Happy St. Patrick's Day

Lorica of Saint Patrick

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth and His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion and His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection and His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In preachings of the apostles,
In faiths of confessors,
In innocence of virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven;
Light of the sun,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of the wind,
Depth of the sea,
Stability of the earth,
Firmness of the rock.

I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me;
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's hosts to save me
From snares of the devil,
From temptations of vices,
From every one who desires me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone or in a mulitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and evil,
Against every cruel merciless power that opposes my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of women and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that reward may come to me in abundance.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me,
Christ in the eye that sees me,
Christ in the ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through a confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of creation

St. Patrick (ca. 377)

What's in a Word

Supercilious
having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy

"The girl has a supercilious expression, and seems to be looking down her nose at the camera."

What's in a Word

Contumacious
Obstinately disobedient or rebellious; insubordinate.

"A contumaceous witness is subject to punishment."

What's in a Word

Got the spark for this from a great Catholic blog FUMARE. They have a "Word for the Day" feature that they work into posts. I have had a similar idea for a while, but different as well.

When I hear a cool word, I write it down and look it up. I have a collection of these words now and will post them occassionally along with their definition. This is done as a public service for my readers. :-)

It's Hard Out Here for a Wimp
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 9, 2006

In case you missed the Oscars last Sunday night, here are the highlights:

• Best song went to a musical tribute to the overseers of human sex slaves, an occupation known as "pimping";
• best picture went to a movie about racism in Los Angeles;
• best supporting actor went to the movie about how oil companies murder people; and
• best supporting actress went to the movie about how pharmaceutical companies murder people.

Curiously missing from Oscar night's festivities was any reference, even in passing, to the 150,000 brave Americans currently risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On behalf of red state America, let me be the first to say: "Screw you, Hollywood."

Although I must tell you, overall, this Academy Awards ceremony was a major strategic retreat by Hollywood. Despite all their Bolshevik bluster about how Democratic politicians won't stand up to Republicans, the Hollywood left is as scared of decent patriotic Americans as the Democrats are.

"Brokeback Mountain" did not win best picture, "Munich" won nothing, and the Palestinian suicide bombers movie won nothing. There was no angry self-righteousness from Vanessa Redgrave against "Zionist hooligans," or from Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon for the Haitian boat people. There was no Bush-bashing. There was no Michael Moore. The host was not Whoopi Goldberg, so that's a big fat reward to every man, woman and child in America right there.

This may have been the most American Oscars yet, if America consisted of beautiful airheads in $50,000 dresses. And that was just the guys in "Brokeback Mountain."

I believe this marks the first time in Oscars history that an award recipient shouted, "Thank you, Jesus!" upon receiving his award. Admittedly, this was the only part of the speech that didn't have to be bleeped and it was for a song titled, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp," but it's still a step forward.

Jon Stewart, this year's host, was very funny – but not quite as funny as the fact that the audience didn't get the jokes. (There were a lot of actors in the audience.) Apparently, the one comedy bit capable of bringing down a house of actors is: Ben Stiller hopping around in a green unitard.

However liberal Stewart is personally, his best jokes are always mildly conservative.

He twitted the Hollywood audience, saying:

I have to say it is a little shocking to see all these big names here, these huge stars. The Oscars is really, I guess, the one night of the year where you can see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic Party.

Actually, between George Clooney's posturing and the ode to pimpdom winning "best song," I think Oscar night was more of a fund-raiser for the Republican Party.

George Clooney made the only stand for liberal Hollywood, smugly declaring:

We are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular ... [T]his group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud ... to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

Forget about Hollywood being ahead of the big issues: Hollywood has never even been on time for the big issues. This is why, for example, in the middle of an epic war with Islamic fascists, Hollywood is still making movies about the Nazis. Now and then, just for variety, they tackle a more current topic, like the Jim Crow era.

Even on AIDS – which is something you'd expect people like Clooney to know something about – Hollywood was about seven years behind. Wait, no – bad choice of words. Even on AIDS, Hollywood got caught with its pants down. Still no good. On AIDS, Hollywood got it right in the end. Oh, dear ... Note to self: Must hire two more interns to screen hate mail.

The point is: The Hollywood set didn't start wearing AIDS ribbons to the Oscars until 1992:

• 10 years after the New York Times described AIDS;
• seven years after AIDS was the cover story on Life magazine;
• seven years after AIDS was in People magazine;
• five years after Oprah did a show on AIDS.

Only recently has George Clooney heard about segregation. (He's against it.) But he still can't nail down the details of something that ended nearly half a century ago.

Contrary to Clooney's impassioned speech, no theaters ever forced black people to sit in the back. If you were trying to oppress people, you would make them sit in the front, which are the worst seats in the house. Or you'd just make them watch a George Clooney movie.

Flightplan

I saw this movie the other day and one part of it struck me and I've been thinking about it for a couple of days. I'd have to categorize it as a part of the "Blame America First" mentality.

Here's what I'm talking about: As "Kyle" (the lead character played by Jodie Foster) starts to freak out over her missing daughter, she suddenly *recalls* seeing a couple of men who she thought were looking in her apartment window the night before and now thinks a couple of Arab/Muslim men on the plane were those same men. Therefore, they must be the ones who've kidnapped her daughter.

On one level this is just a simple plot device intended to increase the suspense and throw viewers "off the scent". From that perspective -- all well and good. But, there's more going on here.

The Arabs aren't the men in the window and have nothing to do with the bad guys who've kidnapped Kyle's daughter. Thus, we're presented with a couple of clean cut, mild-mannered businessmen who've been minding their own business, but have now been falsely accused and embarrassed in front of dozens of people for simply being Arab.

Get it? Westerners are racists who automatically believe every Arab male is a potential terrorist/criminal. But, in case you didn't get it, while Kyle is confronting the men and they are protesting their innocence, another passenger suddenly stands up and shouts something like "Yeah, sure, why should we believe you!".

This is done just in case we haven't been sufficiently bludgeoned with the message: the passenger is a big, overweight, sweaty fellow with a Southern accent. Let there be no mistake -- the Arabs are polite, articulate -- and justifiably outraged by the unwarranted accusation. On the other hand, the Westerners are rude, oafish, racists. (Of course, however, since Jody Foster can't really be a racist, it's necessary to insert an unattractive, dislikable throw-away character -- like a fat, big-mouthed redneck -- into the script to conveniently transfer the audience's moral indignation and disapproval to.)

What is it with Hollywood? Just 4+ years after 9/11, they're trying to make us feel guilty for being suspicious of Arab men on airplanes. I'm sorry, did I miss something?

Of course, I don't believe that every Arab is a terrorist or a criminal. But guess what -- every one of the 9/11 hijackers was a Muslim!! Despite Hollywood's PC attempts to condition us, we should not feel guilty for being just a little more suspicious of 4 Arab men on an airplane than we would be for, say, an elderly couple, a mother and small child, a middle-aged businessman, etc.

Love Your Freedom? Thank a Vet

A tearful, joyous surprise

At his 80th birthday party, Holocaust survivor meets soldier who liberated him

By Peter Rowe
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 6, 2006

When Lou Dunst was a teenager, imprisoned in a series of Nazi concentration camps, he begged God: “Please let me live – if for nothing else than to tell my story.”

EARNIE GRAFTON / Union-Tribune Lou Dunst (right) hugged Bob Persinger, the man who liberated him and some 18,000 other prisoners more than 60 years ago from the Ebensee concentration camp in Austria.

Dunst did survive the war. He moved around Europe and Florida before settling in San Diego, where he prospered as a real estate investor. He's kept his end of the bargain, giving his Holocaust testimony many times in schools, churches, synagogues. This month, he is scheduled to address Harvard Law School.

His is a gripping tale, full of heartache and suspense. But the story always lacked a satisfactory ending.

Until yesterday. During a surprise birthday luncheon for Dunst in the ballroom of the Doubletree Hotel in Mission Valley, retired Superior Court Judge Norbert Ehrenfreund recounted the tale of Dunst's liberation to more than 170 family members and friends.

“The fact that Lou is here today, alive and well, celebrating his 80th birthday, is nothing short of a miracle,” Ehrenfreund said.

But the miracles didn't stop there.

Dunst collection U.S. soldiers and German POWs posed atop the "Lady Luck," the first tank to enter the Ebensee concentration camp in Austria.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” Ehrenfreund said, “meet Bob Persinger, Lou's liberator.”

A gasp rose from the crowd as the silver-haired Persinger, now 82, walked to the stage and fell into Dunst's arms. “Thank you for saving our lives,” Dunst said between sobs. “God bless you!”

They had never met before yesterday, but their lives have been intertwined for more than 60 years. On May 6, 1945, lifelong bonds were forged between a Holocaust survivor and a tank commander – without either man's knowledge.

“I never saw him,” Persinger said.

“I was delirious,” Dunst said. “I didn't know what was happening.” That morning, in fact, Dunst was literally at death's door. A 19-year-old Ukrainian Jew in a Nazi concentration camp in Austria, he had crawled onto a pile of corpses outside the crematorium to perish. But that afternoon, Staff Sgt. Persinger drove his tank “Lucky Lady” through the camp's gates, liberating Dunst and the rest of Ebensee's 18,000 prisoners.

Persinger, then 21, had witnessed the terrors of combat at St. Lo and the Battle of the Bulge. But he had never seen anything like the nightmare of Ebensee, a notorious sub-camp of the massive Mauthausen facility.

Bob Persinger

Lou Dunst

Prisoners were covered in sores. Bodies were stacked – “like cordwood,” Persinger recalls – around the camp. The “kitchen” had no food, the “hospital” no medicine. Approaching the camp, the “Luck Lady's” crew was assaulted by the stench of death. Leaving the camp, the GIs removed their boots and burned them.

“I had seen men killed, some of them close buddies,” Persinger told more than 170 guests at Dunst's birthday luncheon. “But this was a different style of death.”

Yesterday's reunion capped an emotional surprise party for Dunst, whose actual birthday is Saturday. Estelle Dunst, who introduced herself as “Lou's pushy wife,” spent more than a year organizing the event with military efficiency. Many guests belong to the New Life Club, a San Diego outfit for Holocaust survivors that Lou Dunst serves as treasurer.

“I turned 80 last week and I'm the baby,” said Gussie Zaks, the club's president.

As the years pass and their numbers dwindle, there's increasing concern that these tales of inhumanity and survival are being lost. Many people want to ignore this unpleasant topic.

“Sometimes we hear people say, 'Enough with the Holocaust,' ” Zaks said. “No, never enough.”

Dunst collection As a prisoner at the Mauthausen concentration camp, Lou Dunst was forced to run up these steps to the camp's infamous rock quarry where the Nazis worked thousands of prisoners to death.

Dunst collection Lou Dunst prayed at a memorial outside the Mauthausen concentration camp during a 2003 visit to Austria. Ebensee was a satellite camp of the massive Mauthausen facility.

Persinger spent decades trying to forget the war. A year ago, though, the Austrian government invited him to attend the 60th commemoration of Ebensee's liberation. There, he was overwhelmed by the survivors' gratitude. One flew him to Beverly Hills for a reunion; another, to Sweden; this week, he'll meet still more survivors at Chapman University in Orange.

“I'm glad to do this,” he said yesterday. “We hope this will never be forgotten. Never again.”

But even the healthiest Holocaust survivors experience gaps in their memories, holes in their tales. For most of his life, Dunst did not know the names of his liberators, only that they were part of Gen. George S. Patton's Third Army.

In 2001, though, a Louisiana businessman and an Italian historian met on a train between Rome and Florence. Italo Tibaldi, the historian, was also a survivor of Ebensee. Talking to his new American friend, Timothy Anderson, Tibaldi bemoaned the fact that he had been unable to thank any of his saviors.

Anderson, who runs a physicians billing company in Lafayette, La., accepted the challenge and found the families of three Ebensee liberators. One of the men had died in Detroit. The second was living in New Jersey, but in the final stages of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.

The third? Bob Persinger of Loves Park, Ill., was alive and well and ready to help.

Two years ago, Anderson met Lou and Estelle Dunst at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Estelle, already planning her husband's 80th birthday party, contacted Bob and Arlene Persinger. The rest, as they say, is history.

For the Dunst family, history can be a sad topic. Lou's hometown began and ended the 20th century as a Ukrainian village. But in the 1940s, Jasina was taken over by Hungary, then by Nazi Germany and finally by the Soviet Union. In 1944, the village's Jewish population was forcibly removed from their homes and interned in a ghetto, then shipped to Auschwitz. Dunst's mother, Priva, was sent to her death by Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazis' Angel of Death. His father, Marcus, died in another camp.

Incredibly, all three of the children – Lou; his brother, Irving; and his sister, Rusena – survived the war. The brothers were always imprisoned together, and Lou insists Irving risked his own life to ensure his brother's survival.

“When I talk to him about it, he says forget it, it's nothing,” Lou Dunst said. “Today it is nothing – then it was life.”

On May 6, 1945, it was Irving who directed the liberators to his brother's skeletal form and insisted the boy could be saved.

Bob Persinger doesn't remember this scene. He remembers half-dead prisoners singing and cheering, and the way he was whipsawed between elation and horror: “They were celebrating like you wouldn't believe, they were so happy. So were we, but on the other hand, we were crying.”

There were tears again yesterday, and again mixed emotions. Joy, yes, but also the sense that this lifelong bond involves a lifelong responsibility.

“Be healthy,” Irving Dunst told Persinger, “and be able to tell this to other people. Because, from you, they are more able to believe it.”

Cubs Win! Cubs Win!

Well, maybe not -- ha!

March 3, 2006
Oscars for Osama
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Nothing tells you more about Hollywood than what it chooses to honor. Nominated for best foreign film is “Paradise Now,” a sympathetic portrayal of two suicide bombers. Nominated for best picture is “Munich,” a sympathetic portrayal of yesterday’s fashion in barbarism: homicide terrorism.

But until you see “Syriana,” nominated for best screenplay (and George Clooney, for best supporting actor) you have no idea how self-flagellation and self-loathing pass for complexity and moral seriousness in Hollywood.

“Syriana’s” script has, of course, the classic liberal tropes such as this stage direction: “The Deputy National Security Advisor, MARILYN RICHARDS, 40’s, sculpted hair, with the soul of a seventy year-old white, Republican male, is in charge” (Page 21). Or this piece of over-the-top, Gordon Gekko Republican-speak, placed in the mouth of a Texas oilman: “Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. ... Corruption ... is how we win” (Page 93).

But that’s run-of-the-mill Hollywood. The true distinction of “Syriana’s” script is the near-incomprehensible plot -- a muddled mix of story lines about a corrupt Kazakhstan oil deal, a succession struggle in an oil-rich Arab kingdom and a giant Texas oil company that pulls the strings at the CIA and, naturally, everywhere else -- amid which, only two things are absolutely clear and coherent: the movie’s one political hero and one pure soul.

The political hero is the Arab prince who wants to end corruption, inequality and oppression in his country. As he tells his tribal elders, he intends to modernize his country by bringing the rule of law, market efficiency, women’s rights and democracy.

What do you think happens to him? He, his beautiful wife and beautiful children are murdered, incinerated, by a remote-controlled missile, fired from CIA headquarters in Langley, no less -- at the very moment that (this passes for subtle cross-cutting film editing) his evil younger brother, the corrupt rival to the throne and puppet of the oil company, is being hailed at a suitably garish “oilman of the year” celebration populated by fat and ugly Americans.

What is grotesque about this moment of plot clarity is that the overwhelmingly obvious critique of actual U.S. policy in the real Middle East today is its excess of Wilsonian idealism in trying to find and promote -- against a tide of tyranny, intolerance and fanaticism -- local leaders like the Good Prince. Who in the greater Middle East is closest to “Syriana’s” modernizing, democratizing paragon? Without a doubt, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, a man of exemplary -- and quite nonfictional -- personal integrity, physical courage and democratic temperament. Hundreds of brave American (and allied NATO) soldiers have died protecting him and the democratic system they established to allow him to govern. On the very night the Oscars will be honoring “Syriana,” American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that “Syriana” shows America slaughtering.

It gets worse. The most pernicious element in the movie is the character who is at the moral heart of the film: the physically beautiful, modest, caring, generous Pakistani who becomes a beautiful, modest, caring, generous ... suicide bomber. In his final act, the Pure One, dressed in the purest white robes, takes his explosives-laden little motorboat head first into his target. It is a replay of the real-life boat that plunged into the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 American sailors, except that in “Syriana’s” version, the target is another symbol of American imperialism in the Persian Gulf -- a newly opened liquefied natural gas terminal.

The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb, constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent.

In my naivete, I used to think that Hollywood had achieved its nadir with Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” a film that taught a generation of Americans that President Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and the FBI in collaboration with Lyndon Johnson. But at least it was for domestic consumption, an internal affair of only marginal interest to other countries. “Syriana,” however, is meant for export, carrying the most vicious and pernicious mendacities about America to a receptive world.

Most liberalism is angst- and guilt-ridden, seeing moral equivalence everywhere. “Syriana” is of a different species entirely -- a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism. Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction.

© 2006, Washington Post Writers Group

'Long war' is breaking down into tedium

March 5, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

I had to sign a tedious business contract the other day. They wanted my corporation number -- fair enough -- plus my Social Security number -- well, if you insist -- and also my driver's license number -- hang on, what's the deal with that?

Well, we e-mailed over a query and they e-mailed back that it was a requirement of the Patriot Act. So we asked where exactly in the Patriot Act could this particular requirement be found and, after a bit of a delay, we got an answer.

And on discovering that there was no mention of driver's licenses in that particular subsection, I wrote back that we have a policy of reporting all erroneous invocations of the Patriot Act to the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds that such invocations weaken the rationale for the act, and thereby undermine public support for genuine anti-terrorism measures and thus constitute a threat to America's national security.

And about 10 minutes after that the guy sent back an e-mail saying he didn't need the driver's license number after all.

I'd be interested to know how much of this bureaucratic opportunism is going on. A couple of weeks earlier, I went to the bank to deposit a U.S. dollar check drawn on a Canadian financial institution, and the clerk announced that for security reasons checks drawn on Canadian banks now had to be sent away for collection and I'd have access to the funds in a couple of weeks. This was, she explained, a requirement of -- ta-da -- the Patriot Act. And, amazingly, that turned out not to be anywhere in the act either.

Any day now, my little girl will wake up, look under the pillow and find a note from the Tooth Fairy explaining that before processing of financial remuneration for said tooth can commence, the Patriot Act requires the petitioning child to supply a federal taxpayer identification number and computer-readable photo card with retinal scan.

I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act per se, so much as the awesome powers claimed on its behalf by everybody from car salesmen to the agriculture official who demanded proof from my maple-sugaring neighbor that his sap lines were secure against terrorism. Which is a hard thing to prove. You may think you've secured them against terrorism, and one morning you wake up to a loud explosion and the TV's showing breaking news of people howling in agony as boiling syrup rains down from the skies. Apparently, there's a big problem with al-Qaida putting anthrax in the maple supply. You don't notice it on your pancake because it blends in with the confectioners' sugar.

My worry is that on the home front the war is falling prey to lack-of-mission creep -- that, in the absence of any real urgency and direction, the "long war" (to use the administration's new and unsatisfactory term) is degenerating into nothing but bureaucratic tedium, media doom-mongering and erratic ad hoc oppositionism. To be sure, all these have been present since Day One: The press have been insisting Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war for three years and yet, despite the urgings of CNN and the BBC, those layabout Iraqis stubbornly refuse to get on with it. They're happy to teeter for another three years, no matter how many "experts" stamp their foot and pout their lips and say "I want my civil war now." The New York Times ran a headline after the big bombing: "More Clashes Shake Iraq; Political Talks Are In Ruins." The "political talks" resumed the day after publication. The "ruins" were rebuilt after 48 hours.

The quagmire isn't in Iraq but at home. For five years, beginning with the designation of "war on terror," the president's public presentation has been consistent: Islam is a great religion, religion of peace, marvelous stuff, White House Ramadan Banquet the highlight of the calendar, but, sadly, every barrel has one or two bad apples, even Islam believe it or not, and once we've hunted those down we'll join the newly liberated peace-loving Muslim democracies in a global alliance of peace-loving peaceful persons. Most sentient beings have been aware that there is, to put it mildly, a large element of evasion about this basic narrative, but only now is it being explicitly rejected by all sides. William F. Buckley and George Will have more or less respectfully detached themselves from the insane idealism of shoving liberty and democracy down people's throats whether they want it or not. And, on the ports deal with Dubai, a number of other commentators I respect plus a stampede of largely ignorant weathervane pols have denounced the administration for endangering American security on the eastern seaboard. I can't see that: The only change is that instead of being American stevedores employed by a British company they'll now be American stevedores employed by a United Arab Emirates company.

But what I find interesting is the underlying argument: At heart, what Hillary Clinton and Co. are doing is dismissing as a Bush fiction the idea of "friendly" Arab "allies" in the war of terror. They're not necessarily wrong. Even the "friendliest" Arab regimes tend to be a bunch of duplicitous shysters: King Hussein sided with Saddam in the Gulf war, Mubarak and the House of Saud are the cause of much of our present woes. I would be perfectly prepared to consider a raft of measures insisting that, for the duration of the war, there'll be restrictions on access to the United States by certain countries. As I've argued for some years, it's absurd that the Saudis are allowed to continue with their financial and ideological subversion of everything from American think-tanks to mosques to prison chaplaincy programs (and, I'll bet, without providing driver's license numbers).

However, I think we should do that as a conscious policy decision, rather than as reflex piecemeal oppositionism. What Democrats seem to be doing with Dubai Ports World, whether they realize it or not, is tapping in to a general public skepticism (to put it politely) about the entire Muslim world. In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate." So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them.

Despite being portrayed as a swaggering arrogant neocon warmongering cowboy, President Bush has, in fact, been circumspect to a fault for five years. But the equivocal constrained rhetoric is insufficient to a "long war." And from all sides, more and more people are calling its bluff.

©Mark Steyn, 2006

"If We Could Go Back ..."

Sunday, Feb. 5, 2006 10:36 a.m. EST
Donald Rumsfeld Warns Against Islamic 'Empire'

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is warning that Western countries must increase their defense budgets in order to prevent the rise of a "global extremist Islamic empire" that could be as deadly as Hitler's Third Reich.

Speaking at a global security conference in Munich on Saturday, the U.S. defense chief said that Islamic radicals "seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent.

"They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire," he added.

Rumsfeld urged Western leaders not to delude themselves about the growing threat, saying: "We could choose to pretend, as some suggest, that the enemy is not at our doorstep . . . But those who would follow such a course must ask: what if they are wrong? What if at this moment, the enemy is counting on being underestimated, counting on being dismissed, and counting on our preoccupation."

The remarks echoed his comments the day before in an address to the National Press Club in Washington, DC, where Rumsfeld warned that radical Islamists "have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."

He cautioned that "that this is not war between the West and the Muslim world" but instead primarily "a struggle between the relatively small fringe groups of extremists -- violent extremists -- who seek to hijack an ancient religion against the overwhelming majority of Muslims."

Still, the U.S. defense chief warned that the rise of Islamofacism could by just as deadly as Nazi Germany and the early decades of the Soviet Union:

"During the 1920s, few people took seriously what some characterized as the mad ravings of a failed painter's book, Mein Kampf," Rumsfeld said. "Similarly, most people earlier ignored the excited utterances of an exiled lawyer -- a so-called rabble rouser -- named Lenin, who had published the pamphlet, 'What is to be Done?'

"But imagine," he posited, "if we could go back today, knowing what we know now about Adolph Hitler and Lenin, to warn the world about those two individuals before they spawned their movements and before literally tens of millions of human beings on this earth were victims -- were killed?"

I Heard that Pop Had a LOT of Chemicals and Stuff That Was BAD for You ...

... but now I'm not so sure. :-)

'Nuff Said

Thus Saith Honest Abe

"To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law, would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to a provision---is a provision---that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made."

Civil Rights for Terrorists

It is mind boggling to hear liberals going on and on about "domestic spying". The spin they and their accomplices in the media put on these stories is that average Americans are at risk of government agents listening in while they chat on the phone with other average Americans.

Not only is this far from the truth; it is a complete lie. What's more, these stories are dangerous because if we hamstring our intelligence agencies, the consequences could mean many more thousands of Americans killed.

You see, what we're talking about are not average Americans but terrorists who are communicating with other terrorists hiding out in this country. Do we really want to wring our hands over violating the "civil rights" of terrorists who are here plotting to slaughter innocent people? (And here's a clue for you liberals -- foreign terrorists do not have rights under the Constitution!)

What is wrong with these people??!!

The incomparable Thomas Sowell has more.

Point of no return

By Thomas Sowell
Feb 7, 2006

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

Terrorists and terrorist governments are giving us almost daily evidence of their fanatical hatred and violent sadism, as the clock ticks away toward their gaining possession of nuclear weapons. They not only hold a harmless young woman hostage in Iraq, they parade her in tears on television, just as they have paraded not only the terrorizing, but even the beheading, of others on television.

Moreover, there is a large and gleeful audience in the Arab world for these gross brutalities, just as there was glee and cheering among the Palestinians when the televised destruction of the World Trade center was broadcast in the Middle East.

Yet what are we preoccupied with or outraged about? Whether the American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States.

That question has been sanitized in the mainstream media by asking whether the government should be engaged in “domestic wiretapping,” just as the terrorists themselves have been sanitized into “militants” or “insurgents.”

The way the question is posed by many in the media and in politics, you would think our intelligence agencies were listening in on you talking on the phone to your aunt Mabel.

Be serious! There are more than a quarter of a billion people in the United States. Intelligence agencies have neither the manpower, the time, the money, nor the interest to listen in on you and your aunt Mabel.

Lawyers may differ on fine legal points about the Constitutional powers of the commander in chief during wartime versus the oversight powers of the courts. But, a Supreme Court Justice once pointed out that the Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.

The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by, in the face of death.

When some honcho in the international terrorist network is captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the phone numbers in his computer are found by his American captors, it is only a matter of time before his capture becomes news broadcast around the world.

In the hour or two before that happens, his contacts within the United States may continue to use the phones they have been using. Listening in on their conversations during that brief window of opportunity can provide valuable information on enemies within our midst who are dedicated to our destruction.

Precious time can be wasted filing legalistic documents to get some judge’s permission to tap the domestic terrorists’ phones before CBS or CNN broadcasts the news of the captured terrorist leader overseas and the domestic terrorists stop using the phones that they had used before to talk with him.

With Iran advancing step by step toward nuclear weapons, while the Europeans wring their hands and the United Nations engages in leisurely discussion, this squeamishness about tapping terrorists’ phone contacts in the United States is grotesque.

Has anyone been paying attention to the audacity of the terrorists? Some in the media seem mildly amused that Palestinian terrorists are threatening Denmark because of editorial cartoons that they found offensive.

Back in the 1930s, some people were amused by Hitler, whose ideas were indeed ridiculous, but by no means funny.

This was not the first threat against a Western country for exercising their freedom in a way that the Islamic fanatics did not like. Osama bin Laden threatened the United States on the eve of our 2004 elections, if we didn’t vote the way he wanted.

When he has nuclear weapons, such threats cannot be ignored, when the choice is between knuckling under or seeing American cities blasted off the face of the earth.

That is the point of no return -- and we are drifting towards it, chattering away about legalisms and politics.

Too Priceless for Words

From Chuck Colson's BreakPoint Commentary

Small-Time Crook, Big-Time Liar
A Million Little Pieces

February 3, 2006
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Here's something you don't see every day: A minor criminal trying to convince the world that he's much worse than he is.

As I'm sure you have heard by now, that's what happened with James Frey's memoir, A Million Little Pieces. After Oprah Winfrey selected it for her Book Club in October, Frey's searing tale of his struggle with drug addiction and crime hit the top of the New York Times bestseller list. Frey's portrayal of himself as a bad guy, rather than a victim, was seen as refreshingly honest. Many people credited Frey with giving them hope in their own battles with addiction.

And then, almost by accident, a website called "The Smoking Gun" uncovered the truth about James Frey. Looking for a mug shot of the author for their site, researchers found "repeated dead ends" in police records. The more they searched, the more fabrications they found.

For example, the violent incident where Frey hit a police officer with his car, and then fought the arresting officers? It was actually a simple drunk-driving arrest, no fighting happened, and no one was hit by a car. The three months Frey spent in jail? It was actually about five hours. Quite a difference. And many other details about Frey's arrest record were fabricated as well.

And then there was Frey's best friend in high school, who was killed in a train accident on her way to meet him. According to her family, the girl barely knew Frey and was not going to meet him at all. Frey had nothing to do with the tragedy, except to use it to embellish his story.

Confronted with the evidence, Frey did a remarkable 180-degree turn. This time, he chose to portray his accusers as the bad guys, instead of himself. "I never expected the book to come under the kind of scrutiny that it has," Frey told interviewer Larry King. He insisted that the disputed parts were a very small percentage of the total book and explained that he stood by the "essential truths of the book." To top it off, when Oprah called the Larry King show to support Frey, she claimed that "the underlying message of redemption in James Frey's memoir still resonates."

That's classic postmodernism: The truth doesn't matter as long as the story is compelling. A completely false worldview is okay if it's helpful to you. This is how we get news shows that publish "fake but accurate" documents, directors who make fictional documentaries, and enhanced resumes.

To her credit, Oprah finally realized that no matter how compelling the story, the public is still squeamish about someone selling fiction as fact. She eventually changed her tune. She took Frey back on the show again, and this time, she took him to task for his dishonesty and forced him to admit that he had lied. Speaking directly to her viewers, Oprah stated, "I made a mistake, and I left the impression that the truth does not matter, and I am deeply sorry about that…To everyone who has challenged me on this issue of truth, you are absolutely right."

Good for Oprah. Let's hope Frey has learned his lesson as well. Subjectivity, as he called it when talking to Larry King, is one thing; outright lies are something very different. Frey's fictional memoir and his defensiveness show the corrosiveness of postmodern thinking. It's a mentality that is far more dangerous to society than any of Frey's made-up crimes.

Here's One German Who Gets It

The liberal echo chamber in Europe usually seems even worse than it is in the U.S. I suspect the reason is that we in the States have little opportunity to learn of alternatives to the European version of the MSM.

However, here is an op-ed from the German paper, Die Welt, written by Mathias Dopfner, CEO of the German company Alex Springer. I checked it out and it is legit. Sounds like there's at least one German who understands history and can see through the multi-cultural PC fog.

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

From Matthew Kelly's Feb. Newsletter

A Moment of Inspiration

Love Isn't a Feeling. It's a Choice.

Love is not a feeling. From when we are very young, through powerful mediums such as movies and music, we are conditioned to believe it is. The result of this conditioning is that we allow our actions to be dictated by our feelings. Rather than asking ourselves whether a particular person is going to help us become our best self, we simply allow our feelings to take us wherever they will at any particular moment. And I don't know whether you've noticed it, but feelings are one of the most inconsistent aspects of the human person.

Our feelings shouldn't direct our actions and our lives. Our actions should be driven by our hopes, values, and aspirations; above all, they should be driven by our essential purpose. People who are driven by feelings are dangerous. They are undisciplined, inconsistent, and unreliable. But people who are driven by their values and a clear understanding of their essential purpose are to be treasured. They are disciplined, consistent, and reliable. Love is a choice, not a feeling. Feelings come and go, and if we choose to base our most important relationships on how we feel at any particular moment, we are in for a rough and rocky journey.

Love is a verb, not a noun. Love is something we do, not something that happens to us. When you choose not to love, you commit a grave crime against yourself. You may hold back your love to spite another person, or in an attempt to hurt another person. Withholding love is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. You may hold back your love in the name of safety and security, but these are only illusions, and in time you will stand as a dwarf compared to the person you could have potentially become if you had chosen love. Love is a choice. When we choose to love our spirit expands. When we choose not to love, our spirit shrivels.

~excerpt from The Seven Levels of Intimacy: The Art of Loving and the Joy of Being Loved