Painful Acknowledgements

The Guardian's Max Hastings finds himself dragged by the facts, his fingernails leaving scratch trails in the dirt, to grudging and qualified admission of George Bush's success in the Middle East. His chief criticism of what the administration has accomplished seems to be that he doesn't like the "triumphalist mode" that the White House exudes. Some of what he writes follows:

The greatest danger for those of us who dislike George Bush is that our instincts may tip over into a desire to see his foreign policy objectives fail. No reasonable person can oppose the president's commitment to Islamic democracy. Most western Bushophobes are motivated not by dissent about objectives, but by a belief that the Washington neocons' methods are crass, and more likely to escalate a confrontation between the west and Islam than to defuse it.

Such scepticism, however, should not prevent us from stepping back to reassess the progress of the Bush project, and satisfy ourselves that mere prejudice is not blinding us to the possibility that western liberals are wrong; that the Republicans' grand strategy is getting somewhere.

It seems wrong for either neocon true believers or liberal sceptics to rush to judgment. We of the latter persuasion must keep reciting the mantra: "We want Iraq to come right, even if this vindicates George Bush."

Those who say that Iraqis are incapable of making a democracy work may well be proved right. But until we see what happens on the ground over the months ahead, we should not write off the possibility that the Iraqi people will forge some sort of accommodation. A premature coalition withdrawal promises catastrophe for them, not us.

Hastings is holding his nose as he gives credit where it's due, but he at least has the honesty to acknowledge that much of what Bush has accomplished, though halting and precarious, would never have been accomplished in any other way by any other nation and certainly not by the U.N:

Here, indeed, is the nub of the issue about American foreign policy. The Bush vision is founded upon the exercise of military power. It is hard to regard Condoleezza Rice's "charm offensive" or the state department's protestations that in the second Bush term diplomacy will blossom, as more than cosmetic. The president himself has declared that, while he welcomes more allies, they must accept that the game will be played on Washington's terms.

We must respect American power, and also acknowledge that the world sometimes has much need of it. As Sir Michael Howard, wisest of British strategic thinkers, often remarks: "If America does not do things, nobody else will." We should acknowledge the limitations of the UN. The pitiful performance of many international peacekeeping contingents, not least in Afghanistan, highlights the feebleness of what passes for European security policy.

Although the Bush team knows how to wage war they are inept at diplomacy and stand to lose all unless they become more sensitive to the feelings of others:

Yet it still seems reasonable to question the optimism currently prevailing among Washington's neocons, because this remains founded upon a woefully simplistic vision. It is true that, in some chronic, unstable regions, some bad governments - those of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - have been removed by the Americans. But the fragile advantages gained will be lost, unless Washington can match its boldness in the deployment of military power with a new sensitivity to alien cultures, matched by far more subtle political skills.

We're quite sure that Mr. Hastings is not pleased with President Bush's nomination of the decidedly insensitive and unsubtle John Bolton to be our representative at the U.N. We're confident that Mr. Bolton is emphatically not what Mr. Hastings had in mind, but we wonder whose diplomatic skills he thinks the Bush people should emulate. Those of the esteemed Kofi Annan? Bill Clinton? Jacques Chirac? Gerhard Schroeder? Vladimir Putin? These men are exemplars of the art of getting nothing done while simultaneously filling one's own wallet.

For our part, we think the administration's diplomacy is working just fine considering the difficulties it faces. Unlike the gentlemen listed above, the White House's diplomacy is based upon a realistic assessment of the people with whom we must deal. Some of them, to be sure, can be motivated by emoluments, others can be moved only by fear, still others are intransigently hostile and must be dealt with by force.

The enlightened ones in the salons of Europe believe all men are vulnerable to the blandishments of reason and self-interest. They're convinced that everyone can be seduced by economic bribes if the seducer is skillful enough. Lacking ideology and religious conviction themselves, they fail to understand the power these exert in the lives of others, and have been making this same error since at least the 1930's. They couldn't see the true nature of the Nazis or the communists in the 20th century, and they fail to see what makes the jihadis so implacable today. Their blindness would be the death of the West were it not for men like Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush who have a clearer vision, who recognize that men are often driven by imperatives other than simple greed, and have had the courage and steadfastness to do what needs to be done to preserve us from them.

Anti-Christian Rhetoric in the MSM

Former New York Times reporter John McCandlish Phillips has a delightful piece in Wednesday's Washington Post in which he indicts a number of commentators, but particularly the Times' Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Paul Krugman for their super-heated anti-Christian rhetoric, their secularist paranoia, and their utter lack of historical understanding. He notes that there have been 13 opinion columns in the WaPo and the NYT in a one month stretch between March 24 and April 23 which have been of the "sky is falling and it's the Christians' fault" variety.

Phillips then closes with this:

It is said, again and again and again, that the evangelical/Catholic right is out of accord with the history of our republic, dangerously so. What we are out of accord with is not that history but a revisionist version of it vigorously promulgated by those who want it to be seen as other than it was.

The fact is that our founders did not give us a nation frightened by the apparition of the Deity lurking about in our most central places. On Sept. 25, 1789, the text of what was later adopted as the First Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress, and subsequently sent to the states for ratification. On that same day , the gentlemen in the House who had acted to give us that invaluable text took another action: They passed a resolution asking President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to no less a perceived eminence than almighty God.

That's president, that's national, that's official and, alas, my doubting hearties, it's God - all wrapped up in a federal action by those who knew what they meant by the non-establishment clause and saw their request as standing at not the slightest variance from it. It's a pity our phalanx of columnists cannot crawl into a time machine to go back and reinstruct them.

It's an outstanding column and we invite our readers to read the whole thing.

Rolling Up the Enemy

Recent days have brought us two very significant developments in the war against al Qaida. The first was the interception of a letter written to al Zarqawi by a mid-level commander named al Qusaymi who paints a bleak picture of al Qaida's situation in Iraq.

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail has some outstanding commentary on the letter. After analyzing its contents he concludes with this:

Assuming this letter is authentic, the picture al-Qusaymi draws of the current state of al Qaeda in Iraq is not positive [for al Qaeda, that is]. Their soldier's morale is very low and for good reason. They are being mistreated by their own leaders, they feel they are being sacrificed without any positive effects on the outcome, they do not feel they have direction, and some are deserting. No doubt incidents like the failed and costly assaults on Abu Ghraib and Camp Gannon contribute to the feelings of being thrown to the wolves.

There is great distrust between local commanders and Zarqawi's inner circle. al-Qusaymi asks to meet Zarqawi face to face as he does not trust his lieutenants. This can stem from several sources, the main one being that al-Qusaymi is not impressed with their command decisions. The recent spate of arrests of Zarqawi's lieutenants means that less experienced and qualified commanders rise through the ranks. Despite media portrayal that al Qaeda has a limitless supply of experienced operatives and leaders, organizations do not gain strength by losing their best and most seasoned leaders, particularly while under fire.

Al-Qusaymi is writing this letter to attempt to correct problems within al Qaeda's organization. His capture should be a high priority for the Coalition, as he is both insightful and brave enough to approach Zarqawi to address some perceived fundamental flaws in the organization. al-Qusaymi will have detailed information on the weaknesses of al Qaeda which can be exploited, as well as operational information on the makeup and organization of terror cells and their leaders. Removing the smart leaders and allowing the poor ones to remain in place is an effective way to destroy terrorist organizations, as the poor leaders will make bad decisions that will likely alienate both their own recruits and the Iraqi people.

The overall message of al-Qusaymi's letter to Zarqawi is supported by past letters intercepted or published on the web by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda leaders have complained that the Muslim world is shirking jihad and not supporting the fight in Iraq, indicated there are manpower issues in Iraq and Afghanistan and recruiting problems. The lack of quality recruits combined with the Coalition's dismantling of the organization and the arrest of senior leaders is having a negative affect on the morale of both the foot soldiers and leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq. This letter is further evidence that Iraq has provided for the opportunity to deal an operational defeat to al Qaeda.

The other development is the capture announced yesterday of Abu Farj Farj al Liby, bin Laden's third in command. One wonders if his location wasn't gleaned from al Zarqawi's laptop. In any event, he himself should prove to be a treasure trove of information on the whereabouts and operations of other al Qaida bigwigs, perhaps of bin Laden himself and his second in command Ayman al Zarwahri.

Rolling up this terrorist organization is like rolling a snowball down a mountain. Pretty soon it gathers so much momentum that it becomes an avalanche. Each low-level prisoner has information that leads to others which in turn leads to others until top people are being smoked out. When the leadership is interrogated the information inflow takes a huge leap and the pace of shutting down terror operations accelerates even more.

One thing about all this that's important to remember. It's hard to imagine how any of it would have happened had we not invaded Iraq. When the administration told us that draining that swamp was essential to winning the war on terror, it was right. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would bestride the Middle East like the mythical colossus, few if any of the terrorists who've been apprehended would today be in custody, Libya would still be producing nuclear weapons, Syria would still be in Lebanon, Pakistan would be an indifferent ally in the WOT, and the Arab world would be smelling the scent of victory over a decadent west which lacked the will to defend itself against the armies of Allah.

It's good to remind ourselves every now and then.

Incoherence

"What are we to believe in, then? Nothing. That is the beginning of Wisdom. It is time to rid ourselves of 'Principles' and to espouse Science, objective inquiry."

Gustave Flaubert

The problem with so much of skepticism is that it is self-refuting. Flaubert's aphorism is an example. If he really means that we should believe in nothing then he has to admit that he doesn't believe that we should believe in nothing. This, of course, is incoherent.

Flaubert wants to make an exception to his skepticism for Science, but in order to believe in Science he has to believe in a host of other things as well. He has to believe, for example, that Reason leads to truth, he has to believe in the trustworthiness of his senses, he has to believe in the orderliness and uniformity of nature, the reality of an external world, and so on. In order to place his faith in science he must set his skepticism aside, otherwise it's sure to get in the way.

Despite his silly assertion about throwing out all one's beliefs, Flaubert didn't really mean that we should literally believe in nothing. I don't think he was a complete nihilist. But it would be interesting to know what sorts of things he thought unworthy of belief and what his reasons were for not believing in them. Maybe a reader can enlighten us on the matter.

Basic Genetics

Professional scientists have for a long time been critical of much of what passes for science education in some American public schools. After reading this story in our local paper we're inclined to think they may have a point:

Artis Hicks 28, of Clarion, demanded a paternity test when a woman identified him as the father of her newborn son and asked for child support, prosecutors said. Then Hicks allegedly sent his brother, Walter Hicks, 35, of York, to take the test, York County Senior Assistant District Attorney Geoffrey McInroy said Wednesday. When the brother's signature didn't match that on file for Artis Hicks, further DNA testing uncovered the switch, and showed a 99.99 percent probability that Artis Hicks was the child's father, investigators said.

The brothers face charges including forgery, criminal solicitation and tampering with evidence and public documents. Both waived preliminary hearings before District Judge Paula Correal and she ruled that they will face trial in Cumberland County Court.

Dave Rudy, a domestic relations enforcement officer, said a support order was secured against Artis Hicks and he is paying child support.

Let's see. Artis tried to avoid paying child support by demanding a DNA test and then sending his brother to submit the sample. How different Artis thought his brother's DNA would be from his own, the article doesn't say. Let's put a charitable interpretation on Mr. Hicks' scheme and allow that perhaps Artis and Walter are adoptive brothers.

Iranian Youth

A recent poll of Iranian students (Scroll to May 1st: Life and Liberty in Iran) at Regime Change Iran gives reason to think that if we can avert a military showdown with Iran long enough the fundamentalist regime might fall like a rotted tree in the winds of popular contempt.

In early 2003 a large Internet poll of students of the Amir Kabir University (the second most prestigious university in Iran) was conducted. Here are some of the results:

For example, a government conducted survey revealed that 86 percent of the youth say that they do not perform the obligatory daily Islamic prayer.

Only 6 percent of the students said that they support the hardliners, while another 4 percent said they support the reformists within the regime.

In other words, only ten percent of respondents supported the regime at all.

Most significantly, 85 percent of the students said that they would support the establishment of a secular and democratic republic.

The balance of the post discusses why the mullahs still retain their power despite their immense unpopularity. The analysis includes with this:

While apathy may be the outward appearance, there is a cumulation of repressed anger, which may explode by a trigger. A potential trigger may be an outrageous act by regime elements as occurred in Lebanon by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. Another trigger may be American military attacks on fundamentalist coercive apparatuses such as Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Basij corps, Ansar-e Hezbollah vigilantes, Ministry of Intelligence headquarters, and the like.

We do not believe that any military strikes on the nuclear facilities would serve as a trigger for mass uprising as some have argued in Washington. The reasons being that with coercive apparatuses being intact, they have not only the power to crush any uprising, but also the added motivation and anger to do so. Iranians are angry at the coercive apparatuses for having oppressed and repressed them for so long but not at any inanimate nuclear facility.

Perhaps we shouldn't place too much confidence in the poll results, since it was conducted over the net and there's no explanation of the measures taken to insure a representative cross-section of respondents nor of the measures taken to prevent fraud. Nevertheless, it is suggestive.

The discussion of what might trigger a revolution in Iran makes a very interesting and important point about the sources of Iranian resentments. It could be that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will produce only a shrug from the people themselves. This could be disappointing, but it could also be good news if such an attack becomes necessary. If the popular reaction tends toward indifference it makes such an attack somewhat less perilous.

From the Depths of Hell

These are the sort of people with whom moral nullities such as Mike Whitney have cast their lot in Iraq. The following is a MEMRI transcript of an interrogation of a captured Iraqi terrorist:

Interviewer: Your name?

'Adnan Elias: 'Adnan Muhammad Elias.

Interviewer: Date of birth?

'Adnan Elias: 1984.

Interviewer: What education do you have?

'Adnan Elias: I got to 4th grade, but I don't know how to read or write.

Interviewer: What do you do for a living?

'Adnan Elias: I clean for the municipality.

Interviewer: To what group do you belong?

'Adnan Elias: The Ansar Al-Sunna, sir...We tied (the policeman) up and blindfolded him, and then threw him into the trunk. Then we went to the house of the Emir. We untied his hands and eyes, and then punished him.

Interviewer: How did you punish him?

'Adnan Elias: We whipped him.

Interviewer: You whipped him?

'Adnan Elias: Yes, Muhsin did.

Interviewer: And you?

'Adnan Elias: I didn't whip him. I just stood there holding the gun.

Interviewer: Go on.

'Adnan Elias: They told us to take him to the house of Habib 'Izzat Hamu. We took him out there. We said to him: "Why did you do this and that... Why are you after us?" He answered: "It's out of our hands. We get orders." Then we were told to bring a knife.

Interviewer: You slaughtered him?

'Adnan Elias: Yes, sir. Habib 'Izzat Hamu got the knife. He slaughtered him, and when he was dead, he opened his shirt buttons and cut open his stomach.

Interviewer: Who opened him up?

'Adnan Elias: Muhsin, sir.

Interviewer: When a doctor performs an operation he wears a surgeon's mask over his nose and mouth.

'Adnan Elias: No sir, he didn't wear one.

Interviewer: He didn't wear one?

'Adnan Elias: No sir, he didn't wear one. He cut open his stomach and took stuff out.

Interviewer: What did he take out?

'Adnan Elias: I don't know, his guts.

Interviewer: Weren't you nauseous? Didn't you vomit?

'Adnan Elias: You mean Muhsin?

Interviewer: No, you.

'Adnan Elias: I was standing a little bit aside.

Interviewer: And he didn't vomit or get nauseous?

'Adnan Elias: No, sir.

Interviewer: What is he, Dracula?

'Adnan Elias: Huh?

Interviewer: Go on.

'Adnan Elias: Yes, sir. He opened him up, took stuff out, and put TNT and explosives inside. Then he sewed up his stomach with thick thread.

Interviewer: With thread?

'Adnan Elias: Yes. And a needle. He put the buttons back in place...

Interviewer: He buttoned him up.

'Adnan Elias: Yes, he buttoned him up. We were told to take him in the car near the square in Tel A'far. We threw him there and placed his head back on his shoulders.

Interviewer: My God!

'Adnan Elias: 15 to 30 minutes later they told his family to come and get their son. His father came with two policemen. They picked up the body and made no more than two steps - we were standing far away - Ahmad Sinjar pressed the button.

Interviewer: By remote control.

'Adnan Elias: The body exploded on them, and they died.

Interviewer: So his father and the two policemen died.

'Adnan Elias: Yes sir, and we took off.

These are the people that Mike Whitney is championing as the true representatives of the Iraqi people. These are the people he wishes would kill enough Americans to force us to leave Iraq. These are the heroes, in Mr. Whitney's eyes, of the Iraqi people.

These insurgents are not heroes. They are depraved savages and those among us who cheer them on share in their depravity.

There is a putrefying disease afflicting the soul, what remains of it, of the American Left. Mr. Whitney is but one instance of an advanced case of the sickness.

For more see Bill Roggio's commentary at the Fourth Rail. Roggio links to this report on Arthur Chrenkoff's site:

"Authorities have found the bodies of three Afghan women, one of whom worked for an aid group, who were raped, strangled and dumped with a warning for women not to work for such groups...

" 'This is retribution for those women who are working in NGOs and those who are involved in whoredom'... The note was found attached to the chest of one of the dead women...

"The bodies were dumped near a road outside Pul-i-Khumri city, the provincial capital of Baghlan...

"One of the three was a 25 year-old woman who until recently worked for a Bangladeshi non-governmental organisation (NGO) involved in providing micro credit, mostly to widows.

"A group calling itself 'Afghan Youths Convention' claimed responsibility for the killing, according to a caller who telephoned a Reuters reporter in northern Afghanistan.

"The caller did not say if the previously unheard of group had any connection with any faction or radical Islamic movements such as the ousted Taliban.

"A doctor in the city said forensic tests showed the three were raped and then strangled with a rope."

No doubt Mr. Whitney approves.

Newspapers in Decline

Newspaper circulation is dropping, in some cases precipitously. Circulation figures for the last six months at the nation's top twenty newspapers can be found here along with the percentage they have grown or declined.

Reasons for the overall decline are no doubt numerous and varied, but surely two of them are the rise of alternative media and the growing feeling among readership that many papers can't be trusted to fairly report and comment upon the news.

There's an irony in this. For years liberal newsrooms have railed against corporate America and have championed diversity in whatever way it manifests itself. Now their own corporate profits appear to be tanking, and they're being undone, in part at least, by the increasing diversity of news sources available to consumers.

I wonder if they're savoring this irony at the L.A. Times.

Axis of Tortured Logic

Little Green Footballs tips us to this exemplary illustration of what passes for moral discourse on the political left. Herewith some excerpts from a disturbing piece by Mike Whitney at Axis of Logic:

The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It's an issue that has caused anti-war Leftists the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who've never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American "Exceptionalism".

For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There's simply no other morally acceptable option.

At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the "insurgency", are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

The only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we're nowhere near that period yet.

Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration's hands, not those of the Iraqi insurgency.

We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don't realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself.

The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect, that if it wasn't for the resistance, the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, antiwar advocates should carefully consider the implications of "so-called" humanitarian objectives designed to pacify the population.

Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq.

Whitney hopes that enough Americans die in Iraq that we pull out, even should his own son be among the fallen. This is the talk of a man who can barely control his hatred. The prospect of American deaths, even of his own son, is more attractive to him than the prospect of peace, if that peace means an American success. I wonder what he'd say if it was his son's head being held aloft by Abu al Zarqawi on a video of his son's execution: "Sorry, son, but you have to understand its better that you have your head cut off than that America succeed in freeing the Iraqis from oppression and tyranny."

The fact that Whitney thinks the insurgency, which is comprised largely of non-Iraqis, which kills Iraqis indiscriminately, and whose support among the people is falling asymptotically close to zero, are the true representatives of the people, makes him either demented, ignorant, or stupid, or all three.

We suspect Father's Day will be a rather subdued event in the Whitney household this June.

Spoofing the Bigots

Stanley Kurtz has a fine spoof of the anti-Christian paranoiacs at Harper's whom he wrote about last week (see here):

What is the real agenda of the religious far Right? I'll tell you what it is. These nuts want to take over the federal government and suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder, rather than through proselytizing. They want to reestablish slavery. They want to reduce women to near-slavery by making them property, first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. They want to execute anyone found guilty of pre-martial, extramaritial, or homosexual sex. They want to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft.

But aren't extremists like this far from political power? On the contrary, the political and religious movement called "Dominionism" has gained control of the Republican party, and taken over Congress and the White House as well. Once they take over the judiciary, the conversion of America to a theocracy will be sealed. The Dominionists are very close to achieving their goal. Once they have the courts in their hands, a willing Dominionist Republican-controlled Congress can simply extend the death penalty to witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and heresy. The courts will uphold all this once conservatives are in control, since Scalia himself appears to be a Dominionist.

Shocking as it seems, Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican party, and the apparatus of government throughout the United States. Yet Dominionists continue to operate in secrecy. It is estimated that 35 million Americans who call themselves Christian adhere to Dominionism, although most of them are unaware of the true nature of their own beliefs and goals. Dominionism has met its timetable for the complete takeover of the American government.

It would be a mistake, by the way, to think of Dominionists as fundamentalist Protestants alone. Dominionism has stealthily swept over America, incorporating conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians within its ranks. And of course, Dominionists are allied with the neoconservative followers of the political philosopher, Leo Strauss. The quest of these neoconservatives for power and world domination is a self-conscious program of pure, unmitigated evil.

You don't believe me? Well, consider the fact that on December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as president of the Christian Coalition. Religious conservatives understood very well that Robertson had stepped aside to allow the new president of the United States to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church. Robertson openly revealed at least a portion of his Dominionist plans on The 700 Club on May 13, 1986, when he clearly stated: "We can change the government, we can change the court systems, we can change the poverty problem, we can change education...We can make a difference."

What you've just read is a composite I've created (often word for word) by drawing on a couple of web-sites I'll link you to in a moment (See Kurtz's essay at NRO for the links). The disturbing thing is that this sort of conspiratorial nonsense is being taken seriously by real media and political players.

The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it's downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper's cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside "the old polite rules of democracy." So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians - by any means necessary.

The left had largely managed to keep its hostility toward Christianity muted before the November election. Since then, however, things have changed dramatically. They view Bush's victory as a result of the Christian conservative vote, and they realize that a Republican dominated legislature, elected in large part by Christians, is likely to fill the courts with Christian judges. Jurists operating out of a Christian world-view and a broadly conservative ideology will stop, and perhaps even roll back, our heretofore unimpeded slide into the cultural sewer, our march toward a purely secular society, and our growing death fetish. Such restraints drive the left into a rage, and their frustration and detestation of Christian conservatives has reached the point where they're unable any longer to suppress their incandescent hatred.

Hatred ultimately consumes those who yield to it, of course, but our concern is over how much damage these people will do, how many people they will hurt, before they self-immolate.

You can read Kurtz's whole essay here. Interested readers might also check out an illuminating piece on the same topic at Captain's Quarters.

Monologues and Dialogues

Christina Hoff Sommers has a report at NRO on the recent spin-off from V-Day at universities all across the country. Political correctness being what it is, of course, the spin-off, called P-Day, has been banned at the campus which has pioneered this great social celebration. Amazingly, it has been dubbed "offensive" even though this campus, Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, has insouciantly observed the far more offensive V-Day for years. But then P-Day is the brain-child, as it were, of college conservatives.

If you have no idea what this is about or would otherwise like to read more, by all means check out Ms. Sommers' account, but understand, it's not for the easily shocked. As you're reading it bear in mind that the sort of goings on it describes are being subsidized by the activity fees you pay to send your children to these citadels of learning.

What They're Afraid of

Steven Calabrisi at the Weekly Standard answers the question why the Democrats are so afraid of George Bush's judicial nominees:

Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women. The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.

Conservative African-American, Hispanic, Catholic, and female judicial candidates also drive the left-wing legal groups crazy because they expose those groups as not really speaking for minorities or women. They thus undermine the moral legitimacy of those groups and drive a wedge between the left-wing leadership of those groups and the members they falsely claim to represent.

Take Janice Rogers Brown, who won reelection to her state supreme court seat with a stunning 76 percent of the vote in one of the bluest of the blue states, California. Or take Priscilla Owen, who won reelection to the Texas Supreme Court with a staggering 84 percent of the vote in Texas. It is Brown and Owen who represent mainstream opinion in this country--not the Senate Democrats who have been using the filibuster to block their confirmation to the federal bench. If Brown or Owen were nominated to the Supreme Court, the record suggests she would win the ensuing national contest for hearts and minds. Best of all for conservatives, Senate Democrats would be forced by their left-wing interest groups to go down fighting these popular minority and female nominees. At a bare minimum, Republican Senate candidates would acquire a great issue for 2006.

Thus the driving force behind the Democrats' filibuster of conservative minorities and women is political--driven by a desire to protect the party's advantage with minority and women voters and cater to left-wing interest groups. Democrats are also driven in part by their odd belief that "real" African Americans and Hispanics and women cannot be conservative.

Makes sense to us. The rest of his essay does, too.

It's All About Her

Perhaps we're being too harsh, too judgmental. Perhaps we're leaping to conclusions about matters we know too little about. Perhaps we're being uncharitable. Perhaps. If so, we will apologize. Nevertheless, on the face of it, Jessica Wilbank seems to us to be a narcissistic whacko.

How could anyone with the least bit of consideration for her parents, her fiance, her friends and her community put them through the awful ordeal they endured for the reasons she has disclosed? This was not a young girl, frightened by an impending wedding about which she was having second thoughts, who panicked and lost her head. An adolescent might be forgiven her bizarre behavior, but this woman's 32 years old. She apparently thought little about the effect her decisions would have on others and indulged only her own desire to escape.

One feels sorry for the friends and family of Ms Wilbank, who are doubtless deeply embarrassed by her self-centeredness. Our sympathy for her fiance is mitigated somewhat, however, by the fact that he was very fortunate to have discovered this aspect of his betrothed's character before he tied the knot with her.

Zarqawi's Laptop

It may be that capturing Zarqawi's computer was even more important than capturing him. It could turn out that we get more information out of it than we would have gotten out of him, even if he allowed himself to be taken alive.

Dan Darling at Winds of Change discusses some of what we know about the laptop:

We've actually had it for a little while now and I'm awaiting more information, but this was a major coup. Here are a few things about Zarqawi that you probably didn't know:

He's a Windows man. He also uses something called PGP for e-mails, which I was told is some kind of e-mail encryption method.

The info on the computer was very helpful towards us capturing a number of his lieutenants.

I've heard there's a fair amount of porn. Now that could be disinformation, but given all the drugs, beer bottles, and the like that were found among the Pious Mujahideen(tm) in Fallujah I'm certainly not going to dismiss it off-hand.

There's information on his medical condition, so we may finally get an answer on the issue of how many legs he has and what not.

There is at least some record of the correspondence between him and bin Laden. Basically, bin Laden gives him a broad outline as far as strategy is concerned and Zarqawi is in charge of implementing the tactical aspects of his plan together with his lieutenants and allies, such as the Baathists.

There's some record of Zarqawi's interaction with Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, a senior al-Qaeda leader who I gather replaced Hassan Ghul as Zarqawi's al-Qaeda liaison after the latter individual's capture in January 2004.

There are recent pictures of Zarqawi and it seems...that he is indeed a master of disguise.

Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail adds this:

According to Mr. Darling, Zarqawi is using PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption, which apparently can be cracked (with much effort) by the super-secretive National Security Agency and may provide detailed information on Zarqawi's communications with al Qaeda. Pornographic images also have been recovered on the laptop. Zarqawi may be using this images for steganography, the method of encoding messages within images, but the choice of photographs is telling none the less. It seems Zarqawi isn't the devout Muslim he makes himself out to be. Dan also reports that the laptop contains photos of Zarqawi, financial information, details of his arrangements with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both inside and outside of Iraq, and details on his health conditions. All of this information will be useful in tracing al Qaeda's network in Iraq and elsewhere, and Zarqawi's extensive network within Europe.

The Christian Science Monitor has an excellent report on the captured laptop, and confirms several of Dan's findings. The status of Zarqawi's health is of particular interest; "Among other things, it may indicate that Zarqawi is in worse physical condition than previously believed and taking painkillers as he recovers from a wound to his stomach."

If there is information on the computer about al Qaida operations elsewhere around the globe, it may be that terrorists and their sympathizers have been quietly rolled up or eliminated over the last few months and major terror threats diminished. If so, those operations will yield even more intelligence on the global terror network. Al Qaida can still do us great harm, but the way things are going, a lot of Muslims must be thinking that it's better to be on our side than on theirs.

Must Reading From Antal E. Fekete

Note that Mr. Fekete's article is a rebuttal to Paul Krugman who wrote , The Gold Bug Variations - The Gold Standard and the Men Who Love It

Mr.Fekete has challenged Mr. Krugman to open the columns of The New York Times to an impartial discussion of the future of the irredeemable dollar but has received no reply. If one were to read Mr. Fekete's response in its entirety, or even the article linked here, there's little wonder as to why.

From the link

What the United States did in 1971 was defaulting on its gold obligations to foreign creditors, the biggest act of bad faith in history theretofore. This default, and the making of the dishonored debt money, was the cause of the destabilization of interest rates, as well as the explosive growth in the volatility of prices that have been plaguing the world ever since and causing ever greater economic distress. Krugman's euphemism in calling the greatest default ever "the abandoning of the stabilization policy of the gold price", and calling the promotion of the dishonored paper as money "a measure designed to prevent deflation and the decline of prices" is doublespeak, the hallmark of dismal monetary science. Krugman suggests that an equilibrium now obtains that didn't before. What we have is not an equilibrium; rather, it is a burgeoning disequilibrium, one that will continue its devastating course.

We must remember that the financial annals do not record a single case in which a default has not been followed by a progressive increase in the discount on the paper of the defaulting banker, until it reached 100 percent - possibly several years or even decades later. Obviously, the defaulting banker would try to slow down the process by hook or crook. However, ultimately economic law was to prevail and the remaining value of the dishonored paper would be wiped out.

There is no reason to believe that the dollar default will end differently. Suppose that the price of gold is $420. Let us calculate the discount on the dollar.The gold value of the dollar has been reduced from 1/35 to 1/420 = 1/12ￗ35. Therefore the loss is (1/35)(1 1/12) = (1/35)(11/12) = (1/35)0.9166... In percentage terms the loss, also known as discount, is 91.66 percent. Not yet 100, but close enough. Small comfort, as the last 8.33 percent of the loss, coincident with the death-throes of the dollar, is likely to be most violent and painful, revealing the full extent of the devastation. Remember, the loss affects not only cash holdings, but all dollar-denominated assets, including bonds, annuities, pensions, insurances, endowments, etc. As the discount on the dollar approaches 100 percent, the dollar price of gold will approach infinity. To assert that the dollar is going to escape this fate is tantamount to asserting that the laws of economics and logic have been turned upside down, and the penalty for default has been replaced by reward in perpetuity.

I urge all of our viewers to re-read that last paragraph several times...particullary the part where he says:

"As the discount on the dollar approaches 100 percent, the dollar price of gold will approach infinity."

The Vatican's Best, 1895-1995

To celebrate the 100th anniversary of film in 1995 the Vatican came out with a list of the most important movies of the previous century. The list was divided into three categories: Values, Religion, and Art with fifteen films in each. Aficionados will quibble with some of the selections (Bergman's Wild Strawberries?) and some of the omissions (Bergman's Winter Lights?), but it is an excellent reference for parents who wish to expose their children to good movies, although, to be sure, not all of the films are appropriate for children. Also, many of the films are foreign and may not be accessible to English-only viewers.

These are the top fifteen films in the Religion category:

Andrei Rublev * Andrei Tarkowsky (1969, USSR)

The Mission * Roland Joffe (1986, UK)

La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (The Passion of Joan of Arc) * Carl T. Dreyer (1928, France)

La vie et la passion de Jesus Christ (Life and Passion of Christ) * Ferdinand Zecca and Lucien Nonguet (1905, France)

Francesco, giullare di Dio (The Flowers of St. Francis / Francis, God's Jester) * Roberto Rossellini (1950, Italy)

Il vangelo secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to Matthew) * Pier Paolo Pasolini (1964, France/Italy)

Therese * Alain Cavalier (1986, France)

Ordet (The Word) * Carl T. Dreyer (1955, Denmark)

Offret - Sacrificatio (The Sacrifice) * Andrei Tarkowsky (1986, Sweden/UK/France)

Francesco * Liliana Cavani (1989, Italy/Germany)

Ben-Hur [A Tale of the Christ] * William Wyler (1959, USA)

Babettes gustebud (Babette's Feast) * Gabriel Axel (1987, Denmark)

Nazarin * Luis Bunuel (1958, Mexico)

Monsieur Vincent * Maurice Cloche (1947, France)

A Man for All Seasons * Fred Zinnemann (1966, UK)

The rest of the list and commentary by Steven Greydanus can be found here.

Screwtape Revisited

Megan Cox Gurdon, in an article at NRO last March, revisits C. S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters in order to update the cast of characters and let us in on what they have been up to. It's very clever. Here are a few excerpts:

They drink, and put down their glasses. Screwtape looks hard at his nephew, his fingers moving the stem of his glass back and forth along the polished surface of the desk.

"I wonder, young Mildew, if you understand why I have been promoted - one might say exalted, even - to such heights?"

"I have heard," Mildew begins, and blushes. "The fact is, Uncle, I have heard things that seem impossible. Is it really true that you have found a way to get them to eat - "

" - their young?" Screwtape interrupts with a hungry smile. "Yes. Yes! I have found the key, the key, my boy, to unlocking the worst in the human heart. Oh, massacres are entertaining enough, and reasonably productive. Rapine and thieving and savagery and the usual nonsense go a good distance to wrecking men's souls, but not in sufficient numbers. Not for us to win for good - that is, ha-ha, for ill. We must forever be stoking grievances, feeding pride, and constantly thrusting and parrying with the Enemy and his agents. No, the beautifully corrupting key that I have found is vanity."

"Do you think," says the uncle witheringly, "that people who believe that life on earth is the only one they have, that once they die there is nothing, that there are no consequences to their choices - one of Our Father Below's most successful slogans, by the way, choice - do you think, my boy, that they will hesitate if we give them the chance to cut and sew their medical destinies for the mere price of another's life? As Our Father pointed out to the Enemy during that unfortunate incident involving the man Job, "A person will give up everything in order to stay alive."

Read the whole thing. You'll enjoy it.

Rising Tide of Anti-Christian Hatred

Stanley Kurtz at NRO has a must-read article on the rise of anti-Christian bigotry which cites the May issue of Harper's as exhibit A. Here's a taste:

For a very long time now, secular liberals have treated conservative Christians as the modern embodiment of evil, the one group you're allowed to openly hate. Although barely noticed by the rest of us, this poison has been floating through our political system for decades. Traditional Christians are tired of it, and I don't blame them. That doesn't justify rhetorical excess from either side.

But the fact of the matter is that the Left's rhetorical attacks on conservative Christians have long been more extreme, more widely disseminated, and more politically effective than whatever the Christians have been hurling back. And now that their long ostracism by the media has finally forced conservative Christians to demand redress, the Left has abandoned all rhetorical restraint.

Meanwhile, as Harper's levels vicious attacks on conservative Christians, the California assembly has passed a bill designed to prevent politicians from using "anti-gay rhetoric" in their political campaigns. Opposition to same-sex marriage itself is considered by many to be "anti-gay." So has public opposition to same-sex marriage been legislatively banned? Conservative Christians have good reason to fear cultural ostracism. The mere expression of their core religious views is being legislated against.

The courts have banned traditional morality as a basis for law and have turned instead to secular Europe for guidance. Traditional Christians can't even set up a college in New York City. And now Harper's is calling them evil fascists.

Judicial imposition of same-sex marriage has poured fuel on the fire. When Frank Rich compares conservative Christians to segregationist bigots, when Chris Hedges compares conservative Christians to evil fascist supporters of Hitler, its the Christian understanding of homosexuality that's driving the wild rhetoric. None of the American Founders would have approved of same-sex marriage, yet suddenly we're expected to equate opposition to gay marriage with Hitler's genocidal persecutions.

The secular left sees Christian conservatives as the only obstacle standing in the way of their achievement of total cultural hegemony, and, as Jesus promised, they hate them for it. Unless those Christians who are indifferent to, or unaware of, the festering antipathy which has grown quickly to a boil since last November, wake up, pay attention, and start exercising their political rights and power, the situation will doubtless continue to worsen. One lesson of 20th century history is that haters always continue to push until they meet strong opposition. If they don't encounter that resistance their hatred attains a momentum which becomes very difficult to stop and which ultimately results in violence.

It's odd that the current tide of anti-Christian bigotry, whose virulence is unique in our history, has gone largely unremarked in the MSM. Or at least it should be odd.

A Party <i>In Extremis</i>

Democrats are devaluing one of the more effective epithets in their considerable arsenal of political slurs by extravagant over-use of the word. Their fondness for it has resulted in the fact that few people listen to them any more when they use it. The word is "extreme" and its variations.

President Bush's judicial nominations are "extremist". The Republican move to end the use of the filibuster to block those nominees is "extreme". Anyone who holds conservative religious views is an "extremist". Anyone who opposes gay marriage is an "extremist". The attempt to reform social security and to institute personal savings accounts is "extreme". Those who yearn for a return to traditional values of truth, commitment, loyalty, and hard work are on the "extreme" right.

After a while it starts to sink in that in the Democrats' lexicon anyone is an "extremist" who disagrees with them. The Democrats want to undo centuries of settled policy on marriage, sex, and family life, but it is those who see value in the traditional ways of looking at these things who are "extreme".

When everyone is an extremist the word ceases to move the listener. It loses its punch, and the Democrats just sound silly every time the try to tarnish another political opponent with it. Bereft of ideas, with no plan for the country to offer the American people, they are reduced to labeling as extremists a significant percentage, perhaps a majority, of the American people.

It's no wonder that they have themselves become a party in extremis.

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker

This may be of little interest to anyone else, but I thought it was wonderful news when I heard that biologists have discovered that a bird long thought to be extinct still survives in the swamps along the Mississippi river in Arkansas. The bird is a magnificent nineteen inch long black and white woodpecker called the Ivory-billed, and had last been seen in 1944. It has a three foot wingspan, and its large size made it especially vulnerable to the loss of habitat it suffered due to logging in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

There was hope that some of the birds had survived in Louisiana, but no one was able to confirm their existence. A team of ornithologists searching the Big Woods region of Arkansas, however, discovered the woodpecker there about a year ago but kept their find secret so as not to incite an influx of birders into the region. They finally submitted the results of their study of the Ivory-billed to Science which is going to publish their report in a future issue.

The Departments of Interior and Agriculture have already promised millions of dollars toward protecting and hopefully increasing the numbers of this beautiful creature. Like the recovery efforts which are restoring the populations of the California condor and the Whooping crane, it may be that similar efforts will make the Ivory-billed woodpecker another conservation success story.

Borking Bolton

Victor David Hanson places the arrow directly in the little black circle in this piece on the John Bolton nomination in the Jewish World Review. The resistance to Bolton has nothing to do with his credentials or abilities. It has everything to do with denying George Bush a successful nomination and protecting the U.N. from anyone who would hold its feet to the fire. Hanson writes:

The marathon confirmation hearings of John Bolton to be the American ambassador to the United Nations have become pathetic. Bolton is supposedly discourteous to subordinates. He was a hands-on-his-hips boss! Heaven forbid, he sometimes bellowed.

The "disclosure" of these supposedly hurtful flare-ups has little to do with Bolton's fitness to navigate in the United Nations, whose General Assembly includes miscreants from Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Otherwise, Bolton's occasional gruffness would be seen as a real asset in an international jungle where a murderous Syria sat on the Commission on Human Rights while member states perennially castigated democratic Israel as racist.

So the Bush administration wants to unleash a barking watchdog to patrol the United Nations, reeling from its multi-billion-dollar oil-for-food scandal, sexual misconduct among its operatives in Africa, and inaction as thousands perished in the Congo and Darfur. It tires of subsidizing an unaccountable organization that institutionalizes graft, excuses criminality and ignores genocide - but somehow regularly blames its chief democratic patron, the United States.

Bolton's critics apparently feel that such global organizations, for all their faults, nevertheless provide a useful brake on George Bush's exuberance abroad. And now they appear confident that their own barroom tactics will eventually wear down the patrician complacency of Bolton's strangely nonchalant supporters.

Those who roast Bolton prefer an ambassador who would not rock the boat of multilateralism, or, better yet, lack the zeal and skills even to try - and certainly would not employ Bolton's characterization of Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator." The last time we heard such provocative talk Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" under the curious assumption that it was both evil and an empire.

The rest of the essay is even better. Hanson reminds us of the minimalist ethical standards of three of Bolton's foremost senatorial critics, Senators Boxer, Dodd, and Biden, and highlights the hypocrisy of such people as these preventing the confirmation of a man to an ambassadorship because his subordinates sometimes found him demanding.

Free Will v. Determinism

There's a good discussion on Evangelical Outpost about the perennial philosophical problem of free will vs. determinism. The discussion specifically addresses the difficulty in reconciling human freedom with God's sovereignty. The thread was triggered by a "tormented youth" who is seeking an answer to this conundrum, and there are a number of interesting responses in the comment section.

Liberal Humor

The left has demonstrated time and again that many of them suffer from an apparently incurable case of arrested development. Their political discourse is often characterized by an adolescent nastiness, and their attempts at humor are generally unfunny, tasteless, and incredibly juvenile. This report of a skit on the left-wing radio network Air America is just the latest example:

Government officials are reviewing a skit which aired on the network Monday evening -- a skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to the president!

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.

"What's with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.

Hilarious, isn't it?

Janice Rogers Brown

Now we know why the left is so desperate to keep the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers off the federal bench. The LATimes(free registration required) has an account of a talk Judge Janice Rogers Brown gave last Sunday. Here are some of the key points in the Times' report:

Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech.

"There seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided. It's not a shooting war, but it is a war," she said, according to a report published Monday in the Stamford Advocate.

"These are perilous times for people of faith," she said, "not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud."

The Advocate quoted Brown as lamenting that America had moved away from the religious traditions on which it was founded. "When we move away from that, we change our whole conception of the most significant idea that America has to offer, which is this idea of human freedom and this notion of liberty," she said.

She added that atheism "handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom.... Freedom then becomes willfulness."

"No wonder the radical left opposes her," Gary Bauer, president of the advocacy group American Values wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "Janice Rogers Brown understands the great culture war raging in America. That is why the abortion crowd, the homosexual rights movement and the radical secularists are all demanding that Senate liberals block her confirmation."

Brown was first nominated by President Bush in 2003 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, an appointment considered a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court. She has emerged as one of the president's most controversial judicial nominees - and one of the conservative movement's favorite examples of Democratic delays.

Democrats blocked Brown's confirmation by the full Senate, charging that she held extremist views that interfere with her ability to render objective judgments. She has a history of delivering provocative speeches.

Democrats have questioned speeches in which she called the New Deal the "triumph of our socialist revolution." She has described herself as a "true conservative" who believes that "where the government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates.... The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

Questioned in 2003 about her comments, Brown conceded that she was blunt when addressing conservative audiences. "I don't have a speechwriter," she said. "I do these myself. And it speaks for itself."

"It's so shocking that in the middle of this battle she would say such extraordinarily intemperate things," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Two religious leaders who heard Brown speak Sunday had only praise. The Rev. Michael R. Moynihan, pastor of a church in Greenwich, Conn., and an organizer of the Red Mass, said he was impressed with Brown.

"She caused all of us to reflect more profoundly on the intersection between law and morality, and on the role of religion in shaping those virtues and values, which are crucial to our democratic way of life," said Bishop William E. Lori, the head of the Bridgeport diocese, who invited Brown to address the group.

The Reverend Barry Lynn is "shocked" that the judge would say such outrageous things in the middle of her confirmation battle. He evidently can't comprehend that a judicial nominee would actually want people to know where she stood and what she thinks. He calls her remarks "intemperate" as though it were somehow scandalous to acknowledge what anyone who has one eye half open can plainly see, that we are in the midst of a struggle for the culture with those who wish to turn the United States into Sweden.

It's a peculiarity of this struggle that those who hold to views that have been commonplace in this nation for over two hundred years are labelled extremist by those who are eager to overturn traditional beliefs about religion, sexuality, marriage, and family.

Apparently, for such as Mr. Lynn statements of the obvious should have no place in our political discourse, and people who believe what Janice Brown believes are ipso facto unsuited to serve on the federal bench. The left recoils in sanctimonious horror from the accusation that they are deliberately seeking to exclude people from the judiciary based upon their religious beliefs, but anyone who can't see that this is so can look at a clear sky at noon and fail to see the sun.

Judge Brown said in her talk that "it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud." Indeed. Liberal Democrats and their groupies, like Barry Lynn, will do all they can to make you pay for being an uppity Christian. They are unwitting proof that what she says about the culture war is on the mark.

The Clock is Ticking on Zarqawi

Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail notes this about the ABC report on the near capture of Abu al-Zarqawi in February:

The fact that there is someone inside the Zarqawi network is what is startling. Al Qaeda in Iraq appears to have been penetrated, no small feat as al Qaeda is traditionally a very closed and secretive organization, admitting only the most ideologically pure of the Islamists within their ranks.

The mole is likely of Arab descent, perhaps an Iraqi, as genuine cover would be needed to break into al Qaeda's inner circle. This mole may be responsible for several of the arrests of high-ranking Zarqawi lieutenants over the past several months. While Zarqawi escaped, the mission was not a complete failure, as money, a computer and two close assistants were captured in the raid:

Finding the computer, said the official, "was a seminal event." It had "a very big hard drive," the official said, and recent pictures of Zarqawi. The official said Zarqawi's driver and a bodyguard were taken into custody.

The computer will likely have a huge amount of data on al Qaedas network, based on past findings of siezed hardware. Zarqawi's driver and a bodyguard are the real catches, as their job descriptions constantly put them at Zarqawi's side. These are men that would know the most intimate details of his professional life: his habits, routines, and methods of operation as well as knowledge about the group's leaders, safe houses, finances and areas of operation.

See here for more details on the contents of the computer.

Zarqawi will be captured or killed sooner or later. One wonders what effect this will have on the morale of terrorists throughout the Middle East and beyond. They will still slog on, to be sure. They will continue their demonic fascination with death, but will they find it increasingly more difficult to recruit new foot soldiers? Will they find it more difficult to raise money or to mount complex operations abroad? Will they find the hardships they have to endure less appealing than they did a year ago? There is a good chance that the capture of a "hero" like Zarqawi will be a significant blow to global terrorism. We pray that is the case.

Islamic Honor

Another honor killing among the followers of Mohammed. This one because the victim's photo was on someone's cellphone. Sounds reasonable, I suppose, if you're a Muslim:

A Jordanian man shot dead his divorced sister after seeing her photo on his friend's camera-equipped cellphone in the latest "honour" killing in the kingdom, hospital officials said Monday.

The unidentified man shot the 31-year-old mother twice in the head Sunday night and then turned himself in to police saying he committed the murder to "cleanse his family's honour".

The incident is the fifth example of a so-called honour killing in Jordan this year. Those found guilty usually face sentences of a maximum of one year in jail under Jordanian law.

Last month, a man stabbed his sister to death after finding out she had agreed an unofficial marriage with a man who subsequently disappeared.

At least 19 women lost their lives in honour killings in Jordan last year, according to the local press.

One year in jail for first-degree murder? Islamic notions of justice are as peculiar as their notions of honor.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the tip.

The Coming Theocracy

Michael Barone responds to the alarm raised by liberal Chicken Littles that the U.S. is headed for a theocracy. He dismisses this bit of paranoia as silliness. Several of his key points follow:

[W]hether the United States is on its way to becoming a theocracy is actually a silly question. No religion is going to impose laws on an unwilling Congress or the people of this country. And we have long lived comfortably with a few trappings of religion in the public space, such as "In God We Trust" or "God save this honorable court."

The real question is whether strong religious belief is on the rise in America and the world. Fifty years ago secular liberals were confident that education, urbanization, and science would lead people to renounce religion. That seems to have happened, if you confine your gaze to Europe, Canada, and American university faculty clubs. But this movement has not been as benign as expected: The secular faiths of fascism and communism destroyed millions of lives before they were extinguished.

America has not moved in the expected direction. In fact, just the opposite.

[T]he religions and sects that have grown are those that make serious demands on members; those that accommodate to secular critics and make few demands decline in numbers. The Roman Catholic Church continues to grow in America; the Assemblies of God and the Mormon Church grow even faster. But mainline Protestant denominations, which spend much effort ordaining gay bishops or urging disinvestment in Israel, lose members.

Who inherits the future? In free societies each generation makes its own religious choices, but people tend to follow the faith of their parents. Secular Europe, with below-replacement birthrates among non-Muslims, could be headed for a Muslim future, as historian Niall Ferguson suggests. In the United States, as pointed out by Phillip Longman in The Empty Cradle and Ben Wattenberg in Fewer, birthrates are above replacement level largely because of immigrants. But, as Longman notes, religious people have more children than seculars. Those who believe in "family values" are more likely to have families.

This doesn't mean we're headed toward a theocracy: America is too diverse and freedom loving for that. But it does mean that we're probably not headed to the predominantly secular society that liberals predicted half a century ago and that Europe has now embraced.

When listening to liberal caterwauling about the insurgency of the evangelical Ayatollahs it must be born in mind that, in their pinched view of the world, anyone who takes religious faith seriously is a threat to freedom, and anything other than a completely secular society is a theocracy. Liberals fear religious belief because people whose allegiance is to their God and their Church often feel quite independent of government and tend to see government as a usurper of their freedoms. This is why the left, whether in its extreme forms like communism or in its more moderate forms like democratic socialism, always seeks to banish religion from public life.

Any sign that religion may be experiencing a reinvigoration among the masses motivates the left to do and say whatever it can to discredit it. If there were only one person remaining who still believed in God the left would nevertheless consider him a portent of an impending theocracy that threatens us all.

EMP

The greatest threat Iran and North Korea pose to the United States is not that one of them will detonate a weapon over or in one of our cities, although that remains a terrible possibility, but that they will detonate a nuclear warhead high in the earth's atmosphere. This would cause little immediate damage but it would generate a pulse of electromagnetic energy, called an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that would completely destroy almost all electrical and electronic equipment in the U.S. The consequences of this would be devastating. Iran appears to be preparing for just such an attack. Here are excerpts from a World Net Daily report on the threat:

WASHINGTON -- Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts. The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

"An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies - terrorist or otherwise," wrote Senator John Kyl in an article in the Washington Post a week ago, "And it is probably the easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years."

If electrical power is knocked out and circuit boards fried, telecommunications are disrupted, energy deliveries are impeded, the financial system breaks down, food, water and gasoline become scarce.

As Kyl put it: "Few if any people would die right away. But the loss of power would have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society. Communication would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would leave food rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of transportation as those vehicles still working simply ran out of gas (which is pumped with electricity). The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention the safety of anyone in the path of the inevitable fires, which would rage unchecked. And as we have seen in areas of natural and other disasters, such circumstances often result in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order."

"American society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less developed nations," the senator wrote. "When deprived of power, we are in many ways helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In that case, power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could provide help. But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment."

A warhead could be lobbed high enough into the atmosphere over the U.S. by any of a number of existing missiles available to the remaining members of the Axis of Evil. They can be launched from a freighter at sea and don't have to be particularly accurate to achieve their purpose.

Those who argued against the Bush administration's attempt to complete the construction of a missile defense on the grounds that missiles aren't a realistic threat turn out to be very wrong. Again. Let's hope that their error remains theoretical and not catastrophic.

Over the next few years we must resolve to do the following: We must not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons; we must continue to work surreptitiously to weaken the regime of North Korea; we must continue to build an anti-missile shield to protect us against the kinds of attack these nations are likely to mount; we must stockpile spare parts like transformers and other essential components of our electrical grid; and we must look for ways to insulate our electronic infrastructure.

If we fail to do any of these we'll leave ourselves in a position where a single warhead on a single missile could cause a degree of social upheaval and devastation that would far exceed any calamity ever to befall mankind. Once Iran and North Korea have the capacity to launch such an attack with a fair assurance of success they may choose not to, but we would be foolish in the extreme to count on that.

Syria Packs Up

Here's the AP story on the historic withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon. Not a word in it about the work of the Bush administration in bringing it about, just a vague reference to "international pressure", as if the Syrians might have buckled to the fearsome demands of Kofi Annan or the French.

The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq continue to resonate among Middle East tyrants like Bashar Assad even if the Western press thinks these developments are simply instances of spontaneous generation. The media is trying so hard to avoid giving Bush any credit for the pullout that we wouldn't be surprised to soon see this headline: Syria Withdraws Despite U.S. Pressure.

It's Just a Matter of Time

Last February American troops came within a whisker of nabbing Abu al Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist who heads up the insurgency in Iraq. Zarqawi managed to escape, but his computer was seized and has apparently been a rich source of intelligence on his operation.

The details on how he managed to escape are in this interesting ABC News story.

The State of the Church

The Barna Group released their 2005 report on the state of the Church on April 11.

The data for 2005 were generated from a study in January based on a nationwide survey of a random sample of 1003 adults. That survey asked the same questions about religious practices and perspectives that Barna has been tracking in national surveys each January for the last fifteen years. Here are some of their more interesting results:

More than nine out of ten American adults engage in some type of faith-related practice during a typical week.

The survey found a small but noteworthy increase in Bible reading. Currently, 45% of adults read the Bible during a typical week, not including when they are at church. That figure represents a minimal increase over the past few years, but a significant rise from the 31% measured in 1995, the lowest level of Bible reading recorded by Barna in the past 15 years. The current statistic is still below the levels achieved in 1980s and early 1990s, but the report shows that the trend is upward.

Despite the media frenzy surrounding the influence of evangelical Christians during the 2004 presidential election, the new study indicates that evangelicals remain just 7% of the adult population. That number has not changed since the Barna Group began measuring the size of the evangelical public in 1994.

Barna surveys do not ask people to define themselves as "evangelical" but instead categorize people as such based on their beliefs. In this approach, evangelicals are a subset of "born-again" Christians. In addition to meeting the born-again criteria evangelicals also meet seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; contending that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; stating that Satan exists; maintaining that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not by being good or doing good deeds; asserting that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; saying that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. In this framework, being classified as "evangelical" is not dependent upon any kind of church or denominational affiliation or involvement.

When all of the atheists, agnostics and adults associated with non-Christian faith groups are combined, they are only half as numerous as the born-again segment (21% compared to 40% respectively). The remaining body of people, 39% of the nation's adult population, is what Barna categorizes as "notional Christians" - people who consider themselves to be Christian but not born-again. For more than a decade, the sizes of the born-again and notional segments have been roughly equivalent.

Given the criteria for being "evangelical" it's something of a surprise that evangelicals are only about 28% of all "born-again" Christians. It's also a bit surprising, to me anyway, that 40% of adults are in this latter group. That seems rather a large number given the dominant secularism of the culture. Perhaps there are many people who claim to be born-again whose lives, paradoxically, are relatively unaffected by their alleged rebirth.

How to Tell If You're a Liberal

Dennis Prager thinks that a significant fraction of those who call themselves liberal really aren't. Indeed, if they knew what it was that liberals believed they'd disassociate themselves from the Democratic party forthwith. He writes:

It is my belief that about half of the Americans who call themselves liberal do not hold the great majority of positions held by mainstream liberal institutions such as the New York Times editorial page, People for the American Way, and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. So here is a test of this thesis to be given to anyone who believes he or she is a liberal. If you feel I have omitted a liberal position or have unfairly characterized any of them here, please email me at dennisprager@dennisprager.com. This is still a work in progress.

You say you are a liberal. Do you believe the following?

1.Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

2.Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

3.Murderers should never be put to death.

4.During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

5.Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

6.It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

7.Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

8.It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

9.Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

10.A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

11.The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

12.The present high tax rates are good.

13.Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.

14.The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

15.The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

16.It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

17.No abortions can be labeled immoral.

18.Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

19.High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

20.Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

21.Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

22.It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

23.No culture is morally superior to any other.

This is a pretty thorough catalogue of the views of modern liberals and of the beliefs of the average Democratic leader and activist today. It puts into bold relief a major reason why Democrats have been largely unsuccessful in electoral politics over the last two decades and reinforces one's fervent hope that they remain so.

Roe is the Root of All Evil

David Brooks traces the political hostility we're seeing in Washington today back to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. He may well be right. Almost all of the most bitter battles have been between those who wish to defend and those who wish to overturn that decision. Brooks writes:

When [Justice Harry] Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate. Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.

Unable to lobby for their pro-life or pro-choice views in normal ways, abortion activists focused their attention on judicial nominations. Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight.

Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away.

In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain.

Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.

Brooks is certainly correct about this. Our politics will not improve until Roe is reversed and decisions about abortion are placed back in state legislatures where they belong, but Roe will not be overturned until more conservative judges are seated on the Supreme Court, and that won't happen until the filibuster of judicial nominees is ended.

In other words, Brooks' argument entails the conclusion that our politics will not grow more civil until the Republicans vote to change the Senate rule that allows a minority of senators to block a vote on the president's nominees. This seems paradoxical since such a vote, though necessary, will surely make our politics much more vituperative than they already are.

Squandering Power

Senator Joe Biden and WaPo columnist David Broder are calling for a compromise with the Republicans on the filibuster issue, a sure sign that the Democrats are in a position of political disadvantage. Sen. Mitch McConnell claims that the GOP has the necessary votes to get a rule change that would preclude filibustering judicial nominees. Majority Leader Frist has gotten over a wobbly spell and seems prepared to do whatever it takes to get the president's candidates an up or down vote in the full Senate.

Things are falling the Republican's way, but never underestimate the GOP's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. How else do we explain this from Captain's Quarters, except as a timid reluctance to press their advantage?

Unfortunately, this vote [on changing the Senate rule on filibustering judicial nominees] will not take place now. The GOP had to schedule more pressing business before the recess in the first week of May. The emergency? The new highway bill. You all recall when we fought to expand the GOP majority in the Senate to get that highway bill passed, right? That legislation inspired all of us to donate money that could have gone to family vacations and to assist others in our community to the National Republican Committee instead in 2002 and 2004 ... right? That's what Frist and the GOP leadership expects you to believe now, apparently.

If there's a way to squander political strength the Republicans can be counted upon to find it. They are masters of the art of losing gracefully. They think of themselves as a natural minority party and are as surprised as anyone to find themselves with fifty five members in the Senate. Now that they're there they'd be perfectly happy to let the Democrats take over, but of course they can't actually do that, so they do the next worst thing which is to let the Democrats call the shots on everything that really matters.

If Democrats accuse John Bolton of being mean to underlings then the Republicans pause to reconsider his nomination as ambassador to the U.N. If Tom DeLay is accused of doing what Democrats have long done as a matter of course and which is apparently not a violation of House ethics then Republicans stroke their chins and nod sagely that perhaps DeLay should indeed be dumped. If Democrats think it unconscionable that Bush's judges get a straight up or down vote on the floor of the Senate, well, then, far be it from the Republicans to insist otherwise. That would be needlessly confrontational. If the Republicans find themselves in the unaccustomed position of enjoying political momentum, as they seem to be on the filibuster issue, then the gentlemanly thing to do is put off the vote until the Democrats have a chance to recover their footing enough to kick the GOP in the pants on the vote.

Viewpoint predicts that if Republicans do not vote to change the Senate rules on filibusters there will be a hemorrhage of membership from the rank and file of the party of historic proportions. Financial support will evaporate overnight and Republicans will get steamrollered by the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

Surely, Republican leaders understand that a party that declines to use the perquisites of power that attach to the majority do not deserve to be, nor will long remain in, the majority. Unfortunately, the prospect of being returned to minority status probably suits the Republicans just fine.

Victor Davis Hanson on the Middle East

Victor Davis Hanson offers five lessons we should take from our experience in the Middle-East since 9/11. Here's #5:

Do not look for logic and consistency in the Middle East where they are not to be found. It makes no sense to be frustrated that Arab intellectuals and reformers damn us for removing Saddam and simultaneously praise democratic rumblings that followed his fall. We should accept that the only palatable scenario for the Arab Street was one equally fanciful: Brave demonstrators took to the barricades, forced Saddam's departure, created a constitution, held elections, and then invited other Arab reformers into Baghdad to spread such indigenous reform - all resulting in a society as sophisticated, wealthy, free, and modern as the West, but felt to be morally superior because of its allegiance to Islam. That is the dream that is preferable to the reality that the Americans alone took out the monster of the Middle East and that any peaceful protest against Saddam would have ended in another genocide.

After all these years, do not expect praise or gratitude for billions poured into Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, or Palestine or thanks for the liberation of Kuwait, protection of Saudi Arabia in 1990, or the removal of Saddam - much less for American concern for Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Somalia, the Sudan, or Afghanistan. Our past sins always must be magnified as much as our more recent benefactions are slighted.

In response, American policy should be predicated not on friendship or the desire for appreciation, but on what is in our national interest and what is right - whose symbiosis is possible only through the current policy of consistently promoting democracy. Constitutional government is not utopia - only the proper antidote for the sickness in the Middle East, and the one medicine that hateful jihadists, dictators, kings, terrorists, and theocrats all agree that they alike hate.

There is much wisdom in this as well as the rest of the prescriptions in his article. We hope that Washington is listening.