| Home | About | Contact | Books | Links | Search |
 |
|
 Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores by Michelle Malkin
[Autonomist Books]
Find more
For the largest selection, lowest prices, and fastest delivery of books for liberty lovers: |
|
ASAP
The educational theory of, "the religion of peace," consists mainly of stabbing, cutting, shooting, raping, and blowing children up. These methods were recently demonstrated in Beslan in North Ossetia, Russia. Please read the details of this charming Muslim practice, which they have every intention of bringing to a school near you. Barbara Stanley has no intention of letting that happen in a school near her. She knows the answer to the question, How Do We Protect Our Children, our feature story of today. Barbara's strategy might be boiled down to, "shoot the bastards," which would be fine with me. In fact, there is nothing too extreme for dealing with those vicious monsters. Of course I draw the line at doing some really cruel, like putting panties on their heads.
This is an older article, but I'm sure you never heard of this gross violation of individual freedom. Loss of freedom does not seem to make the news, for some reason, and nobody seems to care much.
The problem is most people are taken in by this joke. They not only believe it, but take it seriously and waste their good time and resources, "participating," in it. Personally I don't care if people want to waste their life on these things, but they have no idea how hard it is to keep from laughing in their face when they go on about how their candidate is making things better. All the candidates always make things better, but somehow, things keep getting worse. How odd!
So this is absolutely the last prediction I am going to publish by anyone. Of all the predictions thus far, at least Burt's is based on principles one can understand (however much we disagree with it).
I must frankly admit I hesitated posting Mr. Shaw's article and told him his blanket condemnation of atheists was as incorrect as a blanket condemnation of religionists would be. I understand the statements were rhetorical (and I like rhetoric) and what is being condemned are anti-religionists.
Now I am opposed to some kinds of religion, such as that absurd religion that produces terrorists and oppresses women mercilessly, but defend any individual's choice to believe anything he chooses, and to promote his beliefs. I am also aware that many who are opposed to religion are actually opposed to principles and moral values themselves. I am opposed to that kind of anti-religionism.
This is essentially the position of Mr. Sciabarra, who makes the case for the harm of which religion is capable. Mr. Shaw understands religion, for many, is the form their moral principles are couched in and those who opposed to religion, per se, are the enemies of moral principles and values themselves.
What we all agree on, Mr. Sciabarra, Mr. Shaw, and I, is that every individual must be free to discover the truth for himself and be free to follow that truth wherever it leads him. What is the Autonomist's position? In the battle for freedom, give me a brave atheist on my right side and a bold freedom-loving Christian on my left and together we will win the war for freedom.
At least that seems to be the contention of Fred Reed's "On The Decline Of English." This is an older article of Fred's, and the first on The Autonomist, but it fits so well the the Writing for Nothing post, I decided to start with that one.
[Discuss This]
There are a lot of good writers today writing for things other than money. Some are new writers, desperately attempting to establish themselves; others are seasoned veterans, who write, even without pay, because what they write is so important—it is their passion—they must write or die.
Mark Twain's advice to the new writer was this: "Write without pay until somebody offers pay. If nobody offers within three years the candidate may look upon this circumstance with the most implicit confidence as the sign that sawing wood is what he was intended for.
Mark Twain offered that advice in the days when people could still read words of more than three syllables, sentences of more than ten words, and knew what the subjunctive mood is. Of course, in those days, even school teachers could read. They can still read and write, sort of—brilliant difficult things like, "If · you · can · read · this · thank · a · schoolteacher." The only surprising thing about that is one of the words is three syllables. You won't see any bumper stickers on government youth training center (public school) teacher's cars reading, "erudition · requires · proper · pedagogy."
Today, being a writer and not being payed may only mean you are a really good writer, which means what you write is too difficult to read by those for whom serious reading means the TV Guide, The Reader's Digest or latest romance novel. No matter, there is The Autonomist, whose readers not only appreciate good writing, but actually understand what they read.
The Autonomist's readers know what liberty, culture, and civilization are and will not be satisfied with the insipid effete fare that passes for literature today. They are people of integrity and character, who can be depended on, not only to appreciate true values, but to support them.
You may be surprised to find a Chuck Baldwin article on the Autonomist. It is his latest article, "Washington, D.C., Not Baghdad, Threatening Our Liberties", and it is an example of exactly what I have been talking about in my last two articles: "Shoot The Bastards?" and "Prospects For Freedom".
I know Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist preacher and former leader of the Silent Majority, (we believe in freedom of religion by the way), but as I said in "Shoot The Bastards?" anyone who speaks for individual freedom is our ally, and, as I said in "Prospects For Freedom," people are beginning to wake up to the fact we are no longer free.
The Autonomist is, after all, a "free market of ideas." This is the freedom popcorn store, if you don't like the, buttered, by the plain.
I do not agree with many of Chuck's positions, but found nothing in "Washington, D.C., Not Baghdad, Threatening Our Liberties" with which I, or any freedom lover, could disagree.
We will be featuring more of Chuck's freedom oriented articles—so don't be surprised.
I think Burt's first article on The Autonomist about his very independent thinking is appropriate. Will you or I agree with everything Burt thinks? Certainly not! But we will agree with much of it, because he believes in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and that makes him our friend.
I hope you enjoy "Noodling", Burt's first article on the Autonomist. Please let The Autonomist know what you think for yourself.
Two of our latest articles certainly testify to that. We have been given permission to publish Dr. Sciabarra's, "Bush Wins!," mentioned in ASAP, in full. The other "good politician," is John Kerry, whose record and history Barbara Stanley nicely dissects in "John Kerry's Medals".
Speaking of John Kerry, the Veterans Against Kerry have lots of things to say about this "good politician" on their Forum.
"The benefits of alcohol, which are thought to be linked to its effect on the flow of blood to the brain, can be detected when a person drinks up to 30 units of alcohol - about four to five bottles of wine - per week."
And you might as well have a nice smoke with that drink, because, this article says "Nicotine Found to Prevent Some Diseases."
"Studies have found that smokers ... were less likely to develop a variety of diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's because nicotine can stimulate receptors in the brain that deal with learning, memory and concentration."
Those in the study were trying to quit smoking using the nicotine patch, but still benefitted from the nicotine. If they do not quit smoking they get both the benefit of the nicotine and the pleasure of smoking. That seems like a win-win to me. Throw the patches away.
Chris predicts that Bush will win the election. Whether he does or not, for those who love freedom, it is a no-win situation. He points out, for example:
"The Bush tax cuts have not been coupled with anything that might qualify as fiscal conservatism; the President has presided over an exploding federal budget deficit—the largest in U.S. history—and an expanding federal debt. In addition, Bush has signed into law the extension of Medicare prescription drug coverage for senior citizens, thus staking a claim to a traditional Democratic voting bloc. And the cost of the Iraq War alone will soon surpass the nearly $200 billion inflation-adjusted U.S. share of the costs of World War I."
Ultimately it is not going to matter whether it is the Republican big government, socialistic, "save-the-world" candidate or the Democrat big government, socialistic, "save-the-world" candidate that wins, because we are going to loose either way.
The truth is, the politicians know exactly what Islam is, and yet their policies are all designed to help promote and gain acceptance for that hideous ideology of oppression and cruelty. The reason is not because they are stupid.
Take the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi. Michelle Malkin writes in "What Say You Now, Grover Norquist?":
"The Washington Post reports that Abdurahman Alamoudi, once embraced as a "mainstream" and "moderate" Muslim activist who courted both the Clinton and Bush administrations, will plead guilty today to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya in violation of U.S. law and attempting to hide it from the government."
Now, we might expect this: "Local Muslim leaders have protested the government's prosecution of Alamoudi, portraying him as a moderate with no ties to radical groups."
But what does this mean:
"Despite this defiant public declaration of support for terrorists, Alamoudi was welcomed in GOP elite circles at the behest of power player Grover Norquist."
What does it mean? Simple, the politicians are using Islamic terrorism to frighten you into submitting to any outrage they choose to perpetrate, while courting those same Muslim terrorist for their own financial and political gain. In short, the politicians are selling you out.
[From: the STYF (Still Think You're Free?) department.]
This is a housekeeping entry. These are links to stories we have accumulated for STYF? property rights. Most of these are abuses of eminent domain. These are stories of people's private property being confiscated or regulated out of usability. Most people do not realize the extent to which private property is no longer protected in this country.
Eminent domain is only one of the ways people's property is being confiscated by crooked politicians and wacko idealists (environmentalists). The next STYF entry will be about an even more terrifying abuse of police power and "forfeiture."
From the August 2002 Idaho Observer:
Local governments gaining access to private kitchens, bedrooms.
The following is on the same page as the above story. It is quite appropriate.
"At the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787 do you believe the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when government would be empowered to forcibly enter a home and cite the occupants for safety code violations? Do you think that their hope was to establish a society of free persons who would be compelled to plant certain trees and shrubs and pull certain weeds under threat of property seizure? If you answered “yes” then you have missed the point our Founders were trying to make.
"The right to own property is the right for the owner to manage and care for that property as he sees fit and to have total authority to dispose of it as he sees fit. To view private property in any other light is to view it as public property. Apparently, those who staff government agencies do not espouse the Founders' view of private property; their view is more akin to that of Marx and Engels."
Rural America Under Siege
by Madeleine Fortin, 5/9/02.
"- all in an effort to take our homes and farms away from us!" (The new American way.)
The following two stories about Car Drega have to be read to be believed. The Autonomist's Notebook says, If you must fight the government, be prepared for a fight to the death, which will almost certainly be yours. This story is a wonderful and poignant illustration of that truth.
Breeding Us a Thousand More Carl Dregas
The Autonomist highly recommends Vin Suprynowicz' book thoroughly documenting the tyranny against private property, using this story as the theme.
Kidnapped by the Mexican Army.
Read this appalling story of an American Citizen Captured by soldiers of the Mexican Army on his own property and the failure of the US Government to protect him or his property.
Landgrab Alert When people's homes are taken away from them, then will you believe you are not free?
Everglades bill to displace Cuban citizens.
April 25, 2003
Blight Line
Exposing eminent domain abuses, "during the last five years state and local governments in the U.S. have threatened to take more than 10,000 pieces of property and give them to well-connected developers."
Eminent Domain and Private Gain May 09, 2003 A report claims that 10,000 properties have been seized by cities for private developers.
How many people's homes and property have to be taken from them before people realize they are no longer free?
The following are some stories I have been saving for this column. It's been over a week since the last beheading, so these will have to do as examples of Islam's continued cultural contributions to our modern world.
Islamists rape 100 women in attack is a March 20th report on the blessings of the religion of peace in the Sudan. Be sure to see the related stories:
Stoning in Saudi Arabia is a detailed description of this merciful practice of the religion of peace. Given half a chance, they will bring this charming little cultural contribution to America. (The truth is sometimes very disturbing, as in this case. Be warned.)
Suicide brigade enlists 15,000; goals include killing GIs, Israelis, Rushdie I guess you could call this grass-roots terrorism, which certainly contradicts the absurd notion that Muslim terrorism is an anomaly of this otherwise wonderful peaceful religion.
In Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, you have to get a "Permit Needed to Paint Your House".
And not just to paint your house; this "8 year old law ... requires permits for paint jobs, wallpapering, carpet installation, tile jobs, and the like." So far, you can still buy toilet paper without a permit.
At least they aren't taking people's land away from them, like they are in Florida (and most of the rest of the country)
"Jesse Hardy's fight to keep his 160 acres in the Southern Golden Gate Estates will return to Tallahassee, Apr. 13, for a final hearing before the Florida Cabinet," to answer the questions, "Will he be forced out?"
Why would Mr. Hardy, who has owned his "property for 28 years" be "forced out?"
"He is the last of thousands of individual property owners whose land was targeted for the Picayune Strand State Forest. What began as a willing seller program turned into condemnation when the project was tied to the $100 million Everglades water restoration project in the late 1990s.
Just another vile environmental terrorist landgrab. What are property rights compared to a nice swampy neighborhood for yellow fever, malaria, and West Nile virus mosquitoes?
From the WOT (War On Terror - which is mostly against you) files:
Well, the WOT should be against you, because you are probably a terrorist. Like Charles C. Green, you probably think you can write or say anything you like because you are innocent and live in a free country. If that's what you think, you are definitely a terrorist.
In Mr. Green's case, he explains, "I write badly, therefore I am a would-be terrorist."
Fortunately for the safety of us all, Mr. Green, the terrorist, was caught holding the evidence. One of Mr. Ashcroft's wiley agents stopped Mr. Green as soon as he disembarked from his flight, and asked to see the newspaper he was carrying, which he had opened to the crossword puzzle page. But the agent wasn't fooled. She ignored the crossword, turning the paper sideways to read a line scribbled in the margin: "I know this is kind of a bomb."
"Suddenly a light went on in my head." Mr. Green said. "I remembered the passenger on my left leaning forward in his seat as I scribbled while we waited for takeoff."
Mr. Green says it is only a line from a novel he is writing, but Mr. Ashcroft and company know a terrorist when they see one, and know just how to treat him.
Maybe you are one of those terrorists that pose as a young student photographer, like Ian Spiers. Just as a terrorist deserves, he was "Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown".
Brown? You have to read this story of incredible abuse of an American citizen by those who are being paid to protect him.
For Our Poor Abused Gay Friends
Speaking of abuse, and the gays almost never stop speaking about it, they have suffered one of the most difficult kinds of abuse possible, recently. They have suffered from an assault of the truth.
Of course, "Gay activists take issue with survey's numbers."
Who'd blame them, when they've been "guessing" the number of gay people in society is somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent. The facts are shocking, to some.
"For the first time in its history, Statistics Canada has released a survey on the sexual orientation of Canadians.... Figures from the Canadian Community Health Survey released Tuesday said that one per cent of Canadians identified themselves as homosexual, while 0.7 per cent said they were bisexual."
Oh the abuse! Not to worry. They can always move to France.
"THE French government today approved a bill to outlaw homophobia, drawn up in the wake of a vicious attack on a gay man who was badly burned earlier this year.
"The bill, which will go before parliament next month, will make "incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person on the basis of gender or sexual orientation" punishable by a year in prison and a 45,000 euro ($54,000) fine. It puts sexist and homophobic remarks on the same criminal level as words encouraging racism or anti-Semitism."
Of course, most of my gay friends like being noticed, which they certainly wouldn't be in France. Plain old self-sufficient decent heterosexual individuals are the smallest minority in France. Queers, cowards, animalists, and tree-huggers are dime a dozen.
Welcome Invaders
"Do you know how the alleged "shopping-mall" bomber entered our country? He didn't cross the border illegally. He didn't sneak in on a ship. He came through the front door at America's invitation," Michelle Malkin explains in "America's insane asylum for terrorists"
Do you think the terrorists bent on destroying this country are going to have to invade? Why should they—we have no intention of keeping them out.
"Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City's JFK airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words "political asylum." The then-INS released him because it didn't have enough space in its detention facility. Yousef headed to Jersey City to plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."
Give us your sick, your useless, your perverts, your criminals, your terrorists, and any other vile flotsam you'd like to be rid of—they may not be worth anything in your country, but in this country they are worth votes. "Kerry promises, if elected, to lift the ban on immigrants with AIDS."
"US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry promised to lift a ban on immigration to the United Stated by people with AIDS and vowed to double US assistance to a worldwide campaign to combat the deadly and contagious disease."
Yes, its just as contagious as alcoholism, and you get it in exactly the same way. By making bad choices. We think Kerry is one, a bad choice, that is, unless you have AIDs or are an alcoholic Senator.
I was always under the impression the government was supposed to protect us from a foreign invasion. This must not be true, every party is doing its best to prove it is going the let more foreign invaders into the country than anyone else. The Libertarians intend to outdo them all. They want to put signs up at all the borders, "Foreign Invaders, Welcome to the USA."
Ilana Mercer doesn't like that idea at all and says Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have liked it either in her most recent article, "Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party"
Since many of the popular misconceptions about Arabs can be directly attributed to the romanticized fiction (promoted as fact) of the famous Lawrence of Arabia, this article, "Lawrence of Arabia: Lionized liar" by Ilana Mercer, is must read for anyone trying to truly understand the relationships between Arabs, Muslims, and terrorism. It begins:
"It is not without significance that many of the myths of a united Arab nationalism have as their foundation the romantic hallucinations of a British homosexual, T. E. Lawrence, better known as 'Lawrence of Arabia.'"
"And what was her view?
"Rand, the Grand Dame of modern libertarianism, held that psychological immorality is at the root of homosexuality. She argued that homosexuality demonstrated "psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises." While she declared that the government has no right to prohibit consenting sexual acts between adults, Rand made it clear that she found homosexuality personally repugnant."
Oh, don't forget The Great Debate.
|
Of course, we always have the Libertarian candidate who stands for, we are not quite sure what, exactly, according to R. W. Bradford's article 
Are politicians stupid? I know how you answered, but just how stupid do you think they are? Is George Bush so stupid he really thinks Islam is a religion of peace? Some have told me, he knows what Islam is but says those things for political reasons. Political reasons? What would those be?
The Ballad of Carl Drega
William Dalrymple, whose articles are always scholarly without the usual overwheening academic airs, provides an excellent comparison of the two conflicting versions of Islam, Sufism, and fundamental Koranic Islam in his Time Asia article, 
Of the two, Sufism is only dangerous to those who embrace it, all other versions of Islam are dangerous to all civilized men. These two are like warriors come to do battle, champions of their respective beliefs. The one comes bearing a bouquet of flowers and preaching a message of love, the other comes bearing a sword and preaching a message of blood. In this contest, which do you believe will win?
Since the beginning of April, Islam has been the subject of seven ASAP articles; 
"Lindsay Perigo is a man on a mission ... determined to challenge Rand's "outlandish view" of homosexuality, "in the very name of objectivism," no less." Ilana begins.
|
