our actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The psychological impact of a forced withdrawal on the millions of Muslims watching this struggle would be incalculable.
Once again, America is bearing the burden of saving the world from an oppression that seeks to destroy liberal democracy as a way of life. Our nation was the deciding factor in the struggle with Japanese Imperialism, German National Socialism, and Communism. It is again bearing the burden of leading the free world against an enemy who will not be appeased. The outcome will be determined by the will of the American people. The future of Western civilization is in their hands. *
"On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams
Sir:
While Professor Twyman deserves an A for effort (Aug.), I suggest his effort would benefit from a broader, more transcendent outlook. Blacks are part of America, and full integration will only come far down the road as intermarriage culminates to a degree far beyond our small comprehension--man and woman He made them. Also, as more than one sage has realized, in the end all political issues involve faith in God.
Many like Professor Twyman endeavor to imagine a world of human design alone. As a result, especially in the last century, our Congress acceded to demands of the moment and blundered into positivist statutes incapable of judicious application. Instead of relying on a Judeo-Christian God's love, brotherly love, fellowship and good will under natural law and the common law, Congress and its followers enacted stifling bans against "discrimination," and the rest is history. "Racism" of even a more pernicious strain is worse today, as evidenced by the Professor's need to elaborate on the issue with his own theory. Perhaps he's talking to his young students, who've been imbued with the race dialectic of victimology for almost 50 years. (In another vein, one can't cover the subject fully without study of Booker T. Washington's work ethic vs MLKing Jr.'s marching oratory. Washington anticipated Prof. Twyman's thesis a century ago in more basic terms!)
The races are different and we might as well get used to it without reliance on aphorisms of "color blindness," "equality," etc., when brotherly love is a far more powerful integrating force. Calls for "revision" or less "introspection" will prove frustrating without thought for statutes that invite race discrimination by forbidding it. I distrust all rhetoric on "civil rights" that doesn't address this aspect. The lives of blacks who've succeeded in America are heroic, especially considering earlier Southern practices, but they're not all that different from many whites, Orientals, or Europeans who've made the grade through the years. And "success" itself is debatable nowadays, with show business or political notoriety outweighing unnoticed "village Hampdens." Politicians and entertainers are focused more on popularity than wise policy mainly because in surrendering to '60s "non-discrimination" law we forgot our former culture of truth, courage, and traditional justice.
Professor Twyman's advice is generally good (and the Commandments are still the answer. La meme chose, etc.) He should realize, however, that most Americans want to consider blacks with the same lens as they consider whites; we're all human. How one acts determines the rest. Unfortunately, college "ethnic studies" have changed the playing field, with young blacks often lapsing into victim lingo not known in the '30s. Whether this can be simplified as mere "introspection" is extremely doubtful, but one answer would be to end such "studies"! Despite solipsistic "ethnic studies," "assimilation" remains the goal for all races in America, "minority" or not. But not under the rule of hypocrisy and its Procrustean bed of "non-discrimination."
Professor Twyman's distaste for black "introversion" and "the relationship gap" in worship, culture, personality, etc., is especially noticeable in its omission of "ethnic studies," lofty '60s oratory on "content of character," shotgun statutes banning "hate" and "discrimination" as possible causes along with racial prejudice, etc. (In some ways, ironically, his essay is quite discriminating as to race.) As Professor Wm. B. Allen has put it, perhaps blacks should have been allowed to "carve out their own destinies" without meddling by the state, which they were doing before 1964 with considerable organic progress.
--W. Edward Chynoweth
I read Mr. Chynoweth's letter to the editor with great interest.
If I understand the thrust of Chynoweth's argument, brotherly love is the answer to the race problem. Love thy neighbor as one loves thy self.
Brotherly love has a surface appeal. Our love for God and God's love for us must be more powerful than human design. I accept Chynoweth's point. And yet some of the most Christian people in the Deep South have not accepted African-Americans into their segregated churches on an equal basis. Brotherly love would have prevented the rise of introspection. Unfortunately, the lack of brotherly love in the past created the place that we inhabit today,
Think of brotherly love as an aspiration. We can aspire to love our fellow man as a brother. But we fall short as demonstrated by the power of the human brain to stereotype. There is a marvelous book called A Mind of Its Own. How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives where the author, Cordelia Fine, shows us that the brain is hard-wired to typecast others. After reviewing experiments and studies on stereotypes, Fine concluded that:
. . . when dealing with a black man, the black stereotype is primed and ready to distort our interpretation of his every word and deed. . . . We see what we expect to see.
As a result, prejudice developed. African-Americans, having the power of free will, responded to prejudice with introspection.
Chynoweth hints that I place too much faith in the power of human design. And a fair reading of Fine's scholarship supports Chynoweth. However, doesn't the Good Book teach us that God helps those who help themselves? Norman Vincent Peale, an acclaimed minister who changed innumerable lives, argued that if you change your thoughts you change your world. Think about that simple, and powerful, point. Both the Bible and Peale acknowledge that we have free will. If you have faith in God, then you have faith in God's reward for those who help themselves, for those who can change their thoughts for the better.
Here's the ultimate problem with brotherly love as a one-size-fits-all solution. While I can choose to live by the Golden Rule, I cannot make other people do so. The actions of others are beyond my control, try as I might to coerce, lecture, and persuade. In the end, some people do not live by the Golden Rule. Some voters reject political candidates out of hand because of their race. We see some liberals objectify Blacks under the rubric of diversity. And still others use "the N-word" in their private dealings.
There is a shadowy aspect to transgressions against the Golden Rule.
Bigots can hide in the shadows. If you are a rural voter on Maryland's Eastern Shore, you can keep your prejudices to yourself until you lash out in the voting booth. No one is the wiser. Certainly, the African-American nominee for the U.S. Senate, Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, would never know. If you are a radical faculty member, you can ensure that African-American colleagues toe the "Blame the Man" line. No one will know your private doubts about hip-hop as scholarship. And the antics of Virginia Senator George Allen remain obscured in plausible deniability.
I am going to part company with Chynoweth regarding ethnic studies. Chynoweth argues that we must end ethnic studies. However, life is more complex. Eliminating ethnic studies is comparable to removing all of my teeth because I have a toothache. The problem is not ethnic studies per se. A closer look suggests a tidier core cancer-that ethnic studies have been captured by radicals for political ends. Professor David Horowitz does a wonderful job of recounting this sad sojourn in The Professor.
The study of ethnic studies need not equal victimhood.
There is so much richness to the story of African-Americans in this country. Many of these stories are Horatio Alger-like in their arc. A slave grows up to become Speaker of the U.S. House pro tempore. Another slave becomes U.S. Senator from Mississippi. The son of a country club waiter becomes a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. A southern girl from a broken home becomes the wealthiest African-American in U.S. history. A daughter of segregated Birmingham, Alabama, becomes the most powerful woman in the world. I could write many pages about the triumph of Blacks over adversity.
For reasons divorced from lived experience, professors in ethnic studies have chosen to teach a bearish picture of minority life. And, yes, students are receiving a distorted image of the American experience. The solution, however, is diversity of thought in ethnic studies, not a complete shut down of departments. There is hidden value in learning about African-American accomplishment despite prejudice. Youngsters can see that grit never kept a good man down. In my own family, an ancestor took advantage of an opportunity to plow a large sum of money into real estate that founded a family. I dated a woman whose great grandfather worked as a custodian by day and saved his money by night. An entrepreneur by nature, he turned an otherwise oppressive condition into the makings of a family dynasty in New Jersey. Just today, I talked to a woman whose family has roots in Riverside County, California, dating back to the 1890s. Her ancestor parlayed a fabulous win at the Keno table in Las Vegas into ownership of a subdivision. These accounts are all of the black experience. But these true stories discomfort the ethnic studies crowd because Horatio Alger accounts show black men as creators of their destiny, not hapless pawns adrift on the waves of oppression.
If ethnic studies can capture the enterprising spirit, then those studies would hold inspirational value. Absent a regard for these tales of uplift, ethnic studies are simply propaganda for the radical soul.
Chynoweth rebounds into my better graces by observing my fine "discriminations." I smile at the close, careful reading of Chynoweth. Writers write what they know. To do otherwise risks drifting into the realm of dull prose, lifeless propaganda. I did not address "ethnic studies" as those courses hold little appeal for me. These studies do not interest me. Derivative victimhood tells me nothing new. Instead, I am treated to much that is stale and simply political. Besides, real African-Americans in the real world are far more influenced by their church life, family culture, and ingrained introspection than the hip-hop scholarship of identity drunk professors.
As for lofty '60s oratory on "content of character," the oratory leaves me flat. I consider the destiny of character as old hat in 2006. True, some people return to the oratory to make contemporary arguments. But I've outgrown the need to defend a truism.
Chynoweth loses me again when he talks about shotgun statutes banning "hate" and "discrimination" as possible causes of "introversion" and "the relationship gap." I don't see the connection. To the contrary, these measures seek to root out dastardly prejudices that generated introspection in the first place. Imagine where Americans of African descent would be today if the outgoingness of Anthony Johnson had been planted in black life. Suppose generations of African-Americans learned that being black meant taking risks against hostile elements, saving money and accumulating great estates, and managing legions of laborers. If the extroversion of Anthony Johnson had been allowed to define black culture and black consciousness, I suggest we would not have a race problem today.
So, yes, my essay is quite discriminating. I have drawn upon those elements that matter to depict black personality.
It's too late in the day to revisit the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Here, the various measures worked a revolution in lifting the aspirations of African-Americans. But for these laws, Doug Wilder would not have become Governor of Virginia. Oprah Winfrey would not have become the cultural force that she is. And I would not have earned a University of Virginia degree with High Honors. "Meddling by the state" served a constructive good in the 1960s with all due respect to Professor Wm. B. Allen.
--Winkfield F. Twyman, Jr.
Patrick J. Buchanan has written an important book that outlines the dangers of the present flood of immigrants into our country. (State of Emergency, The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.) The book has been reviewed as racist because he says that the chief problem for us is the invasion by Mexicans. The assumption by critics of the Buchanan book is that present immigration is no different from earlier immigrants who have become patriotic Americans.
Our view of immigration depends on how we define America. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not define America, Mr. Buchanan says. That differing views of the Constitution divide us is shown clearly by the bitter partisan struggle when a new judge is nominated to the Supreme Court. The Democrats demand that we interpret the Constitution to conform to their political philosophy. The Republicans insist the Constitution is the ultimate authority and is understood by the clear meaning of the text. If Americans who have been here for generations do not agree on the national creed, immigrants will have no clear guidance and will become part of our bitter, sectarian divisions. The country will babble nonsense and citizens will never know the meaning of patriotism.
Patriotism is larger than any creed and is the soul of the nation. Europe saw mad creeds in the 20th century: Nazism, Fascism, Communism. These creeds are gone and Germans have returned to being Germans, Italians to being Italian, and Russia is trying to rediscover its soul. China has a long history, but present-day Chinese believe they belong to one tradition. The English have a long tradition and they should preserve that tradition today when they are being invaded by Islamic immigrants. Christian traditions cannot survive with the Islamic faith, even as Islam cannot live with the Christian tradition. Their histories forbid this. Americans are identifiable wherever they go in their dress, speech, mannerisms, behavior, manners, and, in spite of peculiarities, are of the same Christian tradition as the countries of Europe. We are different and united.
Patriotism is an outgrowth of history, the sharing of past events that interpret the present, a common religious and intellectual heritage, the use of a common language which enables us to know each other. Patriots have stood together in good times and bad, united by love of country. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor they did not attack a creed defined by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; they attacked America, a mysterious entity with a living soul.
America is our history, formed in the early years by British tradition but separated from that country when England did not respect the rights of Englishmen. America is George Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Lincoln, many events, language, faith, culture, memory.
Washington believed that immigrants must embrace our language, customs, and habits, as well as our principles. Hamilton believed that the safety of the nation rested on "love of country" and "exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice." Madison urged excluding immigrants who were unlikely to "incorporate into our society."
Mexicans are the largest group of immigrants, and are not good for the country. September 15 of this year Los Angeles celebrated Independence Day--Mexican Independence Day. Thousands assembled in front of City Hall waving green, white, and red Mexican flags. Governor Schwarzenegger said some Mexican immigrants want "to stay Mexican" rather than assimilate into the United States.
What I am saying to the Mexicans is you've got to go and immerse yourself and assimilate into the American culture, become part of the American fabric. That is how Americans will embrace you.
A great number of Mexicans believe that Southwestern United States was stolen from Mexico and should be returned. According to a Zogby poll, anywhere from 58 to 28 percent of Mexicans believe that the American Southwest belongs to Mexico. All 47 Mexican consulates in the United States are mandated to provide to U.S. schools with significant Hispanic populations textbooks that say America stole the Southwest. The Los Angeles consulate has distributed this year 100,00 of such books to the L.A. school district.
Mr. Buchanan tells us that illegal Mexican and other immigrants bring disease and crime to the United States. In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all warrants for homicides, which total from 1,200 to 1,500 a year, are from illegal aliens. California now has 40,000 cases of tuberculosis, which was almost extinct a few years ago.
The problems is that Mexico is a corrupt country which profits from sending the poor and disadvantaged to us, relieving themselves of the burden. Everyone knows the problems and what must be done, but no one has the courage to make the reforms. The ruling Mexican monopolies profit from the status-quo. The privatization of the Mexican telephone company moved a government monopoly to a private monopoly. The chief investor is the third richest man in the world.
Only two countries in the world forbid foreign investment in oil production: North Korea and Mexico. Pemex is the state oil company of Mexico and is going broke, though Mexico is the fifth largest producer of oil in the world. There are large reserves of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, but Pemex is $85 billion in debt and cannot invest in exploration and development for either.
The tax system is as corrupt as the rest of the country. Forty percent of businesses and 70 percent of professionals and small business owners either cheat on their tax forms or pay nothing. It is nice not to pay taxes, but a country must have money to operate. The state relies on oil revenue, and Pemex is broke.
The socialized farm system has put 42 percent of the country in extreme poverty. In 1917 the government broke up the large and medium sized farms and distributed land to the peasants. By 1992, when the program was discontinued, the size of the lots was a little less than 3.5 acres. The owners of these little parcels of land do not own them, they belong to the state, and they cannot pledge them for a loan!
During the '90s, the industrialized cities of north Mexico profited from cheap labor and did a lot of business with the United States. They have lost this business to the Asian Tiger, China. Business would be improved if the state took less than 31.5 percent of all profits, if it were easier to start a business, if there were less rigidity in work hours and the firing of employees, and if there were less expensive hiring costs. Foreign investors retreat from the Mexican government.
And the education is inadequate, dominated by a powerful and corrupt teacher's union. Less than 25 percent of students graduate from high school, with no responsibility felt by the union to parents. The need is for better teaching and advanced education that will enable students to participate in the industrial world, with something more than low-paying manual labor.
Globalization, or our practice of it, demands immigration. Economists say, and correctly, that the world economy will improve if there were a free exchange of goods and services. The U.S. pushed for this and reduced tariffs to almost nothing, but the rest of the world added VATs (value added taxes) to all imports, making the foreign sale of American products difficult if not impossible. U.S. manufacturers now produce only two-thirds of the domestic products they consume. Business makes up for some of this loss by using immigrants. If these are not sufficient, they outsource to where they can afford what labor costs.
How shall we solve the immigration problem? I doubt if a wall will make much difference. We would solve our problems quickly and easily if we fined employers who use illegal employees. We could justify these fines if we followed the example of other countries and added VATs to imports. We have succeeded in producing worthwhile goods, and should expect reciprocity. That other nations impose a VAT when we do not amounts to robbery. We should not allow ourselves to be used. *
"Individuality is freedom lived." -John Dos Passos
The quotes following each article have been gathered by The Federalist Patriot at: http://FederalistPatriot.US/services.asp.
The following is a summary of the October 2006, issue of the St. Croix Review:
In the editorial, "The Da Vinci Code and the Structure of the Church" Angus MacDonald reviews the novel and sees it as an illustration of the attempts to undermine the religious basis of society. He looks at the history of Christianity and concludes that today the Christian faith rests in the lives of local congregations who do their best to live good lives.
Herbert London, in "Remembering 9/11" considers what Americans have gone through since the attack, and he sees reasons for optimism in our capacity for self-scrutiny, and our determination to face difficulties; in "Weighing the Scales of Justice in the Israeli-Hezbollah War" he answers criticism of the Israeli air bombardment of Lebanon by pointing out the inhumane tactics used by Hezbollah; in "Predicting a Middle East Future" he sees increasing hostility to Israel from the surrounding Arab states and the UN, and believes a change in Israeli government and military tactics is in store; in "Orwellian Word Games in the Middle East" he examines the usages of "resistance" and "occupation" by journalists and Hezbollah; in "Human Rights at the UN" he looks at a draft resolution by the new "Human Rights Council," manned by tyrants, and notes the irony; in "The Spanish Civil War Redux" he comments on the purposes behind Iran's use of Hezbollah: to probe for the weaknesses of Israel and the U.S.
Arnold Beichman shares what he found surfing on the Internet: a Muslim's instructions on how to locate and kill a Westerner in "Chilling Killing Guide."
Allan Brownfeld, in "History Encourages Efforts towards Muslim-Jewish Understanding" points to historical periods when Jews and Muslims have lived together in harmony, showing that present-day hatreds need not be perpetual; in "Congressional Ethics and Big Government: As One Grows, the Other Declines" he shows how both parties, including the leadership of both parties, abuse the trust placed in them.
Despite the current cease-fire, lasting peace for the Middle East may be unattainable. Tom Travis disagrees-and explains how several countries in the region have proven their ability to work peacefully with one another, in "Peace Through Prosperity: Why Trade Can Bring Peace to the Middle East."
Winkfield F. Twyman Jr. in "Another Black Woman" tries to understand how his sister has fallen behind and he has been more successful, and he believes that temperament and personality, and messages from his community played decisive roles.
In "Free to Choose" Milton Friedman and Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, have a conversation on the free market, India, China, the Middle East, medical care, Social Security, the growth of government and economic growth, inflation, the cause of the Great Depression, monetary policy, education vouchers and public education.
Jiggs Gardner in his 4th installment of "Writers for Conservatives" examines the work of Michael Gilbert who wrote crime fiction. Gilbert was a writer who understood the satisfaction of readers in seeing good triumph over evil, however temporarily.
David J. Bean shows in "George Washington and the Press" that Washington faced difficulties as president at least as bitter as our current president does.
In "Immigration and Destiny" Harry Neuwirth writes that controlling immigration is a responsibility that the government has neglected.
In "Mad Senator Disease-Giving Illegal Immigrants a Helping Hand," John D'Aloia Jr. reveals what is in the Senate's immigration reform bill.
Robert C. Whitten reviews Jimmy Stewart: Bomber Pilot, by Starr Smith.
W. F. Twyman, Jr. is a former law professor who has written about race and relationships. He is a Harvard Law School graduate. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
She has two young children out of wedlock by different fathers. She lives in a rental house with a man whose wages are garnished to support a child by another woman. The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program provides health care for her children. And she's going to need those benefits because her three-year-old and one-year-old have been diagnosed with lead-based paint poisoning. She has a good heart but few other assets. At the age of thirty-eight she has no career, just a series of dead-end jobs that have ranged from saleslady at the mall and concession work at the local drive-in to toll booth attendant, clerical work at a graveyard, and factory work in a condom plant. She's between jobs now, so money is tight which explains why the phone was cut off last week. She must move out of the house to stop the slow leaden death of her children's minds. But she has no money, her father doesn't want to take her into his small three-bedroom house, and the live-in man doesn't want to live under her father's roof.
And I watch this drama play out from 3,000 miles away. My niece and nephew deserve better.
How did my sister reach this point? What happened along the way?
We have the same parents and grandparents. We grew up in the same homes, attended the same grade schools, faced the same obstacles. As youngsters, we knew the same people--Linda Kay Lewis across the street, the Johnsons next door, and the Edwards family in the brick house at the end of Jean Drive. Sundays meant service at Ebenezer A.M.E. Church on Terminal Avenue and after church visits with grandma.
As a writer, I could paint my life in bold contrast to my sister's. I grabbed opportunity at every turn, graduating from the University of Virginia with high honors and Harvard Law School, a stint at a Park Avenue law firm, service on Capitol Hill as a staffer, a life of the mind as a law professor, my current gig as a government litigator. That I married a Yalie from an Old Family and live minutes from the ocean in San Diego makes for a Hollywood story of poor boy makes good. But my real life is more of a muddle--disaffection with the practice of law, mediocre grades in law school, a lost teaching career, failed bar exams. The truth is more complex than golden son, loser daughter.
Carl Jung, a famous Swiss psychiatrist, proposed in the 1920s that definable psychological types could be found among his patients. A template governed the range of reactions to the outside world. For example, people could tend to be more introverted or extroverted. Introversion and extroversion stood at opposite ends of a continuum. Another spectrum ran from extreme intuition to extreme sensing. Possibility energized intuitives. Concrete facts and reality moved sensing types.
Growing up on Jean Drive, I felt a constant suffocation, a sense that life offered far more than what I saw and knew. Because I was smart, I earned good grades in school. My mom had had the foresight to move us out to Chesterfield County where the public schools were among the best in Virginia. My father did not have a clue. I read all the time, a habit that further expanded my mental horizons. I cannot recall my sister reading for fun as a youngster. Nor do I recall her having lofty ambitions and aspirations. There may have been three college graduates on my all-black street, all school teachers and alumni of black schools.
If I had taken my life cues from my surroundings, I would be cleaning floors at the local elementary school. My mom often remarked that my father could teach me nothing about the larger world, save how to get a job slinging a mop. My mom did not mince words.
And this insight explains how Mrs. and Mr. Twyman could raise a Harvard Law School graduate and an unwed mother on welfare under the same roof. The surface answer would say I was ambitious and my sister was not. The easy answer would say I was gifted and my sister was dull-minded. Others might argue I made good choices in life. My sister made poor choices.
The deeper answer lies in Jung.
My introversion and intuition saved me.
I lived in the inner world of ideas. I read a book a day in junior high school to better understand the world. I learned about social class and how the powerful gained power. I read and re-read books on the Gilded Age, Theodore Roosevelt, and social stratification. That I attended a middle-class, republican school only whetted my appetite for the larger world beyond Jean Drive and Chester. When it came time to attend college, my Aunt Charlotte took me aside one Sunday at church and encouraged me to attend the local community college. She meant well but it was all she knew. I knew better because of my reading and because of my peer aspirations in school. My academic peers were talking about Princeton, William and Mary, and the University of Virginia, not John Tyler Community College. Had I taken my cues from family, my life would have been very different.
My father opposed my attending the University of Virginia. He felt I should attend a good black school like Virginia State College.
When it came time to apply to law school, my father opposed Harvard Law School. He urged me to "be average" and go to Howard Law School. I did not relent. I took my cues from within.
I knew possibility even while I lived in a blue-collar world. That I might have appeared strange to my neighbors did not matter. Some applauded my successes. Others were jealous. And still others believed that a janitor's son had no right attending Harvard Law School. It wasn't right. It was unnatural. I could not have cared less. If there were scholarships and loans available, I would use them to reach a better place. It is easy to forget the restrictions of the old life. I did not attend a movie until I was in college. I never flew on an airplane until I visited Harvard Law School as an admitted student. I had not been west of Roanoke, Virginia, until law school.
While introversion and intuition saved me, extroversion and sensing ensnared my sister. She took her cues from the outer world of family and neighbors. She chose friends who did not think out of the box. And to get along, she went along. She lacked the sense of possibility that could have uplifted the veil of working class ignorance about a lettered life. I often urged her to think about college and to take difficult classes. But I was one person in a sea of voices content to live an unambitious life. My father never said it was a sin to be ambitious but by his actions he provided a model that my sister followed.
But the same introversion and intuition that shielded me from the street left me vulnerable and ill-equipped for the larger world of law practice. The practice of law in major law firms is about client development and developing relationships with constituencies. I have never felt the need to grease social relationships. And so my personality limited my ascent in the legal profession. The law requires a fact-retentiveness and attention to detail that are anathema to my intuitive soul. I am prone to mistakes of fact, a lethal handicap in my profession.
And so my personality lifted me up into the legal class while guaranteeing my discontent in my chosen profession. Had my sister grown up in an upper-middle class setting and received constructive signals from family and friends, she would probably have become a more satisfied professional than her lawyer brother. But her birth into the segregated black world of the working class sealed her extroverted sensing fate.
Much research needs to be done on the lever of temperament and black success. Do African-American introverts excel at a disproportionate rate compared to black extroverts? If so, does this personality dimension explain the high numbers of black professional women compared to men? Women tend to be more introverted and intuitive than men, so this bias may be shielding women from the injuries of segregated black life. Can a knowledge of temperament save black futures from self-destruction?
I do not know the answers.
What I do know is that my sister's life is now a stereotype. And while I plan for the future, she takes life one crisis at a time.
Postscript: Yesterday, my sister fought with her man. He said, "You're just like a person in the projects." Blind to any responsibility for his one-year-old son, the man left my sister for good. And as he left, he left my three-year-old niece screaming and crying in the driveway for the only father she's ever known. My sister and her two children are now living with my 74-year-old father and his second wife in a three-bedroom house. *
"No written law has ever been more binding than unwritten custom supported by popular opinion." --Carrie Chapman Catt
Smith, Starr, Jimmy Stewart: Bomber Pilot, by Starr Smith. Zenith Press, St. Paul, MN, 2005, pp. 287, $21.95.
The defining era of actor Jimmy Stewart's life was his service in the U.S. Air Force, according to his biographer Starr Smith who served with him in the Eighth Air Force during World War II. This biography deals mainly with that period of Stewart's life and only in passing to his movie career. The theme of the story is how a young man approaching middle age joined the armed forces at the lowest grade possible, private, and in almost exactly four years rose to the rank of bird colonel. This accomplishment was carried out, not through favoritism but through hard work, technical competence, and leadership. Indeed it could serve as a manual of leadership for all of the service academies and the ROTC.
An acclaimed screen star at the beginning of 1941, actor Jimmy Stewart was about to take on the biggest challenge of his life: flying bombers in the then-U.S. Army Air Corps. James Maitland Stewart was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania, of mainly Scots-Irish ancestry on May 20, 1908, the only son of Alexander and Elizabeth Stewart. At an early age he developed an interest in aviation that was to stick with him all his life and to reach its peak in England and the skies over Germany in 1943 to 1945. His father was not keen on such a dangerous pursuit but did nothing to block it. An excellent student, he matriculated to his father's old school, Princeton University, although he first sought an appointment to the Naval Academy. His father, Alex, dissuaded him and insisted he go to Princeton where he majored in architecture, a field in which he never worked. Instead, he became an actor after a stint in a Princeton drama club. Moving to Hollywood in 1935, he went on to star in such movies as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "The Philadelphia Story" while dating such glamorous women as Ginger Rogers, Norma Shearer, Yvonne de Carlo, and Olivia de Havilland. He also took up flying, acquiring both a private and a commercial license and a Stinson 105 two-seater.
When France fell to the Nazis in 1940 and Britain was battling for her life, Stewart concluded that the United States could not avoid the conflict. His draft notice arrived in late 1940 and he reported for the physical exam. He failed it-he was underweight for his well-over six foot frame. Persevering, he was able to qualify on the next attempt and was sworn in as a private in March, 1941. Stewart asked no favors and did KP just like the other draftees. However, being an accomplished pilot, he applied for flight training and was accepted. After commissioning in January, 1942, Second Lieutenant Stewart reported to Moffett Field, California, for training and received his silver wings later that year. Because of his movie career, he was in demand for public relations events in support of the war effort. These activities conflicted with his determination to join a combat unit.
Stewart trained in B-17s at Hobbs Field, New Mexico, and seemed to be on his way to combat action. However, someone in the air service put a hold on him and he was transferred to a base in Idaho to train B-17 bomber crews. He was not happy! Nevertheless, he turned in an outstanding performance, so much so, that some of his superiors risked reprimand by ignoring the hold order and got him assigned to a B-24 squadron slated for transfer to the 8th Air Force then training at a base in Iowa. Again he excelled, so much so that he, as a captain, was appointed squadron commander, then a major's job. As a squadron commander Stewart was highly respected not only by his superiors but by his enlisted crews as well. Despite being assigned wing operations officer, he still managed to fly twenty missions, many of them in hotly contested air space. When the war in Europe ended he was a wing commander whose job then became one of deactivating the wing and bringing his men home. When they debarked from the troop ship, he shook hands and bade farewell to every member of the wing. Earlier he had gained the confidence and admiration of all hands by not leaving the control tower until all planes had returned or were otherwise accounted for.
Stewart remained in the reserves after the war, keeping his colonel's eagles insignia and eventually attaining the rank of brigadier general in 1959. He was one of Hollywood's most eligible bachelors when he entered the army and following the war he decided it was time to marry, which he did to the beautiful divorcee Gloria Hatrick McLean in 1949. She brought to the marriage two sons, one of whom was killed while serving as a Marine lieutenant in Vietnam. They had two daughters. Returning to the screen, Stewart made numerous movies, among them "Winchester 73," "Shenandoah," "A Wonderful Life," and "Strategic Air Command." The last was as close as he ever came to making a war movie.
There are a few minor quibbles that an editor would have caught. The early chapter on Eisenhower seems unnecessary to this reviewer. And much of the material at the end that deals with the careers of some of Stewart's fellow Air Force officers also seems to detract from the story. Nevertheless, this is an important book that should be on the reading list of all officers, senior non-commissioned officers, and cadets or midshipmen in all of the armed services.
--Robert C. Whitten
John D' Aloia Jr. is a retired navy captain and submarine commander. He is a columnist for several newspapers in Kansas.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), we are so glad that you have not been infected with the Mad Senator Disease (MSD) that appears to have reached the pandemic stage in the Senate chambers. (Readers--you only get one guess as to why Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) was not mentioned in the previous sentence.) Evidence of the pandemic was the passage of S. 2611, the so-called immigration reform bill.
The potential for skullduggery to be hidden in proposed legislation increases exponentially, based on the number of its pages. Also rising exponentially is the probability that those who will vote on the bill have not read it and do not understand its provisions. S.2611 contains 600-plus pages. A zillion amendments were offered. When representatives fail to completely understand a bill being debated, they are no different than sheep being entrusted to a wolf. In the case of S.2611, those who stood to make political and economic profit in ensuring a continuing flood of illegal aliens played the part of the wolf. The wolf's first victims were the Constitution and oaths of office, followed by the rights of American citizens and freedom.
An amendment was proposed that would have barred illegal immigrants from claiming Social Security credit for the years they worked with forged documents. Allowing illegal aliens to claim Social Security credit based on false documents is in-your-face proof that the bill is an amnesty bill. Even so, the amendment was defeated. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), the author of the amendment asked:
Does this bill punish the people who stole an American citizen's identity?
He answered his own question: "No, it does not. It rewards them." On this same subject, Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote:
If an American citizen forges a Social Security card in order to get a job, he can be arrested. Illegals who do such get a pass and get to collect Social Security benefits.
Dr. Sowell did not just single out this one aspect of S.2611. He had a list of absurdities contained within the bill, absurdities that give illegal aliens rights that trump the rights of citizens. Illegal aliens who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences over legal citizens in getting government contracts. The children of illegal aliens would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications. Illegal aliens could attend college without paying higher out-of-state tuition that an American citizen must pay. (The failure of the Kansas legislature to repeal a similar state law may be an indication that a variant of the MSD pandemic has a toehold in Topeka.) Illegal aliens would not have to pay all the back taxes they owe. An American citizen gets no such break from the government and can end up in federal prison.
Professor Kris Kobach, in Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1092, discussed how S.2611 reduces national security. After 9/11, opening the flow of information between federal and state/local law enforcement agencies in illegal immigration matters improved the chances that terrorist attacks would be thwarted. S.2611 turns back the clock. Kobach wrote:
Local police have become crucial participants in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The Senate's immigration reform proposal would change all of that. Section 240D would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous. All of the hijackers who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists.
Madness prevails.
There are many lists floating around of what has to be done to counter the illegal alien invasion. Most lists indicating an awareness of the critical nature of the issue start off "Gain control of the border--stop the flow of aliens." My list also started thus, but no more. What now tops my list is: U.S. citizens must regain control of Congress--we must get the attention of and remind those in Congress exactly to whom their allegiance must be and the meaning of their oath of office. One would hope that the public outcry against amnesty, against a new flood of aliens seeking the promised land, would do the trick, that senators would wake up from their dream world and correct their mistakes. So far, there is no evidence that the senators supporting S.2611 have gotten the message. Not when 34 of them vote against making English the official language of our nation. If it takes a political 2 by 4 in November to get their attention, so be it. The prescription is drastic, but the actions of those in office indicate it is the only way to rid the capital of MSD. *
"There is a terrible lot of us who don't think that we come from a monkey, but if there are some people who think that they do, why, it's not our business to rob them of what little pleasure they might get out of imagining it." --Will Rogers
We would like to thank the following people for their generous support of this journal (from 7/18/2006-9/11/2006): Harry S. Barrows, Carol & Bud Belz, Charles Benscheidt, Peter Block, Priscilla L. Buckley, D. J. Cahill, Terry Cahill, William C. Campion, William D. Collingwood, Samuel J. Criscio, Gary E. Culver, Michael D. Detmer, Jeanne L. Dipaola, Robert M. Ducey, Gary D. Gillespie, Hollis J. Griffin, Daniel J. Haley, Thomas E. Heatley, Ray Hodges, John A. Howard, Ken E. Kampfe, Martin Kellogg, James A. Lee, Paul Maxwell, Woodbridge C. Metcalf, King Odell, Richard P. Schonland, David L. Smith, Michael S. Swisher, Eugene & Diane Watson, Thomas H. Webster, Charles L. Wilson, Piers Woodriff.