'cookieChoices = {};'

... Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government ...

Saturday, March 11, 2006

We Have a Long Way to Go

During WWII and it's immediate aftermath, they didn't call patriots who gave it their all to win the war (and the peace) "nativists," "protectionists," or "ignorant." Those among us, our parents, and grandparents who recognized the evil that was Fascism, Naziism, Communism etc. weren't considered country bumpkins who were just too stupid or ignorant to understand the "nuances" of what was going on. Yet this morning, in the space of less than an hour, that's what people like us are being called. You know, the usual "Attack of the Ad Hominems."

They are using the platitude, "By doing this, the ignorant nativist protectionists will wreak havoc with the economy and diminish our ability to fight terrorism and Iran."

It will quite possibly have an effect on our economy, but it will be transient; we do not need any Muslim country in order to do the right thing when it comes to terrorism and Iran - we need only be free to fight a war like warriors, instead of P.C. sissies.

Anything - a blip in the economy or whatever adaptation to change as a result of (finally) recognizing the reality of our situation - is better than living under the dead hand of Islam.

Yet it is we, who have bothered to take the time to learn about Islam, who are being attacked by the people we used to consider our protectors and spokesmen - people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow, Michael Medved, Walid Phares, Mark Ginsberg, and the many self-appointed "capitalists" on shows on Fox and elsewhere.

We, the people who recognize that the goal of Islam is to establish the Kingdom of Allah on the earth by whatever means necessary, up to and including murder and mayhem if da'wa, taqiyya and kitman don't quite do the job, are being called, in effect, the enemy of the United States.

This is just the beginning of the PC effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the matter of the DPW matter. The campaign will continue, with unremitting effort. The drumbeat will grow louder, and eventually, whatever deals have been made in the smoke-filled back rooms of the White House will pacify even the 80% of the Dubai population that regards us as the enemy. It will even cause the "royal" family (i.e. the government) to lay low until the arm twisting, threatening, and bribery have turned things around. They are, apparently, outraged (of course) at this turn of events.

Why is it that Bush stubbornly refuses to see the problem? Well, like Rush et al., he has been infested with P.C., the most effective tool designed by our postmodernist enemy to date, and the means by which we have been made vulnerable to the greatest threat to civilization ever.

Bush, unlike the lesser folk like Rush, Tony, etc., also has another agenda, and that is the "New World Order" he learned from his father, who often spoke publicly of it. If you want to see how our educational system has been steadily eroding the idea of national sovereignty among our children, take a look at this, and be prepared to be horrified.

It explains not only his lack of concern about the danger of having any aspect of control over our ports in the hands of any foreign power, it also explains his lack of concern about border security. Only a globalist proponent of "One World," where the sovereignty of nations, including our own, is reduced in importance and power to that of our individual states, could possibly act in this manner.

There is another influence operating in Bush, and that is his inability to acknowledge that another monotheistic religion could possibly be evil. Islam is very much like Judaism and Christianity because they all believe in one God, right? Of course, he also has the "advantage" of the advice of people like Grover Norquist, rumored to have converted to Islam when he married a Muslima.

We have seen our distinctive institutions like the Supreme Court being eroded; our Constitution is in tatters; even our military uniforms have been altered to resemble those of other nations on the globalist warpath. We have seen our borders disappear, and our ports being prepared for invasion by an enemy that Bush is afraid, unwilling, or too ignorant to name.

But WE know: The enemy is Islam.

There are a very few things we can do to hold back the tide while we gird our loins to fight this thing.

First, we keep on bloggin'; the Blogosphere is the only place left where ideas can be freely exchanged.

Second, begin a very serious program of educating our children about WHY Islam is evil, and WHY we are good. The only way to do an end-run around the globalist efforst of the nihilist postmodernists running the government-controlled school system is parents. If you must have your children in a PC school, be it government or private, then teach them at home. If you possibly can, homeschool them. You may be guaranteed that without your input, they will fall victim to the current campaign to dismember the United States and everything we stand for.

Third, become as vocal and visible as you dare; bumper stickers, buttons, and, how about an adaptation of Dag's idea, wear blue ribbons (instead of scarves)? We need to know how many of us there are; it will give courage to others to "come out of the closet." With 70% of Americans disapproving the notion of the port sell-out, there are a lot of us. And go to meetings such as the one being hosted by People's Truth Forum (for more information, go to peoplestruthforum@lauramansfield.com). As of now, it's scheduled for April 29, in the general vicinity of D.C.

Fourth, we have some time before the next elections; we must begin a vigorous program to find and recruit candidates for office who "get it," and then make sure they win.

Fifth, in the meantime, support existing politicians who want to protect our borders and ports - and frankly, that includes people like Schumer. It doesn't matter what their motives are, at least for the moment. We are experiencing a virtual emergency.

A song in Camelot, referring to the lofty ideals held in that fairy-tale like place, had words that I find poignantly significant, given our situation: ". . .a brief, shining moment. . ."

We can fight this thing and make sure that the epitaph of the history of the United States is not ". . .a brief, shining moment. . ."
Bookmark and Share
posted by Cubed © at permanent link#


Blogger Pastorius said...

Thanks for this quality essay, Cubed.

Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:02:00 pm  
Blogger Moved Elsewhere said...

Sound foreign policy requires the rational analysis of risk versus reward. While we have heard much about both real and imaginary risks involved in the Dubai port deal we know little about the possible rewards that may have come from it. Nor are we aware of the possible risks involved in thwarting that deal.

I am inclined to trust the Bush administration in this matter as it has more information, some of it secret, at its disposal than any of us have. And I don't buy "New World Order" conspiracy theories.

Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:10:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I don't buy the NWO conspiracy theories either, Ken. In fact, I supported the Port Deal, until the very last day.

When the U.S. Congress voted down the deal, the reaction of the UAE was to threaten all-out economic warfare against the United States.

I am a businessman, and I can see that that is an irrational response.

The UAE is the most wealthy nation in the world per capita. They do not need this deal. So, why was the reaction so out of proportion to the level of the objective import of the deal?

The obvious answer is, this deal meant something more to the UAE than simply a $6 billion dollar inflow of cash.

What could it have meant?

The obvious answer is, no matter what kind of due diligence the Bush Administration may, or may not have done, the UAE needed this deal, in order to make other deals work.

Now, who else squaked about the failure of this deal?

Arab countries.

In other words, I believe the UAE had made deals with other Arab countries which were contingent upon this port deal going through.

I think that is a reasonable assessment of the situation. It may not be accurate. but, it is reasonable.

Therefore, I think the deal needed to be put to rest.

We can not make such a small deal when, for unknown reasons, the deal is of an importance out of proportion to all known reality to the other country.


Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:26:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

I am in full agreement with Pastorius on this. I was not against this deal at first either. It was the UAE's rather extreme response, that changed my mind.

There's more to this than meets the eye.

Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:40:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Sorry Ken, but this..."I am inclined to trust the xxxx administration in this matter as it has more information" is EXACTLY what LBJ was saying for too long.

No foreign power should be in charge of where there national security interests at stake. That jus nit a free market issue, and no other benefit trumps this. "Provide for the Common Defense" is at the top of the document.

We have shown that the UAE's people hear the shame stuff in the mosque as the rest of the gulf .i.e. PURE VENOM. DPW would have had 100's of visa's at their disposal, and CERTAINLY had admin rights on data systems with manifests.

No way. And it's not racism. No foreign power should be in that position.

Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:16:00 pm  
Blogger Kiddo said...

I tried to promote an idea similar to Dag's back in December, the 9/11 Vigil Project, in which people in every city or town who wanted to participate could gather on the 11th of every month to hold a vigil to make it clear that people are still angry about 9/11 and still willing to fight against Islamo-fascism (or whatever you want to call it). I ended up doing the UAC protest instead, and like the scarf idea as well. But this needs to be a cohesive well oiled machine that is visible, talked about and publicized. As always, I'm open to suggestions and contact as to how to go about it.

I love the picture of Salma, BTW. Actually, a friend of mine though it was me!! That's proof positive that he has NOT met me in person, isn't it? HAAHA!

Saturday, March 11, 2006 11:21:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

I heard an interesting theory on talk radio yesterday: DPW pulled out of the deal because UAE couldn't stand up to a full 45-day investigation. The speaker cited a 2004 article in Forbes Magazine about a member of the Bush administration saying that UAE couldn't be trusted. I don't recall all the details (I was driving at the time and had to give attention to the heavy traffic). What the radio talk-show host said made sense to me, however.

Something else I didn't like...Even though Bush admitted that he didn't know all the details of the deal, he threatened to veto any stoppage of same.

And just who lobbied for the ports deal?

We're going to hear more about the fallout from the ports deal. "Arab phobia" and the like.

As to Walid Phares, I'm disappointed in most of what he said. But he also said that there would be no lasting effects from UAE's "rejection."

PS: Excellent essay, Cubed!

Sunday, March 12, 2006 12:55:00 am  
Blogger loki said...

Excellent, excellent...and Bravo!!!

Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:33:00 am  
Blogger Cubed © said...


Thanks for your comment.

I have been casting about for a long time trying to understand why Bush just doesn't seem to "get it."

I don't know whether I'd prefer to have a president who has been blinded to the obvious by an irrational loyalty to a religion he believes is so much like his own that it can't POSSIBLY be evil, or whether he is so insulated from the facts by his advisors that he can't act competently in the best interests of the nation.

The nature of Islam and the threat it presents is SO severe, and Bush's response to it - including to the Dubai deal, among many, many other things - is so incomprehensible that I find myself unable to discount entirely the idea that he may have been influenced by his dad's love of the "New World Order." There's a lot of that going around in postmodernist circles these days.

SOMETHING has to explain Bush's attitude and behavior vis a vis Islam, and I think we cannot afford to leave anything off the table in trying to discover what that might be. Whatever it is, we need to avoid it in the next president.

Christine and Pastorius,

There surely must be more than meets the eye here. Seeing the hissy-fit they threw in Dubai when they first got the news is a big clue, just as you point out.

The idea that there was more than meets the eye was Jonsson's biggest point in his "Dubai Ports - Strategic Implications" article. "Why," he asked, "would expert businessmen like those in Dubai be so willing to pay 70% above market value for the Ports deal?"

He makes an excellent case for the idea that the value of the purchase is worth every bit of that exaggerated premium, provided it gives them something more than just the expected economic return.

He suggests that the value to Dubai, above and beyond the ridiculously high price they paid, is the greater access to sensitive parts of our country that it would provide. Dubai is, in essence, acting as a sort of "mild-mannered middleman" between the naive, PC Westerners and Muslims bent on world conquest and our destruction.

If true, that would certainly account for Dubai's willingness to pay a premium of 70% above market value for the contract.


Absolutely right on. "To Provide for the Common Defense" is the single greatest responsibility of the President of the United States.

In allowing foreigners (especially those belonging to a group that has sworn to destroy us) ANY modicum of control over points of entry and strategic infrastructure, Bush is failing to carry out his sworn duty to carry out his job description as seen in the Constitution.

Pim's Ghost,

How about blue ribbons? They are discrete, small enough to wear conveniently, and so far, blue hasn't been adopted by any other cause.


I bet that's right - in a serious investigation lasting 45 days, some of the kinds of things that Jonsson is talking about, if true, would be bound to come out.

I sure wish I'd heard that radio show. . . sigh.

I was particularly disheartened by Walid Phares because he has always seemed to be so solid about recognizing the threat of Islam, and given his background, his words have always carried so much weight. I think he's right about "no lasting effect" of rejecting the deal, which makes me feel even better about its having been rejected.

The economic woes that may occur as a result of rejecting the deal with DPW do concern me, but not nearly as much as allowing Muslims to gain a further foothold in our country. Nothing, not even total economic collapse, could be as bad as living under Islam.

The DPW deal - or rather, the defense of it and the trivialization of our objections to it - scares the doo-doo out of me, particularly in view of the points made by David Jonsson in his article.

Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:11:00 am  
Blogger Cubed © said...

Thanks, Loki!

Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:12:00 am  
Blogger JMJ said...


The wisdom and insight that you guys have demonstrated in this post and f/u comments is very impressive!

I was always against the DPW deal because of the simple "just in case" rationale.

The over the top negative reaction of UAE to the loss of this deal was very revealing, just like the cartoons have been.

All the more reason to be very hesistant in all of our dealings with the ME. The broad brush mentality may be a more accurate and wise approach than we all could ever have forseen.


Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:20:00 pm  
Blogger BunBun4life said...

Wow and this is almost 6 years old. People just do not want to listen, do they? Muslims have been fucking up and invading us and killing us since the time of mohammed. They have NEVER stopped.

Now schools are including ethnic studies of arabs that basically is an instruction course on islam, while no ethnic studies of any other group (like Buddhists in Thailand, etc.) includes mass information on their religion. We are falling fast, the media lies, cover ups, and rages against mean ole racists it what people see every day, and (for example) i moved to sweden and noticed that almost all newspapers here are owned by the same family. When a black muslim somalian took his clothes off, ran around a metro train saying "I am a somalian warrior" and trying to make women suck his dick, the FIRST thing that happen is that the papers changed his statement to read 'i am a warrior' then later versions just removed it. 2ND the train video images were 'white pixeled' in a way that made the perpetrator appear white, then ALL images were removed from online media.

What the hell? I mean they not only DON'T want us knowing the horrible shit these people are doing, they want to blame lunatic type problems on the whites!! (by that i simply mean non muslim indigenous swedes)

Sunday, November 27, 2011 12:30:00 am  

Post a comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Older Posts Newer Posts