The Truth Hurts ...

This one you don't want to read, and have to think again about tomorrow, or next year....

Who was it that said ....."the truth hurts?"

Drawing the Line

by Yashiko Sagamori

It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any point.

Euclid's 1st Postulate

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence



A couple of weeks ago, I was driving home from work while listening to Sean Hannity on WABC. Sean was telling his audience how much every human being outside the United States, in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, craved democracy. He was proudly saying that the US army had liberated 26 million Iraqis. He seemed to think that the Euclidian clarity of the most famous quotation from the Declaration of Independence made it immune to disbelief and objections.

What he apparently failed to understand was the simple fact that if the equality of all men had been universally self-evident to all men, there would have been no need to state it explicitly. What the Declaration of Independence actually means is that "We, unlike the rest of the humankind and against the laws and customs of its majority, have decided to hold these truths to be self-evident".

What he apparently failed to take into account was the fact that every society, every civilization is based on a set of truths its members hold to be self-evident and irrefutable, and that more often than not any two sets of those self-evident, irrefutable truths prove to be mutually exclusive.

What he apparently could not comprehend was the fact that it is even theoretically impossible to liberate a person for whom only two human conditions exist: a slave and a slave-owner. (The Arabic equivalent of the English adjective free literally means not a slave.)

What he disregarded completely was the fact that 1.2 billion people living on this planet and, in rapidly increasing numbers, among us in this country, adhere to a totally different set of self-evident truths, namely, that all men are created Muslim, even if they are born to infidel parents. And if those infidel parents commit the crime of raising their inherently Muslim children in a false faith, it is both an inalienable right and a sacred duty of every properly raised Muslim to undo their crime by either converting the victim back to Islam (the Muslim term for conversion to Islam is reversion) or, if the victim is unwilling to submit (the Arabic word Islam means submission), then by killing him or her, thereby earning oneself a place in Paradise.

While still driving and listening, I received sudden and painfully humiliating proof that I was right. I was driving in the left lane. In the middle lane, a couple of car lengths ahead of me, I saw a black SUV with a custom license plate. The license plate read:

SHAHID K

I have no idea what the K stands for.

I pulled forward a bit to take a look at the driver and saw a fat woman in her forties with a heavily made up, stupid, unhappy, un-American face. In case you are wondering, this encounter took place neither in Ramallah nor Fallujah. It happened in Westchester County, NY, and the offensive license plate was issued by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, whose wisdom and efficiency have caught my attention before.

I came home and sent an e-mail describing the sighting to the Department of Homeland Security. They never bothered to respond, and I believe that in the foreseeable future, the woman with the un-American face will continue driving along American roads unmolested, along with millions of her fellow observant Muslim settlers in this country. For all I know, that woman might even be working for Homeland Security herself. You don't expect the Department of Homeland Security to practice profiling, do you?

Now, please don't take me wrong. I don't believe that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect my patriotic felings. Neither do I believe, however, that its purpose is to provide safety to enemies of the United States of America on American soil, among American people, during a war they have unleashed against us. We used to be a powerful country. Benign power breeds magnanimity. In times of peace, we could afford to ignore anti-American verbiage of our many enemies. But our power is waning, and these are not times of peace.

Again, don't take me wrong. I am not calling for restricting anyone's freedom to express him- or herself by using the license plate to announce their heartfelt desire to exterminate us. I am calling for throwing our avowed enemies out of the country before they have a chance to fulfill their loud and clear promise. Then, and only then, we will be able to enjoy all the freedoms the Constitution grants us.

During World War II, half a dozen German agents were smuggled aboard a submarine to our shores with the purpose of committing sabotage and terrorizing the population. They were captured, tried, and soon afterwards hanged. I don't believe they were allowed to keep their copies of Mein Kampf while they were awaiting their execution. If they were, they never complained about their jailers' disrespect to the “sacred” book that had brought them to the gallows. Or, if they did, nobody paid attention, for those were the times before liberalism degenerated into multiculturalism, and political correctness.

During World War III, millions of Muslims openly and, for the most part, legally, just like Mohammad Atta and his cohorts, immigrated to the United States and settled here with the openly stated purpose of replacing the rule of the Constitution with the rule of Sharia, planning to turn this land into yet another province of the world-wide Caliphate. They are being accommodated in every way possible. They walk among us unafraid and unmolested, protected by the Constitution that, due to its novel, purposely defeatist interpretation, can no longer protect us from them.

While the government removes all references to the Ten Commandments from public display, the White House openly celebrates Ramadan, and Muslim employees of our government shamelessly go on all fours during their working hours to perform the salat. Even though everyone knows that the next massacre on our soil will be planned, executed, and openly celebrated by observant Muslims, government-issued edicts effectively forbid subjecting them to the same regular security procedures at the airports and other points of extreme vulnerability that the rest of us, thanks to our uninvited guests, have to go through without complaining.

The politically correct crowd keeps reminding us that this is exactly what makes the United States of America a free country. Unfortunately, there is a problem with their optimistic assertion. This problem stems from the obvious fact that a murderer and his intended victim cannot be equally free at the same time and place. You either restrict the freedom of the former or, eventually, you will have to bury the latter. The enemy's ever growing presence in our land has eroded our freedom beyond anything even the most vicious, right-wing government conspiracy could ever dream up. To give you an idea of the terrible scale of that erosion: we are no longer free to kill our enemies in the time of war. But we are still free to tolerate their vile presence in our country.

John Lindh is an American citizen. He was captured in Afghanistan while fighting against the United States on the side of the Taliban. Obviously, this constitutes a crime. As every human being, he is entitled to a due process. Considering the circumstances of his capture and the nature of the crime he undoubtedly committed, due process in his case should have consisted of exactly two steps: a speedy hanging and hygienic disposal of the body.

Unfortunately, we don't do this kind of thing anymore. Instead, he was brought back to the United States to stand trial — inexplicably, in civilian court. The government quickly realized that, due to excessive humanity of our civilian laws, hanging him for killing our soldiers was out of the question, because no one who had witnessed him killing American soldiers had come forward to testify against him. He entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to 20 years in jail. His parents, looking as if their heads were still reeling from all the weed they had smoked in the 60's, called a press conference and shamelessly announced that their Johnny was a true American patriot. Nobody threw an egg at them.

In a more recent case of American idiocy, a jury that had previously decided that Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for a death penalty, failed to sentence him to death. Apparently, they subscribed to the defense assertions that his role in the 9/11 conspiracy was minor. I also happen to think that his role was minor. Let's say, he bears just 1% of the responsibility for the attack. It means that he is personally responsible for the murder of 30 American civilians. How does that mean that he deserves to live even one hour longer than absolutely necessary for the process to be deemed “due”? But even if his role in the attack of 9/11 was completely non-existent, he, according to his own proud admission, came to this country with the purpose of killing Americans. In a time of peace, he should have had his head examined before, or maybe even instead of, the trial. In a time of war, he should be hanged.

Of course, from now on, Zacarias Moussaoui's life will not be too pleasant. He will be locked up in one of the Supermax prisons where he will be subjected to 23 hours a day of solitary confinement in a sound-proof concrete cell for the rest of his life. The main difference between his punishment and being buried alive is that it will take him much longer to die. Judge Brinkema promised Moussaoui that he would die with a whimper. However, where there is breath there is hope. Apparently, the French government is preparing to initiate proceedings to transfer Moussaoui, who is a French citizen, into French custody. He may still die with a roar.

On a wider scale, consider the terrorist organization commonly known as the “Palestinian Authority”. Imagine that Israel, instead of celebrating its 58th anniversary, miraculously disappeared overnight without a trace, along with all its Jewish population, all Jewish cities, all Jewish settlements, all Jewish hospitals, all Jewish greenhouses, all kibbutzim, all synagogues, and everything else that Jews have created on their land and heroically defended throughout six decades of incessant Arab war against them. Regardless of who runs that terrorist organization — Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or any other bunch of Arab murderers — do you really believe they would be able to cease the opportunity and become a country?

I think not; because the people the world calls “Palestinians”, besides being Arabs, have only one thing in common: their passionate desire to murder Jews. Let history students correct me, but the Arabs, throughout their bloody history have demonstrated no more talent for nation building that for any other kind of positive, constructive endeavor. The borders of most Arab countries you can find on the map today were drawn either by the British or be the Turks. As to their hatred of Jews, no matter what suicidal intensity it reaches, it cannot provide a foundation upon which a nation can be built.

Since 1964, the world has poured billions of dollars into their little enterprise. How have they used the money? To kill thousands and maim tens of thousands of Jews; to make Arafat and his minions rich; to brainwash hundreds of thousands of their own children into becoming suicidal maniacs; in short, to do everything in their power to avoid the responsibilities of nation-building for themselves.

They have managed to not even create a rudimentary economy. Their jurisprudence makes lynching seem humane in comparison. Their differences in political opinions are being routinely resolved by one group outgunning, rather than outvoting, the other. As soon as the West, in a hopeless attempt to save its long lost face, responded to Hamas electoral victory by withholding a part of its regular donations, the “authority” found itself unable to even pay salaries to its employees. In what twisted vocabulary have the proponents of “Palestinian” independence found their definition of the term?

Following its age-old tradition, world opinion blames the Jews, and this time I happen to share that world opinion. This festering wound would never have existed had Israel not waived its sacred right to kill those who are trying to kill it. It is as simple as that. I can understand the reluctance of civilized people to kill enemy children, even if it means saving the lives of one's own people. However, I refuse to understand the reluctance to kill those who dedicate their lives to turning their own children into murderers.

Or consider Iran. One of the major oil producers in the world, a country technologically backward even when compared with some other Muslim countries, Iran declared its burning desire to switch to nuclear power. I wish my government had done that. Their diplomats assure everyone that their intentions are perfectly peaceful; however, their president threatens to obliterate Israel and to share nuclear arms with every Islamic entity in the world. And their nuclear facilities are well protected by layers of rock and closeness to population center. Can we do anything to stop Iran?

Of course, we can. Remember, arms don't kill people. People kill people. This is equally true for an illegally purchased handgun, as well as the nuclear arsenal of a backward Muslim country. We don't need to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. What we need instead is to eliminate forever Iran's capacity to threaten us. It means sending their leadership to the long awaiting heavenly virgins, turning their religious institutions into dust, confiscating their oil fields, and killing as many Iranians as it takes to render them harmless till the end of time. No democratization; no nation-building; no Marshall plan. And, most importantly, no attempts to install a friendly government, because a country whose people hate us, literally to death, cannot be our ally, no matter who is in control of its government. Unfortunately, we've been too slow to learn this simple lesson as it pertains to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and even Iran, as well as every other Turdistan on the planet whose kingpin doesn't mind dealing with the infidel for the sake of promoting jihad and making a few extra billions in the process. Come to thing of it, had we done this to Pakistan, there would be no problem with Iran today.

Am I talking genocide? No, our enemies are talking genocide, openly and without shame. What I am talking about is merely necessary self-defense.

Can we expect this from our government?

Here's where one of the major achievements of our democracy comes into play in the international arena. I am talking about term limitations. President Bush has produced more than his fair share of major blunders during his six years in office. His desire to postpone any development that might force him to take action against Iran is palpable. He strongly prefers his successor to have to deal with that problem, along with every other problem he or, most probably, she, will inherit from Bush-43.

In the meantime, our situation becomes simpler with every passing day. We are quickly nearing the point where killing our enemies, both foreign and domestic, will no longer be one of the many options that have been historically available to us as a superpower. Beyond that point, the alternative to kill or to be killed no longer exists. It won't be us or them. Inevitably, it will be just them.