The Rational Egoist

I have not posted on this blog for quite some time, and for various reasons. One of these reasons, is that I have been working on a website with fellow Objectivist David Veksler that far surpasses in scope this little blog of mine. ObjectivismOnline will include a meta-blog, forum (already completed), a chat room, a vast resource of Objectivism-related web links, a lot of essays from various Objectivist intellectuals on many topics, a photo gallery, an art gallery, resources for Objectivism clubs, an eventually a vast marketplace. I am in charge of the content of the website and I will be blogging regularly on the meta-blog there. In addition, we are looking for interested bloggers and essay writers (whether it be submitting previously written essays or writing new ones).

As for this blog, I do not think that I will keep it once ObjectivismOnline is up and running since everything that I have been doing here I will do at ObjectivismOnline but far more of. For those of you who have actually read my material over the months and for those of you who have commented, I thank you. I encourage all of you to visit ObjectivismOnline!

Today is the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first amazing flight.

Today marks the 100th anniversity of the Wright Brothers first flight, and what an achievement it is. However, the great spirit of American innovation that brought about this original flight is being destroyed today. Not only is the aviation industry dominated by government controls, government agencies, irrational safety standards, etc., but much of the awe surrounded by aviation is gone.

Check out this ARI op-ed written by Heike Berthold: America Has Grounded The Wright Brothers

Today, we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding that progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect, to last forever and to protect us from our own failings—or else we sue. By the late 1970s, general aviation accidents reached their lowest point in 29 years—yet liability lawsuits were up five-fold, and manufacturers were sued for even such obvious pilot errors as running out of fuel. Companies like Cessna were spending more to defend themselves in court than on research—and production of small planes dropped from almost 20,000 planes in 1978 to under 1,000 by the late 1980s.
With reliance on one’s independent judgment goes an unwillingness to be coddled by an over-protective nanny-state. Aviation was born in a culture that valued the entrepreneurial spirit of its pioneers, and respected their right to pursue their work unhindered by government controls. The Wrights and the innovators who followed them—giants like Boeing, Cessna, and Lear—were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their achievements. Courts protected the pioneers’ intellectual property rights—granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their invention—and government left the field of aviation free to innovate. Prior to 1926 there were no pilot’s licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules governing the carrying of passengers—and the aviation industry took off. By 1927, the year Lindbergh made the first non-stop transatlantic solo flight, Wichita, Kansas, alone could boast of more than 20 airplane companies.
In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary deathtraps to capable traveling machines. The pace of innovation was rapid as planes improved, in under 25 years, from the Wright brothers’ rickety contraption, which flew 852 feet, to Lindbergh’s plane, which crossed an ocean.
Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation has ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25 years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances—and regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster at the same time.

Also notice this insane op-ed written by George Monbiot: A Weapon With Wings

They will probably be commemorating the wrong people in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, tomorrow. Five months before the Wright brothers lifted a flying machine into the air for 12 seconds above the sand dunes of the Outer Banks, the New Zealander Richard Pearse had travelled for more than a kilometre in his contraption, without the help of ramps or slides, and had even managed to turn his plane in mid-flight.

But history belongs to those who record it, so tomorrow is the official centenary of the aeroplane. At Kitty Hawk, George Bush will deliver a eulogy to aviation, while a number of men with more money than sense will seek to recreate the Wrights’ first flight. Well, they can keep their anniversary. Tomorrow should be a day of international mourning. December 17 2003 is the centenary of the world’s most effective killing machine.

The aeroplane was not the first weapon of mass destruction. The European powers had already learned to rain terror upon their colonial subjects by means of naval bombardment, artillery and the Gatling and Maxim guns. But the destructive potential of aerial bombing was grasped even before the first plane left the ground. In 1886, Jules Verne imagined aircraft acting as a global police force, bombing barbaric races into peace and civilisation. In 1898, the novelist Samuel Odell saw the English-speaking peoples subjugating eastern Europe and Asia by means of aerial bombardment. In the same year, the writer Stanley Waterloo celebrated the future annihilation of inferior races from the air.

None of this was lost on the Wright brothers. When Wilbur Wright was asked, in 1905, what the purpose of his machine might be, he answered simply: “War.” As soon as they were confident that the technology worked, the brothers approached the war offices of several nations, hoping to sell their patent to the highest bidder. The US government bought it for $30,000, and started test bombing in 1910. The aeroplane was conceived, designed, tested, developed and sold, in other words, not as a vehicle for tourism, but as an instrument of destruction.

This horrible perversion of the Wright Brothers and the ridiculous pacificism of this individual sickens me. His argument is identical with claiming that cars are evil because someone can use them wrongly, or that baseball bats are evil because they can be used as a weapon, etc. Give me a break!

While this wacko’s opinion is not dominantly held (mainly because most individuals still maintain some semblance of rationality today), it is still a sad indication of how the industry of aviation is being attacked. My thought is that such attacks are a mere symptom of a deeper hatred for capitalism, selfishness, and that which benefits man as such. Disgusting.

On this day, let us reject this anti-capitalism, anti-man attitude in favor of a view of man and capitalism that admires innovators and producers like the Wright Brothers as two of the greatest heroes in American history.

American and Israel forces have developed a gun that can effectively shoot around corners!

TEL AVIV (AFP) - A new weapons system was unveiled in Israel which enables armed forces to fire guns around corners and could revolutionize urban warfare around the world.

The patented “Corner Shot” provides protection to the soldier by enabling him to shoot down a street, through a window or a door frame with maximum accuracy while keeping out of the line of fire.

The system consists of a rod and a mobile end section which can be adjusted with any type of combat handgun and includes a camera allowing the soldier to scan the targeted area and aim while maintaining cover.

Russian soldiers during the bloody World War II siege of Stalingrad first had the idea of bending the barrels of their rifles to shoot around corners and their Nazi opponents developed a purpose-built attachment fitted with a periscope which they called the krummerlauf.

The Israeli-US developed Corner Shot is the latest improvement on a series of devices invented over the past two decades by the FBI (news - web sites) and the French army which left at least the combatant’s hand exposed.

“This system was put on the market three months ago and we have already sold it to 15 countries,” said Amos Golan, a retired lieutenant colonel who served in Israeli anti-terror units and invented the Corner Shot.

The device costs between three and five thousand dollars and has been sold to the US, Russian and several European armies, said Golan, also joint CEO of Corner Shot holdings.

“I believe that the Corner Shot weapon system can be extremely beneficial in the global war on terror,” Golan said Monday.

Aren’t the results of the freedom of the mind under capitalism (in this case semi-capitalism) great?

Saddam Hussein has been captured!!!

Saddam Hussein has been captured, TIME magazine has confirmed. “It’s true,” said a U.S. intelligence official in Baghdad about the arrest of the former dictator. The official wouldn’t give any more details except to confirm that the former dictator had been detained the night before. He did say the suspect had been positively identified as Saddam Hussein. Ambassador Paul Bremer is calling together the Iraqi Governing Council to tell them this afternoon, he said.

Celebratory gunfire erupted across Baghdad as the news of the fallen Iraqi president’s arrest spread across the town. Iraqis showed their joy that the brutal leader had been detained by firing bursts of automatic weapons fire into the air.

Hell yeah!

It’s truly frightening how some of the stated goals of the Communist Party in The Communist Manifesto according to Friedrich Engles are so similar to the stated goals as well as the actions of the politicians in America today. Here are 12 steps that Engels lists which he believes are intermediate steps towards the proletariat seizing control of private property and the government:

1. Limitations of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.), forced loans, etc.

[The Founding Fathers of our country envisioned a land of very limited taxation and small government. Currently, under our present government, there exists progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, income taxes, property taxes, etc.]

2. Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

[In the 19th century the railroad industry was nationalized in America. Additionally, countless numbers of businesses in many different industries have been subsidized (given government money). The result of such government action has been the creation of government run monopolies in many industries such as utilities, the railroads, ownership of radio and television waves, etc.]

3. Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people

4. Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, insofar as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

[The history of labor organizations in America does not need to be documented here. Minimum wage laws anyone? Equal and “fair” working conditions?]

5. An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

[Private property has been slowly abolished for over 100 years now through an ever increasing government intrusion into the ownership and control of property.]

6. Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank operating with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

[The creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, the abolition of the gold standard under Nixon, and the ever increasing government control of the economy.]

7. Expansion of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation–all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

[Examples of this include the nationalization of many industries such as railroads, utilities, radio, television, etc, as I mentioned earlier. Also under this branch is the environmentalist movement and its reprecussions in government action.]

8. Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mothers’ care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

[Sounds like government indoctrination to me the likes of which Plato would have never dreamed of. Anyway, we already have this occuring with our public education system and more and more cries from government officials to increase the scope of the system.]

9. Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

10. Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

[Anyone know anything about urban renewal projects in urban cities such as Chicago? Under such projects, tenants would essentially be kicked out of their homes and businesses in order to make way for the vision of a city that some power-hungry mayor (such as Richard Daley of Chicago) had in mind, regardless of who owned such property and what they themselves wanted to do with it.]
11. Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

12. Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

[Examples of this include, again, the nationalization of the railroads, the government monopoly on highways and other roads, public transportation in major cities, the proposed nationalization of the airline industry after 9-11, etc.]

There you have it. I advocate a return to the views of our Founding Fathers. Freedom, justice, equality before the law, and the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Let us listen to the wisdom of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Locke, Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, and Ben Franklin. Let us also reject the blatant statism of the likes of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, etc.

A few days ago, the host for this site went MIA. D’oh! After a long break I am back and I have a lot to say. However, I’m right in the middle of finals week and I have so much work! I have written one post as the result of my reading The Communist Manifesto for my political ideologies class which you can see above. Finals week will be over on the 18th so after that expect plenty of entries!

Bush will repeal most of his tariffs on imported steel.

The Bush administration has decided to repeal most of its 20-month-old tariffs on imported steel to head off a trade war that would have included foreign retaliation against products exported from politically crucial states, administration and industry sources said yesterday.

The officials would not say when President Bush will announce the decision but said it is likely to be this week. The officials said they had to allow for the possibility that he would make some change in the plan, but a source close to the White House said it was “all but set in stone.”

European countries had vowed to respond to the tariffs, which were ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization, by imposing sanctions on up to &dol;2.2 billion in exports from the United States, beginning as soon as Dec. 15. Japan issued a similar threat Wednesday. The sources said Bush’s aides concluded they could not run the risk that the European Union would carry out its threat to impose sanctions on orange juice and other citrus products from Florida, motorcycles, farm machinery, textiles, shoes, and other products.

Good, but there are two problems.

1. ALL of the tariffs should be repealed, not just most of them.
2. It seems that this decision made by President Bush was not the result of both moral and practical considerations (which in my view are one in the same), but rather it was the result of pragmatic (or “practical” as it used in common usage) considerations. Bush was too afraid of alienating members of the European Union as well as countries such as Japan than and therefore made the decision to repeal the tariffs, instead of choosing to repeal the tariffs because they represent a violation of the free market.

Nevertheless, it is good that these tariffs are being repealed, despite the incorrect motivation for their repeal, because they represent a violation of the free market.

Reuters reports that U.S. factory activity has reached its highest pace since 1983.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. factory activity rocketed to its fastest pace since 1983 in November and construction spending hit another record high the prior month, according to reports on Monday showing the economy’s rapid growth is reversing three years of job losses.

The Institute for Supply Management said its manufacturing index jumped to 62.8 in November, the highest since December 1983, from 57.0 a month earlier. That easily beat the forecasts of Wall Street economists.

With growth so strong and new orders still flooding in, factories hired workers for the first time in 37 months, according to the survey. The ISM figures also suggested little slow down in coming months, with factory owners struggling to keep up with demand for goods.

“It’s pretty eye-popping. If you look at the components, everything is very positive,” said Stephen Stanley, senior markets economist at RBS Greenwich Capital.

That good news comes means government data to be released on Friday could show an even bigger rise in November payrolls than the 135,000 gain forecast by economists, after an increase of 126,000 in October.

“People have really underestimated the speed and improvement in the labor markets,” Stanley said.

In another report, similar conclusions are reached.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US manufacturing activity unexpectedly shot to a 20-year record in November as factories hired workers to belt out goods for the runaway economy, a survey showed.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) purchasing managers’ index, based on a survey of supply executives, leapt to 62.8 points in November – far above expectations – from 57.0 in October.

It was the fifth consecutive month of growth.

Any figure above 50 points indicates expanding activity.

“The manufacturing sector enjoyed its best month since December 1983,” said survey chief Norbert Ore.

Factories finally took on workers after more than three years of job cuts, bucking up the overall industry barometer.

Manufacturers – the hardest hit sector of the US economy, shedding nearly 2.8 million workers since July 2000 – appeared finally to be catching the tailwind of the breakneck recovery.

Only last week, revised government figures showed US economic growth exploded in the third quarter to hit a 19-year record annual pace of 8.2 percent, ignited by business and consumer spending,

Factories were racing to supply the economy’s needs, the latest industry survey showed.

Among key findings:

– Output accelerated, with the production index soaring 5.7 points from October to 68.3 in November, the seventh month of growth.

– New orders soared, with the index leaping 9.4 points to 73.7 in November, the highest since December 1983. The backlog of orders index jumped 5.5 points to 59.0.

– Jobs grew, reversing 37 consecutive months of decline, with the employment index up 3.3 points to 51.0.

“Based on this data, it appears that the recovery is gaining momentum,” Ore said.

“Indications are that the manufacturing sector is ending 2003 on a very positive note, and all of the indexes support continued strength into 2004,” he said.

Yet another example of how less government intervention in the economy has triggered economic growth.

The principle of why this occurs is simple:
1. Wealth does not exist ready-made in the world but must be created through the use of one’s mind and the manipulation of the environment around them.
2. Human beings possess a volitional consciousness, which means they must choose to use their mind or not to.
3. Choice is incompatible with force. To the extent that an individual is forced to act (for example by giving up money to income taxes, succumbing to arbitrary antitrust law, etc.), an individual will be unable to use their mind properly and unable to create wealth as well as they could if they were not forced.
4. Thus, freedom is a necessary requirement for the proper use of one’s mind, and thus freedom is the necessary requirement for economic prosperity.

The economic boom we are currently experiencing (see 8.2% increase in third quarter GDP) is the result of the extent to which President Bush has decreased government intervention in the economy. That is not to say that he has been perfect in doing so. For example, he has created the biggest expansion of Medicare in history, has up until now supported tariffs on imported steel (see above for that story) and many other such government intrusions into the economy. However, with his tax cuts and other such economic policies, Bush has allowed for this economic boom to occur.

Hello all, I’d like to explain the recent break in posts. I’ve been away for Thanksgiving Break, and I really just wanted to take a break from the whole experience of reading about terrorists and bad philosophies. Now I am back from Thanksgiving Break, but it is definitely crunch time here at college. In the next two weeks I will be writing two important papers, taking two very important finals, and studying like crazy in between. That being said, it is likely that my posts will be light. However, keep checking back for news stories and light posts.

The GDP rose 8.2% in the third quarter which is the highest increase since 1984

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) – The U.S. economy grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, faster than the government initially estimated as companies boosted inventories in September to meet the surge in demand.

The nation’s gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced, grew from July through September at the fastest pace since the first three months of 1984, when Ronald Reagan was president. The Commerce Department previously reported a 7.2 percent third-quarter growth rate, following a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter.

“Growth is now super-super strong compared to super strong,'’ said Joseph LaVorgna, senior U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities, whose forecast of 8.3 percent was the highest in a Bloomberg News survey.

Consumer spending increased at a 6.4 percent annual rate last quarter, the fastest pace in six years, and retailers such as Williams-Sonoma Inc. restocked shelves to help satisfy anticipated sales. A measure of profit widened to a record $739.7 billion, giving companies confidence to increase spending.

“Inventories declined less than people thought, and there was more production,'’ said Kevin Logan, senior economist at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, who forecast 8.1 percent. “The rebound in corporate profits will impress people with the idea that business spending will continue to support the economy for the next quarter or two.'’

Is it a coincidence that we had a Republican president during the last largest increase in our GDP? I think not!

Keep in mind however, while this is great news, Bush still has a lot of problems with his economic policies. Under Bush, we’ve had the greatest expansion of Medicare in history (still pending but looks probable), a massive increase in non-military government spending (the largest in history I believe), a major federal deficit (though part of this can be attributed to the positive war on terror), etc. If only Bush would begin the destruction of Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, public education, the FCC, the SEC, and all other government intrusion into the economy, we would be set. Doesn’t look like that will be happening any time soon though.

I recently came across this “report card” on the U.S. War on Terrorism published by the Patriots for the Defense of America.

Patriots assigned the Administration an average grade of “D+” for its failure to execute a war against the most pressing foreign threats. The categories graded are as follows:

1. The “Hot War” (Iraq and Afghanistan): Iraq posed a real threat to the U.S., but not as great as that posed by nations like Iran and North Korea. Each of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought in a shameful manner, sacrificing American troops to unjustifiably restrictive “rules of engagement.”
Grade: C
2. The “Cold War” (Iran and North Korea): Two out of three members of the “axis of evil” have gone unpunished, despite the overwhelming terrorist and/or nuclear threats they pose. Even worse, the U.S. has appeased them, encouraging further aggression.
Grade: D-
3. The “Breeding Grounds” (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan): These governments claim to be allies in the war against militant Islamic terrorism, but fail to suppress terrorists in their own midst. Bush has failed to issue an ultimatum demanding their cooperation.
Grade: C-
4. Israel and the Palestinians: The American “road map” for peace has forced Israel to negotiate with Palestinian terrorists, requiring Israel to abdicate its right to self-defense. This policy is self-defeating for America, since Israel is a natural ally in the war against militant Islam.
Grade: F
5. Military Deployment and Readiness: Despite massive new defense spending, the Bush administration has failed to use its military power—especially the threat of its nuclear arsenal—in a way that minimizes risks to American troops, and maximizes the American ability to destroy the enemy.
Grade: C
6. International Law and Diplomacy: While American policy is widely criticized as too “unilateral,” in reality the Bush administration has demonstrated an undue, self-abasing deference to international opinion and the U.N.—resulting in pointless delays and setbacks in the war.
Grade: D+

If you are interested, please check out the entire 19-page report as supplied by the link above.

Since I am a very busy college student, and therefore do not have much time to discuss everything about our foreign policy, I put forth this report card published by the Patriots for the Defense of America as demonstrating my views on U.S. foreign policy. While this report leaves out my views on minor aspects of foreign policy such as our relations with certain Latin American and European countries, this report demonstrates my essential and most important views regarding U.S. foreign policy, specifically, on our “war on terror.”

As a side note, when I have time, I will be publishing guidelines for commenting on my blog. In the past week or so, I have received a surge of popularity and comments that I have never seen before on this blog. While I appreciate this surge of interest, the majority of the comments posted have been hostile, irrational, and sometimes down right personal attacks. Such comments will not be tolerated. The purpose of this blog is to discuss my views and opinions, and to engage in rational dialogue with whomever is interested (whether or not they agree or disagree with my views). However, irrational name-calling and irrationality as such will not be tolerated. (Keep in mind that two people can be perfectly rational and disagree on a particular subject, so rationality does not entail agreement with my view on a particular subject). I have no problem banning particular individuals who do not follow this policy, however, no banning will take place until official guidelines are posted on my part.

Democractic presidential candidate Howard Dean has proposed a radical “re-regulation of businesses.”

HOUSTON, Nov. 18 – After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive “re-regulation” of U.S. businesses.
Computer Associates

The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents – including, in some respects, Bill Clinton – to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his “re-regulation” campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out “re-regulating” the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would require new workers’ standards, a much broader right to unionize and new “transparency” requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law.

“In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation,” Dean said. “Right now, workers are getting screwed.”

Good God, this is frightening. To have ANY U.S. politician make a statement such as this, let alone a politician of one of the two major parties, is quite a frightening thing. Again we see the ridiculous contradiction of claiming to reap the benefits of capitalism while completely undercutting it through regulation.

According to this extensive intelligence report, the collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden is quite clear.

Usama bin Laden (search) and Saddam Hussein (search) had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for Al Qaeda - perhaps even for Mohamed Atta - according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith (search) to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo, which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points, Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

……………

But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq worked with Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

It seems pretty clear to me that Bin Laden and Hussein have worked together in the past and have had strong motivations to do so. While I still believe that countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are bigger threats, however, this clearly justifies the case for going to war with Iraq as such. I just disagree about WHEN we should have taken out Iraq.

Edwin Locke asks us to give real meaning to Veterans Day.

The best way we can honor our veterans and give real meaning to Veterans Day – aside from ceremonies honoring their past and present dedication and bravery – is to promise that we will go to war only when America’s interests as a free nation are threatened.

The events of 9/11 have made it abundantly clear that there exist Moslem fanatics whose goal is to destroy our country and the values it stands for. It is clearly in our self-interest to use the full power of our military might to destroy those who would destroy us.

Right on Dr. Locke. On this Veterans Day, not only should we proudly uphold the principles of freedom and individual rights on which this country was founded, but we should also proclaim that we should only act militarily in our own self -interest. Bring our military home from places such as Liberia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Most importantly, send our forces into places such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea to rid the world of these enemies of freedom and individual rights.

Check out this recent op-ed by Bruce Bartlett. In it, he discusses the resurgence of the flat tax.

The flat tax is making a comeback. After being banished to the political wilderness after Steve Forbes made it the central issue of his losing campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, interest is perking up again. One of the Democrats running for president could do himself (or herself) a lot of good by picking it up.

The immediate cause for renewed interest in the flat tax is an order by Paul Bremer, administrator of the Iraqi Provisional Authority, establishing a 15 percent flat rate tax in that country. The order was signed on Sept. 19 and takes effect on Jan. 1. A Nov. 2 report in The Washington Post said that Bremer’s action was sparking a new drive among those like Forbes to revive the issue here.

Interesting. I support the flat tax as an intermediate measure on the road to capitalism.

President Bush delivered a speech in which he stated that the former policy of the U.S. in accepting dictatorships and theocractic regimes in the Middle East is unacceptable.

Bush’s speech appeared aimed at complaints in the Arab world that the United States has long tolerated corrupt, undemocratic regimes in return for stability and a reliable supply of oil. Washington began to rethink its policy after the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and the emergence of deep hostility in the Mideast toward the United States. Fifteen of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - and in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” the president said in a groundbreaking conclusion.

“As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish,” he said, “it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”

Bush spoke before the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization formed during the Reagan administration to promote global freedom. In another step crucial to his policy in the Middle East, Bush later signed into law an $87.5 billion package for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan

“With this act of Congress, no enemy or friend can doubt that America has the resources and the will to see this war through to victory,” Bush said.

What I love about this speech is that President Bush rejected the foreign policy of the U.S. in the past in tolerating the existence of dictatorships in the Middle East. What I strongly dislike about this speech is 1. the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and is compatible with democracy and 2. that he refers to our system of government as “democracy.”

1. Islam, in its fundamental interpretation, is inherently in contradiction with the principles of freedom and individual rights.
As Edwin A. Locke wrote in his recent op-ed,
Radical Islam’s Assault on Human Life:

First, in Islamic philosophy it is a moral duty and a moral virtue to kill “infidels"—those who do not accept Islam. The Koran is replete with such commandments as: “fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell.” This is not to say all Muslims agree with this idea, but the terrorists take these teachings of the Koran seriously and literally. In his “Declaration of War against the Americans,” Osama bin Laden repeatedly cites religious texts in addition to the Koran to justify his holy war. He especially favors martyrdom and boasts that Islamic youths “love death as you [the Americans] love life.”

……..
Second, Islam, unlike Christianity (since the Renaissance and Thomas Aquinas), has no respect for reason as a means of gaining knowledge or guiding actions. Islam advocates total domination of every sphere of life by religion, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to religious dogma. The word “Islam” means literally: submission.

2. The ideal form of government is not a democracy, and we do not live in a democracy.
As I wrote in my 7/24/03 post, Democracy:

Today we hear numerous times that our government wants the rest of the world to enjoy “democracy” as the United States does, and that the system of democracy is the best there is. This representation of the American system of government as “democracy” is inaccurate, and democracy is not an ideal system at all. In fact, a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship.

In the system of democracy, the dictates of a certain majority determine what is right and what is wrong for the government to do. So, the purpose of the government in a democracy is to do anything that the majority (the people) wants them to do. If the majority decided that an individual in their society was “undesirable,” they could vote to have that individual executed, or imprisoned, or punished in some other way. An example of such a society was that of Ancient Greece, where the majority of Greece citizens voted to execute Socrates (considered to be the first major philosophical figure) because he advocated “unpopular” views. Or, the people could vote to enslave a section of society, or slaughter a group of society, any horrible thing they wanted to do as a “majority.”

Therefore, in a democracy, a human being does not have inalienable rights but rather is “provided” with their rights according to the majority, which can be revoked at any time whenever the majority dictates it. This means that, in such a society, you would only have your freedom by permission. You would only have “permission” to live and to pursue your happiness as long as a majority of people will it. Such a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship because there is absolutely no protection of the biggest minority in a society, the individual.

What makes the American system of government distinctly free is the fact that this country is founded on the profound notion that every human being regardless of race, sex, religion, etc., has certain inalienable rights: the right to life, and all of its deriviatives, the right to property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (While this notion was not completely recognized by the American government at our foundation, this profound notion was still the philosophical cause for the formation of our government).

This means that the American system of government can not be referred to as a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there is an exact constitution which determines the powers of government and how such a government recognizes the inalienable rights of its citizens.

However, in America today, our system of government has become a combination between the dictatorship of a democracy and a free constitutional republic. According to the founding of this country, every individual has the right to their own life, which means, the right to be free from the initiation of force from others and that every individual has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary by their own independent judgment to be beneficial to their own life as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. Today however, while most people still retain the protection of their rights, if people get a large enough group together and pressure their elected representatives, many times they “persuade” their elected representives to push for new laws which violate the rights of some individuals for the benefit of some group. For example, enough poor people get together to form a large enough majority, and then persuade their representatives to violate the rights of certain rich individuals by forcibly taking their money and giving it to the poor people (income taxes). In this example, a certain majority gets together and decides that they want to force certain “undesirables in society” (the rich) to do whatever the majority wills (they will that the rich do not really “need” all that money, so there is no problem in stealing portions of it from them).

The blatant violation of individual rights is not merely limited to the issue of income taxes. There are numerous other issues (and many more pending by more and more groups) which violate and threaten to violate the rights of individuals. These groups believe that a certain end is desirable and thereby attempt to amass a large enough majority in order to force the rest of the country to achieve that end by “persuading” their elected representatives to pass new laws doing so.

In America today, both “the right” and “the left” have accepted the premise that it is right for the government to force individuals to pursue certain ends regardless of whether or not those individuals choose to do so. The only difference between “the right” and “the left” is about in what ways the government should force individuals and violate their rights. The right typically believes that the government should leave individuals free in most economic affairs but should heavily legislate morality (religion, sexuality, abortion, etc.) The left typically believes that the government should leave individuals free in morality but should heavily legislate economic affairs.

The essential characteristic of a dictatorship is a certain group forcing all of its citizens to achieve ends regardless of whether or not the citizens choose to do so or not. Which group is doing the forcing determines what kind of dictatorship it is, but it still remains a dictatorship nonetheless. Therefore, a democracy IS a dictatorship, because in a democracy, the actions of individuals are not determined by the choices of the individuals themselves but rather a certain group, in this case, a majority.

The premise that the government should force individuals to achieve certain ends is the premise of only one kind of society…dictatorship. Fortunately, America has not accepted this premise fully…yet. However, as long as this premise in our society goes unchecked, a dictatorship will ultimately be the result.

Therefore, while Bush’s speech was valuable in that he condemned the past pragmatism of the U.S. government in support Middle Eastern dictatorships, it was flawed in terms of his multiculturalist attitude towards Islam and in his referring to our system of government as a democracy.

According to a CIA report, Iran, North Korea, and Syria have been actively attempting to amass a nuclear weapons program.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran “vigorously” pursued programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and sought help from Russia, China, North Korea and Europe, a CIA report said on Friday.
delta.com: Click Here

“The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program,” according to a semi-annual unclassified report to Congress on the acquisition of technology relating to weapons of mass destruction.

“Iran sought technology that can support fissile material production for a nuclear weapons program,” said the report, covering the period Jan. 1 to June 30.

Satellite imagery showed Iran was burying a uranium centrifuge enrichment facility at Natanz, a town about 100 miles south of Tehran, probably to hide it in case of military attack, the CIA report said.

………………….

The report also briefly discussed North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. In late February, Pyongyang restarted its five-megawatt nuclear reactor, which could produce spent fuel rods containing plutonium.

In April, North Korea told U.S. officials that it had nuclear weapons and signaled its intent to reprocess the spent fuel for more. “We continued to monitor and assess North Korea’s nuclear weapons efforts,” the CIA said.

Syria has a nuclear research center at Dayr Al Hajar and broader access to foreign expertise provides opportunities to expand capabilities, “and we are looking at Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern,” the report said.

The threat of terrorists using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials “remained high” during the first half of 2003, the CIA report said. But terror groups would probably continue to favor conventional tactics like bombings and shootings, it said.

Documents and equipment recovered from al Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan showed that Osama bin Laden had “a more sophisticated unconventional weapons research program than was previously known,” the report said.

Al Qaeda also had ambitions to acquire or develop nuclear weapons, it said. Also it was possible that al Qaeda or “other terrorist groups” might try to launch conventional attacks against the chemical or nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States to cause panic and economic disruption.

It is crystal clear to me that the price of sitting idly by while the enemies of The United States gain weapons of mass destruction is a disastrous policy for our security. We need to immediately show these enemies that it is not to their benefit to threaten the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction. This is not done by ignoring them, this is not done by cowering to their terror and their threats and negotiating with them, but rather it is shown by using force against them and eliminating the threat completely. In that respect, I support President Bush’s campaign to remove the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, on the grounds that we should be eliminating ANY dictatorship or enemy of The United States that is pursuing a weapons of mass destruction program to use against us. However, I do not believe that Iraq was the best choice for a government to eliminate, on the grounds that countries such as Iran and North Korea pose a more serious threat to our security. And, I fully condemn his policy of negotiation with Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

The U.S. has indefinitely pulled out of its embassy in Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. Embassy will close its offices to review security procedures on Saturday, while embassy officials said terrorists are close to launching an attack in the desert kingdom.

The embassy in the capital of Riyadh (search) and the U.S. Consulates General in Jeddah (search) and Dhahran (search) will be closed, according to a warden message issued by the embassy on Friday.

“The embassy continues to receive credible information that terrorists in Saudi Arabia have moved from the planning to operational phase of planned attacks in the kingdom,” stated the message. “The embassy strongly urges all American citizens in the kingdom to be especially vigilant when in any area that is perceived to be American or Western.”

They will then advise the American community when the review is completed and when normal operations will resume.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued a warning to journalists in Afghanistan on Friday.

“The United States Embassy in Kabul has received credible information that Taliban (search) forces are actively searching for American journalists to take hostage for use as leverage for the release of Taliban currently under United States control,” the embassy statement said. “American journalists in Afghanistan are urged to take immediate steps to increase their security posture in light of these threats.”

It’s about damn time that we got our people out of the embassy in Saudi Arabia. Though I know that this won’t be a permanent closing, at least it will get Americans out of harms way for a while.

Their government is controlled by Islamic fundamentalism (, many of the people are sympathetic to it, and many reports and intelligence have indicated that Saudi Arabia is the main financier of the Palestinian terrorist group purposefully targets innocent women and children., Saudi Arabia is considering developing nuclear weapons, etc.

I call for the full removal of the government of Saudi Arabia and the elimination of their support for terrorist groups.

According to the testimony of Dr. David R. Criswell to U.S. Senators, the moon is a possible source for energy.

I am honored to have this opportunity to introduce a program for the economic and environmental security for Earth, and especially for the United States of America, by meeting Earth’s real electrical power needs.

By 2050, approximately 10 billion people will live on Earth demanding ~5 times the power now available. By then, solar power from the Moon could provide everyone clean, affordable, and sustainable electric power. No terrestrial options can provide the needed minimum of 2 kWe/person or at least 20 terawatts globally.

Solar power bases will be built on the Moon that collect a small fraction of the Moon’s dependable solar power and convert it into power beams that will dependably deliver lunar solar power to receivers on Earth. On Earth each power beam will be transformed into electricity and distributed, on-demand, through local electric power grids. Each terrestrial receiver can accept power directly from the Moon or indirectly, via relay satellites, when the receiver cannot view the Moon. The intensity of each power beam is restricted to 20%, or less, of the intensity of noontime sunlight. Each power beam can be safely received, for example, in an industrially zoned area.

The Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System does not require basic new technological developments. Adequate knowledge of the Moon and the essential technologies have been available since the late 1970s to design, build, and operate the LSP System. Automated machines and people would be sent to the Moon to build the lunar power bases. The machines would build the power components from the common lunar dust and rocks, thereby avoiding the high cost of transporting materials from the Earth to the Moon. The LSP System is distributed and open. Thus, it can readily accommodate new manufacturing and operating technologies as they become available.

Engineers, scientists, astronauts, and managers skilled in mining, manufacturing, electronics, aerospace, and industrial production of commodities will create new wealth on the Moon. Thousands of tele-robotic workers in American facilities, primarily on Earth, will oversee the lunar machinery and maintain the LSP System.

Our national space program, in cooperation with advanced U.S. industries, can produce the LSP System for a small fraction of the cost of building equivalent power generating capabilities on Earth. Shuttle- and Space Station-derived systems and LSP production machinery can be in operation in space and on the Moon within a few years. A demonstration LSP System can grow quickly to 50% of averaged U.S. electric consumption, ~0.2 TWe, within 15 years and be profitable thereafter. When LSP provides 20 terawatts of electric power to Earth it can sell the electricity at one-fifth of today’s cost or ~1 ¢/kWe-h. At current electric prices LSP would generate ~9 trillion dollars per year of net income.

Like hydroelectric dams, every power receiver on Earth can be an engine of clean economic growth. Gross World Product can increase a factor of 10. The average annual per capita income of Developing Nations can increase from today’s $2,500 to ~$20,000. Economically driven emigrations, such as from Mexico and Central America to the United States, will gradually decrease.

Increasingly wealthy Developing Nations will generate new and rapidly growing markets for American goods and services. Lunar power can generate hydrogen to fuel cars at low cost and with no release of greenhouse gases. United States payments to other nations for oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, and commodities such as fertilizer will decrease. LSP industries will establish new, high-value American jobs. LSP will generate major investment opportunities for Americans. The average American income could increase from today’s ~$35,000/y-person to more than $150,000/y-person.

By 2050, the LSP System would allow all human societies to prosper while nurturing rather than consuming the biosphere.

This is potentially a very profitable endeavor. However, I must stress, THERE SHOULD BE NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN SUCH AN ENDEAVOR. Such an ambitious program can only really benefit us if doing so is based on the market conditions being preferable for such investment. If the government attempts to subsidize this endeavor, as it did with the transcontinental railroad program in the 19th century, and with countless other industries (radio, television, utilities, etc.), this endeavor will fail disastrously.

Penn State has struck a deal with Napster to provide Penn State students with legal mp3’s.

ANAHEIM, Calif., Nov. 6 /PRNewswire/ – Penn State University announced today it is going to revolutionize the music world with a ground-breaking agreement with the online music service Napster, a division of Roxio (Nasdaq: ROXI - News).

Speaking in California at the annual Educause meeting of thousands of information technology administrators from universities around the country, Penn State President Graham Spanier said the University has signed an agreement with Napster to launch a program in which Penn State will make Napster’s Premium Service available at no cost to its students. Napster will offer those students unlimited streaming and tethered downloads from a digital library of more than 500,000 songs, as well as 40 radio stations, access to six decades of Billboard chart data, an online magazine and community features. Students can also purchase permanent downloads that can be burned to CDs or transferred to portable devices for 99 cents each.

“This will be the first step in a new, legal approach designed to meet student interest in getting extensive digital access to music,” Spanier said. “We have already set up student focus groups at Penn State who have been testing the Napster service. We will essentially deploy thousands of testers in the spring semester to use this program and give us feedback before we roll it out for even wider student use in the fall of 2004.”

Spanier is serving as co-chair of the Committee on Higher Education and the Entertainment Industry, along with Cary Sherman, President of the Recording Industry Association of America. The committee’s efforts over the past year have focused on legal, educational, legislative, and moral issues related to illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.

Napster President and COO Mike Bebel said: “The Napster 2.0 premium service is designed to meet the needs of students who have demonstrated a voracious appetite for online music. Napster has improved upon the typical file sharing experience by delivering guaranteed high-quality tracks, a well-organized presentation of music, and community features that music fans love. Penn State, through the vision of President Spanier, has demonstrated critical leadership in this area and is paving the way for universities around the country to ensure that a legitimate marketplace for online music thrives.”

The program will be phased-in beginning January 12th, the first day of classes for Penn State’s spring semester. The Penn State-Napster agreement, and other similar arrangements expected to be formed by universities around the country, could revolutionize the way millions of college students obtain and listen to music through streaming audio and song file downloads via high-speed Internet and campus connections – all in a completely legal manner that complies with copyright laws.

This is great news. I applaud Penn State for taking action to prevent the illegal and immoral downloads of mp3’s by college students. While I think that this deal with Napster should be coupled with taking action against those individuals who illegally download mp3’s, this is still a step in the right direction.

In this op-ed, Uri Elitzer argues that the foremost concern of Israel should be the abandonment of the peace process and the complete elimination of terrorism everywhere.

The “vision of a Palestinian state” is something we have already tried. In the 10 years since Oslo, particularly the last three, we have seen what the Palestinians intend to do with the tools of independence and statehood, if they are given them.

They already had a state-in-the-making, and they used it to build a huge terrorist base and a society mobilized and incited to hate Israel.

The Palestinian Authority did nothing to promote its own people’s economy and welfare. It used all the tools of government in its hands in order to cultivate the terrorist capabilities of many systems and organizations, and in order to educate masses of people from kindergarten to old age towards war, hatred, and suicide terrorism.

If the PA has been a swamp of terrorism, corruption and incitement, then the Palestinian state will be a whole lake. It will grow a center of international terrorism, and will be totally mobilized towards war over the next phase of “liberating Palestine.”

I absolutely agree. I firmly believe that legitimate government authority is derived from the protection of individual rights; something that the Palestinian Authority does not do.

I highly suggest reading this lecture given by Richard M. Salsman at Harvard University: The Injustice of Antitrust Laws.

I’ll provide rational evidence for the verdict that I pronounce: Microsoft is innocent of all charges. More accurately, it is innocent—with no means of showing it under the antitrust laws. Why? Because, as we’ll see, the antitrust laws presume all businesses to be guilty, no matter what they do. Microsoft has been assaulted and will likely be shackled and/or dismembered in some form not because it’s an “evil predator” or a “contract bully” or a “robber baron” or a “capitalist exploiter” for it’s none of these things—that is, it is none of these smears.

Right on.

President Bush stated today that the U.S. will never run from Iraq.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Faced with a mounting military and civilian death toll and stiffening guerrilla resistance, President Bush vowed on Monday that the United States would not run from its “vital” mission in Iraq.

If only Bush would have this convinction in dealing with Iran and North Korea, we would be much better off.

Halloween has been banned in Moscow.

MOSCOW, Oct. 31 (UPI) – Halloween has taken a double whammy in Moscow from both school administrators and church officials banning it outright, the BBC reports.

City education officials claim Halloween brings elements of religion into the classroom, which is forbidden. Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox Church condemns the event’s glorification of evil spirits.

The education department is also reportedly concerned ghoulish elements of the holiday have upset parents, many of whom were distressed to see children pretending to hang each other after Halloween.

A Russian Orthodox Church spokesman said Halloween was “more than strange.”

“When people turn to evil forces by way of a joke, when they praise them and flirt with them, it reflects on the fate of the person, because it teaches him that evil is acceptable,” Vsevolod Chaplin told the Interfax news agency.

Nonetheless, Halloween – the night before the Catholic All Souls Day – is not widely celebrated in Russia.

I think Halloween is a stupid holiday. I think that children should not be worshipping the evil and the dead, so on and so forth. However, this does not give me the right to go to the government and force every child in America, (or even in my current town of residence, Madison), from celebrating Halloween. So much for Russia being “enlightened.”

California firefighters spotted the beginnings of the now devastating California wildfires, but were prevented from taking action to put out the fire becuase of government regulations.

The first helicopter pilot to see the patch of flames that would become the catastrophic Cedar Fire radioed for aerial water drops, but state firefighters rejected his request because it came minutes after such flights had been grounded for the night.

Within hours, the flames cascaded out of control and killed 13 residents between the mountains east of San Diego and the city. It eventually became the largest wildfire in California history.

Another example of horrific government regulation resulting in many deaths as well as a lot of property destruction. The California firefighters had the ability to possibly prevent this entire wildfire from happening but were prevented from doing so because they were minutes over the government regulated time for such flights being grounded for the night.

Some advocates of government regulations such as these would say that such regulations are necessary. Tell that to the people who have died in this fire. Tell that to the people who have had to be evacuated from their homes. Tell that to the people who have lost everything that they own.

An article claims that Israel has thrwarted several terrorist attacks on Israel in the past 10 days.

In the past ten days, the Shin Bet and IDF forces succeeded in thwarting seven potential suicide bomb attacks in Israel, including a double suicide bomb attack that was to have taken place in Beit She’an, and a car bomb attack in Israel.

The security establishment registered 41 warnings of plans by terrorists to perpetrate attacks on Wednesday, a security official told The Jerusalem Post, noting that the majority of the warnings received related to potential suicide bomb attacks.

“People should not be misguided by the supposed calm,” the official said, noting that the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank continues in its efforts to launch attacks against Israeli citizens.

Good, but the best defense is a good offense. Go eliminate the source of these terror attacks: The Palestinian Authority and the terrorist groups they sponsor.

In the third quarter the U.S. GDP rose 7.2%, the highest rate since 1984.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy’s performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts’ forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Finally some good news! This should amount to some big political points for Bush. I can’t wait to hear what all of the Democrats will say in response to this. It will be funny to see them backtrack from their months of whining that the Bush tax cuts will destroy our economy.

Sharon has stated publicly that he has no plans to kill Yasser Arafat, terrorist head of the Palestinian Authority.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said for the first time in public Monday that Israel has no plans to kill Palestinian President Yasser Arafat despite the Israeli government’s vow to remove him from power.
Click here!

Israel’s security cabinet decided in principle last month to “remove” Arafat and Sharon’s deputy Ehud Olmert said killing the 74-year-old symbol of Palestinian nationalism was an option.

“I don’t see any plans to kill him although the man is responsible for deaths of hundreds, of thousands of mostly civilians because his strategy is a strategy of terror,” Sharon told a group of European parliamentarians visiting Jerusalem.

Sharon’s statement followed weeks of speculation on how and when Israel might carry out its threat to oust Arafat, which has drawn an international outcry and strong U.S. opposition.

Political sources had said Sharon had ruled out assassinating Arafat, but it was the first time the right-wing Israeli leader has done so publicly.

Israel accuses Arafat of fomenting violence in a three-year-old uprising for independence. Arafat denies the allegation and accuses Sharon of waging of a war to annihilate the Palestinian people.

Taking note of international criticism, Sharon told the European delegation: “I’m afraid to even mention the words ‘to kill him."‘

This is one of the most sickening examples of moral cowardice that I have ever seen.

A new poll says that 59% of Palestinians would support terrorist bombings of Israel even if Israel pulled out of West Band and Gaza, and a Palestinian state were formed.

Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created, a new survey shows.

Similarly, 80 percent of Palestinians say that, under those circumstances, the Palestinians should not give up the “right of return.”

The poll of Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and Israeli Arabs was released in Washington on Wednesday by Itamar Marcus, founder of Palestinian Media Watch and written by pollster Frank Luntz. It was conducted by two polling firms, the Public Opinion Research of Israel and The Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

The poll also examined Israeli and Palestinian attitudes towards the US and towards terrorism.

Nintey-six percent of Israeli Jews say the people who piloted the planes on September 11 were terrorists, while 37 percent of Palestinians share that view.

Slightly more than one in four - 26 percent - of Palestinians believe Israelis planned the 9-11 attacks.

Forty-two percent of Palestinians and 61 percent of Israeli-Arabs stated that they support the people who are attacking Americans in Iraq. Zero percent of Israeli Jews said they did.

Marcus said he believes such opinions are “not coming from a vacuum” and that the survey demonstrates a “connection between Palestinian media and education and Palestinian beliefs and opinions.”

The peaceful nature of Islam, eh? This just demonstrates further that the “peace process” is a total sham. Maybe Israel will wake up and take full action against their savage neighbors.

President Bush is ready to sign a ban on partial birth abortion, committing yet another horrific infringement on the individual rights of American citizens.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said he would sign newly passed legislation to end the “abhorrent practice” known by critics as partial birth abortion, giving abortion foes a victory that had eluded them for close to a decade.

Abortion rights advocates said they would immediately go to court to stop what they said was a dangerous incursion against the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The Senate voted 64-34 Tuesday to ban a type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed. The House approved the legislation this month, and Bush has urged Congress to get it to his desk.

“This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America,” he said in a statement. “I look forward to signing it into law.”

BY WHAT RIGHT can the government tell any indvidual that they do not have the right over their own body? The last time I checked, I thought that the founding principles of this country were based on the idea that every individual has the right to their own life, not that the government can infringe anyone’s individual rights so that they may create “a culture of life.”

The US committee for human rights in North Korea is reporting on one of thousands of individual rights violations taking place under the communist regime of North Korea.

North Korea detains up to 200,000 people in “slave” camps where torture and executions are routine and starvation is widespread, according to a report on the isolated state.

The study by the US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea told how pregnant women among thousands of North Koreans repatriated from China are forced to abort their infants or watch their babies killed after birth, in case the fathers are foreign.

“The Hidden Gulag - Exposing North Korea’s Prison Camps” was compiled by David Hawk, a former UN human rights investigator, who has in the past reported on the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia and the ethnic massacres in Rwanda in the mid-1990s.

North Korea denies it has political prisoners. But the study, based on interviews with former inmates and guards who escaped North Korea, estimated there were between 150,000 and 200,000 people in dozens of camps.

It produced satellite photographs of the camps, and mines and industrial complexes where inmates are forced into “slave labour”.

Political inmates are detained for their perceived opposition to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il or his father Kim Il-Sung, the North’s founder leader who died in 1994.

Some were imprisoned for tipping ink on a picture of one of the two Kims or not taking care of photographs of the two that every household in the nation of 22 million people must prominently display.

One woman’s crime had been to sing a South Korean pop song. Others were ethnic Koreans who returned from Japan but were considered to have been “spoiled by their exposure to Japanese liberalism and capitalist prosperity.”

Up to three generations of the family of each offender is also detained to ensure political purification.

The study said there was “a North Korean gulag of forced-labour colonies, camps and prisons where scores of thousands of prisoners – some political, some convicted felons – are worked, many to their deaths.”

The report said each camp has between 5,000 and 50,000 detainees and that “prisoners live under brutal conditions in permanent situations of deliberately contrived semi-starvation.”

Disgusting.

This article discusses the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in which Gabriel Schoenfeld discusses the failures of this treaty and the ramifications.

Today, while our forces are engaged in a major open-ended operation in Iraq, a minor open-ended operation in Afghanistan, and a global war against al Qaeda, we are quietly sliding into the gravest crisis of this kind since Nikita Khrushchev placed nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba. Two crazy states–both charter members of what President Bush has rightly called the “axis of evil,” both openly flouting an international treaty to which they are party, both perpetrators of acts of international terrorism, both animated by a blistering hatred for America and the West–are bent on acquiring weapons of unthinkable destructive power. The CIA, as it admits in its own statements, does not know what it needs to know about either country, except that North Korea almost certainly possesses two or more fully operational bombs and could have as many as ten within months, while Iran is at most several years away from acquiring the bomb unless it purchases one or more tomorrow or next week or next month from Pyongyang.

Whatever the constraints on our resources, the challenge is unmistakable and cannot be dodged. The price of action is likely to be high, very high; the price of inaction is likely to be much higher. Courtesy of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, we have already had to relearn the lesson of Pearl Harbor in a second and more terrible form. In the age of terrorism and nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to relearn it a third time and a fourth.

I highly suggest reading this entire article, it gives an elaborate demonstration on some of the major threats that are facing us today: Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. While this article gives no or very few moral arguments for eliminating these threats, nor condemnation for the past actions of Carter and Clinton, it is nonetheless quite valuable in understanding the threats to U.S. security.

According to a report, the government of Pakistan is trading nuclear weapons technology with Saudi Arabia in exchange for cheap oil.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on “nuclear cooperation” that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider.
The disclosure came at the end of a 26-hour state visit to Islamabad last weekend by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, who flew across the Arabian Sea with an entourage of 200, including Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal and several Cabinet ministers.
Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the pro-American defense minister who is next in line to the throne after the crown prince, was not part of the delegation.
“It will be vehemently denied by both countries,” said the Pakistani source, whose information has proven reliable for more than a decade, “but future events will confirm that Pakistan has agreed to provide [Saudi Arabia] with the wherewithal for a nuclear deterrent.”
As predicted, Saudi Arabia — which has faced strong international suspicion for years that it was seeking a nuclear capability through Pakistan — strongly denied the claim.
Prince Sultan was quoted in the Saudi newspaper Okaz yesterday saying that “no military agreements were concluded between the kingdom and Pakistan during [Prince Abdullah´s] visit to Islamabad.”
Mohammad Sadiq, deputy chief of mission for Pakistan’s embassy in Washington, also denied any nuclear deal was in the works. “That is totally incorrect,” he said in a telephone interview. “We have a clear policy: We will not export our nuclear expertise.”
But the CIA believes Pakistan already has shared its nuclear know-how, working with North Korea in exchange for missile technology.
A Pakistani C-130 was spotted by satellite loading North Korean missiles at Pyongyang airport last year. Pakistan, which is estimated to have between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons, said this was a straight purchase for cash and strongly denied a nuclear quid pro quo.
“Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,” the Pakistani source said, “see a world that is moving from nonproliferation to proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

What will be done about this? Does World War III have to begin before our government is going to actually act to protect us?

75% of Palestinians support the suicide bombing of a restaurant in Haifa that killed 21 people, including 4 children.

In a question asking whether they supported or opposed the October 4 bombing in the northern city of Haifa, 75 percent said they either supported the attack or strongly supported it.

Seventeen percent of respondents said they opposed the bombing and 4.4 percent said they strongly opposed the attack.

So this is supposed to represent the “peaceful and just aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state"? We should force the Israeli’s out of their justifiably held territory to give savages their own state? Doesn’t anyone see the perversion of justice?

Jeff Jacoby has written a very good op-ed in Capitalism Magazine: Palestinian Authority: A Network of Murderers Masquerading As Government

Three Americans – John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Martin Linde – were murdered last Wednesday when terrorists in Gaza bombed the diplomatic convoy they were riding in. News accounts immediately described the attack as a first – ‘’an unprecedented deadly attack on a US target in the Palestinian territories,'’ to quote the Associated Press. But Branchizio, Parson, and Linde were not the first Americans to be murdered by Palestinian terrorists. They were the 49th, 50th, and 51st in the past 10 years alone.

A few hours after their deaths, the White House condemned ‘’the vicious act of terrorism'’ that killed them, extended ‘’heartfelt condolences to the families,'’ and promised ‘’to bring the terrorists to justice.'’ The families of the many previous US victims of Palestinian terror might reasonably wonder why there was no such presidential concern when their loved ones were massacred.

Read the whole op-ed. Right on.

The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran, has publicly stated that he wants the United States to invade Iran and dispose of the Islamic Republic.

“Now we have had 25 years of a failed Islamic revolution in Iran, and the people do not want an Islamic regime anymore.”

It’s not strictly necessary to speak to Hossein Khomeini to appreciate the latter point: Every visitor to Iran confirms it, and a large majority of the Iranians themselves have voted for anti-theocratic candidates. The entrenched and reactionary regime can negate these results up to a certain point; the only question is how long can they do so? Young Khomeini is convinced that the coming upheaval will depend principally on those who once supported his grandfather and have now become disillusioned. I asked him what he would like to see happen, and his reply this time was very terse and did not require any Quranic scriptural authority or explication. The best outcome, he thought, would be a very swift and immediate American invasion of Iran.

It hurt me somewhat to have to tell him that there was scant chance of deliverance coming by this means. He took the news pretty stoically (and I hardly think I was telling him anything he did not know). But I was thinking, wow, this is what happens if you live long enough. You’ll hear the ayatollah’s grandson saying, not even “Send in the Marines” but “Bring in the 82nd Airborne.” I think it was the matter-of-factness of the reply that impressed me the most: He spoke as if talking of the obvious and the uncontroversial.

Why have we not eliminated the heart of Islamic fundamentalism: Iran? As I have said many times before, Iran is the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, their nuclear weapons program poses a serious threat to our security, and the people are screaming for the Iranian government to be overthrown. Seems pretty clear to me that an invasion of Iran would have been MUCH smarter than an invasion of Iraq. Then again, I’m not one to associate intelligence with President Bush, or most of our politicians for that matter.

A report restated in the Jerusalem Post claims that Israel has a plan to eliminate the nuclear facilities of Iran.

The German newspaper Der Spiegel reported Saturday that Israel has prepared plans for a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to halt Iran’s progress towards attaining nuclear weapons.

Der Spiegel reported that a special unit of the Mossad received an order two months ago to prepare a detailed plan to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. According to the paper, the Mossad’s plan is ready and has been delivered to the Israeli Air Force, which will carry out the strike.

The newspaper said its source is an IAF fighter-bomber pilot, who said the plan to take out Iran’s nuclear sites was “complex, yet manageable.”

The paper added that Israel knows Iran has six nuclear sites, all of which would be attacked simultaneously by Israeli jets.

The paper added that the Mossad believes Iran has reached an advanced stage in its nuclear program and is capable of producing enriched uranium, a vital ingredient of nuclear bombs. The report went on to say that three of Iran’s nuclear sites were totally unknown to the outside world.

The paper said Israeli defense officials told Der Spiegel that if the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors visited those three sites, the Iranians would have “something to worry about because they have something to hide.”

Israel has long sounded the alarm regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions and has hinted over recent years that it might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Bushehr and elsewhere, just as it hit Iraq’s reactor at Osirak in June 1981.

‘We think that next summer, if Iran is not stopped, it will reach self-sufficiency and this is the point of no return. After this self-capability, it will take them some two years to make a nuclear bomb,’ OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze’evi (Farkash) announced on TV Channel 1 two in August.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the IAF has devoted the bulk of its procurement funds in the past decade to strike at Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. Generals and Israeli leaders have openly declared that the tens of billions of shekels spent are to extend its reach for just this possibility.

An extremist Islamic regime which has publicly vowed to destroy the Jewish state, Iran is intent on developing the bomb. Stopping this is a daunting challenge for Israel’s miltary establishment.

Iran has warned Israel against any military attack on its nuclear sites, saying Israel would pay a very heavy price if it did.

Encouraging news considering that the U.S. has once again lost its moral certainty in upholding our right to self-defense.

A report claims that the Iranians are hiding another nuclear site from U.N. weapons inspectors.

VIENNA (Reuters) - An Iranian opposition group that has provided accurate information about undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran in the past said on Monday that Tehran has been hiding another nuclear facility from U.N. inspectors.

“We have information about another secret nuclear facility in Iran,” an official from the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled opposition group, told Reuters. The official gave no details about the site, but said the NCRI would provide full details on Tuesday.

In an emailed statement, the NCRI also said it would provide information on Iran’s use of foreign technology in its atomic program, as well as details about the Kalaye Electric Co., where U.N. inspectors found traces of weapons-grade uranium.

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declined to comment on the NCRI allegation, though it said it would closely study any information the exiles released about Iran’s nuclear plans.

“We have no official comment on this report, although we analyze all sources of information very carefully,” IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.

In August 2002, the NCRI broke the news of two undeclared nuclear sites in Iran – a massive uranium-enrichment complex at Natanz and a heavy-water production facility at Arak.

Tehran later declared these facilities to the IAEA, which has placed surveillance cameras at Natanz to ensure that no undeclared nuclear activities take place there.

In addition to the uranium found at Kalaye, the IAEA found traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz, fueling fears that Iran has been secretly purifying uranium for use in an atomic bomb.

Tehran denies it secretly enriched uranium and blamed the traces on contaminated machinery purchased abroad in the 1980s.

Since it seems evident that the U.S. will do nothing about this threat (see my last post), I sincerely hope that Israel musters up the courage to eliminate these facilities.

In response to the threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the US government seems to be pushing for a missle defense system in Europe.

BERLIN (AFP) - The US government is considering stationing defensive missiles in a number of European countries against a potential attack from Iran.

State Department sources told Germany’s Sueddeutsche newspaper that Washington was concerned because Iran is developing a satellite program and argued that if Tehran can send satellites into space, it could probably fire intercontinental missiles.

The daily quoted a high-ranking US diplomat as saying that the Americans would like to develop a defensive missile network with Europeans but doubted whether a deal could be reached quickly by NATO (news - web sites).

Because of these concerns, Washington may pursue bilateral agreements with individual European countries for deployment in 2006 anti-ballistic systems in exchange for economic aid, the Sueddeutsche said.

What about the terrorist groups who can get their hands on such weapons and smuggle them into the United States? What about a nuclear weapon on a boat headed into one of our ports? What about all of the other ways in which Iran could use nuclear weapons to inflict harm on us?

This really concerns me, because it says that instead of eliminating the heart of Islamic fundamentalism which is developing nuclear weapons, we will essentially ignore the threat and install a half-assed missle defense system that can only protect us from one form of nuclear attack. President Bush, by failing to live up to his own doctrine of eliminating all terrorist groups and the states that sponsor them, is putting our security in great risk.

President Bush is pushing for the overthrow of Fidel Castro, the dictator of Communist Cuba.

WASHINGTON - Eager to please a key Florida constituency, President Bush directed his secretary of state and his Cuban-born housing secretary Friday to recommend ways to achieve a transition to democracy in Cuba after 44 years under Fidel Castro.

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez will chair a panel that will “plan for the happy day when Castro’s regime is no more and democracy comes to the island,” Bush said during a Rose Garden ceremony.

“The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America, and we will be prepared,” the president said.

Bush also said the United States would step up enforcement of existing restrictions against the communist regime, such as a ban on tourism by Americans, and crack down on the trafficking of women and children in Cuba. The United States also will launch a public outreach campaign to identify “the many routes to safe and legal entry” for Cubans who try to flee their homeland, he said.

“We’ll increase the number of new Cuban immigrants we welcome every year,” Bush added. “We are free to do so, and we will for the good of those who seek freedom.”

I am happy to see that President Bush is taking a stance against a tyrannical dictator.

Now if only our government would take the same condemning stance against EVERY dictatorship of the world, we would be a whole lot better off.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has won the gubernatorial recall election in Caleeeefornia.

LOS ANGELES - Californians banished Gov. Gray Davis just 11 months into his second term and overwhelmingly elected action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him Tuesday - a Hollywood ending to one of the most extraordinary political melodramas in the nation’s history. “I will not fail you, I will not disappoint you, and I will not let you down,” the victorious actor vowed.

Voters traded a career Democratic politician who became one of the state’s most despised chief executives for a moderate Republican megastar who had never before run for office. Davis became the first California governor pried from office and only the second nationwide to be recalled.

While Davis was a horrible politician, this recall election was in contradiction with the fundamental principles of this country. (See my 10/7/03 post: My thoughts on the California Recall Election)

I sincerely hope that this does not begin a trend of recall elections across the country.

Syria has threatened that it will attack Israel if another raid occurs on Syrian land.

JERUSALEM/MADRID (Reuters) - Syria’s ambassador to Spain said on Wednesday Damascus would respond militarily against Israel if the Jewish state carried out new attacks on Syrian territory.

A senior Israeli security source swiftly dismissed the threat, saying Israel did not want to escalate tensions and believed Syria did not want to start a war. The source said the envoy’s statement was mainly intended to impress the Arab world.

But the comments increased tensions simmering since Israel carried out an air strike on Sunday on what it said was a training camp for Palestinian militants near Damascus, one day after a Palestinian suicide bombing killed 19 people in Israel.

Syria says the target was a civilian site and has said it has the right to defend itself.

“If Israel attacks Syria one, two and three times, of course the people of Syria and the government of Syria and the army will react to defend ourselves,” Syrian Ambassador Mohsen Bilal told Reuters in Madrid.

Asked if that meant responding militarily, he said: “By all means. If Israel continues to attack us and continues its aggression of course we shall react to the attacks in spite of the fact that we are fighting for peace and wish to reopen the (1991) Madrid (peace) conference.”

Israel did not immediately respond formally to the envoy’s remarks.

But the senior Israeli security source said: “This sort of statement is intended mainly for the Arab world, to give the impression Syria is steadfast in the fight against Israel.

Yeah, and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have the “right” to defend themselves against the attacks of the United States. (Give me a break.)

Yasser Arafat has suffered a mild heart attack.

Yasser Arafat has suffered a mild heart attack but the Palestinian leadership has sought to keep his health problems secret for fear it will “create panic”.

The 74-year-old Palestinian president, who is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, disappeared from public view last week and re-emerged at the weekend looking extremely ill. His face was pale and pinched, he had lost weight and he was almost inaudible. He had trouble standing for more than a few minutes at a time.

The Palestinian press said he was suffering from flu. But Palestinian officials told the Guardian that Mr Arafat had suffered a heart attack last week. “Although he has had a slight heart attack, the doctors say he will make a full recovery. He is in full control. There is nothing to worry about,” said a close aide to Mr Arafat, who did not wish to be named.

Asked why it had not been made public at the time, the official said that it would “have created panic at a critical time when the Israelis are threatening Arafat’s life”.

Just one more step closer to justice.

Israel has released information about the location of Islamic terrorists in Damascus.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - We know where you live.

That was the unmistakable message of the release by Israeli authorities on Tuesday of a map pinpointing what it said were homes and offices of Palestinian militant leaders in Damascus.

The army said the map was intended to illustrate the extent of the “Terror Network in the Damascus Region.” It came on the same day that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) said Israel would attack its enemies “any place, and in any way.”

Good for you Israel.

In my opinion, the California Recall election is firmly against the fundamental principles that this country was founded on. When this country was founded, it was based on the principle of individual rights being inalienable to every single human being by their very nature. The purpose of government therefore, was the protection of these individual rights through a system of representative government. The government, under such a system, would not cater to the whims of the people, but rather, have the citizens elect representatives whom they believed would best uphold the fundamental principles of the government as written in the Constitution.

This has been completely forgotten today. Today, our society is referred to as a “democracy,” which is a very dangerous generalization to make about our system of government. As I stated in my 7/24/2003 post, Democracy:

Today we hear numerous times that our government wants the rest of the world to enjoy “democracy” as the United States does, and that the system of democracy is the best there is. This representation of the American system of government as “democracy” is inaccurate, and democracy is not an ideal system at all. In fact, a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship.

In the system of democracy, the dictates of a certain majority determine what is right and what is wrong for the government to do. So, the purpose of the government in a democracy is to do anything that the majority (the people) wants them to do. If the majority decided that an individual in their society was “undesirable,” they could vote to have that individual executed, or imprisoned, or punished in some other way. An example of such a society was that of Ancient Greece, where the majority of Greece citizens voted to execute Socrates (considered to be the first major philosophical figure) because he advocated “unpopular” views. Or, the people could vote to enslave a section of society, or slaughter a group of society, any horrible thing they wanted to do as a “majority.”

Therefore, in a democracy, a human being does not have inalienable rights but rather is “provided” with their rights according to the majority, which can be revoked at any time whenever the majority dictates it. This means that, in such a society, you would only have your freedom by permission. You would only have “permission” to live and to pursue your happiness as long as a majority of people will it. Such a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship because there is absolutely no protection of the biggest minority in a society, the individual.

What makes the American system of government distinctly free is the fact that this country is founded on the profound notion that every human being regardless of race, sex, religion, etc., has certain inalienable rights: the right to life, and all of its deriviatives, the right to property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (While this notion was not completely recognized by the American government at our foundation, this profound notion was still the philosophical cause for the formation of our government).

This means that the American system of government can not be referred to as a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there is an exact constitution which determines the powers of government and how such a government recognizes the inalienable rights of its citizens.

However, in America today, our system of government has become a combination between the dictatorship of a democracy and a free constitutional republic. According to the founding of this country, every individual has the right to their own life, which means, the right to be free from the initiation of force from others and that every individual has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary by their own independent judgment to be beneficial to their own life as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. Today however, while most people still retain the protection of their rights, if people get a large enough group together and pressure their elected representatives, many times they “persuade” their elected representives to push for new laws which violate the rights of some individuals for the benefit of some group. For example, enough poor people get together to form a large enough majority, and then persuade their representatives to violate the rights of certain rich individuals by forcibly taking their money and giving it to the poor people (income taxes). In this example, a certain majority gets together and decides that they want to force certain “undesirables in society” (the rich) to do whatever the majority wills (they will that the rich do not really “need” all that money, so there is no problem in stealing portions of it from them).

The recall election is yet another example of the erosion of the fundamental principles of our country. Instead of having elections with the intent of electing representatives to uphold the principles of the Constitution, our government is now catering to the whims of the people, despite whether or not these whims violate individual rights or the principles of the Constitution. I have no love for Gray Davis, in fact, I think he is an idiot. However, this does not negate the fact that he was elected by the people of California for a 4 year term. This does not negate the fact that our system of government is supposed to be a constitutional republic based on the fundamental principle of individual rights. Therefore, I firmly oppose this recall election in California.

In support of my position on this issue, I’d like to present an article from Capitalism Magazine by John Lewis:
California’s Recall Election: Dangerous Democracy at Work

The Democrats who criticize Republican advocates of the recall say that we need to respect our democratic processes and allow the governor to complete his term. To subject the governor to the direct vote of the people is “undemocratic.” Democracy, they claim, means following the rules despite the clear wishes of the people.

The Republicans, on the other hand, say that the desire of the people to rid the state of an atrocious governor trumps such concerns. Democracy, to these Republicans, means respecting the will of the people despite the requirements of the constitution.

What is the truth here? In the Federalist Papers, James Madison said that the first great difference between a democracy and a republic is that a republic is “the delegation of the government . . . to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” A democracy is rather a society in which the citizens “assemble and administer the government in person.”

Under republican government, the citizens select official representatives, for defined terms, with specific powers. The officials then administer the government. The people may not demand the removal of an elected official unless his actions are manifestly illegal. This is so even if the majority favors the recall. The requirements of the constitution elevate the rule of law over the short-term desires of the people.

According to reports from the Jerusalem Post, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, may be seriously ill.

Four ambulances that were seen entering Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat’s compound in Ramallah on Monday afternoon triggered off rumors that he was seriously ill.

Within minutes, senior officials in the compound were bombarded with phone calls from curious journalists. Arafat’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, dismissed reports that Arafat had been taken to a local hospital. He said Arafat suffered from exhaustion and was recovering.

But another senior official said Arafat’s health has rapidly deteriorated over the past two weeks. “I don’t think it’s the flu as some people say,” he said. “The president hasn’t been feeling well for some time and his health seems to be worsening.”

He said it was possible that Arafat, 74, has caught a number of viruses as a result of shaking hands and exchanging kisses on the cheek with thousands of people who came to see him over the past few weeks following Israel’s decision to “remove” him.

On Sunday, a pale and fragile-looking Arafat met in his office with the new PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei. Palestinians said they have never before seen Arafat in such a condition.

“You can see that he’s very ill,” said someone who attended the meeting. “He can hardly speak. Something bad is happening to him.”

This is great news for any person who respects justice and individual rights. The leader of a corrupt government and his own terrorist organization, responsible for thousands of unjust deaths, may be close to receiving a dose of metaphysical justice.

Commenting on Israel’s raid on a Syrian terrorist base, the first such attack in 30 years, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has asserted Israel’s right to self-defense.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Buoyed by U.S. backing for Israel’s right to defend itself, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Tuesday the Jewish state was ready to hit its enemies anywhere following an air raid deep inside Syria.

Speaking at a memorial service marking the anniversary of the 1973 Middle East war, Sharon took a tough line but made no specific threats after Sunday’s strike on what Israel said was a training camp for Palestinian militants.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, breaking his silence on the attack near Damascus, accused Israel of trying to drag Syria and the rest of the Middle East into a wider conflict. Syria said Israeli warplanes hit a civilian site.

It was Israel’s deepest air raid in Syria in three decades. It followed a Palestinian suicide bombing that killed 19 people in a restaurant in the Israeli port city of Haifa a day earlier.

President Bush insisted Monday that Israel should not feel constrained in defending itself but said he told Sharon: “It’s very important that any action Israel take(s) should avoid escalation and creating higher tensions.”

Sharon’s first public comments since Sunday’s strike also followed a flare-up of violence on Israel’s border with Lebanon, where Syria is the main powerbroker.

“Israel will not be deterred from defending its citizens and will hit its enemies any place and in any way,” Sharon said in a speech broadcast live from a military cemetery in Jerusalem.

“At the same time, we will not miss any opening and opportunity to reach an agreement with our neighbors and peace.”

Israel accuses Syria of giving safe haven to Palestinian militants spearheading a 3-year-old uprising for independence. [Emphasis added]

Buoyed by U.S. backing for Israel’s right to defend itself… The key point here is that the United States of America, at least half-heartedly, is supporting Israel’s right to defend itself by attacking the source of Islamic terrorism: the governments of Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, and others.

All I have to say is, ABOUT DAMN TIME. Israel is a clear ally in our war on terrorism, and would be an INCALCULABLE asset to our defeating the source of Islamic terrorism: the governments that support them. If we fully supported Israel’s right to self-defense, without throwing in the line about not wanting to escalate tensions and such, we could be much closer to defeating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.

However, President Bush is squirming and compromising like the little worm that he is, by saying on the one hand that he supports Israel’s right to self-defense; but on the other hand saying that he strongly wants Israel to find a “peaceful” solution. Let me ask you, how do you find a peaceful solution with an enemy whose sworn goal is your own destruction? Could we find a “peaceful” solution with Al-Qaeda, who want the complete destruction of America? How exactly is Israel supposed to find a “peaceful” solution with savages who want the complete destruction of the state of Israel?

According to President Bush, Israel should give the Palestinians land and other such concessions in the attempt to appease the demands of the Palestinians. But if successful, what will be the result of this? Will the Palestinians’ goal of the destruction of Israel magically dissapear? Or, will it give them more incentive to continue their terrorist attacks and get more of what they want? I’m inclined to conclude the latter.

I strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself against Islamic terrorism, and I fully support their right to completely obliterate the governments of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and any other government which is supporting terrorists and controlled by Islamic fundamentalism. Go Israel!

For my readers out there (the few of you that there are), I’d like to let you all know that my blog is back and up and running. It went down a few days ago after the host of my blog lost their services for a few days.

While I am extremely busy at this point in time, I have a lot to say on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the California Recall, and many other things. When I get time to write on these issues, I will be blogging on them, so keep checking back for updates. And, if you enjoy anything that I write, feel free to contribute to my tip jar, a.k.a. college fund!

North Korea appears to be gaining its strength in their quest to gain nuclear arms.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Thursday it is using plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel rods to make atomic weapons, a move that could escalate tensions on the Korean peninsula and raise the stakes in Pyongyang’s standoff with the United States.

North Korea has said before that it completed reprocessing its pool of 8,000 spent rods, but Thursday marked the first claim that it is using plutonium yielded from the rods to make nuclear weapons. U.S. and South Korean officials have been skeptical that the rods have been reprocessed.

The claim came amid increasing concern by U.S. intelligence analysts that North Korea might have three, four or even six nuclear weapons instead of the one or two the CIA now estimates.

“The (North) successfully finished the reprocessing of some 8,000 spent fuel rods,” a spokesman from the communist nation’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by its official news agency, KCNA. The spokesman was unidentified.

And now, since the likes of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter appeased the North Korean savages when they threatened to acquire nuclear weapons in the past, it will be much harder for us in the present to eliminate this North Korean threat. If we had removed all government aid to the country long ago, the communist dictatorship would have fallen apart and we would not face the threat of a rogue state with nuclear weapons that has openly stated it will sell its weapons to anyone it wants, including terrorist organizations.

Even worse, it appears that President Bush has no intention of eliminating the threat of North Korea. Instead, he hopes to appease the North Koreans by some means (which is ultimately doomed to fail), as he hopes to appease many of the enemies of the United States.

I guess it’s time for me to go out and buy a radiation suit.

Kuwaiti government forces have apparently stopped a smuggling operation of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq to an European country.

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.

Shouldn’t this news be getting a bit more coverage in the national media? Our “unbiased” media sources have been hammering the point constantly that Iraq has turned into a “quagmire” and that we have failed to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Seems to me to indicate yet another example of complete double standards. When an important news story seems to damage the Bush administration, the media is all over it; whereas when a news story seems to benefit the Bush administration, either the story is obscure, or the media makes sure to splatter it with negative things anyway. (Some of you may say that the media did the same thing Bill Clinton and other Democratic figures, and I’ll agree there.)

I think at this point, our dominant media sources care more about “sensationalism” than objective reporting. They will go after any story which has controversy in it (the Kobe Bryant case, Laci Peterson case, Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, etc.), and they will ram it down our throats, telling us every detail of Kobe Bryant’s sex life and many other things we don’t really need to know. While news stories such as this smuggling plot of weapons of mass destruction being foiled gets put on the backburner.

On a good note, I think that the media’s current sensationalism will eventually go away. I believe that the news media was already somewhat leaning towards sensationalism prior to Sept. 11. However, since that act of war (yes it WAS an act of war, not a “tragedy") on our country occurred, the media has generally been very “sensationalist.” I see this as gradually declining as people get sick of this sensationalism being thrown in their face (I know I am).

Maybe then, when the sensationalism of the media disappears, we will get a little bit closer to objective reporting; or at the very least, reporting which doesn’t make it seem like everything is a controversy and the world is falling apart. And maybe then, we’ll get more coverage on these important news stories concering the security of America, as opposed to the intimate details of Kobe Bryant’s sex life.

First, before I comment on this topic, I’d like to apologize to my readers (does anyone even read this thing?) about the lack of posts lately. I am a college student after all, and I have been quite busy.

In the course of my studying of philosophy, I am currently reading Plato’s Phaedo and I recently completed Plato’s Crito. In Phaedo, Phaedo (the narrator) recollects the discussion that Socrates had with his friends prior to being put to death. In Crito, Socrates discusses why he will obey the ruling to be put to death, even though he considers his death to be an injustice against him. I would like to elaborate on the views of Socrates and Plato in order to show you the disgusting nature of this philosophy which is still dominant today.

Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher, in fact, one of the first Western philosophers in history. In the Athenian democracy of ancient Greece, Socrates was sentenced to death for espousing views which the State did not agree with. Specifically, he was charged with not believing in the gods of Greece (though it seems he believed in a different god) and with corrupting the youth of Athens.

After Socrates had been sentenced to death by the people of Athens, he was given the chance to escape the death penalty through exile from Athens. Socrates refused to disobey the ruling of the people of Athens on the grounds that it is unjust to disobey anything that the State commands, regardless of whether it is an injustice or not. Plato wrote about Socrates’ view on this issue in Crito:

…are you too wise to see that your country is worthier, more to be revered, more sacred, and held in higher honor both by the gods and by all men of understanding, than your father and your mother and all your other ancestors; and that you ought to reverence it, and to submit to it, and to approach it more humbly when it is angry with you than you would approach your father; and either to do whatever it tells you to do or to persuade it to excuse you; and to obey in silence if it orders you to endure flogging or imprisonment, or if it sends you to battle to be wounded or to die? That is just. [Emphasis added]

In Phaedo, the disgusting philosophy of Plato is evident in the account of Socrates’ discussion with his friends prior to his death.

As long as we have this body, and an evil of that sort is mingled with our souls, we shall never fully gain what we desire; and that is truth. For the body is forever taking up our time with the care which it needs; and, besides, whenever diseases attack it, they hinder us in our pursuit of real being. It fills us with passions, and desires, and fears, and all manners of phantoms, and much foolishness; and so, as the saying goes, in very truth we can never think at all for it. It alone and its desires cause wars and factions and battles; for the origin of all wars is the pursuit of wealth, and we are forced to pursue wealth because we live in slavery to the cares of the body. And therefore, for all these reasons, we have no leisure for philosophy. And last of all, if we ever are free from the body for a time, and then turn to examine some matter, it falls in our way at every step of the inquiry, and causes confusions and trouble and panic, so that we cannot see the truth for it. Verily we have learned that if we are to have any pure knowledge at all, we must be freed from the body; the soul by herself must behold things as they are. Then, it seems, after we are dead, we shall gain the wisdom which we desire, and for which we say we have a passion, but not while we are alive, as the argument shows. For if it be not possible to have pure knowledge while the body is with us, one of two things must be true: either we cannot gain knowledge at all, or we can gain it only after death.

In truth, then, Simmias, he said, the true philosopher studies to die, and to him of all men is death least terrible.”[Emphasis added]

These two dialogues, Crito and Phaedo clearly demonstrate the mysticism and altruism which is at the center of Plato’s philosophical thought. For refutation of the mysticism, collectivism, and altruism of Plato I refer you to the philosophical thought of Ayn Rand and Aristotle.

Movie studios are looking to block the illegal downloading of movies.

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 24 — If Hollywood executives have learned anything watching their peers in the music business grapple with online file sharing, it is how not to handle a technological revolution.

While the major labels in the music industry squabbled among themselves about how best to deal with Internet piracy and failed to develop consumer-friendly ways to buy music online, the movie industry has gone on a coordinated offensive to thwart the free downloading of films before it spins out of control.

This summer, night-vision goggles became a familiar fashion accessory for security guards at movie premieres as they searched for people in the audience carrying banned video recorders. The industry’s trade association began a nationwide piracy awareness campaign in movie theaters and on television. Studios are aggressively putting electronic watermarks on movie prints so they can determine who is abetting the file sharing. And some movie executives are considering whether to send out early DVD’s to Academy Award voters, fearing the films will be distributed online.

Good for them. Now if only the government would actually enforce its laws and recognize the right to life (and therefore the right to propert), then the criminals who steal movies and music from artists could be put to justice.

A report claims that so far, there has been no evidence of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.

This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group’s interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television’s Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil.

It seems that either the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were either destroyed or shipped off to another country (which is not surprising considering the fact that we gave Hussein 9 months to do so), or the advancement of the weapons of mass destruction program was deliberately exaggerated by the Iraqi regime.

Either way, it seems pretty clear to me now that our invasion of Iraq at this point in time was a complete mistake. It was a mistake NOT because the Bush administration lied to us, NOT because it was a war of “blood for oil” or any of that hippie nonsense. Instead, I believe that it was a mistake because as I said in my 9/9/2003 post, U.S. Foreign Policy has failed:

while I believe that the elimination of the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was an important task, it was not nearly as important as the elimination of 7 other regimes. I believe this to be true for many reasons. First of all, at this present time, having eliminated the threat of Afghanistan, I believe the dictatorships of Iran and North Korea to be the biggest threat to America’s security. I believe this to be true because North Korea has openly admitted that it has nuclear weapons and is pursuing a more advanced nuclear weapons program, and Iran is in the process, according to U.S. intelligence, of developing the capability for a nuclear weapons program (perhaps obtaining nuclear weapons within 2 years). Additionally, these two countries are staunch enemies of The United States of America.

If only President Bush would have the guts to say that he made a mistake in attacking Iraq at this point in time, and we will now conduct a campaign against Iran and North Korea (instead of following the current course which includes negotiating with the North Koreans and attemping to use the U.N. with Iran), we would all be a lot better off.

Saudi Arabia is “considering” to begin a nuclear weapons program.

Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned.

This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran’s alleged nuclear programme.

A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options:

· To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent;

· To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection;

· To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East.

Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.

It is not known whether Saudi Arabia has taken a decision on any of the three options. But the fact that it is prepared to contemplate the nuclear option is a worrying development.

Saudi Arabia is a disgusting Islamic dictatorship which brutalizes its people, has very little conception of individual rights, and is heavily influenced by Islamic Fundamenatlism. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of the key financiers of Islamic terrorism

For example, they are the main financier of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group, Hamas, whose mission is the destruction of Israel through the process of murdering innocent women, children, and all Israeli citizens.

New York, September 17: At least 50 per cent of the Palestinian militant outfit Hamas’s current budget of about five million dollars a year, comes from people in Saudi Arabia, top US officials said.

After the September 11 terror attacks, the Saudi portion of Hamas financing grew larger as donations from the US, Europe and other Persian Gulf countries dried up, a media report said on Wednesday quoting American officials and analysts.

The estimated donations coming from Saudi Arabia - about five million dollars a year - are a significant sum for Hamas but a very small portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into Saudi charities each year, officials said.

Nearly all the donations are given in cash, making it extremely difficult for Saudi and American authorities to track the money, the The New York Times report said.

Saudi Arabia has dismissed the claims, asserting that it contributes solely to the Palestinian authority. “It’s a ridiculous accusation; no Saudi government money goes to Hamas, directly or indirectly,” said Adel Al-Jubeir, the Foreign Affairs Adviser to Prince Abdullah.

“Why on earth would we not stop this kind of funding? Why on earth would our crown prince say we do not want to support Hamas and then allow people to do this under the table?” Saudi officials were quoted as saying their government’s support for Palestinian causes goes solely to the Palestinian authority, about 80 million dollars to 100 million dollars a year.

But the report said that a senior Hamas leader personally thanked Saudi crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz in 2002 for the financial support that his group received.

In October 2002 in Riyadh, senior Hamas leader Khalid Mishaal thanked the group’s Saudi benefactors, saying, “This is indeed a brave posture deserving appreciation,” as per a document on the meeting.

A summary of the meeting, organised by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a Riyadh-based charitable organisation, was seized by the Israeli military during a raid in Gaza in December, 2002 and recently given to the The New York Times by a former Israeli official, the daily said.

Even if the claim by the Saudi government is true, that they only finance the Palestinian Authority, such support IS support of terrorist organizations since the Palestinian is a government which harbors and supports numerous terrorist groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc.)

And yet, for some reason, we are “allies” with Saudi Arabia. We have a military base with U.S. troops in the country, and we continue to support the existence of the Saudi Arabian dictatorship.

This support should have never existed in the first place, but we shall see how deep this support runs if the Saudi Arabians begin to develop a nuclear weapons program….

St. Augustine was a philosopher of the 3rd and 4th centuries. In his philosophy, he writes about the miserable nature of physical existence and the superiority of God and the human soul. He portrays mankind’s physical existence as filled with terror, disease, and a horribly evil nature. St. Augustine, can be described as one of the founding figures in the idea of Original Sin, which states that a human being is innately depraved by his very own nature as a human being, and therefore must spend his entire life begging forgiveness of God. Additionally, the idea that the body and the soul are separate, as well as the soul being superior to the body, are both very prevalent themes in Augustine’s works (although Plato is truly the intellectual father of these ideas). Also, there are mentions of altruism and collectivism in his works (again, as heavily influenced by Plato). Every individual in society has a moral obligation to ensure that every other individual is obeying God, and, every individual themselves must also obey God.

One of Augustine’s more famous works, City of God, deals with the themes I mentioned earlier, but most importantly, the demonstration of the ideal political system. According to Augustine, the ideal political system is one which forces every individual of the society obey God, condemn the inferiority of physical existence, and sacrifice oneself to all others in the society if they (or God) so demand.

The following are some quotes that I picked up on in my reading of part of City of God for my Political Ideologies class.

“what is it that we would do, when we wish to be made perfect by the ultimate good, unless it be that the flesh should not lust against the spirit, and that there should be in us no such vice for the spirit to lust against it? But since we can not bring that to pass in the present life, however much we may desire it, we can at least with God’s help so act that we do not yield to the lust of the flesh against the spirit by failure of the spirit, and we are not dragged with our own consent to the perpetuation of sin. Far be it from us, then, so long as we are engaged in this internal war…”

He is saying here that every human being is innately depraved because of his physical nature. Every human being therefore must wage a major conflict between his physical existence and his soul. However, since the complete elimination of physical desire ("lusts” as he calls them) would require nothing short of death (and committing suicide is not good because then one can not obey God and sacrifice oneself for others), a human being’s physical existence is filled with terror, misery, and despair.

“….all these persons have sought, with a surprising vanity, to be happy in this life and to get happiness by their own efforts. Truth laughed at these men….”

“…such is the stupid pride of these men who suppose that the supreme good is to be found in this life, and that they can be the agents of their own happiness…”

“…so we look forward to happiness, and a happiness to be won by ‘endurance.’ For we are among evils, which we ought patiently to endure until we arrive among those goods where nothing will be lacking to provide us ineffable delight, nor will there now be anything that we are obliged to endure. Such is the salvation which in the life to come will itself be also the ultimate bliss. But those philosophers, not believing in this blessedness because they do not see it, strive to manufacture for themselves in this life an utterly counterfeit happiness by drawing on a virtue whose fraudulence matches its arrogance.”

Happiness in this physical life is impossible, Augustine says. The physical existence of mankind in this world is a horrible misery filled with constant conlifct, terror, and despair. No individual human being is able to achieve happiness in this world, on their own, because only eternal peace with God (which is the permanent escape from the misery of physical existence) can enable one to achieve happiness.

What a horrible life this man must have lived. It seems that his entire philosophy can be described as an absolute terror of reality and a constant wish to explain the unbearable pain of his own existence. But such misery is NOT an intrinsic feature of man’s existence but rather the inevitable result of any human being who attempts to act in contradiction with reality.

The United States government has blocked the Israeli military from capturing a raid intended to seize Palestinian terrorist leader, Yasser Arafat.

The United States has prevented Israel’s military from capturing the headquarters of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

U.S. government sources said the Bush administration sent a harsh message to Israel to suspend plans to capture Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah over the weekend. The sources said the had military planned to raid the so-called Muqata’a on late Friday and capture Arafat.

Both Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice telephoned Israeli and PA leaders and warned Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to suspend the military plans, Middle East Newsline reported.

The U.S. sources said the Bush administration was alarmed by the Israeli entry into Ramallah on Thursday. An Israeli military force captured a PA ministry about 300 meters from Arafat’s headquarters and established a command post for the capture of the Muqata’a.

At that point, the sources said, the administration was informed by the CIA that Israel planned to imminently capture Arafat’s headquarters and seize the PA chairman. They said Israel planned to exile Arafat to a distant Arab country.

“The United States does not support either the elimination or the exile of Mr. Arafat,” Powell said. “It is not our position and the Israeli government knows this. There would be rage in the Arab world and the Muslim world. And I don’t see this moving forward the roadmap.”

This is utterly absurd and a COMPLETE perversion of all that is just and right. This is equivalent in my eyes to some foreign power blocking the United States military from capturing Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell is afraid that the death or seizure of Arafat will anger the Arab world? Since when do we not prosecute criminals, murderers, and terrorists because we are afraid that it will anger people?!?!?!

It is now completely apparent to me that this administration has absolutely no idea of what fundamental principles are, nor how to apply them. Our government is a collection of pragmatic morons who have absolutely no conception of how to run our government (especially our foreign policy) properly.

While I believe that Arafat should be shot, not exiled, Israel has the absolute right to act in its own self-interest and should clearly reject this blatant violation of justice on the part of the U.S. administration.

It is now absolutely clear to me that instead of ruthlessly eliminating the enemies of this country (Islamic fundamentalism), the Bush administration hopes to appease them by handing over Israel to their bloodthirsty, hateful and murderous ways. This will fail, as all appeasement of terrorists and dictatorships must by necessity fail.

The result of this policy of appeasement will be another terrorist attack on our soil, I guarantee it. God (speaking metaphorically) help us all.

The security cabinet of the Israeli government has agreed “in principle” to expel Arafat from the area.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel’s security cabinet agreed in principle Thursday to exile Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, but not immediately, sources close to the government said.

One source said the security cabinet decided to ask the army to prepare a plan for Arafat’s exile from the region but decided against swift expulsion because of U.S. opposition.

A senior Palestinian official denounced Israel’s decision, saying exiling Arafat would destabilize the Middle East.

“Harming Arafat or expelling him will destabilize the region and will only bring disaster to the Israeli people,” the official said.

The United States also opposed expelling Arafat, but for different reasons, saying it would give him greater publicity.

“We don’t believe that dealing with Mr. Arafat … through expulsion is going to be helpful at all with the situation,” a State Department spokesman said.

“It would just give him another stage to play on.”

This is unbelievable. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist who is attempting to give support to the Palestinian terrorist groups. There is absolutely no reason why this sick piece of scum should be allowed to stay in the area.

The ‘Barbie’ doll has been deemed a threat to morality according to the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia’s religious police have declared Barbie dolls a threat to morality, complaining that the revealing clothes of the “Jewish” toy — already banned in the kingdom — are offensive to Islam.

The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, as the religious police are officially known, lists the dolls on a section of its Web site devoted to items deemed offensive to the conservative Saudi interpretation of Islam.

“Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful,” said a poster on the site.

The poster, plastered with pictures of Barbie in short dresses and tight pants, and with a few of her accessories, reads: “A strange request. A little girl asks her mother: Mother, I want jeans, a low-cut shirt, and a swimsuit like Barbie.”

Such posters are distributed to schools and hung in the streets by the religious police, or muttawa, an independent body affiliated with the office of the Prime Minister.

Vice police officials were not available for comment Monday.

Sheik Abdulla al-Merdas, a preacher in a Riyadh mosque, said the muttawa take their anti-Barbie campaign to the shops, confiscating dolls from sellers and imposing a fine.

……………..

An exhibition of all the violating items is found in the holy city of Medina, and mobile tours go around to schools and other public areas in the kingdom.

The muttawa act as a monitoring and punishing agency, propagating conservative Islamic beliefs according to the teachings of the puritan Wahhabi sect, adhered to the kingdom since the 18th century, and enforcing strict moral code.

The muttawa patrol the streets of the kingdom, preventing men from mingling with women, enforcing strict Islamic dress for women, chasing worshippers late for prayers, and punishing shop keepers who stay open during prayer hours. They sometimes work with a police officer who can enforce legal punishments on people deemed violators.

Is this another example of the “peaceful” teachings of Islam?

In my opinion, President Bush’s unprincipled and pragmatic approach to foreign policy issues has begun to spell disaster for the security operations in which our country has engaged in (the war with Afghanistan and Iraq), and for the continued security of the citizens of America. President Bush has failed in two primary ways: the failure (or the refusal) to identify the enemy of this country as Islamic fundamentalism which has resulted in the failure to pursue the best military strategy necessary for defeating this enemy.

According to pragmatism, there are no absolutes. In the pragmatist view, everything about reality is in constant flux, which means, that no truth can ever remain constant; including, fundamental principles of philosophy. When making a decision about what course of action one should take therefore, according to pragmatism, there is no method of reason which one can appeal to except whether or not that specific course of action “works.” There is no way of knowing beforehand if that course of action will work, which means that one must constantly experiment to see if their idea will work in practice. However, unlike the scientist in the laboratory who is able to derive causal principles of reality and attain knowledge, the pragmatist claims that what works today may not work tomorrow. As a result, in EVERY situation regarding decision-making (and every other aspect of one’s life), a person can only try what they FEEL to be right and hope that it goes well.

Under President Bush, our foreign policy (along with many aspects of our domestic policy as well) has been riddled with pragmatism.

Here are the facts:
1. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists working for the Al-Qaeda organization hijacked 4 jet airplanes, flew 2 of them into the two towers of the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and another headed towards Washington D.C. but was apparently taken down by the brave hostages of that flight (presumably, this airplane was headed towards The White House or Capitol Hill).

2. The reason for this attack was not that the members of this organization wanted to engage in terrorism as such, but rather, wanted to force their particular agenda through a specific method: terrorism.

3. This agenda is called Islamic fundamentalism, which states that any individual (and thereby society as well) which does not believe in the Islamic conception of God, Allah, is evil and therefore it is good to declare jihad (holy war) against those individuals and societies. Additionally, the commonly held values amongst Islamic fundamentalists are faith, sacrifice to a higher power (in this case, Allah), and force (through Islamic theocracy). Therefore, any individual or society that advocates the opposite of these things (reason, egoism, individual rights, and freedom) is natural enemies of Islamic fundamentalism. These Islamic fundamentalists have openly declared war against The United States and the allies of freedom, and are actively engaging to inflict great harm on us.

4. Islamic fundamentalism has influence in the government as well in the citizens of such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Pakistan, etc., and formerly Iraq and Afghanistan). As a result of this influence (which is particularly strong in many of these areas), these dictatorships present a grave threat to the security of The United States, not only because of their own ideologies, but because they support Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc.

5. The theocracy of Iran is the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. It was in Iran where jihad was first declared against the United States of America, it was Iran that engaged in the first terrorist acts against the United States of America, and it is in Iran where the Islamic fundamentalists hold the most power over the government. Additionally, U.S. intelligence reports have ascertained that Iran is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, perhaps achieving that capability within 2 years time.

6. The communist dictatorship of North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and it is reasonable to assume that they would sell such weapons to those with whom they share a common enemy. It is reasonable to assume that North Korea would supply Islamic fundamentalist organizations with such weapons. (In fact, reports have alleged that North Korea and Iran have agreed to share weapons technology with one another.)

7. The United States military has the overwhelming ability to wipe out all of these threats in a short period of time, thereby ensuring the security of the citizens of The United States from further, and perhaps more severe, terrorist attacks.

The critical error of President Bush was the failure (or perhaps the refusal) to identify our enemy as Islamic fundamentalism. Instead of identifying this ideology which has openly declared war on The United States, President Bush has labeled our enemy as “terrorism,” which clearly confuses the method by which the Islamic fundamentalists are waging war against us with the actual threat itself: the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism. There are many potential reasons for this failure, such as merely ignorance on the part of the Bush administration, or more likely, the fear that labeling our enemy as “Islamic fundamentalism” would anger the Islamic world. Either way, this failure to properly identify our enemy as Islamic fundamentalism has resulted, along with the influence of pragmatism, in our clear inability to formulate a proper military strategy for defeating this threat.

The failure to properly identify our enemy as Islamic fundamentalism, along with the influences of pragmatism; have resulted in three failures in our military operation against the Islamic fundamentalist movement: a failed military campaign in Afghanistan, the failure of attempting to gain the support of the United Nations, and the overall failure of not executing a proper military strategy.

Afghanistan was an important target to attack in our war against Islamic fundamentalism because a large number of Al-Qaeda operatives were operating in that region, with the assistance of the government of Afghanistan: the Taliban. However, due to the policies of the Bush administration, the war against Afghanistan was in many ways, a failure. First of all, the Bush administration did not send enough troops into Afghanistan in order to ensure that it would be difficult for Al-Qaeda operatives to leave the country. While we did eliminate a large portion of the funding, support services, and the Taliban structure that was supporting Al-Qaeda, by not engaging enough troops, we failed to prevent many Al-Qaeda and Taliban from escaping the country (perhaps including the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden). What was the cause of this failure? The fear of upsetting our enemy with too many civilian casualties rather then ensure that the lives of American soldiers and citizens are safe, and the pragmatic conception that our enemy will somehow respect us if we endanger ourselves rather than the enemy.

As the next target for the U.S. war against Islamic fundamentalism, the Bush administration decided that the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was the best target to wage war against. Prior to engaging this war however, the Bush administration spent roughly 9 months attempting to gain the support of The United Nations in this engagement.

As I stated in my 9/7/2003 post, I Condemn President Bush:

The United Nations is a thoroughly corrupt and evil organization. While an organization composed of free nations, working together for their own mutual self-interest would be quite beneficial to all involved, that is certainly NOT what The United Nations is. The United Nations is an organization comprised of a number of dictatorships and terrorist states, along with semi-free countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. The basic premise of the UN is that there is little or no distinction between a free nation, such as the US, and an evil dictatorship, such as the Soviet Union which was a member of the UN during its existence. There is no ethical or political superiority between nations, but rather, every nation is on an equal ethical and political playing field, regardless of whether or not they respect individual rights or slaughter millions.

Based on this premise of moral and political relativism, the UN advocates the idea that no one nation is capable of determining what is right or wrong for themselves, and thereby acting on that knowledge. Instead, only a consensus of many nations (whether or not they are free or dictatorships is irrelevant to them) can decide what is right or wrong. (This is what is meant by the condemnation of the U.S. acting “unilaterally” and the advocacy of “multilateral” action.) ”

By negotiating with an organization which sponsors terrorist states and dictatorships, The United States explicitly sanctioned those very terrorist states and dictatorships. By doing so, the Bush administration sent the message to all of the terrorist organizations and dictatorships of the world that if they attack The United States, we will spend months negotiating with the very enemies that attacked us. The United Nations is totally incapable of properly protecting the security of America for these reasons. What was the cause of such negotiation? The influence of pragmatism. Since there are no absolute truths, since there are no principles by which we can consistently determine the correct course of action, let’s experiment by attempting to negotiate with The United Nations, to negotiate with the very enemies of our country; said the Bush administration. As a result of the negotiation with The United Nations, the Bush administration wasted critical time in the war against Islamic fundamentalism, the Bush administration provided time for our enemies to build-up their capability of attacking us, and the Bush administration provided moral sanction for the terrorists that have attacked us and are plotting to attack us again.

When the negotiation with The United Nations failed, the Bush administration, correctly, decided to wage war against our enemies by “going it alone.” However, by targeting Iraq as the next target in our war against Islamic fundamentalism, I believe that the Bush administration made a critical mistake. In my opinion, based on the influence of Islamic fundamentalism and the capability to produce nuclear weapons, I believe that there are 6 essential threats to the security of the United States which must be taken out.

The following is a list which includes Afghanistan and Iraq, which means, that I am assuming, with this list, that it is Sept. 12, 2001. In some cases, I have put two countries in the same spot which indicates that I believe that they should be (or should have been) attacked at the same time. While I do not consider myself to be an expert on this situation and the status of these countries by any means, I believe that this list accurately portrays the overall importance to eliminating these threats.

1. Iran and Afghanistan
2. North Korea
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. Syria and the Palestinian Authority
6. Iraq

As you can see, while I believe that the elimination of the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was an important task, it was not nearly as important as the elimination of 7 other regimes. I believe this to be true for many reasons. First of all, at this present time, having eliminated the threat of Afghanistan, I believe the dictatorships of Iran and North Korea to be the biggest threat to America’s security. I believe this to be true because North Korea has openly admitted that it has nuclear weapons and is pursuing a more advanced nuclear weapons program, and Iran is in the process, according to U.S. intelligence, of developing the capability for a nuclear weapons program (perhaps obtaining nuclear weapons within 2 years). Additionally, these two countries are staunch enemies of The United States of America. As I stated earlier, Iran is the heart of Islamic fundamentalist movement. Additionally, North Korea is a communist dictatorship which has obtained nuclear weapons and is threatening their use against the United States in order to extort aid. As I demonstrated in my 7/11/2003 post, North Korea Must Be Stopped:

Every dictatorship today attempts to survive through two means: conquest of other nations, or mooching aid under the veil of altruism from powerful countries. Centuries ago, there were numerous dictatorships who survived by the means of the first, conquest of other nations. In modern society, war is heavily frowned upon and may bring immediate sanction from many others in the world. Now, most dictatorships turn to the second method. They appeal to the alleged “duty” of the freest nations of the world (which are also the most successful) to pour money into their dictatorship. One reason why some claim that the successful nations of the world have this is duty is because of the false idea that wealth is fixed, and when one country gains wealth, it is taking wealth away from others. Thus, the economically successful nations have a “duty” to “give back” what they have expropriated from third world countries.

As a result of this alleged duty on the part of the successful nations, these dictatorships have found a new source to loot from. Now, these dictatorships play on the “guilt” of the economically successful nations and are therefore able to survive as a parasite for a long period of time. This is readily apparent with the situation with North Korea. North Korea however doesn’t only live off of the second method of mooching, but the first as well. The people of North Korea are starving, which is a regular condition of a dictatorship. In response to this, nations such as the U.S. provide aid to North Korea so that the people of North Korea will not starve to death, which on the face of it, seems like a very humane and benevolent thing to do. However, this action of giving food aid to North Korea allows the dictatorship to continue its existence. Instead of having to be concerned with feeding its starving population and deal with rising dissent because of it, North Korea can pour a lot of money into its military. If North Korea (and all other dictatorships like it) can amass a large military force, or a large amount of power through nuclear weapons, they can extort more money from the economically successful nations of the world. This is exactly what is happening with the U.S. and North Korea today, and in the past 50 years.

While Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program and North Korea ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons, the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein seems to have been much less of a threat than the Bush administration made it out to be. Instead, it appears that even if Iraq was pursuing a weapons of mass destruction program (which I believe they were); they were much less advanced than Iran and North Korea in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

Why then, if not for objective reasons, did the Bush administration decide to target Iraq as the second target in our war on Islamic fundamentalism? It seems to me that the cause of this decision was, once again, pragmatism. The Bush administration most likely believed two primary things:

1. They could “sell” the campaign against Iraq because of its past transgressions against the civilized world and because Iraq is viewed as a secular dictatorship as opposed to an Islamic theocracy such as Iran.

2. Establishing a free society in Iraq would result in the immediate influence of freedom in the surrounding countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria; thereby eliminating the need to use military force against these threats.

Both of these potential premises of the Bush administration are totally wrong. First, there was no need to “sell” this war to our enemies, nor to The United Nations. The U.S. military clearly has the ability to wipe out these threats with ease. Second, the establishment of a free society is not something that can be done overnight. It requires very firm and correct philosophical ideas along with the best means of applying those philosophical ideas into practice. Considering the fact that The United States does not have those correct philosophical ideas or the correct practical implementation of those ideas itself, how could it bring these things to Iraq? Additionally, it is ridiculous to believe that the enemies of freedom, capitalism, reason, egoism, etc., would somehow replace the ideals of faith, sacrifice to a higher power, and theocracy; which are present in Islamic fundamentalism. Even if The United States could establish some sort of free society in Iraq, it would take many years to do so, in which time, the enemies of The United States (such as Iran and North Korea), would have a lot of time to develop nuclear weapons and plot new ways of attacking The United States.

For all of these reasons, I firmly believe that the foreign policy of the United States government has been an utter failure. The Bush administration has clearly failed to identify our enemy as Islamic fundamentalism and therefore has conducted an inept military campaign which has included the failure to prevent many Al-Qaeda operatives from escaping Afghanistan, the failure of negotiating with terrorists and dictatorships through The United Nations, and the failure of attacking Iraq instead of Iran and North Korea. Additionally, I believe that military campaigns against the 6 remaining threats that I mentioned would not be difficult at all. The people of Iran have been SCREAMING for the overthrow of the Islamic theocracy, the people of North Korea are starving and would welcome the end of the communist regime; and we could completely eliminate the Palestinian terrorists by supporting Israel in eliminating them (see all my posts on Israel and the Palestinian terrorists). Therefore, I condemn the foreign policy of President Bush, and I firmly believe that our course of action in the “war on terror,” which should actually be referred to as the “war on Islamic fundamentalism,” has failed.

It appears as though we are closing in on Osama Bin Laden.

Sept. 8— The hunt for Osama bin Laden has been narrowed to a 40-square-mile section of the Waziristan region of Pakistan, senior U.S. officials told ABCNEWS.

“[It is] a very hostile area in terms of geography, mountains, terrain, ravines and two ferocious tribes, the Wazirs and the Mahsuds who dominate the area,” said Dr. Akbar Ahmed, professor of International Relations at American University in Washington, D.C.

Authorities are casting a net around the towns of Angoor Ada and Wana in southern Waziristan, which are infested with al Qaeda supporters, but it is a difficult and dangerous area to operate in.

Great. Let’s move in and kill the piece of scum. That will be one less murderous, fundamentalist Islamic terrorist that we will have to worry about.

However, it must be reminded that the capture of Osama Bin Laden will NOT mean the end of the “war on terrorism.” We are not fighting a method of war (terrorism as such) but rather we are fighting against an ideology (Islamic fundamentalism). We will not guarantee victory by eliminating the method (terrorism) by which the Islamic fundamentalists are waging war against us. Nor we will guarantee victory by eliminating the terrorists themselves. Instead, we must eliminate the ideology by elminating the sources of its power: the states which sponsor it. This means, that in order to win the “war on terror” we must eliminate the source of Islamic fundamentalism, not just the people who carry it out in practice. This means, that we must ruthlessly eliminate the governments that are ruled by Islamic fundamentalism (such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.), thereby eliminating all support for the Islamic fundamentalists who are waging war against the ideology of this great country of ours, America.

12 Marines have been diagnosed with malaria after returning from Liberia and 21 others are showing symptoms of the disease.

WASHINGTON - Twelve U.S. Marines who were in Liberia (news - web sites) last month have been diagnosed with malaria and 21 other U.S. troops have symptoms of the disease, defense officials said Monday.

Two of the Marines were flown from the USS Iwo Jima warship off the coast of Liberia to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany on Saturday. Thirty other Marines, plus one sailor, were flown Sunday to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., according to a brief statement from U.S. European Command, which is in charge of the Liberia mission.

A spokesman at the Bethesda center, Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, said he could not comment on the patients’ condition.

Col. Jay DeFrank, a Defense Department spokesman, said the Marines, members of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., were in Liberia in mid-August as part of a U.S. quick-reaction force of about 150 U.S. troops. They operated from an airport outside Monrovia, the capital.

In addition to the 12 confirmed cases of malaria, test results on the 21 other patients are pending, Peppler said.

There is absolutely no rational reason for our forces to be in Liberia. The purpose of government is not to mediate disputes between murderous savages but to protect the individual rights of its citizens and the individual rights of other citizens when it is in our self-interest to do so. Clearly, there is no interest in our military forces being in Liberia at this point in time. If one side of this dispute were a firm advocate of individual rights, then conceivably, it would be in our self-interest to defend them. Additionally, it would be to our interest to use military force in Liberia if their government posed a threat to our security (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, North Korea, etc., do). Since neither of these condition exist, it is ridiculous for our military forces to be present in Liberia.

On a second point, it is horribly wrong to be subjected our military forces to harm for no reason other than self-sacrifice. I proudly support our military, but I severely condemn our government for deploying our military forces and putting them in harm’s way for the self-sacrifice of mediating disputes between savages. Let’s get our forces out of every such savage dispute, and keep them from entering such disputes in the future, unless it is in our self-interest to do so. Let the brutal savages with no conception of individual rights slaughter themsleves, we will be better off with less scum on the earth.

The RIAA is suing 261 people for their illegal downloading of mp3’s.

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) (RIAA) today said it filed lawsuits against 261 people accused of trading copyrighted songs on the Internet. The group also said that it would not sue file sharers who promise in writing not to do it again.

The lawsuits, which were filed in federal courts across the country, are the RIAA’s latest tactics in its war against the illegal file sharing that record companies blame for plummeting CD sales.

In June, the RIAA promised to sue hundreds of Internet users suspected of illegally trading music using file-swapping services like Kazaa and Morpheus. The association in August clarified that it only would target the most egregious file sharers.

RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as “major offenders” who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average.

This is great news. The RIAA has upheld its right to make money, and has upheld the rights of every one of the artists with whom they contract to make money as well. Most importantly, this act on the part of the RIAA is an affirmation of the right to life of every individual, the right which states, that every single individual regardless of race, class, sex, religion, income, etc., have the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary for their own lives as long as they do not violate the right of others to do so in the process.

Recently, I modified my 7/17/03 post, “Swapping Mp3’s as a Violation of Individual Rights,” which I intend to submit to my school paper as an op-ed. Since this piece has major relevance to the topic at hand, I have decided to post it here:

When did theft stop being punished by the law in America? Apparently, in America, theft is not theft when it is done by a large group of people. A robber steals the purse of an old woman in a dark alley, it is called theft; millions of teenagers steal the property of an artist, it is called “swapping.” A burglar comes into the home of a rich family and steals their prized possessions, it is called theft; politicians steal the earned money of a large number of rich individuals, it is called “redistribution of wealth.

Face it folks, swapping mp3’s and movie files IS stealing, if those files are unlicensed by the artist, meaning, if the artist did not consent to the distribution of his property in that given medium. Put yourself in the position of the artist in this situation. Imagine spending years of your life painstakingly developing a given talent (such as singing, performing an instrument, creating a movie, etc.), only to be told that you have no right to trade that talent with others as performed in a given medium. Imagine being told that you have no right to be compensated for all of your effort. Imagine, having your art being physically taken from you and distributed to anyone who wants it, without your consent. Imagine spending close to twenty years of your life being educated, spending hours upon hours in your business, and working extremely hard every day of your life only to have the result of that hard work, your product and your money, stolen from you.

This country was founded on one fundamental principle: that every human being, by their very nature, has one fundamental right, from which all others are the result: the right to their own life. This means that every human being has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary for their own life, just as long as they do not violate that right of any other individual or group of individuals. This right, according to the political philosophy of America at its inception, is inalienable, which means, that the government, as well as its citizens, do not have the right to violate it in any way. This means that every single individual has the right to life, regardless of race, religion, sex, income, sexual orientation, etc., and that the purpose of government is to recognize and protect this right. Based on this right, if an artist creates a product (such as a song), that artist has a right to that product. That artist has a right to distribute the product how they see fit or to keep it to themselves.

But those who support the downloading of mp3’s claim otherwise. They claim that they have a right to the products that the artists create because they enjoy the product, or because they want the product, or because they believe that they are being charged too much for the product, etc. Or, those who support the downloading of mp3’s claim that the artists have so much money anyway, what does it matter that we steal their property?

No group has the right to proclaim that they have the right to violate the rights of individuals. Those who engage in unlicensed file swapping on peer-to-peer networks have no right to steal the property of artists and swap it, politicians have no right to steal money from the rich individuals of America, nor does any single group have the right to engage in the violation of any individual’s rights for any reason whatsoever. You do not have the right to steal the property of artists because you want it, or because you believe you are being charged too much for it, or because you believe that the artist has a lot of money anyway, etc.

Put yourself in the position of the artist. Imagine that someone demanded that you give up your property to them. Would you agree that they have the right to steal your money and your property because they want it? Would you agree that they have the right to steal your money and your property because they believe they are being charged too much for it? Would you agree that they have the right to steal your money and your property because they believe that you have so much money anyway?

The swapping of mp3’s IS a violation of the individual rights of the artists whose property is stolen. By downloading their music and using it for your own purposes, you deny the ability for the artist to choose the method by which a voluntary trade is enacted for their property. Instead, by downloading their music, you steal their property and give them nothing in return, thereby profoundly violating their right to life.

At the founding of this country, the philosophy of individual rights was not fully implemented by the government and was partially ignored by its citizens. The individual rights of women, slaves, and many other groups were violated. Today, that violation of rights continues, except the individuals whose rights are being violated have changed. Today, artists are just one example of a group of individuals whose rights are being violated. Let’s put an end to the violation of individual rights. As college students, there is not much we can do about the current violation of rights of many of the individuals in this country. However, every single one of you has the ability to end the violation of the rights of artists by ending your practice of downloading mp3’s. Join me in condemning this practice and putting a stop to it.

The Bush administration is demanding that the United Nations take “urgent action” to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program.

America will tomorrow demand that the United Nations takes urgent action to prevent Iran acquiring the atom bomb as fears mount that Teheran is on course to develop a nuclear weapons capability within two years.

United States officials will make the demand at a special meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna that has been arranged to consider a 10-page report by Mohammed al-Baradei, the agency’s director-general, into the state of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Washington has already expressed deep concern about the discovery of traces of weapons grade uranium found in soil samples taken from one of Iran’s top secret nuclear facilities last July.

While President Bush did retain some of his worth with his foreign policy in the past, he has now lost all worth in my eyes. When Sept. 11 occurred, our great country rallied around its leader, President Bush, who promised swift and just action against the terrorists of the world and the countries that support them. During this time, President Bush proudly declared that you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Now, almost 2 years since that event, President Bush has violated his own words at almost every turn. This latest incident with Iran is yet another example out of many.

The United Nations is a thoroughly corrupt and evil organization. While an organization composed of free nations, working together for their own mutual self-interest would be quite beneficial to all involved, that is certainly NOT what The United Nations is. The United Nations is an organization comprised of a number of dictatorships and terrorist states, along with semi-free countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. The basic premise of the UN is that there is little or no distinction between a free nation, such as the US, and an evil dictatorship, such as the Soviet Union which was a member of the UN during its existence. There is no ethical or political superiority between nations, but rather, every nation is on an equal ethical and political playing field, regardless of whether or not they respect individual rights or slaughter millions.

Based on this premise of moral and political relativism, the UN advocates the idea that no one nation is capable of determining what is right or wrong for themselves, and thereby acting on that knowledge. Instead, only a consensus of many nations (whether or not they are free or dictatorships is irrelevant to them) can decide what is right or wrong. (This is what is meant by the condemnation of the U.S. acting “unilaterally” and the advocacy of “multilateral” action.)

As I have stated in many previous posts, Iran should be the #1 target for the war on terrorism. It is the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, their government is an Islamic theocracy, and they are attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program (not to mention that the people of Iran are SCREAMING for the government to be overthrown). The Bush administration seems to have recognized the fact that Iran is a central target in the war on terrorism, but they are failing to deal with this threat properly.

By attempting to work with the UN to solve the problem of Iran, the Bush administration is throwing the war on terrorism down the toilet, among other things. First and foremost, Bush is handing over our war on terrorism to a corrupt organization which is comprised of a number of dictatorships and TERRORIST STATES such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, etc (and formerly Iraq). Bush is handing over the war on terrorism to the enemies which this war is supposed to be eliminating (the governments that support Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism). Secondly, Bush is throwing away the sovereignty and security of the U.S. By working with the U.N. President Bush is essentially saying that 1. the U.S. does not have the ability, nor does any other nation, to determine what is right and what is wrong; 2. only a consensus (the UN) can determine right from wrong, 3. if you (the terrorist nations and organizations) attack the United States, eventually, we will negotiate with you.

I now fully condemn President Bush for his foreign policy for being absolutely wrong. President Bush has now clearly violated his promise to the American people to protect us from terrorism by ruthlessly eliminating terrorist organizations and those governments that support them.

The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, a.k.a. puppet of Arafat, has resigned.

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, increasingly unpopular and worn out by a power struggle with Yasser Arafat (news - web sites), resigned Saturday. Within hours, Israel bombed a Gaza City building where top Hamas leaders were meeting, lightly wounding the group’s founder.

Arafat told lawmakers in a meeting later Saturday that Abbas now heads a caretaker government, implying that he had accepted the resignation. However, some Palestinian officials said that for that acceptance to become formal, Arafat would have to send a letter to Abbas — which he had not done.

Arafat also said he had called meetings for Sunday with his Fatah (news - web sites) faction to begin discussions about the leadership crisis.

There are two potential outcomes of this development in my opinion.

1. A new Prime Minister takes control of the Palestinian Authority and actually dismantles the terrorist network.

2. A new Prime Minister takes control of the Palestinian Authority and does nothing to dismantle the terrorist network, actually supports terrorist regimes, and is under the control of Yasser Arafat. While Israel falls for the “cease-fire” ploy, the Palestinian authority works to take more land from Israel in conjunction with the terrorist groups building up their weapons arsenals for a continued round of suicide bombings.

As I said in my 8/22/03 post, Another Jersualem Post Editorial:

The Palestinian terrorists, along with the government that supports them, will not cease until Israel is destroyed. The “peace process” and the “cease-fire” (hudna) are merely the new means for terrorists to cash-in on bankrupt philosophy. The Palestinians are MUCH weaker militarily than the Israelis and would have absolutely no chance in a direct confrontation. So, they manipulate the bankrupt philosophy of the Israeli government and get the Israelis to gradually hand over what the terrorists want (the destruction of the state of Israel). They attack the Israelis just enough to get them to submit to negotiatons, then declare a “cease-fire” while Israel gives the terrorists land in return for the “promises” of the Palestinian government to stop the terrorist groups. The Palestinian government does nothing to stop the terrorist groups (and in fact supports them) in order to give these groups enough time to build up their weapons and their strength during the “cease-fire.” Once serious concessions have been made to the Palestinians, the attacks continue. The Israelis retaliate, but not nearly enough to stop the terrorists, and are QUICKLY condemned by the United States and the rest of the world. This pressure from the United States to submit to terrorism causes the Israelis to abandon their self-defense prematurely and committ to a new round of negotiations, and so, the cycle continues.

I believe that the most likely outcome of Abbas resigning is the continuation of this cycle. For once, I hope that I am wrong.

A federal judge has thrown out the lawsuit against McDonald’s which alleged that they deceived their customers into eating fatty foods.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday threw out a revised lawsuit against McDonald’s Corp . that accused the fast food restaurant of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating unhealthy foods that make them fat.

Good.

Recently, I came across this website that demonstrates in detail exactly how Micahel Moore manipulated the truth and outright lied in his documentary, Bowling for Columbine.

I think Michael Moore is one of the biggest idiots that I have ever known, and I do not believe that he deserves to take up my time in demonstrating how much of an idiot he is. Therefore, I recommend checking over this site and seeing for yourself the extent to which Michael Moore is a liar.

For my political ideologies class I am required to read Republic by the famous Greek philosopher, Plato. I must tell you that I am apprehensive about reading this work because I consider Plato to be one of the most evil philosophers in the history of mankind.

Plato’s philosophy in a nutshell:

1. There are two realities: a perfect, shapeless reality in which concepts exist as an unified whole; and an imperfect reality which is composed of broken reflections of that perfect reality (mysticism)
2. To common sense, an individual human being is an individual entity. But this is false. A human being is just a broken reflection of one perfect whole: Man. Since it is the unified whole which is perfect, it is the unified whole which is the standard of value, the standard of reality. The good, in this imperfect world, is to best represent that perfect whole in the separate reality. (collectivism)
3. Since the good is represented by the perfect whole, every individual should be willing to sacrifice themselves so that the whole benefits in the best way possible and best represents that perfect reality (altruism)

In Plato’s Republic, the fundamental question is: what is justice? Plato answers that justice is every individual serving the whole in the best way possible by fulfilling his designated function to the state.

This means that YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXIST, unless you are sacrificing yourself to the whole. You have no right to your own life as you see fit, you have no right to exercise your free will and determine what profession you want to choose, you have no right to determine where you get your education from, you have no right to determine what activities outside of your profession you engage in, you have no right to determine what art you want to be exposed to, you have no right to exist.

Since every individual should sacrifice themselves in order to form the perfect whole (Man), the purpose of government according to Plato is to force all individuals to serve the state, to create that perfect whole.

Plato is the father of dictatorship in our world. He is ultimately the founder of a form of political system which has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths. He is the intellectual father of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

Absolutely sick. This utterly barbaric and savage philosophy should never be taught by any rational education system except to establish the historical context necessary to ensure that the influences of this philosophy are completely eliminated from this earth.

However, this philosophy still has a very large influence in academia as well as in various political systems across the world. Join me in condemning this horrific philosophy.

I have a few minutes before I’m off to my political science course in comparative political systems, but I thought I’d quickly remark on this piece of news:

Israel may attempt to exile Arafat.

JERUSALEM - Regretting that Israel had not already done so, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Tuesday that it might move to expel Palestinian President Yasser Arafat by the end of the year.

“Arafat never wanted to reach an agreement with us, and all he wants is to continue the conflict and bleed the citizens of Israel,” Mofaz told Israel’s Army Radio on Tuesday morning. “I believe that he has to disappear from the stage of history.”

“The state of Israel made a historic mistake by not expelling him some two years ago and we had more than a few opportunities to do this,” Mofaz said. “We will need to address this matter in a relatively short space of time, very possibly the end of this year.”

About damn time. But the Israelis should do more. They should expel the entire Palestinian authority as well as the terrorist groups that they support, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. Only when the hordes of terrorists and murderous savages who want to destroy Israel are removed from that area will peace be achieved between the Palestinian and Israeli people.

Israel has declared war on the Palestinian terrorist organizations, specifically, Hamas.

JERUSALEM (CNN) – Israel declared “all-out war” against Hamas Monday and said it is freezing diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority unless the Palestinian leadership takes “tangible steps to deal with infrastructures of terror.”

……………

Monday’s statement from Israel said it has adopted the following positions:

• “An all-out war against Hamas and other terrorist elements, including continuous strikes at the organization’s leaders";

• “Pressure on [focuses] of terror” in the West Bank; and

• A freezing of “the diplomatic process with the [Palestinian Authority] … unless [Israel] sees that the PA is taking tangible steps to deal with the infrastructures of terror.”

Good. It appears that Israel is once again beginning to assert its right to self-defense from the Palestinian terrorist groups. However, it remains to be seen if Israel will succumb to the international pressure characterized by condemning self-defense or if Israel will proudly uphold its right to self-defense no matter what the rest of the world says. Unfortunately, in the past few years, Israel has usually followed the first of these two paths.

It looks like the United States is giving in to extortion from North Korea.

BEIJING - North Korea (news - web sites) told a six-nation conference that it has nuclear weapons and has plans to test one, a U.S. official said Thursday. However, other participants said delegates agreed on the need for a second round of talks.

…………

The current round of talks are scheduled to end Friday after three days. The United States, North and South Korea (news - web sites), Russia, Japan and China are trying to balance U.S. demands for an end to North Korea’s nuclear program and the communist nation’s insistence on a nonaggression treaty with Washington and humanitarian aid.

“There is a consensus that the process of six-party talks should continue and is useful,” said Wie Sung-rak, director-general of the South Korean Foreign Ministry’s North American Affairs Bureau.

As I said in my 7/11/03 post, North Korea Must Be Stopped:

We have discovered that the North Koreans are very close to achieving a full nuclear weapons program, and they are threatening to attack South Korea, Japan, and the U.S., unless we continue to give them aid. Currently we are engaged in “multilateral discussions” with the North Koreans. This simply means that we are discussing new means by which the North Koreans will extort money from us. It amounts to the United States saying: there is no need for you to develop a nuclear weapons program in order to extort money from us, we will give you money without any such threat, we will allow you to continue to murder and torture your people, free of charge.

The United States should pull out of these extortion “negotiations” immediately. By negotiating with a regime that threatens us, we send a message to the enemies of the United States that the way to get what they want (such as power, recognition by the U.S., monetary support, etc.) is to threaten us. While many claim that such negotiations with those that threaten us helps to enhance peace, I maintain that it actually does the opposite. By negotiating with those who threaten us, we grant legitimacy to the dictatorships and terrorist regimes that we are negotiating with. Worst of all, we tell these regimes that all they have to do is threaten the United States and they will get what they want. We say to these enemies of the United States that killing innocent civilians, building weapons of mass destruction, and threatening the world is BENEFICIAL to them. Such a message only emboldens our enemies to build larger forces and make bigger and bigger threats as we continue to give concessions to such threats.

Instead of this ridiculous policy of appeasement, I advocate that the United States eliminate threats BEFORE they become a “crisis.” Also, I believe that United States should not negotiate with any dictatorship or terrorist regime, and should not provide ANY aid whatsoever to any dictatorship, terrorist regime, OR population living under such regimes.

We should immediately end the negotiations with North Korea and eliminate their capability to extort money from the world.

According to this report, Israel has a plan ready to bomb a nuclear facility in Iran if they gain the capability to create nuclear weapons.

Israel has ready a plan to bomb Iran’s Bushehr nuclear-power plant should the Persian Gulf coast facility, now under construction, begin producing weapons-grade material, an insider tells us.
This source says Israel has mapped out a route its jet fighters would take to destroy what is designed to be a two-reactor plant. A successful strike would ensure that the radical Tehran regime does not develop nuclear weapons. Iran has tested 600-mile-range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel and carry nuclear, biological or chemical warheads.

Great for them. Bombing any nuclear facility that allowed the theocratic regime of Iran to produce nuclear weapons would be very much in the self-interest of Israel, as well as the United States. If such an action were taken, it would demonsrate Israel’s proud upholding of their right to self-defense. Now if only they would do the same with the Palestinians, a lot of problems would be solved.

Check out all of the violations of the “road map.” (Hat tip: Hootinan)

On June 24, 2002, President Bush set forth the conditions that the
Palestinian Arabs must fulfill in order to merit U.S. support for the
creation of a Palestinian Arab state. Among the major obligations are that
the Palestinian Arabs must “dismantle the terrorist infrastructure,” “end
incitement,” “elect new leaders not compromised by terror,” and
unequivocally embrace democracy and free market economics. None of those
conditions were fulfilled.

In March 2003, Yasir Arafat chose Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the number two
man in the PLO since the 1960s, as the new prime minister of the Palestinian
Authority. Mazen took office on April 29, 2003. Less than a day later, the
Bush administration unveiled its “Road Map” plan, which set forth conditions
that the Palestinian Arabs must fulfill prior to the creation of a
Palestinian Arab state.

The Road Map stipulates that the Palestinian Arabs are required to undertake
concrete steps to combat terrorist groups and democratize Palestinian Arab
society. Those obligations, which are quoted below, were supposed to have
been fulfilled during Phase 1 of the Road Map, which concluded at the end of
May 2003, but they were not.

This report analyzes Palestinian Arab violations of those obligations during
the 17th week following the unveiling of the Road Map plan, August 19 -
August 25, 2003.

While I believe that the “roadmap to peace” is fundamentally flawed, as I have argued for countless times in this blog, this article is another piece of evidence demonstrating the support of terrorist organizations on the part of the Palestinian Authority.

Yet another example of the disgusting and hysterically irrational nature of mysticism has been demonstrated.

Terrance Cottrell Jr. died Friday night at the Faith Temple Church of the Apostolic Faith on Milwaukee’s northwest side. The cause was “mechanical asphyxia due to external chest compression,” according to the medical examiner’s office.

…………

A high-ranking Milwaukee police source said Ray Hemphill told investigators that he would sit on the boy’s chest for up to two hours at a time during prayer services at the small storefront church

…………

Three women - including Terrance’s mother, Patricia Cooper - sat on the boy’s arms and legs while Hemphill tried to remove the “evil spirits” from him, said Hemphill’s brother, David Hemphill, the pastor of the church where the service took place.

Tamara Tolefree of Milwaukee said Monday she held Terrance’s leg during the prayer. After at least two other physically intense sessions like the one Friday, Tolefree said, Ray Hemphill decided to devote his entire vacation from his job as a janitor to “getting that spirit out of” the boy, who was also called “Junior.”

…………

After more than an hour of restraining Terrance and praying for him, Tolefree said, the group saw the boy had shut his eyes and slowed his breathing. Ray Hemphill then “took control” of the situation and attempted to revive the boy, she said. Paramedics were called but could not save Terrance.

Sick. Absolutely sick.

A report blames the “culture” of the NASA program for the space shuttle Columbia disaster.

WASHINGTON – A long-term relaxation of safety vigilance at NASA culminated in the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and seven astronauts, investigators said Tuesday, warning that without sweeping changes, “the scene is set for another accident.”

In a report that cited disturbing “echoes” of the shuttle Challenger disaster of 1986, investigators said, “NASA’s organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as foam did.”

Officials have known for months that a piece of insulating foam material broke away from the orbiter’s fuel tank during launch, struck the leading edge of the left wing and led to its disintegration from the heat of re-entry on Feb. 1.

“Given the current design of the orbiter, there was no possibility for the crew to survive,” the report said.

The space agency lacks “effective checks and balances, does not have an independent safety program and has not demonstrated the characteristics of a learning organization,” the board said in a stinging 248-page report.

In my opinion, the Columbia space shuttle disaster was caused by the government forcing environmentalism on NASA.

A human being has no automatic means to achieve survival and happiness. The requirements for doing so do not exist ready-made in nature. By his nature as a human being, he must PRODUCE the conditions necessary for the highest benefit of his own life. This means that he can not adapt to the environment around him but rather must alter the envrionment around him in order to achieve survival and happiness.

According to the philosophy of environmentalism, the environment has intrinsic value. An intrinsic value is a value which is divorced from reality, from any mention of beneficiaries or valuers. An intrinsic value is something that, according to its proponents, is good regardless of reality. Since the environment, according to environmentalism, is intrinsically good, anything done to alter the environment is intrinsically evil. Therefore, since a human being must alter the environment in order to produce the conditions necessary for the highest benefit of his own life, according to environmentalism, a human being’s existence is inherently evil.

Like most other anti-man, anti-reality philosophies, most of its adherents do not believe in it fully. However, to the extent that a person does advocate the philosophy of environmentalism, they are advocating that human beings do not act to achieve their own survival and happiness. The biggest examples of environmentalist outrage can be seen with technologies and industries which benefit human beings the most at the cost of the highest alteration of the environment; such as genetic engineering, power plants (especially nuclear ones), technology which uses oil (especially SUV’s), medicines and pesticides which cure diseases at the expense of insects and small animals (such as DDT), and many others.

Some environmentalists even engage in terrorist attacks against what they believe to be the biggest threats to the environment.

WEST COVINA, Calif. — Fires destroyed dozens of SUVs (search) and a warehouse at an auto dealership Friday, and vehicles there and at three other dealerships were spray-painted with slogans such as “Fat, Lazy Americans.”

“With all the evidence … it’s highly likely it’s an arson fire,” said Rick Genovese, fire marshal for West Covina, a Los Angeles suburb.

The radical group Earth Liberation Front (search) issued an unsigned e-mail Friday calling the incidents “ELF actions,” and the FBI was investigating the dealership fire as domestic terrorism, Police Chief Frank Wills said.

The underground group has claimed responsibility for a slew of arson attacks (search) against commercial entities that members say damage the environment. It is suspected in a multimillion-dollar arson fire Aug. 1 that destroyed a five-story apartment complex under construction in San Diego, though an ELF e-mail claimed the group had not been in contact with those responsible in that case.

The blazes at the Clippinger Chevrolet dealership broke out about 5 a.m. Friday. Flames destroyed about 20 vehicles, mostly Hummer H2s, which are luxury SUVs patterned after the military’s workhorse Humvee. Another 20 vehicles were badly damaged. A separate blaze caved in a warehouse roof.

There were no reports of injuries, but damage was estimated at $1 million.

One such terrorist envrionmentalist group is the Earth Liberation Front

Earth Liberation Front Guidelines:

* To inflict economic damage on those profitting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment.

* To reveal and educate the public on the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it.

* To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

Through the pressure of environmentalists, the government has enacted a large number of laws aimed at “protecting the environment” by forcing individuals to act against their own judgment.

According to Hannes Hacker at Capitalism Magazine, government edicts in line with environmentalism were the cause of the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters.

Now that a dramatic new test has confirmed that a piece of thermal insulation flaking off of space shuttle Columbia’s external tank during launch was the most likely cause of its destruction during reentry, the typical second-guessing in the press has focused on NASA engineers, asking: “What did Mission Control know, and when did they know it?”

……………

Why did the shuttle’s foam insulation flake off? In response to an edict from the EPA, NASA was required to change the design of the thermal insulating foam on the shuttle’s external tank. They stopped using Freon, or CFC-11, in order to comply with the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an agreement designed to head off doubtful prognostications of an environmental disaster.

But it was the elimination of the old foam that led to a real disaster for the shuttle program. The maiden flight with the new foam, in 1997, resulted in a ten-fold increase to foam-induced tile damage. The new foam was far more dangerous than the old foam. But NASA–a government organization afraid of antagonizing powerful political interests–did not reject the EPA’s demands and thoroughly reverse their fatal decision. Instead, they sought a compromise, applying for a waiver from the EPA that allowed them to use the old foam on some parts of the external tank.

Under the pressure of government edicts, the scientists at NASA were forced to act against their own judgment, and thereby not able to use their minds properly. They were unable to create the safest conditions for the use of the space shuttle because environmentalists, using the gun of the government, forced them to use unsafe products.

The proper response to environmentalism is to reject it outright, to uphold man’s right to produce the conditions necessary for the benefit of his own life by altering the environment around him.

According to U.S. intelligence, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction claimed to exist by the U.S. may have been located.

U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.

Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.

Instead they are located in Lebanon’s heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in tomorrow’s new weekly edition.

The United States has a clear enemy: Islamic fundamentalsm. Islamic fundamentalism is strong in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, etc. The governments of these countries are striving to achieve weapons of mass destruction programs, and firmly support a large number of Islamic terrorists groups including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc. These countries and terrorist groups are also a threat to the state of Israel.

The United States can easily wipe out this enemy. We clearly have the military might to eradicate the governments of these countries and all of the terrorist groups that they support. Combined with the strength of the Israeli military, we could easily eliminate these threats to our country.

Why haven’t we done so? Why haven’t we eradicated the terrorist threat against us? Moral uncertainty. The United States is losing its moral certainty that it has the right, as a free nation, to attack all countries that threaten us. As a result, the leaders of The United States and Israel, instead of clearly identifying the enemy (Islamic fundamentalism) and ruthlessly wiping it off the face of the earth, they fail to identify the enemy and succumb to the pressure of today’s prominent intellectuals who are all proclaiming that reason is invalid, egoism is “materialistic” and “selfish,” capitalism is outdated, and only a “consensus” can determine what is morally right. Our leaders, unable to rebel such a philosophical attack, are failing to uphold the fundamental principles of this country: reason, egoism, and capitalism and are thereby failing to uphold our right to self-defense.

The leaders of our country should repel this philosophical attack, in regard to the war on terrorism, by clearly identifying our enemy and firmly upholding our right to self-defense by eradicating the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and others, and the terrorist groups which are supported by these countries.

President Bush: GO into Lebanon and find those WMD’s. If they aren’t there, then at least we have eradicated more Islamic terrorist scum from the planet.

This is an excellent editorial written by Caroline B. Glick on the true nature of the “cease-fire” (hudna) between the Israelis and the Palestinian terrorists. (Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

It must be wonderful to be Abbas and Dahlan and Arafat. They can stand before the world and be embraced as peacemakers while making war on Israel. No matter what they do, no matter what atrocities they enable or conduct, they will never be blamed. Patience with them will never run out.

Israel’s military successes during Defensive Shield and even the successful operations undertaken yesterday in Nablus, Jenin, and Ramallah make clear that if our leaders would just muster up the will to win, our armed forces will deliver the victory.

A decision to kill, deport, or arrest Arafat and try him for crimes against humanity in an Israeli court of law would be an immediate catalyst for a military operation that would in fact bring this country victory and the security that would ensue. Why is this? Because the only way to win a war is to identify who the enemy is. After 10 years of lying to ourselves, the blood on the streets of our capital city calls out the truth. Hamas and Islamic Jihad could never operate if it weren’t for the PA and Arafat and his new straw men Abbas and Dahlan. The longer our leaders dither and deceive us, the longer our army officers will believe that their work is meaningless and the longer our lives will be at the mercy of our enemies.

Our future lies in the hands of our leaders. Victory is the only option. What will it take for them to find the will to lead us to it?

The answer to that question is: the right philosophy. For too long now, Israel has abandoned the philosophy that it has the right to defend itself against terrorists who initiate force against them. Instead, at the urging of the world (ESPECIALLY the United States) Israel has been bowing down to terrorism and the government that sponsors the terrorists: The Palestinian Authority. This is the equivalent of the United States negotiating with Al-Qaeda to determine how best we can give them what they want (the death of America and the rise of Islamic theocracy). This would be the equivalent of negotiating with Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in order to determine how best we can give them what they want (the destruction of America and the rise of dictatorship). And yet, The United States, which claims to be so emphatically determined to wipe out terrorism wherever it exists, has been urging Israel to negotiate with ITS terrorists.

Israel needs to proudly reject the philosophy which says that one must negotiate with terrorists. Israel must proudly uphold their right to self-defense, their right to kill murderous savages with no concept of individual rights who intentionally murder innoncent women and children. Unfortunately, it appears that the Israeli government is still unwilling to do so. What will it take to convince them that negotiating with terrorists is not a successful policy? How many innocent Israelis must die? How many concessions must the Israelis make? How much land must the Israelis give up?

The Palestinian terrorists, along with the government that supports them, will not cease until Israel is destroyed. The “peace process” and the “cease-fire” (hudna) are merely the new means for terrorists to cash-in on bankrupt philosophy. The Palestinians are MUCH weaker militarily than the Israelis and would have absolutely no chance in a direct confrontation. So, they manipulate the bankrupt philosophy of the Israeli government and get the Israelis to gradually hand over what the terrorists want (the destruction of the state of Israel). They attack the Israelis just enough to get them to submit to negotiatons, then declare a “cease-fire” while Israel gives the terrorists land in return for the “promises” of the Palestinian government to stop the terrorist groups. The Palestinian government does nothing to stop the terrorist groups (and in fact supports them) in order to give these groups enough time to build up their weapons and their strength during the “cease-fire.” Once serious concessions have been made to the Palestinians, the attacks continue. The Israelis retaliate, but not nearly enough to stop the terrorists, and are QUICKLY condemned by the United States and the rest of the world. This pressure from the United States to submit to terrorism causes the Israelis to abandon their self-defense prematurely and committ to a new round of negotiations, and so, the cycle continues.

To the extent that the Israel government continues such a cycle, they will be contributing to the destruction of their country. Israel must proudly uphold its right to self-defense and completely wipe out all of the Palestinian terrorists groups AND the government that supports them: The Palestinian authority. I also fully support Israel’s right to continue on to such countries as Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and others, that either have weapons of mass destruction pointed as Israel now or are in the process of gaining such capability.

To the extent that the United States government continues to advocate that Israel must negotiate with its terrorists, the enemies of The United States will grow stronger. The enemies of The United States will learn that threatening us and attacking us with terrorism will eventually cause us to negotiate with you (as is happening now with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, and many terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda.) The United States too must proudly uphold its right to self-defense and completely wipe out all of its enemies (ESPECIALLY the terrorist organizatons of the Islamic fundamentalist movement and the governments that support them).

Written almost a year ago, this op-ed by Onkar Ghate rings ever true today.

To wage a war in self-defense you must know who your enemy is. But our enemy remains unidentified and, therefore, untargeted. Ours is a war against “terrorism"—a form of violence, not an ideological opponent intent on killing us. Our enemies, however, are dedicated to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, which extols faith, mindless obedience, sacrifice to state and God, primitivism, theocracy. This is why they are at war with the “Great Satan,” America, the foremost embodiment of the opposite values: reason, individualism, the selfish pursuit of happiness, secularism, capitalism. Bin Laden understands this: “Hostility toward America,” he declares, “is a religious duty.” But our politicians, schooled in pragmatism and range-of-the-moment non-thinking, cannot conceive of an ideologically motivated conflict. An individual terrorist brandishing a bomb, like bin Laden, may still be real to them, but the movement for which he fights, Islamic fundamentalism, is not. Thus, we try to kill a few terrorists—but leave untouched the main militant Islamic states breeding the terrorists. We have no long-term plan to achieve victory in the war because we cannot identify the enemy that must be incapacitated. Ask yourself: Would America have been victorious in WWII if our goal had been to destroy “kamikaze-ism,” not Japanese totalitarianism?

………..

Bush—programmed by feelings formed from millennia of assertions that it is evil to uphold one’s own interests, that the strong must sacrifice to the weak, that the meek shall inherit the earth—undercuts any genuine action taken in America’s self-defense. In Afghanistan, for instance, morally unsure of his right to safeguard American lives, Bush feared world disapproval over civilian casualties. He would neither commit the number of American ground troops required to capture the enemy nor authorize the kind of massive bombing necessary to kill the enemy before it fled. The result: hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda escaped to plot further American destruction. In the Middle East, uncertain of America’s right unilaterally to defend its interests, the administration obsesses with “coalition-building” (which includes shunning Israel and courting Saudi Arabia) and refuses to proclaim the superiority of America’s ideals over those of medieval barbarism.

Lacking the moral conviction to uphold its values abroad, America increasingly and self-destructively turns inward, shifting its focus to such relatively trivial questions as whether airline pilots should be armed or government bureaucracies reshuffled. Because of our inaction on foreign soil, we resign ourselves to more terrorist attacks like that of September 11.

How then goes the war? An objective answer must be: badly. But our cause is not yet lost. We lack not the wealth nor the skilled military necessary to defeat the enemy, only the ideas and the will. If we articulate and practice a rational foreign policy, one actually premised on America’s self-interest, we will prevail. Nothing more is needed to achieve victory than to replace the pragmatism and self-sacrifice now dictating America’s actions with the principles of reason and rational self-interest; nothing less will do.

So very unfortunately correct.

This is a great article from Thomas Sowell over at Capitalism Magazine.

Here we are, five months after the war in Iraq began, and we haven’t yet solved all of that country’s problems. Who would have thought that we would?
Apparently a significant section of the American media either thought that we would or is simply piling on the Bush administration, in hopes of bringing back the Democrats in 2004. The New York Times has led the way, managing to come up with at least one negative story to put on the front page almost every day.
When there is nothing bad to report from Iraq, they can always go interview families of soldiers who had been killed before, in order to continue a regular dose of negative news. We have, in effect, our own home-grown fifth column, even if their purpose is not to aid the enemy but to lay the groundwork for next year’s election.
………….
None of this goes unnoticed by our enemies. North Korea could dare to engage in nuclear blackmail, in defiance of overwhelming American strength, only because our internal divisions limit our options politically.
Despite all efforts to defuse the North Korean threat by diplomatic means, force may ultimately be the only language that the North Koreans understand. Unfortunately, there are too many Americans who do not understand that and too many for whom protest and indignation are a way of life – a potentially fatal habit.

I am not sure if the television media’s constant reporting of negatives in Iraq is due to the desire to undermine America, get as much sensationalism as possible, or both. However, the fact remains that the majority of media outlets are not accurately reporting the situation in Iraq.

See “Bush Good, Saddam Bad”

AL HILLAH, Iraq–There’s more to America than New York, Washington and Los Angeles. The same is true for Iraq; there’s a vast country outside Baghdad and the “Sunni triangle” that’s now the center of a guerrilla campaign. It’s understandable that Western press reports are fixated on attacks that kill American soldiers. But that focus is obscuring what’s actually happening in the rest of the country–and it misleads the public into thinking that Iraqis are growing angry and impatient with their liberators.

In fact, there is another Iraq that the media virtually ignore. It is guarded by the First Marine Division, and, unlike Baghdad, it has been a model of success. The streets are safe, petty and violent crime are low, water and electrical services are almost universally available (albeit rationed), and ordinary Iraqis are beginning to clean up and rebuild their neighborhoods and communities. Equally important, a deep level of mutual trust and respect has developed between the Marines and the populace here in central and southern Iraq.

…………..

The “Arab Street” I’ve meet in Iraq loves–that’s not too strong of a word–America and is deeply grateful for our presence. Far from resenting the American military, most Iraqis seem to fear that we will leave too soon and that in our absence the Baath Party tyranny will resume. This sentiment is readily apparent whenever we venture into the city. We don’t make it far outside of our camp before throngs of happy, smiling children greet us.

“Good, good!” they yell, as they run into the street, often oblivious to oncoming traffic. They give us a hearty thumbs-up and vigorously wave and pump their hands. They are eager to see us and to talk with us. To them, it is clear, we are heroes who liberated them from Saddam Hussein.

“Bush good, Saddam bad!” many Iraqis tell us emphatically–and repeatedly. I’m not sure how George W. Bush is faring with the American public, but he’s got a lock on Al Hillah.

Iraqis routinely ask me to “thank Mr. Bush for freeing us of Saddam” and tell me, “We are very grateful, because you have freed us of our worst nightmare, Saddam Hussein.” (A lot of Iraqis speak surprisingly good English because most studied it in primary and secondary school.)

It all reminds me of my experience a decade ago in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Most ordinary Russians, Poles and Czechs hailed Ronald Reagan as a hero for bringing down the “evil empire” when few people had the courage even to call it that.

In much the same way, ordinary Iraqis have a tremendous reservoir of goodwill for the president who coined the term “axis of evil"–and who then acted to eradicate a primary source of that evil.

The Iraqis know who their foes are too. Two Iraqi children once spontaneously shouted to me, “France, Chirac!” while giving the thumbs-down sign and shaking their heads disapprovingly. The children quickly smiled and shouted “Bush!” while punching the sky.

“We are very glad that you are here and we hope you never leave,” Zaid, a 31-year-old mechanical engineer, told me. “If you leave, then there will be more trouble. The Bath Party thugs will take over.”

The truce is over.

This is such ridiculous reporting on the part of Yahoo News.

JERUSALEM - Palestinian militants called off a tattered two-month-old truce on Thursday after an Israeli helicopter killed a senior Hamas political leader with a volley of missiles. Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters marched in protest through the streets of Gaza, vowing revenge.

According to aides, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas had ordered a major crackdown and drew up lists of militants to be arrested, but scrapped the plans after the assassination.

What about the suicide bombing in Jerusalem which killed over 20 including little children? Was that part of the “truce” that the Palestinians were engaged in???

The fact of the matter is that the Palestinian militant groups had no intention of peace with Israel. They have been using this declared cease-fire (hudna) in order to restock their weapons and prepare for more attacks on the Israeli people. As I have stated before, the head of Islamic Jihad has openly admitted this to be true.

The media, the Bush administration, and many others, paint the picture that the Palestinian government is firmly against the Palestinian terrorist groups and has taken large steps to eliminate the terrorists. This is simply not true. The Palestinian government, under Yasser Arafat, has done next to nothing to stop the terrorist groups. In fact, Arafat himself has his very own terrorist group with the mission of destroying Israel, Fatah.
Now that this ridiculous “cease-fire” is over, maybe the Israeli’s will shake off the outrageous demands of the U.S. to negotiate with terrorists and instead destroy the Palestinian terrorist groups and the government that support them: The Palestinian Authority. The new prime minister, Abu Mazen, The new Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, is a puppet of Arafat, and the U.S. now seems to be supporting Arafat, the leader of the terrorist group Fatah who wants to destroy Israel.

I am too disgusted to comment further. The absolute hypocrisy and moral outrage of advocating that Israel negotiate with terrorists while America should fight against terrorists is too sick to contemplate.

I have commented on this disgusting hypocrisy many times before, but I think that this picture speaks for itself.

A monument displaying the Ten Commandments, a fundamental aspect of Catholicism, has been removed from the Alabama Judicial Building.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - State Supreme Court justices overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore on Thursday and directed that his Ten Commandments monument be removed from its public site in the Alabama Judicial Building.

The senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said the eight associate justices instructed the building’s manager to “take all steps necessary to comply … as soon as practicable.”

A federal judge had ruled the monument violates the constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion and must be removed from its public place in the rotunda. He had set Thursday as his deadline, but Moore said he would not move it.

The associate justices wrote that they are “bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it.”

According to the Founding Fathers of this country, every individual has the right to life (and all of its derivatives) which means: the right to take whatever actions one deems necessary for the benefit of their own life as long as they do not violate the right for others to do so in the process. From this right, it was derived that the initiation of force could violate this right to life of individuals, and therefore, the purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force. Unfortunately, while this was the fundamental philosophy behind the creation of America, the Founding Fathers failed to fully implement this philosophy in practice.

As a result of this failure, our country has seen an increase in the government initiation of force against its citizens. The push by many conservatives to incorporate their own religious beliefs into law is one such example of this initiation of force. The Constitution which founded this country, which was based on its fundamental philosophy, clearly stated that the government is FORBIDDEN to officially recognize ANY religion (or atheism either). By attempting to incorporate their own religious beliefs into law, many conservatives are attempting to force the individuals of this country to accept (at least in part) these religious beliefs. Having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is an example of such an attempt.

Therefore, I support the State Supreme Court Justices’ action in removing this monument from the courthouse on the grounds that it represented the initiation of force against the citizens of this country in the attempt to establish an official religion.

This is a very good editorial.

The objective of the terrorists is to make us think what we have done wrong, to wonder what we have done to provoke such a heinous crime. And the answer is always the same. It is not what we, the US, or the UN has done wrong, but who we are and what we have done right. [Emphasis added]

There are two simple lessons from the suicide bombings yesterday in Baghdad and Jerusalem: No one is safe and there is no turning back. Suicide terrorism is the plague of this century. It cannot be escaped, denied, or appeased. It must be defeated.

So far, the terrorists have successfully played divide and conquer. They have first succeeded in convincing the world that terrorism against Israel, while condemnable, is somehow understandable, and that it can be addressed by delivering on supposed “root causes,” such as the call for a Palestinian state. They have also lulled the world into thinking that only those who stand up to them, such as the US and Israel, will be attacked, while those who are willing to resist the war against terrorism will be spared.

Terrorism will be beaten when these twin myths are dispelled. So long as the terrorists see that the world is afraid to take Israel’s side against them, why should they stop? And so long as key European democracies, such as France, will not back concerted action against terrorism-supporting countries in the UN Security Council, why should countries like Iran and Syria change their stripes? We know that Iran, Syria, or both actively support Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, all of which are charter members in the global fraternity of suicide bombers.

Israel is exercising its right to self-defense and planning to attack some of the Palestinian terrorist groups.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon approved a series of military strikes against Palestinian militants in response to a suicide bombing that killed 18 people in Jerusalem, a senior security source said on Wednesday.

The source said the army operations, which could begin as early as Wednesday night and last several days, would go ahead regardless of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’s order for security services to arrest militants behind the bombing.

Good, but not good enough. The typical cycle in this situation seems to be continuing: Palestinians terrorize Israeli’s, Israeli’s retaliate, Palestinians “promise” not to attack again, Israeli’s agree to negotiate (while under severe pressure from the U.S. to do so), Palestinians terrorize Israeli’s, cycle continues. It is my firm belief that the Palestinian terrorist groups have absolutely no intention of peace with Israel, but rather, manipulate the peaceful hopes of the Israeli people in order to secure enough time to rebuild their terrorist forces and weapons so that they may strike again. The head of Islamic Jihad has openly admitted that this is the case. (Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

The Israeli military needs to respond to this farce by completely dismantling ALL of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, including the government that supports them: The Palestinian Authority.

U.S forces have arrested Saddam Hussein’s former Senior Vice President, Taha Yasin Ramadan.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – Iraq’s former vice president Taha Yasin Ramadan is being held in U.S. custody, U.S. military and Kurdish officials told CNN on Tuesday.

Ramadan was the senior of two vice presidents in Saddam Hussein’s regime and had been with Saddam Hussein since the start of the toppled Iraqi leader’s rise to power.

The former vice president is an ethnic Kurd who is believed to have coordinated the brutal suppression of 1991’s Shia rebellion in southern Iraq. He is No. 20 on the U.S. military’s list of 55 most-wanted members of the Saddam regime. He is pictured on the 10 of diamonds in a special deck of cards distributed to U.S. forces in Iraq.

Good. Saddam Hussein, you’re next.

Little Green Footballs is reporting the following story from the Jerusalem Post, about the Israeli response to today’s Palestinian terrorist attack in Jerusalem.

Reacting to the bombing, Justice Minister Yosef Lapid (Shinui) said: “The game is over. The PA can no longer hide behind the word ‘hudna’ without taking strong measures against the terrorist organizations. Abu Mazen [PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas] and [PA Security Minister Muhammad] Dahlan must decide if they want peace with us or peace with the terrorists.

“After this terror attack, Israel will not continue to appease the PA so long as it does not fulfill its responsibilities under the road map.”
Health Minister Danny Naveh said the transfer of cities must be immediately halted and that the attack again illustrates that the PA “does not want, or cannot, fight terror.”

Labor and Social Affairs Minister Zevulun Orlev (NRP) said, “Israel should give Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and PA Security Minister Muhammad Dahlan a 24-hour ultimatum: start dismantling terrorist organizations or Israel will have to do it.” Israeli lives can not be left in the hands of Abbas and Dahlan, Orlev said.

Science Minister Eliezer Sandberg (Shinui) said the attack proves how disconnected Abbas is from reality. He accused Abbas and his government of acting only as diplomats and failing to take the steps laid out for them under the road map.

Members of the Central Likud Committee, following a telephone vote, said that if the prime minister does not respond harshly, Central Committee members will convene a meeting urging Sharon’s dismissal as head of the party and will ask MKs to call for a no-confidence vote in the Knesset.

This is potentially very good news.

Israel is a semi-free repbulic based on the partial recognition of individual rights (the most recognition by far in the area). The Israeli military has one purpose: to protect its citizens from the initiation of force.

There are only two kinds of force: the initiation of force (which means an entity beginning the force) and the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate force. Every human being, by their very nature, constantly chooses between two or more alternatives in action through the use of their own mind. The initiation of force entails the physical compulsion of another individual from being able to make a choice between two or more alternatives. The initiators of force attempt to forbid an individual from making a choice by dictating to that individual what action they must take in some given area. The retaliatory use of force is the response to those who initiate the use of force. This entails doing whatever is necessary in order to stop those who have initiated force.

The Palestinian terrorist groups have one mission: the destruction of Israel. The Palestinian terrorist groups initiate force against innocent civilians by suicide bombing them in the attempt to destroy Israel.

The proper course of action for the Israeli military is to ruthlessly eliminate all Palestinian terrorist organizations and all other organizations which threaten them in order to protect their citizens from the initiation of force. It appears that they may be closer to doing so. I sincerely hope that they are.

Another bomb blows apart a bus in Jerusalem.

Terrorists attack children, children get their faces ripped apart by the shrapnel and flames of suicide bombs, hundreds die over a long period of time. In what sort of sick world do we live in where it is not the terrorists who are blamed for the attack, but rather the people being attacked??? This is what is happening in Israel.

A terrorist slaughters innocent civilians, including blatant attacks on young children, and the blame for such attacks is directed at the country of THE VICTIMS. The world, in response to such attacks, does not support the victims in ruthlessly eliminating the terrorists behind it, but rather screams at them to negotiate with its murderers. What sort of sick and twisted world do we live in where the response advocated by the majority of the world to murder and terror is to bow down and ask for more!?

I can not begin to describe the injustice and the horror of what is advocated by the world for the response to terrorism in Israel.

Today I’ve seen the video of the aftermath of this attack. I’ve seen emergency services trying to recessitate a three year-old girl with her legs shattered and gone, not breathing. What kind of sick person would claim that that girl’s death is not the fault of the terrorist who killed her, but rather, the victims of the attack?

I fully support the Israeli army marching into the Palestinian territories and killing every Palestinian terrorist they can find, and continuing onto every other country that supports the murderers of Israeli civilians.

For people to advocate that Israelis negotiate with their murderers is absolutely sick and disgusting.

President Bush “promises” that U.S. forces will leave Liberia by Oct. 1.

CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush pledged yesterday that American forces would be out of Liberia by Oct. 1 as the Liberian government and rebels signed a peace accord to end a bloody three-year insurgency.
“It’s short-term,” Mr. Bush told Armed Forces Network in an interview he gave Thursday but that was made public yesterday. “We have a special obligation in Liberia to help with humanitarian aid. And therefore we will.”

Mr. President, what “special obligation” to we have to help the Liberians? My guess, is that President Bush believes in altruism, which in foreign relations, says that it is the duty of the powerful nations to sacrifice itself to weaker nations.

We have absolutely no obligation to the Liberians. The purpose of the U.S. military is not to sacrifice itself for savages killing each other, but rather, to protect U.S. citizens.

A suicide bombing has hit the United Nations H.Q. in Baghdad today.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A car bomb exploded in front of the hotel housing the U.N. headquarters on Tuesday, collapsing the front of the building, the U.S. military said. At least nine people were wounded, including the top U.N. official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

I have no love for the U.N., but this is a vicious terrorist attack against people who are trying to HELP the Iraqi people. This is a cowardly attack against civilians and I fully condemn it.

Reports are comning in that Islamic terrorists are coming to Iraq from countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria in order to committ terrorist attacks against coalition forces.

Increasing numbers of Saudi Arabian Islamists are crossing the border into Iraq in preparation for a jihad, or holy war, against US and UK forces, security and Islamist sources have warned.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if these terrorists are receiving support from the governments (at least in part) of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. This latest terrorist attack only reminds me that we must ruthlessly eliminate all Islamic terrorist organizations AS WELL as the governments that support them.

This story about a course on “how to be gay” being taught at the University of Michigan demonstrates the contradiction between public education and individual rights.

A course called “How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation,” scheduled this fall, has reignited a culture war at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
A family-values lobbyist is leading public opposition to the self-proclaimed “uncompromising political militancy” of the professor who teaches “lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender.”
The lobbyist, Gary Glenn, says professor David M. Halperin and the university “are guilty of perpetrating a fraud against UM students and the people of Michigan [with] propaganda statements about so-called cultural studies and academic freedom” as they promote “queer studies” at taxpayer expense.

According to the concept of individual rights, every individual, regardless of sex, race, religion, class, sexual orientation, ideology, etc., has the inalienable right to their own life, which means, the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary to the benefit of their own life, as long as they do not violate that right of others. Based on this concept, the purpose of government is to protect this right to life of every individual.

A corollary of the right to life is the right to property, which says that every individual has “the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.” Every individual has the right to do whatever they want with their own property, and thus, has the right to do whatever they want with their own money. Therefore, every individual has the right to choose to monetarily support a given institution or not to. In the case of education, every individual has the right to choose whether or not to support a given educational facility (and consequently, the ideas which are being taught at that institution) or not to.

According to the idea of public education, every individual has the “right” to an education, and it is the obligation of other individuals to provide for that education (at least in part). Based on this idea, it is the purpose of the government to forcibly take money from certain individuals under their control (through taxes) and give that stolen money to those who have the “right” to an education. Thus, certain individuals in our society are forced by the government to support ideas and institutions which they may not agree with. In fact, it is very possible in many cases that the stolen money taken from these individuals is used to propogate ideas which are the opposite to their own.

Public education clearly violates the right of every individual to their own lives, and consequently, their right to property, which means, the right to use their own material values in any way that they decide to. Those taxpayers in Michigan, such as this lobbyist, Gary Glenn, are being forced by the government to monetarily support ideas which they consider to be evil and detrimental to their own lives. As a result, taxpayers such as Gary Glenn are justifiably outraged that their money is being used to support ideas which they do not believe in.

However, these people do not go far enough. The majority of such people only speak out for the teaching of THEIR ideas, at the expense of the taxpayers, as opposed to another set of ideas. They do not consistently advocate that no individual should be forced to support anything that they do not want to.

Our government says that you do not have the right to use your own mind. You do not have the right to determine what is best for you, you do not have the right to choose who to support and who not to, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE AS YOU SEE FIT. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE. You, according to the government, only have the right to do what they tell you to do. Or you, only have the right to do what the majority of people leaving in a society tell you to do, whose wishes are enforced by the government.

Fortunately, our government does not practice this principle consistently at present. However, the government IS becoming more and more consistent at it, and will continue to do so unless this principle is challenged. The inevitable result of this principle being practiced fully is dictatorship.

By upholding the concept of individual rights, that every individual has the right to their own life, a dictatorship can be prevented from coming to this country. The end of public education is one step in that direction.

The head of the FCC has warned that more government regulation of the economy may be on its way.

ASPEN, Colo. - Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell said Monday the threat of terrorism and the “despicable activity” of some companies has led to a shift toward more regulation that could harm innovation and the economy.

“I do see a mood swing in Washington. I see a mood swing in the country,” Powell said at the Aspen Summit, a technology and telecommunications summit held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Powell said he worries about the rising belief that regulations do a better job than free markets because “the telecommunications sector and the high-tech sector are at a point in history where they can ill afford to be lined up with that kind of thinking.”

This is horrible. The further regulation of the economy will force individuals to not be able to trust the conclusions of their own mind, thus not be able to take whatever actions they deem necessary for the benefit of their own lives, thus destroy progress, technological innovation, and economic prosperity.

Our country is on the road to dictatorship, but it is coming not by an overwhelming army or a solid ideological force but rather by the default of those who compromise, piece by piece, the freedom on which this country was founded. This is just another piece on that road to dictatorship.

President Bush has responded to the massive blackout in the east by saying that the electricity grid “must be modernized.”

Who is going to modernize the power grid Mr. President? The United States government completely controls the energy industry, thus completely eliminating competition and thus eliminating the vast majority of technological innovation, increase in productivity, and increase in the quality of the product that the energy market creates.

It is ultimately the government that is at fault for this blackout, and the response by the majority of government officials so far is not to eliminate the crippling government controls on the energy industry but rather to INCREASE THEM. One such example is current Governor of New Mexico, former energy secretary, Bill Richardson, who suggested that the government pass a massive energy bill that includes mandatory standards of efficiency that energy companies must abide by. Not only does Bill Richardson want to dictate to the energy companies WHERE they provide service, but now he also wants to dictate to the energy companies HOW they will provide service.

This is the attitude that is prevalent among politicians regarding our nation’s energy. They believe, that SOMEHOW, by enslaving the individuals who produce and distribute energy, the energy market will be the most efficient and the product (distributed energy) will be at its highest level of excellence. When the energy distribution begins to fail major cities, these politicians, instead of blaming their crippling government controls, advocate that the government hasn’t controlled the market enough and must introduce new and more crippling controls on the market.
The results of such a policy will be the further crippling of the energy market and a national energy crisis within a decade or so, but only IF such a policy is continued. The government has the ability to release its crippling controls on the energy market and thus open it to competition.
But how does competition yield an increase in productivity, efficiency, wealth, quality of the product, etc? In a free market, a number of individuals are free to join together and form a business venture with the purpose of creating and selling a given product in order to reap a profit and benefit their own lives. Generally, consumers will favor a product that is of the highest quality and the lowest price. Thus, in order to make the most profits, a business must strive to produce their product at the highest quality and the lowest price, and their product must be in demand by consumers.

When another business venture attempts to create the same product that the original business created, and is striving to do so at an even higher quality and lower price, competition ensues. Remember, in order to achieve the best profits a business generally needs to produce the highest quality product at the lowest price. When a number of different businesses are all attempting to out do one another, the result is a gradual increase in product quality, and a gradual decrease in product price.

Competition greatly benefits not only the owners of these businesses but the consumers as well. When a number of businesses are all competing to provide the same or similar product, they are all fighting to provide the consumer with the highest quality product at the lowest price, which as I said, results in the gradual increase of product quality and the gradual decrease of product price. This in itself is an enormous benefit to the consumers who gradually (and sometimes drastically) have the ability to buy a product at a lower and lower price and a higher and higher quality. But also, competition GREATLY affects the overall quality of living of the people in a given market as well by decreasing the costs of important products, increasing their quality, increasing the wages that the successful companies pay its workers, and massive amounts of technological innovation (see the past 100 years of America’s progress for evidence of this).

What is the precondition of competition? Freedom. In order for competition to exist, every group of individuals who create these businesses must have the freedom to take whatever actions they deem necessary for the benefit of their own lives. If the government intervenes in a given market, that market will lose competition to the extent that the government controls it. In a government controlled market, which companies succeed is not determined by their ability to create the highest quality product at the lowest price but rather how much political pull the companies have to the whims of politicians. In a government-controlled market, ability does not create success but rather PULL does. Political pull in an economic market is the ability to persuade politicians to give a certain business unfair governmental favors (such as money) and to restrict competition by striking down the companies that are the best at it (an example of this is the antitrust laws).

Thus, in a government regulated market, the way that a business competes with others is NOT by having the best product but rather by having the most political pull designed to eliminate competition. The result of such a policy? In a government-regulated market, it is not beneficial for a business to create the highest quality product at the lowest price; so, most either do not attempt to do so or are unable to. As a result, all of the stated benefits of competition disappear in such a market, which are replaced by eventual stagnation and recession.

This is what has happened in the energy market. The government has regulated it so much that competition is virtually non-existent. As a result, technological innovation, the increase in product quality, and the decrease in product cost have disappeared. This has also occurred in all of the other utilities such as water, gas, railroads, and the airlines (if some politicians get their way).

The solution? Eliminate the government controls that destroy competition in favor of political pull. Let the energy market be free to compete with each other, thereby gradually increasing the quality of their product and gradually decreasing the cost of their product. More government controls will only cripple the market and result in further stagnation and recession, resulting in an energy crisis if that policy is not reversed.

Mr. President, the only thing that will “modernize” the electricity grid, and prevent the likelihood of these blackouts from occurring again is the full de-regulation of the energy market.

There will be no pay cut for the troops in Iraq.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moving to quash a political firestorm, the Pentagon on Thursday denied that it will cut the pay of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by $225 on Sept. 30 when special military pay hikes approved by Congress are due to expire.

Defense officials said that even if lawmakers do not reinstate increases passed in April in both “imminent danger pay” and “family separation allowances,” the Pentagon will make up the pay losses to troops in those countries in other ways.

Good.

In a scene reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s epic novel, Atlas Shrugged, the skyline of NYC went dark today. While her novel was not meant to be prophetic, it’s not too far off from modern America.

The biggest blackout in history hit the eastern U.S. today.

The biggest power blackout in history hit steamy U.S. and Canadian cities Thursday, stranding people in subways, closing nuclear power plants in Ohio and New York state and choking streets with workers driven from stifling offices.

Officials were looking at a power transmission problem from Canada as the most likely cause, said a spokeswoman for New York Gov. George Pataki. There was no sign of terrorism, officials in New York and Washington agreed.

The blackouts robbed power for millions of people in a broad swath of the U.S. Northeast - stretching west to Ohio and Michigan - and in southern Canadian cities, starting shortly after 4 p.m. EDT. In Toronto, Canada’s largest city, workers fled their buildings when the power went off. There also were widespread outages in Ottawa, the capital.

Power began to come back in some cities as afternoon turned to evening, but officials said full restoration would take hours longer.

What was the fundamental cause of this blackout? The government.

A government is an agent that forces other individuals to do something. A proper government ONLY uses retaliatory force against those who initiate force against the citizens under that government. When the government is extended beyond this purpose (to protect its citizens from the initiation of force) the government NECESSARILY causes stagnation and recession in the area that they control.

As I stated in my 8/5/03 post, Where We Are Headed:

A human being is a being who possesses a volitional consciousness, which means, that the mind does not work automatically, but rather, either a human must CHOOSE to use his mind and try to observe and identify reality correctly, or a human must choose to evade that effort of observing and identifying reality and instead let his mind wander. As an example, think of reading a book. When reading a book, you can either choose to concentrate on what is written as you read down the page, or you can let your mind wander, not concentrating on the words in front of you (have you ever read a page of a book and afterwards thought to yourself, what did I just read? This is what letting your mind wander is like). Since a human being has no automatic means of survival and his mind does not work automatically, the CHOICE to use one’s mind is critical to producing the materials which will benefit his own life which includes everything ranging from the basics such as food, water, and shelter to the advanced materials such as technology, industry, and medicine.

Since a human being needs to use their mind in order to create the materials necessary for the benefit of their own life, and since one must choose to either use one’s mind or not, it follows that one should choose to use their mind as much as possible. What is the precondition for being able to use one’s mind as much as possible? Freedom. In order to be able to use one’s mind to the fullest capacity, and thereby create the best conditions for the benefit of one’s life, one must be able to be free to choose to use their mind or not to use their mind. Why is this? Because the mind and force are OPPOSITES. Force entails the physical compulsion of an individual to act in a given way, against the will of the individual, thus removing the ability for that individual to choose to use their mind or not. Without the ability to choose to use one’s mind, it is impossible for a human being to choose between a number of alternatives (because force entails the physical compulsion to act upon one of those alternatives against one’s will). Thus, it is impossible for any human being that is forced to create the conditions necessary for the benefit of their life.

By regulating the energy industry, the government rendered the individual members of this industry incapable of using their minds properly, and thus, incapable of creating the conditions necessary for the benefit of their own lives (which includes creating the best product in their particular industry: energy).

In a free market, the fact of competition drives certain businessmen (if they want to succeed) to attempt to create the best product at the highest quality and the lowest price. This is a natural result of a free market in which there is no government intervention. In order for consumers to buy one’s product, one has to produce the best product and the lowest price in comparison to the competition. In a government controlled market however, a business does not have to provide the best product at the lowest price, but rather only needs to pull political favors from politicians. This (along with the inability of individuals to use their mind under a governmentally controlled market) results in the stagnation and recession of that given market.

Therefore, this massive blackout was the inevitable result of a continued amount of government intervention in the economy.

The troops in Iraq are now facing a pay cut.

Washington – The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in “imminent danger pay” and $150 a month in “family separation allowances.”

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can’t sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans’ groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

These pay cuts are absolutely wrong in my opinion.

According to my philosophy, the proper role of the government is to protect the individual’s inalienable right to their own life, NOTHING MORE. Any attempt for the government to provide healthcare, welfare, social security, etc., is a violation of another individual’s right to their own life since the only way for a government to fund such programs as healthcare, welfare, and social security would be to force certain individuals (such as the rich) to pay for these programs through taxation.

In a proper system of government there would be only three institutions, all charged with the task of protecting the inalienable right of every individual to take whatever actions they deem necessary for the benefit of their own lives, as long as they do not violate that right of others in doing so. These three institutions would be the military (to protect individuals from foreign enemies), the police (to protect individuals from criminals), and the objective law court system (to protect the contracts of individuals).

We should be pouring as much money into these three institutions of government as we can, so that they may act on the proper purpose of government: the protection of individual rights. Any pay cuts or funding cuts to these institutions in favor of statist programs such as welfare, social security, and medicare are an extreme violation of the proper purpose of the government.

Those people who choose to be a part of these three institutions which make up a proper government should be given the best treatment possible so that the strength of these institutions increases through more membership and higher morale. This is especially important to our military, including those who are fighting in Iraq.

Our status in the War on Terrorism:

Iran: The heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, the leading state sponsor of terrorism according to the U.S. State Department, continues to refuse to hand over top Al-Qaeda officials to the U.S., is currently involved in a nuclear weapons program along with North Korea, has sent a number of militants into Iraq to help Saddam loyalists kill U.S. soldiers, are directly funding many Palestinian terrorist groups, etc. The U.S. response? Nothing.

Saudi Arabia: This country has a number of people sympathetic to the cause of jihad (holy war against all who oppose Islam), and others who are either directly supporting it or are waging jihad themselves. The stolen ("nationalized") Saudi oil fields are a major source of wealth for Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorists who wage jihad against us. (For more, see Robert Tracinksi’s column, Blood for Oil) The U.S. response? Nothing.

North Korea: They are threatening nuclear war against the United States and demand that we continue to give them aid or else they will attack us. As I said in my 7/11/03 post, North Korea Must Be Stopped, the North Korean dictatorship is extorting money from us under the threat of nuclear war in order to maintain their dictatorship. Also, North Korea is trading weapons, including deals for a nuclear weapons program, with Iran, and potentially many other anti-American terrorist organizations. The U.S. response? Appeasement. They are giving in to the North Korean’s demands and calling for talks to negotiate a “settlement.”

The Palestinians: While the Israeli’s and Americans have their heads stuck in the sand and are attempting to change the facts of reality with wishes, the Palestinian terrorist groups are using the “cease-fire” to re-arm themselves and prepare for another series of attacks against Israel. (See http://www.hootinan.com and http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog for more details). The U.S. response? Appeasement. The U.S. is calling for Israel to stop trying to defend themselves and instead give in to the terrorists’ demands.

I could go on and on with a long list of enemies of our country, and the U.S response to these threats, but I think you get the point.

On Sept. 11, it was realized that decades of appeasement and negotiation with terrorists resulted in these groups becoming stronger and more daring to attack the United States. When this was realized, our President promised the end to such a policy. He promised that we would ruthlessly go after the terrorist organizations threatening our country and the states that sponsored them. This has not occurred. After two half-assed campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, Iran, has been left untouched.

Our country has returned to a policy of ignorning threats and the appeasement of terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them. The inevitable result of such a policy, if continued, will be another terrorist attack on our country.

At his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush has signaled that there is no need for further tax cuts at this time. The reason? Not that individual rights are no longer violated by taxes, but rather, that the “goal” of his tax cuts has been realized: the creation of jobs.

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday said he saw no need for a new round of tax cuts since those enacted earlier this year appeared to be working to boost the economy and create jobs.

“This administration is optimistic about job creation,” Bush told reporters at his ranch in Texas after meeting with top economic advisers. “As of this moment … the plans we have in place are robust enough to create jobs.”

This says to me that the fundamental drive behind President Bush’s tax cuts was not the fact that every individual has the right to their own life, which is violated by government taxes; but rather, that it is the goal of the government to manipulate the economy, and the individuals who comprise it, to achieve certain ends. For Mr. Bush, this end is “the creation of jobs,” most likely to serve some sort of altruistic purpose such as the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

It is a sad wake up call to me that very few, if any, politicians today have any idea of fundamental principles whatsoever. Yet another example of this wake up call has been demonstrated by President Bush.

However, there is a fundamental principle driving the policies of Mr. Bush, and almost every other politician today: that it is the purpose of government to force individuals to strive for certain ends. The only disgareement among politicians is exactly WHAT ends these individuals should be forced to strive for. This principle has been the driving force behind every dictatorship in the history of the world. Either this principle will be challenged and defeated in the future, or some form of dictatorship will gradually envelop our country.

This blog of mine is more than just a personal journal or a very informal blog. I take my writing, as well as my ideas, very seriously. I am extremely interested in philosophy, and I am just as interested in discussing philosophy with others. If you read this blog, and you enjoy reading my entries, please feel free to give me lots of feedback. Knowing that there are interested readers out there would give me more motivation to write more entries, so, let’s see some feedback!

P.S. Being that I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism and the trader-principle (that all exchanges between individuals should be a voluntary trade), I welcome payment for my ideas! Just click that little button on the right hand side of my blog, Pay Pal Donate.

Authorities have arrested a man suspected of attempting to bring weapons into the U.S. capable of bringing down an airplane.

Aug. 12 — A British national was arrested this morning on suspicion of being involved in a plot to smuggle a surface-to-air missile into the United States, ABCNEWS has learned.

The man was arrested in Newark, N.J., as part of an international sting conducted by the FBI, British and Russian authorities. The sting began five months ago in Moscow, law enforcement sources said.

The man arrested allegedly sought to smuggle a Russian-made surface-to-air missile into the country, and he believed he was selling the missile to would-be terrorists, sources said. The terrorists were really undercover agents. The name of the person has not been disclosed.

The man, of Indian descent, thought he was dealing with terrorists in the United States who wanted to shoot down a passenger jet, sources said.

While the arrest of this man is a good thing, it is a reminder to me that we can not treat terrorists as isolated criminals. Our government should actively pursue to foil terrorist plots and arrest terrorist cells operating in our country, but their primary means of eliminating terrorism should be the elimination of the primary means of support for these terrorists. The terrorist groups which threaten our country receive a lot of their money, weapons, supplies, and safe-havens from other governments. Our government must investigate and identify these governments for the terrorist-supporters that they are and eliminate them. By eliminating the primary base of support for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, we will greatly reduce the terrorists’ ability to engage in attacks against our country.

But as of now it seems that the current policy of our government is to merely treat these terrorist groups as isolated criminals, which will greatly help their ability to continue to attack our country. Also, our government has even begun to negotiate with terrorist groups, which will only embolden our enemies (see my posts, “Israel is Comitting Suicide” and “The Consequences of Advocating Israel’s Suicide").

What we need to eliminate the terrorist threat against our country is not the arrest of a few isolated individuals but rather ruthlessly eliminating all of the terrorist organizations which threaten us and the governments that support them.

Another ridiculous FCC rule comes into the limelight as the result of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s run for governor of California.

LOS ANGELES - Arnold Schwarzenegger’s foray into California’s gubernatorial recall election poses a dilemma for broadcasters who might be tempted to show his films during the race: Doing so would allow rival candidates to demand equal time.

For that reason, broadcasters in California will likely not air Schwarzenegger movies such as “Total Recall” and the “Terminator” or a repeat of a “Diff’rent Strokes” episode with Gary Coleman for the next few months.

Cable channels are not covered by the Federal Communications Commission’s equal-time provision, which in the past kept reruns of “Death Valley Days” off the air while Ronald Reagan ran for president. A repeat of a “Saturday Night Live” episode featuring Don Novello, aka Father Guido Sarducci, on cable, for instance, would not trigger the provision.
………..
The rule also requires broadcasters and radio stations to offer candidates their lowest advertising rates, a right that would be given to Davis along with the other candidates based on the FCC’s previous ruling.

This is one of the most ridiculous FCC policies that I have seen yet. According to this rule, candidates in a political race should be given “equal time” to speak in a given medium (in this context, television). It is the right of every political candidate, according to this FCC rule, to be given an equal amount of time to speak to the people who will be involved in that particular election. Who is to give these candidates this time? Who is to provide these candidates an equal amount of time to speak? Blank out. The answer to this question is, the owners of certain television stations and television programs will be forced either to provide time to political candidates evenly, in fear of reprimand from the FCC, or the owners must pull their own property off of the airwaves (including, as in this case, movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger).

This is yet another profound violation of individual rights on the part of the FCC. Through this rule, they are violating an individual’s right to decide what to do with their own property, in this context, how to manage their television station, or television program.

According to Robert Novak, a report will come out in mid-September which demonstrates that Iraq was pursuing a weapons of mass destruction program.

The United States absolutely had the right to take down the Iraqi dictatorship, but should we have taken down the Iraqi regime? Was Iraq really an imminent threat, or a threat at all, to the security of the United States?

There are very few people who would attempt to claim that our security is worse off now that we have taken down Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, at this point in time, I do not believe that taking down the Iraqi regime was a very high priority for the security of the United States.

It seems that the rationale behind going after Iraq was that they were developing a weapons of mass destruction program, which, in the hands of terrorists, would prove absolutely devastating to the security of the United States. So, it would be better to take out a potential weapons dealer for terrorists before they have the ability to give such weapons to any terrorist group to inflict harm on the United States. This rationale makes a lot of sense.

While it was clear that Iraq had attempted to amass a weapons program in the past, that the Iraqi regime hated America and its Western allies, and that Saddam would take the chance of inflicting damage to the United States through terrorist organizations, I do not believe that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a so-called “imminent threat” to the security of the United States. Nonetheless, the elimination of the possibility of this threat could have been accomplished A LOT quicker and easier than the 9 month process of begging the U.N. for help, and sending over 150,000 U.S. troops into Iraq. I believe that the fall of the Iraqi regime (or at least the drastic reduction of their threat) could have been accomplished with three bullets to the heads of Saddam, Qusay, and Uday Hussein. This would obviously not require the use of a lot of American troops, and would allow these troops to act against the real security threats to our country. But who are the real security threats to our country?

As I said in my previous post, The War on Terrorism, the biggest threat to the security of the United States at this point in time is Islamic fundamentalism. According to this ideology, America is a “great satan” because of all of its virtues: reason, egoism, capitalism, justice, integrity, etc., and followers must engage in a jihad (holy war) to rid the earth of this evil (America and the rest of the West).

The heart of this movement can be found in the theocratic regime of Iran. This movement also either controls the government of the following countries or is a strong influence in the population: the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the ideology of Palestinian terrorist groups (although their main enemy is Israel), Pakistan, Syria, and others. These are the threats that we should be primarily concerned with at this time (along with the dictatorship of North Korea which is not a part of the Islamic fundamentalist movement).

Iran is a theocratic regime based on the principles of Islamic fundamentalism, Iran is the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, the people of Iran are SCREAMING for the regime to be overthrown, hell, even the grandson of the founder of the Iranian regime, Ayatollah Khomeini, is saying that the Iranian regime should be overthrown.

It would make sense to eliminate the satellite countries of an ideology if the heart of that ideology was an extremely powerful and formidable enemy. However, this is simply not the case. The Iranian regime is near imminent collapse, all it needs is a little blow from the U.S. military.

The Saudi Arabian regime is experiencing the same thing: contiued resistance towards the Islamic fundamentalist leaders of the country, and thus, would easily fall to U.S. pressure.

In conclusion, at this point in time, I believe that it was NOT in the best interest of the United States to invade Iraq. I believe this because of the fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two critical targets in our War on Terrorism, and because of the fact that we could have eliminated the Iraqi threat (at the very least for the moment) by putting a bullet through the heads of Saddam, Qusay, and Uday Hussein.

On Sept. 11, our country received a wake up call. But have we listened? No.

Sept. 11 was not the result of an isolated group of criminals, but rather, the culmination of decades of appeasement towards an ideology: Islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic beliefs dictate that mysticism, collectivism, and altruism are the ideals that should be strived for by the one true faith: Islam. All who disagree with this are infidels, or evil powers, or a “great satan,” etc. The religion of Islam dictates that it is the duty of the members of its faith to declare jihad (holy war) against all those who oppose Islam. Most of the individuals in our world who follow such a religion do not accept that it is their duty to engage in jihad against the opponents of Islam. However, certain individuals DO accept that it is their duty to sacrifice themselves to Allah in order to rid the world of all opponents of Islam.

The clearest opponents of mysticism, collectivism, and altruism would be a country whose fundamental values are reason, egoism, and capitalism. That country, while it struggles with its own philosophy is America. America was founded on the ideals of reason, egoism, and capitalism, and all of the success and greatness that America has achieved has been a result of that. In the eyes of Islam, America is the opposite of everything that they hold to be ideal.

In the past 30 years, advocates of Islamic fundamentalism have gradually increased their jihad on America and other pro-America allies (such as Israel), in the attempt to eradicate reason, egoism, and capitalism from the face of the earth. According to Onkar Ghate in his op-ed, “Don’t Blame Our Intelligence–Blame Our Unprincipled Foreign Policy:

In 1979 theocratic Iran—which has spearheaded the “Islamic Revolution"—stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In 1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept; the explosives came from Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors.
So we already knew that al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacking Americans. We even had evidence that agents connected to al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And we knew in 1996 that bin Laden had made an overt declaration of war against the “Satan” America.

Islamic fundamentalists have been engaging in a jihad against America for a long time now. How did America respond to such a threat?

America either ignored or appeased the Islamic fundamentalists whenever they committed an act of terrorism against us. Instead of eliminating a very weak threat, the American government allowed the Islamic fundamentalist movement to grow in power, despite the attacks against us. In fact, the American government even aided and put into power certain regimes based on a jihad against America! (The rationale at the time was that if we gave power to regimes in the Middle East, they would be able to block the communist advance of Russia and China into the Middle East, which is utterly ridiculous). For further evidence of the results of appeasing and ignoring the Islamic fundamentalists, please consult my 7/30/03 post, The Consequences of Advocating Israel’s Suicide.

As I said, Sept. 11 was a wake up call for all of America. We realized that such a policy of appeasing terrorism will only embolden our enemies and allow them to grow stronger. Thus, President Bush firmly declared that we will hunt down and eliminate terrorist organizations that threaten the United States and eliminate the regimes which support them.

But President Bush has not done so, as I have clearly indicated in many posts here on my blog.

The primary reason why President Bush has failed to do so, in my opinion, is that he has failed to identify that we are fighting against an ideology, not a band of criminals. This ideology, Islamic fundamentalism, is dominant (in some cases in different variants) in places such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Palestinian territories, and many others. The governments of these countries are either controlled or heavily influenced by Islamic fundamentalists, and many support numerous Islamic terrorist organizations.

It seems that the American public has resigned itself to accept that terrorism is an unstoppable force which can only be appeased or “prevented” through things like the Homeland Security department. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, did the American public resign itself to accept that Japanese bombings of America would become a regular occurence? Hell no they didn’t!

Terrorism IS NOT an unstoppable force. Islamic terrorism can be deprived of its power to inflict harm and terror on the United States. But, in order to do so, the policies of the past MUST be abandoned. We must NOT appease terrorist organizations, which means ANY terrorist organization, and we must identify the enemy which we are fighting: Islamic fundamentalism. This means, the end to “negotiations” with the Palestinian terrorists, the identification of the strongholds of Islamic fundamentalism: Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the removal of these regimes.

According to the Securites and Exchange Comission (SEC), several banks have been shifting funds in order to evade income taxes on them.

Some of the nation’s biggest banks have sheltered hundreds of millions of dollars from state taxes by creating investment funds that didn’t sell shares publicly but paid tax-exempt dividends to the banks, Thursday’s Wall Street Journal reported.

A review of Securities and Exchange Commission records shows that at least 10 major banks shifted more than $17 billion into such funds. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) alone transferred at least $8 billion into its fund, sheltering more than $750 million in income from 1999 through last May. The banks contend the funds were legitimate vehicles for raising investment capital, but many appear to have served little purpose beyond sheltering income. In effect, the funds converted interest income from the banks’ loan portfolios into tax-exempt dividends.

I say, GOOD FOR THEM!

The rationale behind the charges leveled by the SEC (and consequently behind the income tax) is that a rich person has no right to their money and should be taxed in order to provide for those who are “in need,” and therefore have a right to that money. This is completely wrong. Every individual, whether they are rich, poor, black, white, atheist, theist, gay, straight, etc., has the INALIENABLE right to their own life, which means, the right to take WHATEVER actions they deem necessary for the benefit of their own life, as long as they do not violate the right to life of others.

Taxing an individual because they are rich is the equivalent of a robber putting a gun to their head and stealing their money. The only difference is that it is done by a group of people (the government) as opposed to one individual (the robber). We condemn a robber for stealing from another, but we praise an act of Congress which does exactly that on a much bigger scale! The average robber may steal thousands from one individual whereas our government steals MILLIONS from many individuals!

I applaud the actions of these banks in firmly rejecting the immoral income tax and upholding their right to their own money.

“The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini the late Iranian cleric who hated America and founded the Islamic state that rules Iran is now blasting his own country’s clerical regime, calling it, ‘the worst dictatorship in the world’ and suggesting that U.S. military force might be needed to remove the regime.”

The heart of the Islamic Fundamentalist movement is SCREAMING to be taken down.

U.S. government: TAKE IT DOWN.

Apparently, in the second quarter, the producivity of our economy is back on the rise.

WASHINGTON - America’s business productivity soared in the second quarter of 2003 and new claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a six-month low last week, a double dose of good news as the economy tries to get back to full throttle.

Productivity - the amount that an employee produces per hour of work - grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the April to June quarter, the best showing since the third quarter of 2002, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That marked an improvement from the 2.1 percent growth rate in productivity posted in the first three months of this year.

What was the primary cause for this increase in productivity? A decrease in government controls on the economy.

As I stated in my 8/5/03 post, Where We Are Headed:

A human being is a being who possesses a volitional consciousness, which means, that the mind does not work automatically, but rather, either a human must CHOOSE to use his mind and try to observe and identify reality correctly, or a human must choose to evade that effort of observing and identifying reality and instead let his mind wander. As an example, think of reading a book. When reading a book, you can either choose to concentrate on what is written as you read down the page, or you can let your mind wander, not concentrating on the words in front of you (have you ever read a page of a book and afterwards thought to yourself, what did I just read? This is what letting your mind wander is like). Since a human being has no automatic means of survival and his mind does not work automatically, the CHOICE to use one’s mind is critical to producing the materials which will benefit his own life which includes everything ranging from the basics such as food, water, and shelter to the advanced materials such as technology, industry, and medicine.

Since a human being needs to use their mind in order to create the materials necessary for the benefit of their own life, and since one must choose to either use one’s mind or not, it follows that one should choose to use their mind as much as possible. What is the precondition for being able to use one’s mind as much as possible? Freedom. In order to be able to use one’s mind to the fullest capacity, and thereby create the best conditions for the benefit of one’s life, one must be able to be free to choose to use their mind or not to use their mind. Why is this? Because the mind and force are OPPOSITES. Force entails the physical compulsion of an individual to act in a given way, against the will of the individual, thus removing the ability for that individual to choose to use their mind or not. Without the ability to choose to use one’s mind, it is impossible for a human being to choose between a number of alternatives (because force entails the physical compulsion to act upon one of those alternatives against one’s will). Thus, it is impossible for any human being that is forced to create the conditions necessary for the benefit of their life.

The more the government controls the economy, the more they force individuals to act against the own conclusions of their mind and thereby reduce their ability to produce the materials necessary for the benefit of their own lives. When an individual is unable to use their mind to their fullest capacity, a society suffers as a whole (since a society is merely the culmination of a number of individuals).

President Clinton, during his presidency, vastly increased the number of government controls in the economy, including education, welfare, social security, and other areas. As a result of this policy of increasing government controls, the individuals in our country were less able to use their own minds properly, and thus, less able to produce the conditions necessary for benefitting their lives, which resulted in a recession.

President Bush, by passing two tax cuts, was able to decrease government control on the economy, which has allowed individuals in our country to be more able to use their minds properly, and thus, more able to produce the conditions necessary for benefitting their lives, which has resulted in our economy moving out of recession.

However, while President Bush has decreased government control on the economy in this regard, he has, and is proposing, to increase government control on the economy in such areas as social security, campaign finance, and others.

Any action which President Bush takes to increase government control on the economy will only decrease our economy’s march out of recession, as well as decrease his chances at being re-elected.

What SHOULD be done is the gradual reduction of government control on the economy in all areas, until the government is completely separated from the economy. I do not believe that the separation of government and economy should be done immediately, because I do not believe our economy is ready for such an action. Think of it as taking a heroin addict off of heroin after being addicted for quite some time. Taking the addict off immediately would most likely result in great harm to the addict, with a decreased ability of being able to recover, whereas, taking the addict off gradualy would most likely result in a better and quicker recovery.

U.S. Forces have landed in Liberia.

Bush on Tuesday authorized the contingent to deploy for logistical support of the steadily building West African deployment.

A senior Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the team could grow as large as 20 in coming days. The official said that the team should not be seen as a vanguard of a larger force.

All I have to say about this is: secure American interests at our embassy there and then get the hell out. Let the barbarians with no concept of individual rights slaughter each other, less morons in the world for the rest of us to deal with.

For the past 200 years, America has been thought of as the greatest beacon of freedom, opportunity, and progress in the world. In this span of time, we have seen a massive increase in quality of life, industry, technology, wealth, progress, prosperity, and happiness. The “American Dream” has been considered by many to be better off than the previous generation, as the result of an ever-increasing level of prosperity. But what is the state of the belief in this dream today? What is in store for the future of America?

First, in order to answer these two questions, one must determine the fundamental causes of all of the prosperity that America has enjoyed in the past 200 years. The answer to this is: America’s philosophy. Throughout the history of mankind prior to the creation of America, the governments of the world reflected a number of different philosophies, however, they all retained one essential characteristic: that the government SHOULD force individuals to apply themselves towards certain ends, forcing those individuals to be unable to use the conclusions of their own mind. America, on the other hand, was the first country to recognize that the government SHOULD NOT force individuals to apply themselves towards certain ends, but rather, should allow individuals to decide what actions to take for themselves (at the beginning of America this principle was only applied to a certain segment of the population, however, this was due not to a flaw in the principle behind the creation of America but rather the failure of the original government of America to institute this principle fully). But what does this profound difference between the philosophy of America and the philosophies of the governments of the past mean?

In order to answer that question, one must first determine the nature of the human mind. A human being is a being who possesses a volitional consciousness, which means, that the mind does not work automatically, but rather, either a human must CHOOSE to use his mind and try to observe and identify reality correctly, or a human must choose to evade that effort of observing and identifying reality and instead let his mind wander. As an example, think of reading a book. When reading a book, you can either choose to concentrate on what is written as you read down the page, or you can let your mind wander, not concentrating on the words in front of you (have you ever read a page of a book and afterwards thought to yourself, what did I just read? This is what letting your mind wander is like). Since a human being has no automatic means of survival and his mind does not work automatically, the CHOICE to use one’s mind is critical to producing the materials which will benefit his own life which includes everything ranging from the basics such as food, water, and shelter to the advanced materials such as technology, industry, and medicine.

Since a human being needs to use their mind in order to create the materials necessary for the benefit of their own life, and since one must choose to either use one’s mind or not, it follows that one should choose to use their mind as much as possible. What is the precondition for being able to use one’s mind as much as possible? Freedom. In order to be able to use one’s mind to the fullest capacity, and thereby create the best conditions for the benefit of one’s life, one must be able to be free to choose to use their mind or not to use their mind. Why is this? Because the mind and force are OPPOSITES. Force entails the physical compulsion of an individual to act in a given way, against the will of the individual, thus removing the ability for that individual to choose to use their mind or not. Without the ability to choose to use one’s mind, it is impossible for a human being to choose between a number of alternatives (because force entails the physical compulsion to act upon one of those alternatives against one’s will). Thus, it is impossible for any human being that is forced to create the conditions necessary for the benefit of their life.

This is the reason why America’s philosophy ushered in the greatest wave of progress mankind has ever seen. America’s philosophy was better than all of the philosophies of the previous governments of the world because America’s Founding Fathers recognized these facts about the nature of the human mind. They realized that in order for a human being (and thus a society of human beings as well) to create the materials which will benefit one’s life, the human mind MUST be free to choose between a number of alternatives and thereby act upon whatever they choose.

Thus, it was FREEDOM which set the preconditons necessary for the highest use of the human mind, and as a result, all of the technological and intellectual innovation ranging from new technologies to industry to a massive increase in quality of life, great growth of wealth, etc. Names such as Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Rockefeller, and Carnegie spring to mind as examples of people who were able to utilize the full capacity of their minds because they were free to act upon their own conclusions rather than be forced to blindly follow the conclusions of others.

Contrast this with the earlier periods of mankind’s history such as the Dark Ages, where there was very little or no freedom throughout the countries of the world, which resulted in a much smaller ability for humans to use their mind to their fullest capacity, which resulted in the brutal conditions of living that are characteristic of periods such as the Dark Ages.

Coming back to the original two questions, what does this all mean for the American dream and the state of America in the future? I have established that it was FREEDOM which was the essential precondition for all of the material progress that America has enjoyed in the past 200 years. Therefore it follows that the future success of our country is very much dependent on the level of freedom which Americans enjoy.

The idea of freedom as the ideal has been rejected by virtually every philosopher and politician in modern times. All of the philosophical principles which underly the concept of freedom, such as the primacy of existence, reason, logic, egoism, and capitalism, are under attack on all sides. The idea now being accepted by the vast majority of these politicians and philosophers is that a “middle-of-the-road” government is the best way to go. Under this middle-of-the-road system, referred to as a mixed economy, the government should initiate force against certain individuals in order to achieve some ends while recognizing partial freedom in the other areas of their lives. The only area of debate is not whether the government should force individuals at all but in what areas of their lives the government should force individuals. (For example, political conservatives in America typically want to directly force man’s mind by controlling things such as morality and religion and political liberals in America typically want to indirectly force man’s mind by controlling his body by deeply regulating his economic business with others.) This premise is UNCHALLENGED by any dominant political party or philosophical system.

To whatever extent a government forces its individuals to act against the conclusions of their own mind, those individuals will be unable to utilize their minds to their fullest extent, and therefore, will suffer. This remains true for every society, in this case America, as well. This is the cause of the drastic reduction in progress, technological innovation, industry, etc., that the American economy has seen in the past 70 years, in which time government actions intended to force individuals to act against their own mind have increased drastically. This is the cause for many people today to cry that the “American Dream is dead.”

As long as the premise that it is good for the government to force individuals to act against the conclusions of their own minds is unchallenged, America will continue to suffer greatly. Right now, that premise is not fully accepted but rather it represents a compromise between freedom and statism (statism is the form of government which believes it is right to fully force its individuals to do whatever the government dictates). This compromise can only last for so long. Either the American government will eventually move closer and closer to freedom (and thus progress as well) or it will eventually move closer and closer to statism (and thus death).

One of the purposes of my blog is to demonstrate how certain current events represent either the move closer to statism or the move closer to freedom. Unfortunately, as many of my posts have demonstrated, as well as the works of Ayn Rand and other Objectivists have demonstrated, we are moving closer and closer to statism.

What can be done to prevent our country’s eventual fall into dictatorship? The rebirth of the philosophy which is the precondition to the acceptance of the ideal of freedom. This philosophy was present during the Enlightenment, but it was not comprehensive enough and it had contradictions, which, the enemies of freedom and man were able to seize upon. The philosophy required to return to the ideal of freedom must demonstrate conclusively, without contradiction, the primacy of existence, the potency of reason and logic, the rightness of egoism, and the potential greatness of man. Only such a philosophy will allow our country to rediscover freedom and escape the death of dictatorship.

Such a philosophy exists. It’s name: Objectivism.

After the Columbia space shuttle disaster, some people were asking, should the government continue to fund space travel? My answer is yes and no.

First in order to demonstrate my view on this issue, I must briefly explain my view on individual rights and the purpose of government. As derived from an objective theory of metaphysics and epistemology, every individual has one fundamental right from which all others are its corollaries or consequences: the right to one’s own life, which means, the freedom to take whatever actions one deems necessary for the benefit of one’s own life, as long as you do not violate that right for others to do so as well. A government is an institution created in order to protect a group of individuals from other individuals who seek to violate their fundamental right to life. Any other institutions, such as social security, healthcare, welfare, etc., require that the government initiate force against certain citizens (i.e. the rich) in order to rund these institutions. Such initiation of force is clearly in violation of the purpose of a government. Thus, the only proper institutions for a government to have are a military (to protect its citizens from foreign enemies), a police force (to protect citizens from criminals), and an objective law court system (to protect contractual agreements between two or more citizens).

This being said, should the government fund a space program? I believe, that based on the proper function of government, that the government should have a space program for military applications only. This includes the development of a “Star Wars” missle defense system, a potential defense against asteroids/aliens (if they do exist), a space-based weapons system, etc. The other side of a space program, space exploration, should not be a government institution but rather a private endeavor.

An extremely important fact of human nature is widely ignored today: that a human being is an integration of both mind and body.

Rival theories in philosophy state that a human being is only a mind, that the physical world is only an illusion, including one’s one body (idealism); a human being is only a mind, the mental world is only an illusion (materialism); and the mind and the body exist in two separate realms (dualism), (along with the many variations of these essential theories).

Objectivism, the philosophy created by Ayn Rand, holds that a human being is an integration of mind and body, which means, that both are critical to his own survival, and both should be exercised to their fullest extent.

This being said, many people today implicitly accept either materialism, idealism, or a hazy combination of both. According to materialism, the mental world is only an illusion, and therefore, the physical is what is really important. People who implicitly accept this idea are generally characterized by being in great physical shape and having great physical abilities but lacking in intellectual prowess and emotional stability. According to idealism, the physical world is only an illusion, and therefore, the mental is what is really important. People who implicity accept this idea are generally characterized by having good intellectual skills, emotional stability, and peace of mind; but lacking in physical abilities and being in good shape. Those who accept materialism seem to implicity scorn the mind, and those who accept idealism seem to implicity scorn the body.

The correct theory concerning the mind and the body is Objectivism, which recognizes the mind and the body as of equal importance to a human being’s survival.

I used to implicitly scorn the material as inferior to the mental, and as a result, I have become quite out of shape physically. Now that I have finally grasped that man is the integration of mind and body however, I will be able to benefit my life much more than I previously could while I believed that only the mental has importance.

This may seem like simple common sense, that one should exercise one’s body and one’s mind, but it is something that many people forget today.

It has come to my attention that my views on the gay marriage situation are not exactly correct. In my previous post on gay marriage, I believed that the legislation proposed by President Bush would make it illegal to be married as two gay individuals. This is not entirely accurate. The controversy is over whether or not gay marriage should be legally recognized as the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

If a company, such as an insurance company, sets different business policies for single individuals as they do for married individuals, a federal standard of what constitutes being single and what constitutes being married needs to be objectively defined in order to legally protect the contract of the individuals involved.

Currently, marriage is a contract which is legally recognized as the union between a man and a woman. This contract is legally protected by the federal government, and is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman in which they can be recognized as one legal entity.

Based on my current knowledge, it seems that gay rights advocates are attempting to have the federal government legally recognize that marriage between two gay individuals is the same as marriage between two heterosexual individuals. This is wrong. If marriage between two gay individuals is to be recognized, it must be recognized as a different legal contract than the contract between two heterosexual indivduals.

If gay marriage were to be federally recognized as the same thing as heterosexual marriage, the rights of businesses would be violated because they would be forced to contract with gay married individuals in the same way as heterosexual married individuals, which violates the right of the businesses to dictate their own contractual terms.

Therefore, I support that the federal government recognize homosexual marriage, however, I strongly advocate that homosexual marriage be recognized as a separate contract than that of heterosexual marriage.

Lately there has been talk from President Bush and other conservatives such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist about introducing legislation to federally restrict the institution of marriage to hetereosexuals.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage “is between a man and a woman.”

Bush said it is “important for society to welcome each individual,” but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another,” Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. “And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”

This is blatant discrimination and a violation of individual rights. Every individal, by their nature as a human being, have the right to their own life, which means, they have the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary to the benefit of their own life, just as long as they do not violate this right of others in the process.

It is more than just “important for society to welcome each individual.” Rather, it is the obligation of a proper government to recognize the individual rights of EVERY human being, whether they be gay, black, atheist, or a member of any “unfavorable group” to a given politician. President Bush is attempting to inject his personal morality, based on the religion of Christianity, into law, which will force all individuals to follow this morality themselves. Such forcing of one’s personal morality into law is the equivalent of putting a gun (the power of the government) up to a gay person’s head and forbiding them to use their mind to come to their own conclusion about what course of action is best for the gay person and their lover (in this case, regarding whether or not it is most beneficial to get married.)

There is only one thing that the government has the right to punish people for, and that is violating the individual rights of others. Being gay, or wanting to be married if you’re gay, is not a violation of anyone else’s rights. In the case of President Bush, it is in violation of his personal morality, but this does not make it right to pass it into law.

I am a heterosexual, and I am not particularly favored to homosexuality. However, this opinion of mine is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to whether or not gays be should be allowed to be gay, or be allowed to be married. The personal opinions or morality of political officials DO NOT determine the rights of individuals. Nor does the personal opinions or morality of American citizens determine the rights of individuals. Even if a majority of people in this country felt the same way as President Bush, these gay people still have their right to be gay and right to be married.

One might ask me, you do not have a favorable opinion towards homosexuals, why would you support their ability to be married? Why not allow the government to direct legislation towards these people? The answer is, I regard the right to life as inalienable, and it is extremely important for the protection of my own rights that EVERYONE’S rights are recognized as inalienable as well. As soon as the government is allowed to restrict some people’s individual rights, it is only a matter of time before my rights are infringed upon as well, as long as the premise that it is ok for the government to do so is not challenged.

This is what it means to have the inalienable right to life. It means that no other individual or group of individuals, no matter how large or powerful, has the right to deny you your right to life, to deny you the ability to choose whatever course of action you deem to be beneficial to your life as long as it does not violate that right of others to do so as well.

I staunchly oppose any legislation designed at excluding gay people from being allowed to wed and I hope that there are enough decent people in Washington who agree.

Many Palestinians are brutal terrorists hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and The United States of America.
This slideshow, courtesy of Little Green Footballs, demonstrates how these sick people teach their children to hate Western values and to love violence, terrorism, and death.

This slideshow is truly sad, but I recommend viewing it in order to understand the true nature of these Palestinian terrorists.

Think about these pictures when you hear about the “legitimate aspirations of a Palestinian state.”

As I indicated in my previous post, President Bush is advocating a course of action which will ultimately lead to the death of Israel. Unfortunately, there are more severe consequences to this course of action than the mere death of Israel. By advocating that Israel negotiate with terrorists, President Bush is severely threatening the security of The United States.

I’d like to emphasize some points from my previous post which will also serve the purposes of this one.

There are only three responses to the initiation of force (or the threat of the initiation of force): to ignore it, to appease those who are initiating the force, or to retaliate against those who are initiating the force in the attempt to eliminate the force.

Let’s take a look at a child throwing a temper-tantrum. Ignore the child, and the child continues to throw the temper-tantrum for an extended period of time until the child feels like stopping, at which time, much damage has been done. Appease the child, and the child learns that throwing a temper-tantrum can get them rewards from their parents. Punish the child, and the child learns that throwing a temper-tantrum is not the proper way to get what one wants.

This is a proper analogy to what happens when a nation either ignores, appeases, or retaliates against, the initiation of force from another nation. If a nation ignores the initiation of force, there is nothing to stop the initiators from completely destroying the nation. If a nation attempts to appease or negotiate with the initiators of force, it is possible that the violence may stop in the short-term, but what message will this send in the long-term? It will tell the initiators of force that initiating force is a successful policy to engage in if they want to achieve their goals. This only emboldens these initiators of force to engage in future acts of force, because there is nothing stopping them. When they initiate force, they will not be punished, but rather rewarded with certain things offered up by the nation being attacked in exchange for the end of the intiation of force. If a nation retaliates against those who initiate force against them, it will end the initiation of force in the short-term, and in the long-term, it will send the message to those who initiate force that that policy is not beneficial towards achieving their own goals, and will only be met with severe punishment.

Prior to Sept. 11, since the beginning of the Islamic Fundamentalism terrorist movement, the United States either ignored Islamic terrorism or appeased it.

In 1979 theocratic Iran—which has spearheaded the “Islamic Revolution"—stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In 1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept; the explosives came from Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors.
So we already knew that al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacking Americans. We even had evidence that agents connected to al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And we knew in 1996 that bin Laden had made an overt declaration of war against the “Satan” America.
But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah? Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No—our responses were short-sighted and self-contradictory.
For instance, we initially expelled Iranian diplomats—but later sought an appeasing rapprochement with that ayatollah-led government. We intermittently cut off trade with Iran—but secretly negotiated weapons-for-hostages deals. When Israel had the courage to enter Lebanon in 1982 to destroy the PLO, we refused to uncompromisingly support our ally and instead brokered the killers’ release. And with respect to al-Qaeda, we dropped a perfunctory bomb or two on one of its suspected camps, while our compliant diplomats waited for al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks to fade from the headlines.

Sept. 11 was the result of this policy of ignoring and appeasing these terrorists who initiated force against us. By not responding to and eliminating the threat of Islamic terrorism, we emboldened the terrorists to engage in more and more severe attacks against us, and to continue their efforts free of any sort of punishment. By appeasing terrorists in certain cases, such as the taking of American hostages in Tehran, we sent the message to terrorists that attacking us through terrorism will get them rewards and very little punishment, if any.

When Sept. 11 occurred, it was evident that this policy of ignoring and appeasing terrorism had completely failed, and only a policy of ruthlessly going after all the threats to our country would achive peace and prevent any future terrorist attacks. President Bush gave lip service to this in his initial remarks after the Sept. 11 attacks. Also, he went after the main home of the Al-Qaeda organization and the dictatorship that was supporting them, the Taliban. After a pitiful campaign against them, in which we allowed thousands of Taliban and Al-Qaeda members to escape and a complete failure to capture Osama Bin Laden, President Bush promised that we would continue to eliminate all terrorist threats.

Since Sept. 11, our government, under the leadership of President Bush, has done a terrible job of eliminating the terrorist threats against our country. And now it appears as though the “war” on terrorism is becoming the “negotiation” with terrorism. This can be seen with President Bush’s policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of eliminating the terrorist organizations which carry out attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel should, according to President Bush, negotiate with the terrorists, essentially, appease them by giving up some of their land to the terrorists. This is equal to giving Al-Qaeda some of what it wants, dead American citizens.

It now sadly appears that we are returning, after a pitiful short period of retaliation against terrorist threats, to appeasing and ignoring terrorist actions. Instead of identifying and then eliminating the terrorist threats and the governments which support them around the world, the U.S. government has now begun the process of negotiating with these threats to our country and the threats to our allies. The evidence of this is clear with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the North Korean situation, and our policy on Iran. We have told the Israeli government that we do not support their own “war on terror” but that they should rather give in to the terrorists’ demands. The North Koreans are threatening the United States with nuclear weapons, and instead of eliminating the source of this threat, we are now attempting to appease the North Koreans with food deals, monetary aid, and even a non-aggression pact, all of which will allow North Korea to remain a dictatorship and to continue to produce nuclear weapons. Most importantly, President Bush believes that the Iranian regime can be overthrown by “peaceful means,” as he indicated this morning in his press conference. This is the equivalent of stating during World War II that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime can be overthrown by peaceful means. While the size of the threat of Iran is greatly smaller than Hitler’s Nazi Germany was, the Iranian regime represents the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, and the heart of Islamic terrorism.

Sadly, it appears as though President Bush believes that Islamic terrorism can be defeated by appeasing them. He belives that Islamic terrorism can be defeated in the Palestinian territories by appeasing them, it can be defeated in Iran by appeasing them, in Saudi Arabia by appeasing them, in Pakistan by appeasing them, etc.

What is going to be the eventual result of this policy of appeasement and ignoring terrorist threats? The strengthening of the Islamic terrorist movement, their belief that initiating force against us will yield positive results, and future terrorist attacks against us.

By negotiating with the Palestinian terrorists, as opposed to ruthlessly eliminating them, Israel is putting itself on the course to committing suicide.

There are only two kinds of force: the initiation of force (which means an entity beginning the force) and the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate force. Every human being, by their very nature, constantly chooses between two or more alternatives in action through the use of their own mind. The initiation of force entails the physical compulsion by one individual or group of individuals meant to force another individual or group of individuals from being able to make a choice between two or more alternatives in some aspect or all aspects of their life. The initiators of force attempt to forbid an individual from making a choice by dictating to that individual what action they must take in some given area. For example, an individual may be trying to decide between spending their money for themself or giving it to someone else. The initiation of force would entail an individual or a group of individuals forcing this individual to either spend their money for themself or give it to someone else, against the free will of that individual. So, the important point here is that the initiation of force physically forces another individual or group of individuals from being able to fully use their mind to make choices.

The retaliatory use of force is the response to those who initiate the use of force. This entails doing whatever is necessary in order to stop those who have initiated force.

In most wars or “conflicts,” one nation initiates force against the other. There are only three responses to the initiation of force (or the threat of the initiation of force): to ignore it, to appease those who are initiating the force, or to retaliate against those who are initiating the force, in the attempt to eliminate the force.

Let’s take a look at a child throwing a temper-tantrum. Ignore the child, and the child continues to throw the temper-tantrum for an extended period of time until the child feels like stopping, at which time, much damage has been done. Appease the child, and the child learns that throwing a temper-tantrum can get them rewards from their parents. Punish the child, and the child learns that throwing a temper-tantrum is not the proper way to get what one wants.

This is a proper analogy to what happens when a nation either ignores, appeases, or retaliates against, the initiation of force from another nation. If a nation ignores the initiation of force, there is nothing to stop the initiators from completely destroying the nation. If a nation attempts to appease or negotiate with the initiators of force, it is possible that the violence may stop in the short-term, but what message will this send in the long-term? It will tell the initiators of force that initiating force is a successful policy to engage in if they want to achieve their goals. This only emboldens these initiators of force to engage in future acts of force, because there is nothing stopping them. When they initiate force, they will not be punished, but rather rewarded with certain things offered up by the nation being attacked in exchange for the end of the intiation of force. If a nation retaliates against those who initiate force against them, it will end the initiation of force in the short-term, and in the long-term, it will send the message to those who initiate force that that policy is not beneficial towards achieving their own goals, and will only be met with severe punishment.

This being said, it is right for a nation, under the initiation of force from another group of people, to retaliate in order to eliminate the threat and to send the message that the initiation of force will not achieve the goals of any nation. The message that is sent by retaliating against the initiators of force is absolutely critical to maintaining peace for one’s nation in the future. By retaliating against all those nations which initiate force against it, it sends the message that there is nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from initiating force against them. Retaliation thereby not only eliminates the current threat, but greatly helps to prevent future initiations of force that other nations may think to engage in.

Israel, in its history, has understood that the retaliation against those who initiate force is the best way to achieve long-term peace. Time and time again they have responded to the Palestinian terrorist attacks against them, not by attempting to negotiate with the terrorists, not by ignoring the terrorists, but by attempting to eliminate the threat and send the message that the terrorist attacks will achieve nothing. However, in recent times, there has been pressure from many outside nations, especially the United States, to appease the terrorists that are attacking them by negotiating a “peace deal” with them. And now, buckling under the pressure of international opinion, they have begun the process of doing so. What will this accomplish? It is possible that in the short-term, such a deal with the Palestinians will decrease the amount of violence against Israeli citizens. However, in the long-term, it will send the message to the Palestinians that terrorizing Israeli’s is a successful policy for achieving whatever they want. Kill some Israeli civilians and the Israelis will give us more concessions.

The possibility that appeasing initiators of force will reduce attacks in the short-term is only a possibility. In the case of Israel, I do not believe it is. In fact, I believe firmly that the retaliation against the Palestinians is the best course of action for achieving peace. In support of this position, I offer the following article, War for Peace by Robert Tracinski

In March, 108 civilians were murdered and more than 500 injured in terrorist attacks on Israel. Another 22 soldiers and three policemen, by my count, were also killed. It was the climax of Yasser Arafat’s uprising and the bloodiest month of terrorism in Israel’s history.
The terrorist attacks came almost daily, targeting Israelis going about their normal business. On March 2, 10 Israelis were killed—including two infants in strollers—when a terrorist from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade blew himself up outside a bar mitzvah. On March 5, three people were killed and 30 injured when an officer in the Palestinian naval police opened fire on a seafood restaurant and nightclub in Tel Aviv. On March 9, two people were killed in a sniper attack near the boardwalk in the resort town of Netanya.
That same day, 11 more Israelis were killed by a Hamas suicide bomber at a sidewalk cafe in Jerusalem. On March 20, seven people died when Islamic Jihad blew up a bus on its route from Tel Aviv to Nazareth. On March 26, international observers from Turkey and Switzerland were shot and killed in an ambush by Palestinian gunmen. This is just a sampling of the terror campaign that reached its peak with the Passover Massacre. If the U.N. wants to investigate massacres, they should start with this orgy of killing.
On March 29, when Israel began its invasion of the West Bank, French President Jacques Chirac sniffed, “Everyone knows there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in the Middle East.” I’m sure that’s what his predecessor said, six decades ago, about Germany.
The facts have proved him wrong.
About 30 Israeli soldiers were killed in Operation Defensive Shield—not many more than in the preceding month. But the number of civilian deaths has dropped dramatically. In the past four weeks, there have been only three significant terrorist attacks. On April 10, a Hamas bomber blew up a bus, killing eight off-duty soldiers and policemen. On April 12, a zealot from Islamic Jihad shot an Israeli border policeman and a Palestinian worker at a border crossing. Later that same day, a bomber at a bus stop killed four Israelis and two foreign workers from China.
In the past two weeks, from April 13 to April 26, only two Israelis have been killed. One was a soldier, the other a member of the border police. Not a single civilian has been killed. The barrage of murder has been stopped, for now.
Through war, Ariel Sharon has achieved what he could not even get as a show of good faith from Palestinian negotiators: seven days of quiet. He bought this respite the only way anyone can ever buy peace from terrorism: by killing the terrorists, seizing their stocks of explosives, taking away their guns and imprisoning (or at least “isolating") their leaders.

The alleged goal of the Palestinian terrorist groups is the complete destruction of Israel. The deal being brokered now between the Israelis and the Palestinians is essentially this: the Israelis will give the Palestinians land in exchange for the Palestinians promising that they will not attack the Israelis. But why stop there? After this deal is completed (if it is completed), why don’t the Palestinians continue their terror attacks against Israel and get more land, and then more land? It appears that the Palestinians have every intention to do so. And why not? There is nothing stopping them, as long as Israel refuses to retaliate against them.

Israel: recognize your right to defend yourself against terrorists who initiate force against you, and recognize that the complete elimination of all the Palestinian terrorist groups, and all of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups is the only way to achieve long-term peace for your country. Recognize that the decision to negotiate with terrorists is the decision to committ suicide.
America: recognize that Israel has the right to defend itself against initiators of force, allow the Israeli army to march through any country which initiates force against them, and recognize the complete hypocrisy of advocating the destruction of all terrorist groups attacking America but at the same time advocating that Israel negotiate with the terrrorists attacking them.

I hold that the only way to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian situation is for the Israelis to respond to the initation of force (the terrorist acts against them) by ruthlessly eliminating all of the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians and refusing to negotiate with terrorists.

I’d like to offer you some links and articles in support of this position.

First, I’d like to offer The Ayn Rand Institute’s website dedicated to the moral defense of Israel

Ayn Rand Institute’s In Moral Defense of Israel Web page was created to explain why Israel has a moral right to exist and to defend itself against attack, and why the United States should unequivocally support Israel.

Israel and those who attack it are not moral equals. Israel is a free, Westernized country, which recognizes the individual rights of its citizens (such as their right to liberty and freedom of speech). It uses military force only in self-defense, in order to protect itself.

Those attacking Israel, by contrast, are terrorist organizations, theocracies, dictatorships and would-be dictators. They do not recognize the individual rights of their own subjects, much less those of the citizens of Israel. They initiate force indiscriminately in order to retain and expand their power. In contrast to the state of Israel, such organizations and regimes have no moral right to exist.

Fundamentally, Israel is the target of these organizations and regimes precisely because of its virtues: it is an oasis of freedom and prosperity in a desert of tyranny and stagnation. If Israel is destroyed, the enemies of freedom attacking it will be able to turn their full attention to the United States. The United States must not let this happen.

In America’s war against terrorism, it is imperative that America distinguish friend from foe, good from evil, the opponents of terrorism from the perpetrators. In the name of justice and self-preservation, therefore, America should uncompromisingly encourage and support Israel in the common fight against the enemies of freedom.

On this page you can find numerous articles concerning Israel’s moral right to exist, Israel’s moral right to self-defense against the Palestinians, the identification of Palestinians as terrorists, how President Bush’s peace plan will fail, the nature of pacifism, etc.

Pacifism necessarily invites escalating acts of war against anyone who practices it.

Bush’s Vision For Peace: Prelude To War

Israel Has A Moral Right To Its Life

War for Peace

Allowing Israel to Destroy the PLO Helps Defend the U.S.

I highly recommend not only all of the articles I’ve mentioned here, but all of the articles on the ARI medialink webpage

The parents of the Oberlin High School District in Oberlin, Ohio are angered that a white man may be teaching Black History.

This is utterly ridiculous. The attitude of these parents indicates the clear racism which is still apparent in our society today. The fundamental idea behind the attitudes of the parents is the faulty premise that one’s race determines one’s character, personality, principles, and intelligence. The objection of these parents, in my opinion, is primarily fueled by the idea that this white man is not qualified to teach black history because of the fact that he is white.

This excerpt from the end of the article is appalling.

“When you talk about slavery, students need to understand it is not our fault,” she said. “Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be enslaved.

“How do you work through that when the person teaching it is the same type of person who did the enslaving?”

I can not believe that such utter racism still passes for decency. The last sentence specifically implies that a white man is somehow partly responsible for the wrong choices of not only his direct ancestors, but every single person who has shared his skin color since the history of time.

Racism is the theory that a person’s character, personality, principles, intelligence, and other such traits are determined not by the free choices of every individual but rather they are automatically determined by one’s race. Racism denotes such a theory when applied to a member of any race, not just the member of the African-American race (even though, historically, they were the victims of racism very often).

Therefore, it is pure racism to claim that a white man is not qualified to teach a class merely because of the fact that he is white. A teacher’s qualifications have to do with their teaching ability, intelligence, knowledge of the subject being taught, etc., but NOT their race. Claiming that a teacher’s race is a good qualification for their being a good teacher is assuming that their intelliegence, teaching ability, and knowledge of the subject being taught are due to their race, and not their freely chosen values and principles. That is pure racism, and should be clearly condemned.

I condemn the opinions of these parents.

President Bush has set a plan in motion to “reform” Amtrak.

WASHINGTON - A new Bush administration proposal for Amtrak’s future could end the government-subsidized railroad’s monopoly on intercity passenger rail travel, a congressional supporter says.

This is not enough Mr. Bush. You need to completely eliminate all government intervention into the economy. However, this is no easy task, and not something that can be done overnight. Continue to reduce the role of government in the private lives of American citizens, and the business pursuits they choose to engage in, but do not rest until the government has been completely removed from the economy.

This story makes me sick to my stomach.

LONDON (AFP) - Human induced global climate change is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical or biological arms, a leading British climate scientist warned.
He said the United States, in an “epic” abandonment of leadership, was largely responsible for the threat.
“Like terrorism, this weapon knows no boundaries,” Houghton said. “It can strike anywhere, in any form – a heatwave in one place, a drought or a flood or a storm surge in another”
……
“Once this killer heatwave began to abate, 1,500 people lay dead – half the number killed outright in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre,” Houghton said.

To equate global warming with terrorism is morally reprehensible and absolutely disgusting. Terrorism is the result of fanatical ideologies which resort to the initiation of force (namely, fear, and terror) in order to try to force a certain ideology on others. Terrorism is the result of the CHOICES of reprehensible human beings. Global warming (to whatever extent it exists) is an unfortnuate consequence of man’s improving his own existence through industry, technology, and progress. But global warming, and other such potential harmful environmental problems (if they do exist) are not inherent consequences of industry, technology, and progress, as many environmentalists claim. Any such problems (if they do exist) can be solved by the very things which it is alleged have caused them: technology, industry, and progress. These solutions to environmental problems (if they do exist) can only come about when the essential requirement of man’s existence and the use of his mind is fulfilled: freedom. Only a system of freedom, in which the government recognizes the right of every human being to use their own mind however they want, will produce the results necessary to eliminate any potential environmental threats to mankind. This system of freedom, is laissez-faire capitalism.

But the environmentalists do not advocate what is required for human beings to be able to create new technology, industry, and achieve continual progress; laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, many environmentalists advocate that human beings “return to nature,” by drastically reducing the amount of energy, industry, and technology used and change in their economies (to either a mixed economy or some form of socialism). This essentially means trading most or all of the increases in quality of life that we, The United States, have experienced in the past 100 years. It also means a profound violation of the inalienable rights of human beings to their own life.

The equation of global warming, caused by the United States according to this scientist, with the thousands of deaths caused by terrorists is sick. What this scientist is attacking is not environmental problems which pose a grave risk to human beings but rather the progress, the quality of life, and the achievement of The United States. This scientist is attacking everything which makes America great, and all of the causes for America’s achievement of greatness in the past 100 years.

Disgusting.

I continue to hold that the foreign policy of the United States Government is dangerous to the security of the citizens of the United States, and is failing the purpose of the military branch of a proper government: to protect the individual rights of its citizens. I have written about this subject on 7/24, 7/18, 7/17, 7/11, 7/9, 7/7, 7/4, 6/29, and 6/28.

In this post, I’d like to offer two excellent articles recently written by members of the Ayn Rand Institute in support of my position.

Don’t Blame Our Intelligence Agencies–Blame Our Unprincipled Foreign Policy

September 11 was not the first time America was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists engaged in “holy war” against us. In 1979 theocratic Iran—which has spearheaded the “Islamic Revolution"—stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In 1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept; the explosives came from Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors.
……..
But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah? Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No—our responses were short-sighted and self-contradictory.
…….
Unfortunately, little has changed since September 11. Our politicians’ actions remain hopelessly unprincipled. Despite the Bush administration’s rhetoric about ending states that sponsor terrorism, President Bush has left the most dangerous of these—Iran—untouched. The attack on Iraq, though justifiable, was hardly a priority in our war against militant Islam and the countries (principally Saudi Arabia and Iran) that promote it. Moreover, when Bush does strike at militant Islam, he does so only haltingly. Morally unsure of his right to protect American lives by wiping out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Bush feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties. Consequently, he reined in the military forces (as he also did in Iraq) and allowed numerous Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters to escape. And Bush continues to allow their comrades-in-arms in the Mideast to go unharmed. He pretends that the Palestinians and Islamic militants attacking Israel—and who have attacked Americans in the past and will try again in the future—are, somehow, different from the killers in Afghanistan and deserving of a “peace” plan.

Foreign Policy and Self-Interest

America was founded on the recognition of each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that the government may not treat the citizen as a serf–as someone who exists to serve the needs of others. Rather, each citizen is a free, sovereign entity, entitled to live his own life for his own sake. No matter how loudly some people may wail about their need for your services, you are your own master. That is the meaning of your inalienable rights.
Those rights are contradicted by a foreign policy that makes Americans sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, such as the Liberians.
When the government of a free country performs its proper functions, it uses force only to protect its citizens’ freedom. When the lives or property of Americans are at risk from some aggressor-state, our government uses force in retaliation, to keep its citizens free–free to pursue the goals and values that advance their lives.
This is what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We need a principled foreign policy based on the idea that the purpose of the U.S. Government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, which not only promises to do so, but actually acts in accordance with what is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

After reading this article, I am predicting that the third Harry Potter movie will be horrible.

The first two Harry Potter films, “The Sorcerer’s Stone” and “The Chamber of Secrets,” both directed by the family-friendly Columbus, were earnestly mainstream affairs. Some critics shrugged, but each film grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide. Now, with the series’ two lightest chapters out of the way, the stage is set for an adventurer like Cuaron, who got an Oscar nomination last year for the teen-sex romp “Y Tu Mama Tambien.” By now, every fan of the franchise has torn through the thunderous new book, “The Order of the Phoenix,” at least once, meaning the onus of keeping the insatiable Potter machine humming is about to shift back to Hollywood. Chronicling the erotic adventures of two Mexican teens might not seem like a job qualification for a Harry Potter movie, but hey, give Warner Brothers credit for showing some chutzpah.
…..
set designer Stuart Craig labored to avoid a “pretty, chocolate-box” village, creating a main street that swerves zanily. Honeydukes, the candy store, is floor-to-ceiling psychedelia, with tangles of licorice and—a Cuaron touch—Mexican skulls made of sugar.
…..
Cuaron also reimagined the role of Professor Dumbledore after Richard Harris’s death. British actor Michael Gambon now plays the Hogwarts headmaster as an elegant old hippie [Emphasis added]. Cuaron’s outspokenness is also new to the franchise. Does the evil wizard Voldemort still remind him of George W. Bush, as he said recently? “In combination with Saddam,” he says. “They both have selfish interests and are very much in love with power. Also, a disregard for the environment. A love for manipulating people. [Emphasis added] I read books four and five, and Fudge”—Rowling’s slippery Minister of Magic—”is similar to Tony Blair. He’s the ultimate politician. He’s in denial about many things. And everything is for the sake of his own persona, his own power.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong, becuase I thoroughly enjoyed the first two films. What angers me the most at this news is the “reimagination” of Professor Dumbledore as an “elegant old hippie.” I really hope that the personal views of this idiot (the director) do not harm the story further than indiciated in this article. Regarding my prediction that this third movie of the Harry Potter series will be horrible, I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

Lance Armstrong, cyclist, recently won his fifth straight Tour De France.

PARIS –– Sipping champagne to celebrate, Lance Armstrong won his hardest but sweetest Tour de France title Sunday — a record-tying fifth straight victory that places him alongside the greatest cyclists ever.

The 31-year-old cancer survivor and Spanish great Miguel Indurain are now the only two riders to win the sport’s most grueling and prestigious race five times in a row — a record Armstrong plans to break next year.
…..
The indefatigable Armstrong overcame illness, crashes, dehydration, team and equipment problems and uncharacteristic bad days during the 23-day, 2,125-mile clockwise slog around France to win by his smallest margin — 61 seconds over five-time runner-up Jan Ullrich of Germany.

Congrats on the victory!

We went to war with Iraq, we removed a dictator from power and removed one out of many threats to the United States (and as a secondary consequence, freed the Iraqi people). In my opinion, Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of the United States, but rather a potential threat.

All dictatorships, by their very nature, pose a threat to the security of the free nations of the world. As I indicated in my July 11th post, North Korea must be stopped:

Every dictatorship, by its very nature, must survive by looting others. The government of a dictatorship does not have the means to produce anything, so it must take money from its citizens in order to fund its operations. This entails the initiation of force against the citizens under this dictatorship. The force involves making citizens physically unable to reap the full benefits of their own labor, which as a result, causes the individual to be unable to fully use their mind to the extent that they are physically forced. An individual is unable to use their mind when they are forced because of the very nature of the human mind. The human mind is volitional, which means, one must choose to think or not to think. A human being can not choose between two or more alternatives when they are forced to act on one of those alternatives.

Freedom is an essential requirement of an individual’s survival, and therefore the survival of a society as well. To the extent that a society is not free, that society will suffer the consequences of not being able to survive. For an indvidual, not being able to use his own mind means that he will be unable to produce the conditions required by his nature as a human being in order to survive. Because of this fact, in a dictatorship, where there is little or no freedom, the conditions of the dictatorship will increasingly worsen.

The only way for a dictatorship to survive is to loot from either its own citizens or the citizens of other countries. One of the prime methods of doing so, besides appealing to altruism, is threatening the use of force and essentially extorting money, supplies, and sanction, from free nations. The only way for a dictatorship to be able to do so however is by amassing enough military power to be able to make their threat of force credible. The standard way of doing so in the past was to amass a large military and engage in a war with a large number of soldiers. However, these days are past. Now, instead of attempting to amass such a large military (which is no easy task), a dictatorship can develop weapons of mass destruction which are much more persuasive as a credible threat, especially nuclear weapons. Once a dictatorship has obtained these weapons of mass destruction, they can threaten the use of these weapons and offer, in exchange, the promise that they will not use the weapons just so long as certain free countries (such as the U.S.) continue to provide them with money, supplies, and the promise that they will not oppose their regime. (see the current situation with the U.S. and North Korea for evidence of this)

This means that dictators, with weapons of mass destruction, will be able to maintain their power by extorting funds from free nations through the threat of force, free nations will ignore the threat and suffer the consequences (many deaths), or free nations will attempt to eliminate the threat (which would result in many deaths of soldiers and an increased number of soldier deaths due to the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used.)

It is not a question of if dictators will threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction but rather of when. The when is determined by many factors such as size of the country, length of time the dictatorship has been in power, resources the country possesses which can be looted by the dictatorship, etc. However, at some point in the life of a dictatorship, they must find an additional source for their looting besides the people, otherwise this source would be sucked dry. If they do not get this looting source from the veil of altruism, they will inevitably turn towards getting what they need through forcing other citizens outside their country. Evidence of this can be seen across time. It is no coincidence that the biggest dictatorships in our world’s history all attempted to amass the largest armies and military power in the world.

Does this mean that World War III is inevitable, in which the outcome will be decided by chemical, biological, or even nuclear war? No, it does not have to be that way. We have the power NOW to eliminate those regimes which are attempting to amass large military power through weapons of mass destruction. We have the power NOW to prevent World War III. In order to do so, we must stop funding dictatorships, ALL dictatorships. This is done in two ways. First, we stop providing dictatorships with aid either for the government itself or for its citizens. As sad as the situation of citizens under a dictatorship may be, giving them aid allows the dictatorship to concentrate on building its weapons rather than feeding its people. If no aid were to be given to the citizens of a dictatorship, either more money would have to be spent on feeding the people (which means less money on weapons) or the people would revolt against the dictatorship if they were starving. Second, we must not allow any dictatorship to achieve a weapons of mass destruction program, especially, nuclear weapons. This means eliminating the weapons program of specific countries BEFORE they get any weapons of mass destruction.

This is exactly what we did with the recent war with Iraq. We removed a potential threat and the potential ability for Saddam Hussein to extort money, power, and sanction from the countries of the world. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had a fully developed weapons program or a budding one is irrelevant. What is relevant was that he was attemping ANY weapons program at all, and this is incontrovertible, as seen over the past 12 years. All of this talk now about exaggerating the case for war and Bush and Blair lying to the world, is utter nonsense. I do not believe that anyone in the Bush administration perceived Iraq to be an “imminent threat.” And I do not believe that Iraq was an imminent threat. But shouldn’t that be a great thing? There are so few countries that pose an “imminent threat” to U.S. security, and now, instead of looking only for “imminent threats” we can eliminate all threats before they balloon into imminent threats.

Does this mean that we should attack all of the dictatorships in the world? No, absolutely not. All that is needed to end the vast majority of the dictatorships in our world is for the free nations to stop funding them. Most dictatorships, without the support of world aid under the veil of altruism would collapse within a matter of years. In those few situations where the country of the dictatorship has a vast resource to loot, such as the Middle East and the oil resources, the United States should use force where it is necessary to protect the interests of the United States by preventing the ability for dictators to extort money from us, which is exactly what we did in Iraq.

Today we hear numerous times that our government wants the rest of the world to enjoy “democracy” as the United States does, and that the system of democracy is the best there is. This representation of the American system of government as “democracy” is inaccurate, and democracy is not an ideal system at all. In fact, a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship.

In the system of democracy, the dictates of a certain majority determine what is right and what is wrong for the government to do. So, the purpose of the government in a democracy is to do anything that the majority (the people) wants them to do. If the majority decided that an individual in their society was “undesirable,” they could vote to have that individual executed, or imprisoned, or punished in some other way. An example of such a society was that of Ancient Greece, where the majority of Greece citizens voted to execute Socrates (considered to be the first major philosophical figure) because he advocated “unpopular” views. Or, the people could vote to enslave a section of society, or slaughter a group of society, any horrible thing they wanted to do as a “majority.”

Therefore, in a democracy, a human being does not have inalienable rights but rather is “provided” with their rights according to the majority, which can be revoked at any time whenever the majority dictates it. This means that, in such a society, you would only have your freedom by permission. You would only have “permission” to live and to pursue your happiness as long as a majority of people will it. Such a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship because there is absolutely no protection of the biggest minority in a society, the individual.

What makes the American system of government distinctly free is the fact that this country is founded on the profound notion that every human being regardless of race, sex, religion, etc., has certain inalienable rights: the right to life, and all of its deriviatives, the right to property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (While this notion was not completely recognized by the American government at our foundation, this profound notion was still the philosophical cause for the formation of our government).

This means that the American system of government can not be referred to as a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there is an exact constitution which determines the powers of government and how such a government recognizes the inalienable rights of its citizens.

However, in America today, our system of government has become a combination between the dictatorship of a democracy and a free constitutional republic. According to the founding of this country, every individual has the right to their own life, which means, the right to be free from the initiation of force from others and that every individual has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary by their own independent judgment to be beneficial to their own life as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. Today however, while most people still retain the protection of their rights, if people get a large enough group together and pressure their elected representatives, many times they “persuade” their elected representives to push for new laws which violate the rights of some individuals for the benefit of some group. For example, enough poor people get together to form a large enough majority, and then persuade their representatives to violate the rights of certain rich individuals by forcibly taking their money and giving it to the poor people (income taxes). In this example, a certain majority gets together and decides that they want to force certain “undesirables in society” (the rich) to do whatever the majority wills (they will that the rich do not really “need” all that money, so there is no problem in stealing portions of it from them).

The blatant violation of individual rights is not merely limited to the issue of income taxes. There are numerous other issues (and many more pending by more and more groups) which violate and threaten to violate the rights of individuals. These groups believe that a certain end is desirable and thereby attempt to amass a large enough majority in order to force the rest of the country to achieve that end by “persuading” their elected representatives to pass new laws doing so.

In America today, both “the right” and “the left” have accepted the premise that it is right for the government to force individuals to pursue certain ends regardless of whether or not those individuals choose to do so. The only difference between “the right” and “the left” is about in what ways the government should force individuals and violate their rights. The right typically believes that the government should leave individuals free in most economic affairs but should heavily legislate morality (religion, sexuality, abortion, etc.) The left typically believes that the government should leave individuals free in morality but should heavily legislate economic affairs.

The essential characteristic of a dictatorship is a certain group forcing all of its citizens to achieve ends regardless of whether or not the citizens choose to do so or not. Which group is doing the forcing determines what kind of dictatorship it is, but it still remains a dictatorship nonetheless. Therefore, a democracy IS a dictatorship, because in a democracy, the actions of individuals are not determined by the choices of the individuals themselves but rather a certain group, in this case, a majority.

The premise that the government should force individuals to achieve certain ends is the premise of only one kind of society…dictatorship. Fortunately, America has not accepted this premise fully…yet. However, as long as this premise in our society goes unchecked, a dictatorship will ultimately be the result.

Reports are coming out that we have killed Saddam Hussein’s two sons: Uday and Qusay Hussein! This is a great victory for the United States in our campaign against Iraq, and it should signal the beginning of the end of attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Also, the death of these two murderous savages is a great victory for justice and good.

For those of you who do not know me, I consider myself to be a student of Objectivism. But what exactly is Objectivism? Objectivism is an integrated view of existence, a philosophical system, which defines their view on everything in philosophy ranging from metaphysics (the study of existence) to aesthetics (the study of art/).

Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:

“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:

Metaphysics

“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology

“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Human Nature

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
Ethics

“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics

“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
Esthetics

“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself — not as a means to any further end.”

Note: In my opinion, in order to properly refer to oneself as an Objectivist, one must know the entire philosophy and agree with the entire philosophy as well. Objectivism is the philosophy formulated by Ayn Rand, not whatever aspects of Objectivism one accepts minus that which one disagrees with. Therefore, since I do not yet know the entire philosophy, I can not yet agree with the entire philosophy (one can not agree with what one does not know), so I refer to myself as a student of Objectivism.

Check out Peter Schwartz’s latest op-ed on the foreign policy of the United States.

Those who claim that the United States has a moral obligation to send troops on a “humanitarian” mission to Liberia have it exactly backward: our government has a moral obligation not to send its forces into areas that pose no threats to America’s well-being. It is America’s self-interest that should be the standard for all foreign-policy decisions–and not just because such a standard is practical, but because it is moral.
America was founded on the recognition of each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that the government may not treat the citizen as a serf–as someone who exists to serve the needs of others. Rather, each citizen is a free, sovereign entity, entitled to live his own life for his own sake. No matter how loudly some people may wail about their need for your services, you are your own master. That is the meaning of your inalienable rights.
Those rights are contradicted by a foreign policy that makes Americans sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, such as the Liberians..

A very good op-ed piece from Peter Schwartz, it is highly worth the read.

I do not believe that we are currently being tough enough in Iraq, and I do not believe that merely sending more troops over there is going to do the job.

What do we need in order to stabilize Iraq, make it safer for American troops and Iraqi citizens, stop the attacks against American troops, and find Saddam Hussein and his sons? A better philosophy. First of all, we need to be a lot tougher in Iraq: we need to hunt down and eliminate those who wage war against the troops in Iraq. I believe that our troops in Iraq have been doing so to some extent, however, our government is too worried about being perceived as invaders instead of liberators, and too worried about civilian casualties. The major problem with our past two military campaigns, in my opinion, is that we have been way too soft on our enemies. As soon as the Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s regime were officially out of power, we essentially treated every combatant in Afghanistan and Iraq as an equal Afghan or Iraqi citizen, rather than classify them as a threat or not a threat. Instead of coming down hard on issues such as rounding up weapons, eliminating opposition groups, etc., we essentially let many of the opposing armies retain their freedom, as well as their capability to strike American troops. Additionally, the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan remain virtually entact and free from control. As a result, the ability for small opposition groups to strike American troops has been greatly increased. This however, is not the major problem.

The major problem with our reconstruction of Iraq is the complete lack of a comprehensive philosophy to guide its reconstruction and stabilizaton. Our government has given lip service to such ideas as freedom, liberty, democracy, individual rights, etc., but I believe that the true definitions of these words have long since been lost in the minds of the individuals who make up our government. What is sorely needed in order to properly reconstruct Iraq (as well as this country) is the discovery of what these words actually mean and to actually implement them.

In order for Iraq to become a truly propserous country, the concept of individual rights must be recognized. Every human being, by their very nature, has one fundamental right, from which all others are the result: the right to their own life. This means that every human being has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary for benefitting their own life, just as long as they do not violate that right of any other individual or group of individuals. The recognition of individual rights on the part of the government does not mean that the government provides its citizens with the right to their own life, but rather that they recognize that every single human being has that inalienable right. As a result of this, the only proper function of a government is to protect the individual’s right to their own life.

But this right to life is not a self-evident truth, it rests completely on a solid theory of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, something which only a comprehensive, objective philosophy can provide. Today this is virtually forgotten and ignored by the politicians who control our government and those in the rest of the world as well. In modern politics, the trend in determining the justness of a given government is not if it properly recognizes individual rights but rather if it was chosen by a majority of the people that the given government governs. This is completely wrong. Something is not correct merely because a majority of people say it is correct, this is a simple fact of reality. 2+2 does not equal 5 because a majority of people or a dictator says it does. 2+2 equals 4 because of the facts of reality which exist independently of any individual’s consciousness, that is to say, existence has primacy over consciousness. A wish from an individual does not make something true in reality, and neither does a wish from a group of individuals make something true in reality either.

U.S. Government, and governments of the world: the only way to truly achieve peace in our world is through the discovery of the proper philosophy. Philosophy is not some parlor game that intellectuals like to play in their ivory towers which has absolutely no effect on reality. Philosophy is an inescapable need of human existence, due to the fact that a human being is a being of volitional consciousness (free will). A philosophy is an integrated view of existence, it is the ultimate guide in a human being’s life as to which of many alternatives they should choose in all of their actions. This being said, philosophy is the prime mover in an individual’s life and therefore in society as well. An individual’s philosophy determines whether or not they enjoy success or not in their life. A world’s philosophy determines the success it achieves, whether or not peace is achieved, whether or not the human race prospers or not, etc.

This sounds like quite a task to be achieved, that is, the determination of the best philosophy for human beings. But alas, the job has already been done, that philosophy has already been discovered, and that philosophy is Objectivism.

Two Democrats propose jail time for those who swap music and movie files on peer-to-peer netwroks such as Kazaa.

Face it folks, swapping mp3’s and movie files IS stealing, if those files are unlicensed by the artist, meaning, if the artist did not consent to the distribution of his property in that given medium. Put yourself in the position of the artist in this situation. Imagine spending years of your life painstakingly developing a given talent (such as singing, performing an instrument, creating a movie, etc.), only to be told that you have no right to trade that talent with others as performed in a given medium. Imagine being told that you have no right to be compensated for all of your effort. Imagine, having your art being physically taken from you and distributed to anyone who wants it, without your consent.

When did theft stop being punished by the law in America? Apparently, in America, theft is not theft when it is done by a large group of people. A robber steals the purse of an old woman in a dark alley, it is called theft; millions of teenagers steal the property of an artist, it is called “swapping.” A burgular comes into the home of a rich family and steals their prized possessions, it is called theft; politicians steal the earned money of a large number of rich individuals, it is called “redistribution of wealth.” It is said by some of these groups that they have a “right” to what they are stealing because of the fact that they are a group, whereas those individuals who steal do not have such a right because they are an individual.

As Ayn Rand’s famous words demonstrate,

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action–which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life…The concept of a “right” pertains only to action–specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive–of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligatons on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

A group, contrary to much of modern philosophy, is not a living entity but rather the culmination of a group of individual entities. Therefore, there are no “rights” of a group separate from the rights of individuals. In the words of Ayn Rand, “Any group or ‘collective,’ large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the ‘rights’ of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking.”

Thus, no group of individuals has the right to violate the rights of individuals merely because they are a group. No group has the right to proclaim that they have the right to violate the rights of individuals merely because of their existence as a group of individuals. Therefore, those who engage in unlicensed file swapping on peer-to-peer networks have no right to steal the property of artists and swap it, politicians have no right to steal money from the rich individuals of America, nor does any single group have the right to engage in the violation of any individual’s rights.

The swapping of Mp3’s IS a violation of the individual rights of the artists whose property is stolen. By downloading their music and using it for your own purposes, you deny the ability for the artist to choose the method by which a voluntary trade is enacted for their property. Instead, by downloading their music, you steal their property and give them nothing in return. By engaging in this action, you profoundly violate the artist’s right to their own life, to take the actions necessary to support, further and enjoy one’s life, and to be free from physical compulsion.

A human being, in order to survive, and live their life to the fullest, must use their own mind constantly, which means, they must constantly choose between two or more alternatives in action. A simple example of this would be choosing to eat food that is beneficial to one’s own life or poison. By being physically forced to perform a given action, a human being is completely unable to choose between two or more alternatives because the alternative which they must perform is dictated to them through force. In accordance with the above example, physically forcing an individual to eat poison means denying that individual the ability to choose between food and poison, which means, denying that individual the ability to choose to live.

In the same token, stealing the property of an individual denies them the ability to use their own mind, to choose actions which will benefit their own life. Identify the violation of individual rights for what it is, whether it is done by an individual or a group of individuals. The mere fact that it is a group of individuals rather than a single individual violating individual rights does not make it right.

A document links Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden.

President Bush has alleged that this connection exists, now there is proof.

This is by no mean what “morally justifies” the action against Iraq (see my July 7th post, War With Iraq: Justified?), but rather it is a piece of evidence which supports that it was in our self-interest to take action against Iraq.

Check out this story from a North Korean defector.

“Many North Koreans believe that the United States is their savior and the only nation that can liberate North Korea,” he said. The flood of hate-America propaganda from North Korea represents only the relatively small number of people around Kim Jong-Il, he said.

“We cannot expect to bring down the regime of Kim Jong-il by internal means,” Park said. “A pre-emptive U.S. strike against selected targets inside North Korea will succeed,” he said.

“U.S. strikes against North Korean targets would force Kim Jong-il to seek asylum in China. Kim is a coward. If attacked, he will flee. The North Korean army would not fight after the regime collapsed,” he said.

We need to take out the nuclear capability of North Korea immediately, before they have the full nuclear capability to blackmail the United States for foreign aid.

Every dictatorship, by its very nature, must survive by looting others. The government of a dictatorship does not have the means to produce anything, so it must take money from its citizens in order to fund its operations. This entails the initiation of force against the citizens under this dictatorship. The force involves making citizens physically unable to reap the full benefits of their own labor, which as a result, causes the individual to be unable to fully use their mind to the extent that they are physically forced. An individual is unable to use their mind when they are forced because of the very nature of the human mind. The human mind is volitional, which means, one must choose to think or not to think. A human being can not choose between two or more alternatives when they are forced to act on one of those alternatives.

Freedom is an essential requirement of an individual’s survival, and therefore the survival of a society as well. To the extent that a society is not free, that society will suffer the consequences of not being able to survive. For an indvidual, not being able to use his own mind means that he will be unable to produce the conditions required by his nature as a human being in order to survive. Because of this fact, in a dictatorship, where there is little or no freedom, the conditions of the dictatorship will increasingly worsen; first, with the government sucking the life out of its citizens until there is little left; second, the looting of another group of individuals in order to survive, and continuing to do so until either the government is destroyed by an outside power or there are no more groups left to loot, which would result in the destruction of the dictatorship as well.

Every dictatorship today attempts to survive through two means: conquest of other nations, or mooching aid under the veil of altruism from powerful countries. Centuries ago, there were numerous dictatorships who survived by the means of the first, conquest of other nations. In modern society, war is heavily frowned upon and may bring immediate sanction from many others in the world. Now, most dictatorships turn to the second method. They appeal to the alleged “duty” of the freest nations of the world (which are also the most successful) to pour money into their dictatorship. One reason why some claim that the successful nations of the world have this is duty is because of the false idea that wealth is fixed, and when one country gains wealth, it is taking wealth away from others. Thus, the economically successful nations have a “duty” to “give back” what they have expropriated from third world countries.

As a result of this alleged duty on the part of the successful nations, these dictatorships have found a new source to loot from. Now, these dictatorships play on the “guilt” of the economically successful nations and are therefore able to survive as a parasite for a long period of time. This is readily apparent with the situation with North Korea. North Korea however doesn’t only live off of the second method of mooching, but the first as well. The people of North Korea are starving, which is a regular condition of a dictatorship. In response to this, nations such as the U.S. provide aid to North Korea so that the people of North Korea will not starve to death, which on the face of it, seems like a very humane and benevolent thing to do. However, this action of giving food aid to North Korea allows the dictatorship to continue its existence. Instead of having to be concerned with feeding its starving population and deal with rising desent because of it, North Korea can pour a lot of money into its military. If North Korea (and all other dictatorships like it) can amass a large military force, or a large amount of power through nuclear weapons, they can extort more money from the economically successful nations of the world. This is exactly what is happening with the U.S. and North Korea today, and in the past 50 years.

Jimmy Carter, the alleged genius of peace, brokered such a deal with the North Koreans many years ago. In exchange for “promising” not to continue to amass a large military and nuclear weapons program, Carter delivered aid to the country (he also made similar “deals” with many other dictatorships). The same happened again in 1994 with Bill Clinton. It was discovered that the North Koreans were reconstituting their nuclear weapons program and other such programs designed to gain power. In response to this, Clinton brokered a very similar “deal” with the North Koreans, allowing them to continue to stay in power.

Now, the same situation is happening again. We have discovered that the North Koreans are very close to achieving a full nuclear weapons program, and they are threatening to attack South Korea, Japan, and the U.S., unless we continue to give them aid. Currently we are engaged in “multilateral discussions” with the North Koreans. This simply means that we are discussing new means by which the North Koreans will extort money from us. It amounts to the United States saying: there is no need for you to develop a nuclear weapons program in order to extort money from us, we will give you money without any such threat, we will allow you to continue to murder and torture your people, free of charge.

The foreign policy of the United States is an unspeakable evil. All across the world, we deliver aid to similar dictatorships in similar situations. Many believe that our giving aid to the people of brutal dictatorships is a wonderful, benevolent thing. But, it is not. Giving aid to the people under dictatorships is a sanction of those very dictatorships. It allows those dictatorships to maintain power and continue to kill its people. What is more beneficial to these people, temporary aid which will result in the furtherance of the dictatorship or taking action to rid the country of dictatorship? By not giving aid to the citizens or the government of a dictatorship, we remove the main source of power from which these brutal dicatorships survive. Now, it is not the “duty” of the U.S. to rid the world of dictatorships. However, it is certainly not right for the U.S. to be supporting them either.

The North Korean situation is just one in many where the United States is directly aiding brutal dictatorships. We put Saddam Hussein into power, we put the Taliban into power, we support the terrorist group the Palestinian Authority, and we support, and have put into power, countless others.

What should we do to change this policy? The immediate rebuttal of all of our previous foreign policy actions regarding the sanction of dictatorships, and the full condemnation of every single dictatorship in the world. This entails removing all aid from every single dictatorship, and taking action against those dictatorships in which it is in our self-interest to do so, such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and others.

Our response to extortion should not be appeasement, but rather elimination of the threat. Therefore, we should immediately eliminate the North Korean threat by removing all aid to their country, and striking their nuclear weapons capability, which, as a secondary consequence, will free millions of people from brutal dictatorship.

This is a God damn shame.

Today, July 9th, marks the day of the scheduled attack on the theocratic regime of Iran.

As Daniel Pipes demonstrates, the regime of Iran has been waging war on America since 1979.

Iran, not Iraq or Afghanistan, is the heart of the Islamic Fundamentalist movement, and the heart of Islamic terror waged against America.

Not to mention that the people of Iran are screaming for the overthrow of the theocratic regime to be replaced by a system of freedom.

What has the U.S. Government done about this? Virtually nothing. There are no known plans to fund such an action by the Iranian people against its government, and there are no known plans concerning military support either. The United States government has the perfect opportunity to eliminate the heart of Islamic terrorism and they are doing nothing! Instead, we are planning on sending troops to Liberia, in order to play peacekeeper between a bunch of savages murdering each other, which has absolutely nothing to do with America’s security.

What could possibly be causing our government to take such an absurd course? The lack of moral certainty. When we were attacked on 9-11, on the day of the attacks, and the many days after, our President stood morally firm in the rightness of eliminating terrorism wherever it exists. Our government stood morally firm on the idea that the United States has the right to attack any nation who harbors any terrorists whatsoever. Our first action in that moral stance was our attack on Afghanistan. We attacked and eliminated the terrorist regime of the Taliban a month after the terrorist attacks, without consulting any group authority.

But what happened after our victory in Afghanistan? Our government completely lost its moral certainty. Instead of standing up and declaring that the United States has the right to eliminate any terrorist state, they went to the United Nations to beg for approval in eliminating the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein. After 9 months of begging, we finally decided to “go it alone.” But even then, the official party line was that we were not really going it alone, but rather we were going with the “coalition of the willing.” After the regime of Hussein was disposed of, things got even worse. Even when we were begging the U.N., we were still somewhat dedicated to killing terrorists. Now, in the wake of the Second Gulf War, we are now openly negotiating with terrorists (the Palestinians).

How could we have possibly gone from having the moral certainty of acting alone, to having to beg some group authority, to negotiating with our enemy? In World War II, would the United States have attacked one of Germany’s satellites, then begged the rest of the world to keep doing so, and then started to negotiate with Germany? Absolutely not!

There are numerous reasons why this course of action has occurred. The first, is the failure of the U.S. government to name its enemy: Islamic Fundamentalism. This is a deep-seeted and powerful movement in the vast majority of Arab countries. Instead, we hear the official party line that “Islam is a peaceful religion” and these terrorists are just a few isolated people, rather than an ideology.

The second, is the lack of moral certainty. What has caused this? Decades of bad philosophy. Across modern philosophy today we hear that there are no absolutes, so there can be no moral certainty. Everything is relative, it is said, no morality is better than another. In translation, this means that a person who likes to rape and murder and torture children is no worse than an American citizen. Since there are no absolutes, no individual has the ability to determine moral judgment. In the same token, according to modern philosophy, no one single nation has the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. Only a consensus of many nations has the ability to determine right from wrong. From this, we see the constant whining from many nations about U.S. unilateralism and how in order to morally justify our actions it must be approved by a consensus (The United Nations, NATO, EU, etc.).

To fully demonstrate how moral certainty can be reached by an individual would take a long time, however, one very simple point can demonstrate the error in the bad philosophy explained above. Take the statement “there are no absolutes.” This statement itself is an absolute statement, declaring, that there are no absolutes. It is a self-defeating statement. If there are no absolutes, how do we know that there are no absolutes? Additionally, there is a fundamental flaw in the idea that a consensus is able to reach moral certainty. If, according to modern philosophy, there is no way for an individual to determine moral judgment, this means that there is no way for any group to arrive at correct moral judgment either. A group is not a living entity, but rather the culmination of a number of individuals. There is no United Nations or United States apart from the individuals that make up those groups.

What should the United States do to fix all of these complete absurdities? The U.S. government should remember the lesson it learned on the day of Sept. 11, 2001: that there are many individuals and many groups in the world who would like to see either the U.S. destroyed, or suffer a loss of its greatness; and the United States has the right to find these people and eliminate their threat. The U.S. has the moral right to act in self-defense, by eliminating every single state that harbors and/or supports terrorism.

United States government: Take this opportunity to re-assert our right to eliminate terrorist states. Take this opportunity to identify our enemy as the Islamic Fundamentalist movement, and realize where this ideology lays: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. Take this opportunity to eliminate the heart, the lifeblood of the Islamic Fundamentalist movement: Iran. And take this opportunity, as a secondary consequence of acting in our own self-interest, to free millions from brutal theocratic terrorism.

Bush’s Regulatory Crackdown on Business Has Harmed the Economy.

In a major speech on July 9, 2002, in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, President Bush announced a series of regulatory initiatives to “expose and root out corruption” in American business. Stressing that “the vast majority of businessmen and women are honest,” and that reforms “should demand integrity, without stifling innovation and economic growth,” Bush said that his proposals “should be welcomed by every honest company in America.”
……
Businessmen are, in the words of Jack Welch, “hunkering down"; they are investing less money in new technologies, new manufacturing plants, research and development; they are reluctant to enter mergers, to formulate new strategies, *to take risks*–and our economy is suffering as a result.
The cause of the business stagnation is that Bush has done the opposite of what he promised: his administration has persecuted the honest, productive businessmen who drive the economy.
……..
The essence of the new environment is that now, more than ever, businessmen *cannot know what is legal or illegal until after the fact*. They have no means of knowing in advance whether their accounting methods will get them thrown in jail, whether they will be bankrupted by a class-action lawsuit for “defrauding shareholders” if their new product does not sell as well as expected, or whether a strategic merger that takes years of planning will be thwarted by some ambitious bureaucrat. The result is that honest businessmen have been paralyzed when it comes to steering their companies.

Michael Powell, head of the FCC, displays the radical hatred of capitalism and progress typical of the FCC.

Technology is changing so quickly that there is no guarantee the nation’s telecommunications giants will still be in business 15 years from now, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday.
“I personally don’t think anybody is safe. I don’t believe any company currently in communications is so well-structured and tied down that they are guaranteed to be here 15 years from now,” Michael K. Powell told editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

Should there be a guarantee Mr. Powell that these companies stay in business? Should the government put a gun to the head of competition in order to ensure that other companies are “so well-structured and tied down that they are guaranteed to be here 15 years from now?”

This I find absurd:

Since taking over the FCC, Mr. Powell has become known as a fierce believer in the power of free markets. But he said yesterday he is “still a huge believer that markets do fail. And there is anticompetitive behavior. I have a basic maxim about that, which is … when you find people cheating, hit them really hard.”
He also said he is wary of media companies becoming too big.
“It’s really breathtaking. I mean, I’m almost to the view that one day there’s going to be serious questions about whether one institution can have such a wide and deep portfolio without some rethinking of how these functions are handled and to what extent and by whom. I don’t think that day’s here, but I do think it will happen, and it will happen faster than people think,” Mr. Powell said.

As history has demonstrated, it is these so-called defenders of capitalism that are really destroying it.

Ever since talk began about going to war with Iraq, there has been a lot of debate and controversy over many issues such as: (1)whether or not the U.S. has the right to invade Iraq, and (2)whether or not the U.S. should invade Iraq. Now I am going to answer these questions very simply, and put to rest all of the nonsense that has gone on for a very long time now.

(1)"A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining action and self-generated action–which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life…The concept of a ‘right’ pertains only to action–specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. [Bold emphasis added] Ayn Rand

“The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.” Ayn Rand

Every human being has the fundamental right to their own life, regardless of whether a government recognizes it or not, and the proper purpose of a government is to protect that fundamental right. Therefore, a proper government (one which completely recognizes individual rights) has the “right” to dispose of any government which is improper (one which does not completely recognize individual rights). Since however, in our world today, no society completely recognizes individual rights, those governments which recognize individual rights more have the right to dispose of those who recognize individual rights less. Therefore, the U.S. government, being the freest in the world (recognizes individual rights the most), has the “right” to dispose of every single government in the world which is less free (recognizes individual rights less). HOWEVER, this sure as hell does not mean that the U.S. should dispose of every government in the world which is less free, it merely means that it has the right to.

This means, that the U.S. had the right to dispose of the government of Iraq regardless of it being an “imminent threat” or having one single weapon of mass destruction. The U.S. had the right to dispose of the Iraqi dictatorship by the very fact that it was a dictatorship.

(2)As I just alluded to, there is a major distinction between what a government has the right to do in terms of waging war and what it should do in terms of waging war.
“Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent ‘right’ of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.”

So, I have established that the U.S. had the right to invade, but should have we invaded? Was it in our self-interest to do so? This is where the existence of a weapons of mass-destruction program, whether or not Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S., whether or not it had ties to terrorism, etc., come in. These things do not have any bearing on whether or not the U.S. had the “right” to invade, but rather they have bearing on whether or not the U.S. should have invaded, meaning, whether or not it was in our self-interest to do so.

I believe that in this area, it was within our self-interest to invade Iraq. By destroying the dictatorship of Iraq, we destroyed the capability for Saddam Hussein to make weapons of mass destruction which could destroy us or our allies, and we destroyed the capability of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas from possibly gaining weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein. As a secondary consequence (which should have never been alluded to as the primary motivation), we liberated countless numbers of Iraqis from a brutal dictator.

Was Iraq an imminent threat to the U.S.? No, not really.
Did Iraq have a massive weapons program? No, and the U.S. never made this as the case for war. The desire to build a massive weapons program, and taking steps to do so, was the cause for alarm, not the existence of a massive program.
Did Iraq have direct ties with terrorist groups? We know for sure that Saddam Hussein supported numerous Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas, by offering rewards of $25,000 to families of suicide bombers. Besides that, the only publicly known evidence of ties with groups such as Al-Qaeda is one Al-Qaeda member receiving medical care in Baghdad and the fact that the U.S. is a common enemy of both Hussein and Bin Laden.

I do not believe that our government made a major case for Iraq being an imminent threat to U.S. security and any real need to dispose of the dictatorship as soon as possible. But I don’t think that mattered at all, in fact, I think it’s a good sign. In today’s world, there are no more evil superpower dictatorships with the capability of destroying the United States. The increasing military power of the United States and the decreasing amount of evil dictatorships and evil groups is a very good thing. Instead of dealing with a massive country like Soviet Russia as our enemy, we are dealing with a bunch of crazies with bombs strapped to their chest. This means that we shouldn’t be looking for “imminent threats” but rather threats of any kind, evil of any kind and eliminating them.

Therefore, the U.S. not only had the right to invade Iraq, but I believe that we should have as well.

This is an amazing article.

Independence Day must henceforth be the primary day to demand a return to America’s original, fundamental principles. Within such an individual rights- respecting nation I have a rational self-interest in voluntarily financing the military, the police, and courts that uphold objective laws, with their purposes being to protect my rights from foreign and domestic initiators of physical force and from defrauders and violators of contracts. Government services such as roads, libraries, parks, post offices, for example, must all become privately owned and subject to the laws of supply and demand, i.e., laissez faire capitalism. Thereafter, I will voluntarily pay for services I need and be free from the government coercion that forces me to finance those that are useless to me. All Americans will be free of any legal duty to finance what others value and be free to voluntarily trade with (or give their property to) whomever and/or whatever they value.

Every individual’s life, liberty and property belong to themselves; no one has a moral claim on them. Our government must reestablish this philosophy. America is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

Today, we celebrate our Independence Day. Today, we celebrate our freedom, our greatness, our moral superiority. Today is the day where Americans unite and celebrate the fact that we are the freest, and therefore the best country in the entire world.

227 years ago our Founding Fathers proudly declared that every human being has the right to exist for their own sake, has the right to their own life. 227 years ago they declared that the purpose of a government is not to rule men but to protect them, to protect their fundamental right to their own life. They explicitly rejected the form of government which had ruled mankind for the centuries before them, statism. They rejected the notion that a human being exists for the sake of others and it is the purpose of the state to force them to sacrifice themself for others. However, even then, they did not get it exactly right. They allowed the government to force its citizens to sacrifice themselves in certain areas, such as slavery, states’ rights, and other statist elements of government. Despite this error however, the principle still remained as widely accepted: a human being has the right to their own life.

As we celebrate our Independence Day we must ask ourselves, have we stayed in line with these principles of our Founding Fathers? Does every human being in America have the unbreached right to their own life?

Absolutely not. The individual rights of American citizens, while the freest in the world, are being attacked on all sides. Either one has the right to their own life, to be free of physical compulsion, and free to use their own mind; or they do not. In America today, this fact is blatantly ignored. At the founding of our country, our Founding Fathers overwhelmingly declared that a human being exists for his own sake and that the purpose of a government is to protect that right to exist. But now, the idea that it is right for the government to use physical compusion against its citizens in order to serve others is widely accepted by virtually every politician and citizen of this country. The debate now is not whether or not American citizens should be made to be slaves, but rather, to what extent they should be forced to serve others.

America is an amazing country, but it will not be for long if this premise is not attacked and destroyed. On this Independence Day we must rise up and remember the fundamental principles of this country. The fundamental principle of this country is not the freedom to vote, or the freedom to speech. They are very important freedoms, but they are not the fundamental ones. No, our fundamental principle has been vastly forgotten and rejected…that every human being, by his nature as a human being, is an end in himself, has the right to life for his own sake, has the right to their own life, has the right to be free from physical compulsion, has the right to the use of their own mind.

The U.S. prepares potential military options for the country of Liberia. In the past few days, it has been reported that President Bush is thinking about deploying a limited number of troops to the African country of Liberia as the head of an international peacekeeping mission in the civil-war-beaten country.

I hold that it is morally obscene to endanger the life of one single American soldier in order to “assist” any country in which we have absolutely no self-interest in doing so.

Every human being, by their very nature as a human being, has one fundamental right: the right to their own life. This means, they have the right to use their own mind and be free from physical compulsion, as long as they respect that right of everyone else. The purpose of a proper government, is to protect this fundamental right (not to provide it). Three institutions, and three institutions alone, perform this function:
1. the military: to protect individuals from foreign countries who initiate the use of force against them
2. the police: to protect individuals from criminals who initiate the use of force against them
3. the objective court system: to protect contractual agreements between two or more individuals and to prosecute those who initiate the use of force
Any other institution of government would violate an individual’s fundamental right to his own life.

Therefore, determining whether or not we should put American soldiers at risk ultimately comes down to the question, does it serve the purpose of protecting American citizens from foreign countries who either initiate or threaten the use of force against them?

Is the government of Liberia any threat to the United States? From the relevant evidence so far, absolutely not. My conclusion therefore, is that it is completely wrong for our government to threaten the life of one single American soldier by sending them to Liberia.

Is it ever morally justifiable to assist another country militarily? Yes, but only when the given country (or a rebel aspect of the given country) completely recognizes individual rights and the idea that the only proper interaction between individuals (and thus nations as well) is that of voluntary trade. Liberia, along with many other African nations, represent the backward tribal savages of centuries past. They are riddled with dictators, murderers, and terrorists. We have absolutely no self-interest in militarily aiding any of them.

Many people (including our government on many occasions) say that it is right to send American soldiers to places such as Liberia, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, etc., in order to prevent mass death and genocide. I maintain two very important principles on this issue:
1. no amount of U.S. troops will change the backwards ideologies of these countries that are causing mass death and genocide
2. it is completely wrong for the life of one single American soldier to be threatened in combat for the purpose of sacrficing themselves to others

President Bush: do not send troops to Liberia, or any country like it. Pull our troops out of countries in which their presence there has absolutely no relevance to the purpose of our military: to protect the fundamental right of every American citizen: the right to their own life.

Independence: The Forgotten Meaning of America by Michael Berliner

The FCC has recently set new rules regarding media regulation.

The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday issued controversial new rules that would allow media companies to grow larger, regulations that probably will go into effect in August but could be challenged in court.

The rules – allowing television networks to buy more local television stations and permit a company to own a newspaper, television station and several radio outlets in a market – will go into effect 30 days after being published in the Federal Register, which can take up to three weeks.

The Republican-controlled FCC voted 3-2 to ease the ownership limits one month ago. Media companies had pushed the agency to loosen the regulations even further while consumer and political groups sought to tighten the rules….

Under the new rules, a television network will be able to own local television stations that collectively reach up to 45 percent of the U.S. television audience, up from 35 percent.

Both Viacom Inc., owner of the CBS and UPN networks, and News Corp., which runs the Fox network, own television stations that collectively reach roughly 39 percent of the national audience.

Also under the new rules, companies will be allowed to own up to three television stations in the largest markets and two stations in all but the smallest markets. But no entity can own more than one of the top four rated stations in a market.

In markets where there are at least nine television stations, companies will be able to own any combination of newspapers, television stations and radio outlets. No cross ownership will be permitted where there are at most three television stations.

In markets where there are four to eight television stations, limited cross-ownership would be allowed under the new rules. The FCC left intact its regulations that limit how many radio stations a company can own in a market but tightened the definition of what makes up a market.

One might be tempted to say that this is a victory for capitalism and for individual rights. However, I maintain that this is a bitter defeat for capitalism and individual rights, on the grounds that the premise that the government has the right to initiate the use of force against its citizens is unchallenged. Our politicians currently believe that it is wrong to fully initiate the use of force against its citizens (statism) but it is also wrong to never do so (capitalism). Thus, the government believes it has the right to initiate the use of force against it citizens in some areas, the question is just in which ones and to what extent. Because of this, our society has regressed to a large number of pressure-groups fighting for political favors from the government, fighting to have the government initiate the use of force on the group’s alleged enemy or enemies. Worst of all, the government believes it has the right to force an individual to not have the right to their own life in “some situations": to not be free from physical compulsion, and to not be free to trust the conclusions of their own independent judgment.

I completely condemn the idea that the government has any right whatsoever to force another individual to not have the freedom of trusting their own mind.

Help make this country what was almost and can be, a free society based on the recognition of individual rights: the right of every individual to their own life.

Regular cannabis users ‘at greater risk of mental illness’

President Bush states his personal beliefs on marriage.

The current debate over whether or not gay marriages should be legal provides major insight into one of the biggest problems in modern politics today: the complete failure to recognize individual rights.

As Ayn Rand demonstrated in The Virtue of Selfishness, “A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action–which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) The concept of a ‘right’ pertains only to action–specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical complusion, coercion, or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive–of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”

As a result of this right, an individual has the right to choose whatever morality they want (by having the ability to use their own judgment) just so long as they do not violate the rights of others (i.e. force others to follow the morality that they themselves choose). In our modern society however, this right is widely ignored. The latest example of this can be seen with the current debate as to whether or not gay people should be allowed to be married. According to the principles of a free society, these gay people have the full right to choose to be gay and to choose to engage in various relations with whomever they choose regardless of what percentage of the society thinks such actions are immoral. In a free society, an individual’s right to his own life can not be voted away by any group, whether it be a group of citizens or an act of Congress. However in our society, we see many individuals’ rights being voted away constantly, which includes calls from prominent politicians such as Bill Frist, to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

This is a clear attack on the individual rights of EACH AND EVERY citizen of the United States. Taking away the individual rights of some citizens necessarily leads to the taking away of the individual rights of all citizens, unless the premises by which these decisions are made are checked. Taking away an individual’s right to his own life is an either/or situation. Either an individual has the right to his own life: to be free from physical compulsion and be free to rely on one’s own independent judgment; or they do not. But most importantly, an attack on the individual rights of any citizen is an attack on the human mind. It prohibits a human being from fully exercising their own judgment, by prohibiting the full use of that which is required for one’s survival. As Ayn Rand said, “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A–and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”

Politicians such as Bill Frist want to take away the individual’s right to choose to be gay or not, to choose to be married with a gay person or not, to use one’s own mind. He wants to impose his own personal morality (that homosexuality is evil) and FORCE others to accept this. Whether or not I believe homosexuality to be evil or not is irrelevant.

I hold that every individual has the right to choose their own principles, values, and character, regardless of whether or not a majority of people agree; just as long as that individual does not violate the rights of others to do the same. A man has the right to choose to be gay and a woman has the right to choose to be gay, just as a businessman has the right to choose to do business with those who choose to voluntarily trade with him, just as an individual has the right to be Catholic, Jewish, or Atheist, etc., just as an individual has the right to choose to become a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, a businessman, etc.

There is and never will be any justification for forcing another individual or group of individuals from using their own independent judgment, even if what they conclude is not favorable by a majority of people.

I condemn Bill Frist, and all other politicians like him. I condemn all politicians who attempt (and who have succeded) in taking away the right of every individual to use their own independent judgment to reach their own conclusions.

Strong words from President Bush, deviating from his now common pandering to terrorist groups.

“There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “My answer is bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation.”

Yes, and we have the force necessary to deal with the Palestinians, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and all of the other backward nations of the world vying for the destruction of our ideals and our country. Use it!

This story is an amazing look at the potential amount of power that the United States of America will have in the future.

Robert Tracinski has written another excellent article, this time on the need for the U.S. Government to help bring down the Iranian Regime.

I wanted to post this article because it is very much in line with one of yesterday’s posts, Lead the Way.

This story is a few days old but I’d like to point it out nonetheless. This court decision represents a victory for Microsoft and for capitalism, something we have been seeing too few of these days.

For those of you who do not know much about the antitrust case made against Microsoft, a simple look into the charges placed against the company reveals how ridiculous and arbitrary they are.

On May 18, 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft. It was alleged that Microsoft violated the antitrust laws in the following four ways:
1. “Microsoft had forced other computer companies that used its Windows operating system to sign agreements that they would not license, distribute, or promote software products that competed with Microsoft’s own software products.”
2. “Microsoft ‘tied’ its own browser, ‘Internet Explorer’ to its Windows opearing system…”
3. “Microsoft had attempted to gain a monopoly in the Internet browser market by forcing computer companies that used its Windows operating system to agree to leave Internet Explorer as the default browser and to not preinstall or promote the browser of any other company.”
4. “Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for PC operating systems and had used anticompetitive and predatory tactics to maintain its monopoly power.”

Before I comment on this absurdity, I’d like to add one more unoffical charge leveled against Microsoft. The creation of what is called “a virtuous circle.” “In this virtuous circle, the more people that use an operating system, the more that software companies are willing to write programs for that operating system. The more software programs they write for the operating system, the more people want to buy that operating system.” (Quote provided by Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases by Manuel G. Velasquez)

Allegations 1 and 3 are easily wiped away by a definition of the word force. Force, in the context of human relations, is an attack on the human mind by using physical compulsion or threatening the use of physical compulsion in order to make an individual act against his own independent judgment. Did Microsoft make the decision to act on the part of the companies that it dealt with? No. The companies themselves decided to do business with Microsoft, which entailed, not supporting other businesses besides Microsoft in that given exchange. The companies involved always had the option to choose another alternative besides dealing with Microsoft, and at no point was any force or threat of force used against them.

If you were trying to sell a product, and you were in competition with others, do you think those other people have a right to share in the success that you alone create? Or do you think that in order for other businesses to enjoy success, they need to compete with you and take the proper course of action required for business success? The U.S. Government claimed that Microsoft’s competitors, namely, Netscape and Sun, had the right to be included in Microsoft’s business success. This is clearly absurd and a profound violation of individual rights. But this is the thrusting argument behind allegations 2 and 4.

Microsoft did not force anyone to do anything. Microsoft created a product which it then marketed to others. These others could either accept the product and mutually trade to each other’s benefit, they could reject the product and look elsewhere, or they could venture to create the product themselves. At no point in time did Microsoft force (act against their own will) any company to do anything.

So what was the attack on Microsoft based on? Using Ayn Rand’s words, it was caused by “the hatred of the good for being the good.” In modern politics, those who are unable to compete with the thrivingly successful companies such as Microsoft, use the government to put a gun to its head and “level” the playing field. It would be the same as claiming that during his time as a basketball player, it was unfair that Michael Jordan was so good and made so much money, so let’s force him to not use all of his talent in order to make him “equal” with the rest of us. This ridiculous attack on the good and on success is evident in the unofficial allegation made against Microsoft that I spoke of earlier, the virtuous circle.

It was alleged that this virtuous circle was “unfair” to other companies because it gave Microsoft success and made it harder for other companies to do well. Well of course it did! When a company creates a superior product which is chosen by the majority of software companies, it gains an advantage in the business market, and deservedly so! The reason that Microsoft was so viciously attacked was because of the fact that they created a superior product. They were attacked, not for their vices or their evil, but for their virtues, their good. There is no worse inversion of morality and all that is required of man’s life than this blatant attack on the good for being the good.

Some would say the reason why antitrust action was taken was due to the fact that since Microsoft had a monopoly, they could then decrease the quality of its product drastically and jack up the price. Yes, Microsoft is free to engage in this action, but not free to escape its consequences. Doing so would allow competition to gain a foothold in that market, and Microsoft at that point could either do nothing, and face a continual threat of rising competition, or they could better their product (quality + cost). This is the nature of competition in a free society. A company can have a monopoly in a given market, such as Microsoft in this market, but it can not have a coercive monopoly, meaning, it can not forbid any new competitiors from entering that market. Only an act of government (see Capitalism The Unknown Ideal) can forbid any new competitiors from entering a given market.

This attack on Microsoft was an outright attack on capitalism, justice, and the good. I fully support Microsoft in its battle against the U.S. Department of Justice, and I fully support every other company attacked by the hatred of the good for being the good.

It seems that North Korea is getting closer and closer to attaining a full nuclear weapons program. What has been done by the U.S. Government to prevent this from happening? More lip service to negotiations and appeasement.

NORTH Korea has enough plutonium to make six to 10 nuclear weapons and could test such a weapon by the end of the year, a former US negotiator with the Stalinist state said in an interview published today.

“To the best of my knowledge, based on very well-informed Washington sources, North Korea’s nuclear program is moving ahead very quickly,” Kenneth Quinones was quoted as saying by the Daily Yomiuri.

“Basically, this means North Korea’s reprocessing (of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel) is almost finished, or has finished. This means North Korea now has enough plutonium to make six to 10 nuclear weapons,” he said. [www.news.com.au]

U.S. Government: put a stop to this nuclear weapons program immediately, before North Korea has the ability to hold the world hostage. This does not mean appease the North Korean government by promising them aid. It means using force in self-defense by striking and eliminating the sources of North Korea’s capability to create nuclear weapons.

Another ridiculous statement from Bill Clinton. I’m not even going to waste my time commenting on how completely wrong and absurd his opinion is, it speaks for itself.

Iranian students continue to bravely oppose the theocratic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. The United States of America should support them not only morally, but physically as well. Iran is the #1 state sponsor of global terrorism (including Al-Qaeda) and it is the heart of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. The defeat of this brutal regime would spell a major defeat for the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole. Picture the Pacific arena of World War II: regimes such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc., represent the many Pacific islands near Japan, whereas states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia represent Japan.

As a secondary consequence of defeating the brutal theocracy of Iran, the Iranian people would be exposed to (at least let’s hope) some form of a constitutional republic (as opposed to a pure democracy which merely means majority vote wins, which is only another variant of dictatorship). Decades of brutal repression, murder, and terror would be over in another backwards country. While I firmly believe that Islam is incompatible with a truly free constitutional republic, at least it seems that the days of brutal dictatorships are numbered.

I support the rebels in Iran trying to overthrow the brutal Islamic regime.

Follow what is happening in Iran towards the end of overthrowing the regime. Our national media hasn’t been giving this very much attention, but I believe that this is an extremely important story. The removal of the theocratic regime of Iran would be similar in likeliness, though not in total scope, to the fall of the Soviet Union. July 9th is the set date for everyone in Iran to rise up and oppose the regime. Mark your calendars, history is in the making.

Prior to Sept. 11, it was widely believed among the members of the U.S. Government that it was favorable to compromise with dictators and terrorists in order to achieve some given end in the short-term and deal with the consequences of these actions later. This attitude, pragmatism, was prevalent in the principles (or rather, lack thereof) guiding U.S. Foreign Policy for the past 50 years. One example of this attitude in practice was the U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. It was believed by the U.S. Government that it would be to our benefit to back this secular dictator in order to block the theocratic regime of Iran, Iraq’s neighbor, from gaining too much power. Another example of this was the U.S. backing of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan during the same time period in the attempt to block communism from spreading.

On the face of it, it would seem as though these two actions benefitted the United States. The theocratic regime of Iran was somewhat blocked from gaining further power, and communism was blocked from spreading further, right? But did the United States really benefit from these actions? What is beneficial to a nation and what is harmful to it? The only way to answer that question is to determine what is beneficial for a human being.

Determining the exact course of action beneficial to a human being is for the entire field of ethics in philosophy, and thus too long to cover here. However, one of the most crucial things for the benefit of every human being is…acting long range (over a long period of time), i.e. acting on principle. To use Ayn Rand’s famous example, imagine that you were on a deserted island. You would have to determine what is for your survival and what is against your survival and act accordingly. You would have to find food, determine what food is good for you and what is poisonous, make a shelter, etc.

But this is no easy task. It requires a constant process of scrupulous thought, of reasoning, in order to determine such things as what food is good for you, how to make a shelter, where to find food, etc. You would have to make numerous observations of the environmental conditions around you in order to determine what actions are necessary for your survival. What integrates these observations and helps you to formulate a proper course of action? Principles. According to Ayn Rand, “a principle is ‘a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.’ Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by menas of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.”

But principles are not formed automatically by one’s brain. As a human being, one must constantly choose between two alternatives: actions which are beneficial towards one’s life and actions which are harmful to one’s life. It is only principles, the integration of numerous observations of reality, which can aid a human being in determing which actions are beneficial and which are harmful to one’s life.

But the philosophy of pragmatism explicity rejects the necessity of long-range principles. Instead of integrating numerous concretes into a principled course of action, pragmatism says that one should react to each concrete separately. In the case of the deserted island, according to pragmatism, one should never integrate all of your observations about what food is beneficial/harmful into a single whole but rather act immediately based on “what works.” But one could not determine if a certain piece of food was actually food or poison without reference to past observations, i.e., to principles. Thus, the pragmatist claim to reject principles ultimately leads to not acting based on reason but rather on whim.

Attempting to determine the proper course of action for living by whim is completely incompatible with man’s nature as a human being: a being which must constantly choose between two alternatives: actions which are beneficial towards one’s life and action which are harmful to one’s life. A human being can not feel like not eating and expect to live. A human being must properly identify facts of reality and integrate them into principles with the purpose of guiding their actions. This is the nature of a human being and no other means of survival are possible. Therefore, it is only long-range principles which can bring long-range benefit to a human being.

Full circle to the original question, did the United States really benefit from aiding dictators and terrorists? Did the United States really benefit from the philosophy of pragmatism? The obvious answer to this, is no. A nation is not a living entity but rather the culmination of a large group of individuals. Thus, what is required by the nature of every individual for long-range benefit is also required by a nation. The only way that a nation can benefit long-range is by deciding all of their actions based on long-range principles. This means determing what is the beneficial, what is the harmful, and acting accordingly over a long period of time. When the United States Government decided to aid the harmful (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban), they were rejecting the need for acting on long-range principles and embracing the idea that one can do what is harmful and escape the long-range consequences (9-11, the second Gulf War, etc).

After Sept. 11, our government seemed to reject pragmatism and created a new movement for our country. President George W. Bush asserted our moral right to self-defense, and our moral right to eliminate terrorism wherever it exists. As he said on Oct. 7, 2001, “Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.”

But now it seems our government has returned to the ways of pragmatism. Instead of following this long-range principle of eliminating terrorism across the globe, our government has decided to negotiate with terrorists. Our government is now working on the “road map” to achieving “peace” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As I stated in my post, The Moral Hypocrisy of Our President, “In response to years of terrorist attacks against Israel and its people, President Bush has personally supported a “road map” with the intention of establishing a Palestinian state by 2005. This road map calls for numerous concessions on the part of Israel, and “promises” from the Palestinian government that they will increase their steps to stop terrorism. Terrorists attack America and kill roughly 3,000 people, and President Bush declares that there is no middle ground; any nation that harbors terrorists will be regarded as a hostile nation. Terrorists attack Israel for over 50 years and kill tens of thousands of people; President Bush declares that these terrorists have the right to their own state, at the expense of their victims. The failure to allow the Israeli army to completely eliminate the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians such as the PLO and Hamas and the failure to arrest and eliminate these organizations by the Palestinian leaders themselves qualifies as support of those organizations. By negotiating with the Palestinian leaders therefore, President Bush is negotiating with terrorists.”

Reject the philosophy of pragmatism. It is only the philosophy of acting on long-range principles, based on reason, which can benefit your lives, and can benefit this great nation of ours.

Hats off to the Australian government for showing some major gall.

Sept. 11, 2001:
“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.” President George W. Bush
[Quote provided by The Indianapolis Star]

Oct. 7, 2001:
“Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.” President George W. Bush
[Quote provided by The Indianapolis Star]

April 4, 2002:
“Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.” President George W. Bush

“The United States is on record supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state.” President George W. Bush
[Quotes provided by CBS News]

In response to years of terrorist attacks against Israel and its people, President Bush has personally supported a “road map” with the intention of establishing a Palestinian state by 2005. This road map calls for numerous concessions on the part of Israel, and “promises” from the Palestinian government that they will increase their steps to stop terrorism. Terrorists attack America and kill roughly 3,000 people, and President Bush declares that there is no middle ground; any nation that harbors terrorists will be regarded as a hostile nation. Terrorists attack Israel for over 50 years and kill tens of thousands of people; President Bush declares that these terrorists have the right to their own state, at the expense of their victims. The failure to allow the Israeli army to completely eliminate the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians such as the PLO and Hamas and the failure to arrest and eliminate these organizations by the Palestinian leaders themselves qualifies as support of those organizations. By negotiating with the Palestinian leaders therefore, President Bush is negotiating with terrorists.

The moral hypocrisy of President Bush at this point is apparent. He has long since abandoned his pledge to eliminate terrorism by regarding any nation who harbors or supports terrorists as hostile. Instead, he has begun the process of appeasing terrorists, of negotiating with them, of bowing down to their terror. “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.” I beg to differ Mr. President. YOU have deviated from the principles of the foundation of America, YOU have dented the steel of American resolve, and YOU are steering America away from being the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.

As Ayn Rand illustrated through the character of John Galt in her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle…who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who shoves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison,it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.”

Indeed, in this Israeli-Palestinian “conflict,” it is our President George W. Bush who is the transmitting rubber tube.