The Destruction of Marriage Project

The Destruction of Marriage Project

 

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum when the marriage pact, the most ancient institution in human history – pre-dating government itself – and the bedrock foundation of all civilization is now being defined by majority rule, and in some cases, by judicial fiat, rather than by the Natural Law.  No longer is the marriage contract based on sexual and procreative complementarity as nature – and nature’s God – intended; marriage is now based on whatever barbaric act of sodomy the left chooses to normalize.  But as Edward Peters has pointed out, these innovative new interpretations of the marital union – such as a man marrying another man – are not merely forbidden; they are impossible.  Marriage is what it is and no more.  It cannot be redefined, only destroyed.  

     

Yet in spite of the manifest impossibility of altering this Divinely ordained institution, we are now expected, nay required, to suspend the use of both our faculty of reason and the Voice of conscience to accept the bizarre premise that two men rectally assaulting each other for their own twisted pleasure is equivalent to the procreative conjugal act between a man and his wife within the bounds of Holy Matrimony (because let’s face it, any activity that results in the exchange of blood and fecal matter, but can never result in conception is, by definition, not a sexual act; it is an assault – regardless of consent.)  And anyone who dares to disagree with this madness is not merely wrong, but guilty of discrimination, our betters now insist.

 

The truth of the matter is that any definition of marriage outside the Natural Law (procreative complementarity) is completely arbitrary.  At what point is this arbitrarily drawn line going to come under attack by the next crop of politically active perverts who crave a public stamp of approval for their own bizarre fetish? How long will it be before the left is no longer satisfied with merely normalizing male-on-male anal sodomy? Which “alternative lifestyle” will the left demand we normalize next?  Will it be polyamory (any combination of multiple adults marrying each other), or pederasty (an adult male marrying a boy,) or pedophilia (any adult–child marriage)?  Will it be incest or bestiality; or how about a woman marrying a building or a bridge?      

 

This oft-ridiculed ‘slippery slope’ argument is legitimate because, since any definition of marriage outside the Natural Law is completely arbitrary, it is therefore discriminatory.  This is what makes the issue so ironic: by excluding all these other relationships, those championing an expanded definition of marriage outside the Natural Law – ostensibly on the grounds of fairness – are themselves the only ones actually discriminating.  Eventually they will have to acknowledge this and their efforts to right this new wrong will commence.  This will ultimately and inevitably lead to one of the two only possible logical conclusions: a return to the true Natural Law marriage definition or the complete elimination of the marriage pact altogether in any form.

The activists, though they are loath to admit it publicly, know this.  The fact is, the long-term goal of these leftists isn’t expanding marriage at all, but rather destroying it by defining it so broadly it loses all meaning.  Because once marriage is destroyed the family is destroyed with it and into this vacuum steps the all-powerful state, which was their true goal all along. 

 

This issue (destroying the family unit) is part of the larger project of the progressive left: to replace the influence of individuals, parents, families, the Church, and local civic institutions with that of the state.  Their goal all along has been to attack the very Catholic and very American concept of subsidiarity – one of the central bulwarks of American liberty.  It (replacing family sovereignty with state power) also explains no-fault divorce laws, Obama-care, welfare, public education (especially the federal common-core curriculum), and so much else.  It is why Hilary Clinton once wrote a book called “It Takes a Village (to raise a child.)”  It is why she supported the right of kids to sue their parents: because it places the state between and above the family.

 

Having analyzed the left’s true motivation in destroying marriage, let us now consider what the Catholic Church, for its part, teaches on the nature of sin generally and on the human condition, and how it relates to this controversial issue. 

Sin, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is defined as:

[A]n offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law. 


The Church affirms and teaches that all men are, due to Original Sin, engaged in a daily struggle against the temptation to commit sin, to surrender to baser appetites contrary to reason and conscience.  This tendency scholars call concupiscence.  And just as human beings come in all shapes and sizes and with widely diverse physical attributes, ailments, and conditions, so too do they manifest different inclinations toward sin – both in degree and in kind.  That is, for example, some are more tempted by sins against purity (lust) while others less so; some are more susceptible to sins against humility (pride) than others; and some struggle more than others with temptations to sin against temperance or moderation (gluttony.)


For our purposes and by way of example let us consider two very common sins of which we are all often guilty (or at least frequently tempted): lust and gluttony.  Both are sins related to the bodily, carnal appetites and each can manifest itself in different ways.  Lust is most often associated with the inordinate desire for sexual pleasure, while gluttony usually concerns itself with food or drink.  Neither of these objects: sexuality (properly ordered towards marital procreation) and food are necessarily sinful in themselves; rather they become sinful when they are desired or consumed in a way that is either disordered or excessive.  In other words, a ‘perverse attachment’ to these goods can cause sin.   


The Church has always taught that human sexuality is a gift from God and a means through which men can become cooperators with God as Creator, hence the term procreation.  The Church has always affirmed and taught that all sex outside of marriage is sinful and must be avoided.  Clearly, Church teaching on sexuality is not maliciously directed merely at same-sex couples, but at all illicit sexual activity.  Sex must be exclusively between husband and wife and open to life. 


Through the marital act offspring are brought forth in satisfaction of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”  These offspring are then meant to be raised by their parents as members of the ‘domestic Church’, the family.  Human sexuality, then, is more than a mere physically pleasurable act biologically necessary for the propagation of the human race; it has been elevated by God to something greater. 


Likewise, the consumption of food and drink is more than just a biologically necessary function of the human body; it also bears great cultural and even religious significance.  Indeed, sharing meals as a family or as a community of families satisfies both our physical need for sustenance and our very human need for friendship and social interaction.  Our biological human need for food is thus elevated to something more.  Moreover, the fact that eating is enjoyable to us in itself encourages us to do it and thus maintain bodily health just as the physical enjoyment of sexuality encourages procreation.


Both of these human goods (sexuality and consumption) are, from the perspective of teleology, gifts from God bearing both physical and spiritual significance and are objectively good when rightly ordered; that is, when they are practiced in moderation and used for their true purpose guided by the Christian virtues of charity, temperance, prudence, and chastity, they can bring great joy and enrichment while being pleasing to the Almighty.  On the other hand, when misused or abused in a disordered way, a person is in danger of falling into sin and all of its resultant consequences, both temporal and eternal.  Let us examine each in turn. 


Very few people today would argue that bulimia and anorexia are not eating disorders.  To eat to gross excess, purposefully vomit to empty the stomach, then to eat some more is neither natural nor healthy; neither is it healthy to starve oneself in a misguided attempt to be skinny and attractive.  This is not how nature intended the human person to sustain himself; rather these conditions are disordered corruptions of a natural human good.  They are both dangerous to one’s health and unnatural and may also under certain conditions constitute the sins of gluttony and/or pride – that is, sins against temperance or humility, respectively; and just as the natural good of eating can be corrupted or abused in a way that is harmful and/or sinful, so too can the natural good of human sexuality.  And in both cases our response should be to help someone so afflicted to overcome their sickness, not confirm them in it.  


If someone you loved was systematically starving themselves while complaining of being fat and unattractive, would you encourage them to eat or would you exacerbate their problem by saying “you look great! Whatever diet you’re on is working for you, keep it up”?  If someone you loved was binging and purging, would you help them overcome this problem or simply accept their lifestyle choice and place a bucket next to their place at the dinner table?  Similarly, if you sat down for dinner and someone you love began shoving spoonful’s of mashed potatoes in their ear, would you shrug your shoulders and ignore this obviously bizarre and self-destructive behavior? 


Would you not lovingly seek help for a friend with an eating disorder? Is that not the charitable Christian thing to do, to help someone in need rather than confirming them in their error and perpetuating its consequent problems?  The fact of the matter is that it is no act of charity to practice blind tolerance of or open-mindedness to such behavior; as Flannery O’Connor once said, “sometimes people can be so open-minded that their brains fall out.”  Both common sense and true Christian charity dictate we should help those suffering with sexual disorders just as we would help those with eating disorders.  But why don’t we?


Because few are willing or courageous enough to admit that homosexuality and other psycho-sexual disorders are, in fact, disorders at all.  This is regrettably true for the same reason that Internet Use Disorder (IUD or internet addiction) is now included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders while homosexuality no longer is: politics.  There is no massive PR campaign or militant lobbying group championing the cause of internet addiction any more than there is for anorexia or bulimia.  People who oppose internet addiction are not ridiculed, mocked, or called hateful, bigoted, or intolerant.  On the other hand, people who hold to the self-evident truth that homosexuality and other illicit sexual behaviors are disordered are simply not tolerated; they are shunned, attacked, and discriminated against.  This, I submit, is why opinion polls increasingly show wider support for gay unions over time.  People are afraid to voice a counter-cultural opinion which puts them in the cross-hairs of the thought police.  Moreover, the left won’t even debate these issues because when they do they lose: their arguments fall apart with just a little scrutiny.  Instead they call you a bigot.  End of discussion.


 

Unlike those of us on the political right, those on the left tend to take the long-term view, while the right debates issues one at a time and out of context.  The marriage issue is no different.  What we on the right have failed to point out to the public is what the lefts long-term strategy really is: expanded state power.  The destruction of marriage is merely a means to this end.    


Our leftist opponents in this particular debate – whom I like to call the Alphabet Soup Nazis (those who are militantly forcing the LBGT agenda down our throats) – believe not in freedom, but conformity. They are why reparative therapy (curing same-sex attraction through counseling) is now illegal in several states; they are why businesses that decline to participate in same-sex ‘marriages’ are being shut down by the government.  They are the ones that are forcing schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms (if they ‘self-identify’ as girls) despite the protests of concerned parents.


If freedom is to survive, these neo-fascist bullies hell-bent on destroying the institution of Holy Matrimony must be resisted and challenged by men and women of good will.  The Natural Law, the eternal truths authored by the Divine Architect that used to unite us, that comprised the philosophical basis for our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the seedbed upon which our civilization grew must be respected and defended if our free country is to survive, let alone thrive.  This effort begins with the defense of marriage

Posted in Catholicism, Elections and Politics, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Arming Terrorist is Always a Bad Idea

According to media reports, the Obama administration is considering aiding the rebels fighting to depose Syria’s Shiite-Muslim dictator Bashar Assad by providing them with arms and other support.  Since Assad is a tyrant this may sound like a good idea; that is, until you consider who these rebels are.  Their main fighting arm consists of members of the Sunni-Islamic terrorist groups Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, Hamas.


On the other side of this conflict, Assad is allied with the Shiite-Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah and its state sponsor Iran.  In other words, two rival Islamic sects, with their associated terrorist groups and state sponsors, are at war with each other and Obama, rather than allowing these two belligerent enemies of the West to exhaust themselves fighting each other, is poised to ally the United States with one of these head-chopping jihadist groups by arming them with state-of-the-art weapons systems that will eventually be used against us.


This is very similar to the debacle scenario that played out in Benghazi, Libya.  As reported by Roger Simon, we now know that the purpose of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ secret trip to Libya was to recover the high-tech surface-to-air missiles and other arms the US State Department – on the orders of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and against the advice of the defense and intelligence communities – secretly sold to the rebels fighting against then Libyan dictator, Mohammar Qaddafi.  These rebels were of course actually radical Islamic terrorists and were apparently in no mood to gratefully return these weapons to Mr. Stevens upon the death of Qaddafi.  This may be why the administration sent no help to the ambassador and his staff when they came under attack: it was an illegal and covert operation gone bad and dead men tell no tales.


Since Recent intelligence suggests that al-Qaeda now has its hands on advanced surface-to-air missile systems capable of taking down commercial airliners, I guess we know where those Benghazi weapons ended up.  The bad news is that thanks to the Obama White House, terrorists can now take down civilian airliners without stepping anywhere near an airport; the good news is that this fact now renders the TSA obsolete.


After the assault on the US delegation in Benghazi ended with four brave Americans dying alone and abandoned by their country, the administration immediately went into spin mode, blaming a videotape for the whole bloody conflagration.  They even went so far as to send its innocent scapegoat producer to prison without trial as a compliant and incurious lapdog media ate up this absurd cover story without question.  This story is now unraveling, but at least they’ve learned their lesson: always sell arms openly to Islamic terrorist groups and for good measure give it the appearance of bi-partisanship by recruiting the support of hapless RINO’s like John McCain!


This strategy of arming revolutionaries in the Middle East is also consistent with the policy debacle in Egypt wherein the administration backed the rabble opposing US ally Hosni Mubarak and eventually leading to his ouster by what turned out to be the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunni-Islamic terrorist group that now controls the billions of dollars’ worth of US arms we have been providing Egypt over the years.


To sum up this administrations Middle East foreign policy, let’s review: when a true grass-roots movement of secular pro-Western liberals in Iran challenged the Mullahs iron grip on power, Obama did nothing while the movement was crushed with ruthless and brutal efficiency.  Soon thereafter, when Islamic terrorists revolted against US ally Hosni Mubarak, we backed the terrorists.  It was only after handing Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama decided to once again choose sides in an internecine Muslim conflict, this time in Libya in favor of the radical Islamic terrorists against Mohammar Qaddafi.  Now in Syria, once again Obama is poised to back one band of America-hating Islamic terrorists in a civil war against another band of America-hating Islamic terrorists.  They call this the Arab Spring; let’s just hope it doesn’t turn into an Arab Nuclear Winter!


Coincidentally, this is the same strategy employed by President Carter in the 1970’s via-a-vis Iran; a policy which ushered in the modern iteration of jihad among pious Muslims, starting with our new friends holding 52 American hostages for 444 days.  They’ve since gotten bolder; and much more violent.


Not content to arm only hyper-violent Muslim terrorists half a world away, this gang also ran Operation Fast and Furious, the program under which the Obama Administration sold thousands of semi-automatic “assault rifles” to known Mexican narcoterrorists right on our own southern border.  Ironically, he did all this gun-running while simultaneously attacking the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms.  The weapons this administration sold to the Mexican drug cartels under this program have been used to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least two US lawmen, so far – that we know of.


Cumulatively, these facts beg two questions: whose side are these assholes on, anyway? And when can we expect the articles of impeachment?   

Posted in Islam and Terrorism | Leave a comment

St Joseph and the Christ Child

St Joseph and the Christ Child

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

On Virtue

“When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe.”

Frédéric Bastiat

Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

On Liberty

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams, 1775

Posted in Great Quotes, Philosophy | Leave a comment

LET FREEDOM WIN: A Roadmap for Victory in the Arab-Israeli Conflict (March 2006)

When considering solutions to the vexing conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Levant, the goal that is usually defined by diplomats, academics, and journalists is peace; but as John Ruskin said “You may either win peace or buy it – win it, by resistance to evil; buy it, by compromise with evil.”[i]While peace is certainly a laudable goal, too often, all else is sacrificed to this end and with disastrous consequences.  History is replete with examples of a peace, declared prematurely, or defined by a third party, which cannot hold.  The current standoff at the 38th parallel between the United States and North Korea is more than a half-century old now, and the cease-fire declared there resolved nothing, while arguably condemning millions to die of starvation and execution at the hands of communist tyrants.  The premature cessation of hostilities by the U.S. and its allies in Operation Desert Storm similarly left the dictator Sadaam Hussein (who was strongly supported by Palestinian Arabs) in power to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, finance suicide attacks in Israel, and necessitate a large U.S. presence in the Saudi desert, inflaming militant Islamic anger at the west.  Peace alone cannot be defined as victory; rather victory is a means through which peace may be achieved.

Historical Jewish claim to Judea

The ancient Hebrew’s, ancestors to today’s Jewish race were among the first people to establish permanent settlements on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.  This area, known variously to history as Judea, Palestine, the Levant, and Israel was the land originally promised by God to the Jewish people through the Prophet Abraham, Patriarch of the great monotheistic western faiths.  Since antiquity the Jewish settlers there have been periodically massacred, enslaved, dominated, and driven off their land by the likes of the Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Crusaders, and Turks.  One such oppressor, the Romans coined the term Palestine, in around 135 A.D. in a vain attempt to extinguish forever the Jews’ connection to their land after a revolt against their pagan overlords was crushed in particularly brutal fashion.[ii]  However, despite these repeated attempts to exterminate and permanently disperse their people, a core group of Jewish inhabitants have remained there for over 3 millennia.  These stewards of the Jewish homeland have, at great personal peril, retained their peoples’ claim to the Promised Land ever since.

In the late 19th century, a new “Aliyah”, or return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land began, which culminated in 1948 with the creation of the modern state of Israel.  Among the many reasons for this emigration were the brutal treatment of Jews in Arab lands where they are considered “Dhimmi”, or second-class citizens; in fact, many thousands of Jews were forcibly expelled from their homes in Arab lands, most settling in  Israel, their property confiscated by their former governments.[iii]  In Europe, Jews were subject to discrimination and occasional pogroms, or outbreaks of violence that peaked with the holocaust in the late 1930’s.   In this mass-liquidation of Jewish civilians, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, leader of Palestine’s Muslim community, aided the Nazi-German architects of the final solution.  As historian Joan Peters put it “The Grand Mufti…staunch friend of Hitler and coordinator with Germany in the final solution to the Jewish problem-was personally responsible for the concentration camp slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews, if not more.”[iv]

Once these Jewish pilgrims arrived in Palestine they generally purchased land there from largely Arab absentee-landowners.  Later, as Zionism, or commitment by the world’s Jewry to a return to the land of Zion (or Israel) became a more formal and organized movement, blocks of land were purchased collectively by Jewish organizations.  These lands were improved and irrigated and whole communities developed on them.  This influx of industrious new Jewish settlers soon drew increasing numbers of poor Arabs to Palestine in hopes of finding work on the newly cultivated lands.  This dual Arab-Jewish immigration into the heretofore largely uninhabited region, described by Peters as “under-populated land, its revolving populace perennially depleted in number because of exploitation, reckless plundering, nomadism, endless tribal uprisings, and natural disasters.”[v] Would soon flare up into sectarian violence, as both groups would claim the land as their own.

Israel’s legal claim to its homeland

The fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had controlled the Middle East for the previous 400 years to the Allies in WWI, created a power vacuum in the region.  To address this, the League of Nations tasked the victors with Mandatory authority, or administrative control in various areas of the region.  The intent of the mandate was to create local municipal governments and to eventually transfer sovereignty to the people indigenous to the region.  The Jews of Palestine quickly complied, establishing the institutions necessary to administer a modern state.  The Palestinian Arabs, consistent with their behavior throughout, refused because, in the words of historians Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner “The Arabs did not wish to legitimize a situation that they rejected in principle.”[vi]

The British were given Mandatory authority in Palestine, which, contrary to current understanding of geography, extended well beyond the current borders of Israel.  The area defined as Palestine then extended from the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Syria and Lebanon to the North, The Hejaz (or Saudi Arabia) and Iraq to the east, and to the south, Egypt.  By virtue of the Balfour Declaration, which formally declared that the British government viewed “with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”[vii], all of Palestine was designated as the Jewish homeland. The inclusion of this document in the preamble to the Palestine Mandate, by the League of Nations gave this view the force of international law. [viii]    Despite this, as Peters puts it “Britain nevertheless quietly gouged out roughly three-fourths of the Palestine territory mandated for the Jewish homeland into an Arab emirate, Transjordan, while the mandate ostensibly remained in force but in violation of its terms.”[ix]  This act created a de-facto Arab state in Palestine, arguably in violation of international law.  This state – Jordan still exists today, nullifying Arab complaints of the lack of a homeland in Palestine.

The stated basis for this partition was a letter from Sir Henry McMahon, the British high commissioner in Egypt, to Emir Feisal, the son of “Sherif Hussein of Mecca, ruler of the Hejaz, perhaps the Arab figure at that time with the greatest prestige and power.”[x]  Feisal claimed that in this letter, dated October 24, 1915, the British promised an Arab homeland in Palestine.  McMahon, for his part, explicitly denied this claim in 1937 saying “It was not intended by me in giving this pledge to (then) King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised.”[xi]  Arab sovereignty was promised rather, and granted in the Hejaz, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.   Since Palestine was never intended by any earlier agreements to be an independent Arab homeland, and since 75% of Palestine already is a Palestinian state, the remaining portion of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River is, by any legal definition, the indivisible Jewish homeland guaranteed by the Balfour Declaration, and codified in the League of Nations Mandate – that is, Israel.

Why then, did the British carve out an Arab homeland from its Palestine Mandate, heretofore legally promised to the Jews? Partially to re-pay the Arab leaders, Emirs Hussein and Abdullah (who was promptly named King of Transjordan) for aiding the Allies by leading the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in the First World War; and partly to appease the Arabs who even then were engaged in terrorism.  Indeed in 1939, shortly after Chamberlain declared “peace in our time”, thus condemning the Polish people, and soon the rest of Europe to Hitler’s Wrath, a white paper, or British policy statement was issued, which severely restricted Jewish Immigration into Palestine.  This act of appeasement which, they felt would reduce Arab terror attacks while earning the Arab loyalty they’d need for the coming second world war, condemned many thousands of Jews to their fate under Hitler.  And British and U.N. acts of double-dealing, whether self-serving, anti-Semitic, or due to outright incompetence coupled with Arab intransigence and belligerence further stoked the flames of discontent.

In 1948, after several attempts to mediate a plan for disposition of the Palestine Mandate agreeable to all parties were met by Arab refusal to compromise or even negotiate, the U.N. proposed to partition the area west of the Jordan into Jewish and Arab sectors, with Jerusalem as a special international zone.  The Arabs rejected this sensible compromise and instead, in May of 1948, invaded Israel.  This attack marked the beginning of the Arab refugee issue; as Peters puts it “The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives.”[xii]  With the notable exception of Jordan, these Arab governments have since refused to grant displaced Arabs citizenship, exposing their expressed concern for Palestinian Arab welfare as the self-serving ploy it is.  By wars end, with the subsequent annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, Israel was left with barely 17% of the area originally allocated to it by the League of Nations for the Jewish homeland.[xiii]

In 1967, after again being attacked by the combined Arab armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, Israel took the West Bank from Jordan; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the Gaza strip from Egypt.  These conquests, won in a war started by their enemies “provided Israel with strategic depth” and “more defensible borders.”[xiv]  Moreover, these areas are now sovereign Israeli soil, not occupied territories.  The Arabs then, have no legal or moral claim to that area of Palestine west of the Jordan River.

The Solution

For true peace to prevail, in any conflict, a decisive and unambiguous victory must be achieved whereby the vanquished capitulates unconditionally, ceding to the victor the right to define an agreeable and lasting peace.  In the Arab-Israeli conflict, premature peace negotiations and agreements, generally imposed upon them by outside powers, have deprived Israel, a western democracy, of total victory over their enemies, who cynically use each peace interval to rearm and regroup in the vain hope of future victory.

In this spirit the most just and practical solution to this heretofore-intractable problem is, however painful in the short-term, for Israel to view the recent landslide election victory of Hamas, a terrorist organization whose principal purpose for existence is the destruction of Israel, as a declaration of war.  Israel should openly and clearly state this view and demand the clear and irrevocable renunciation of its stated goal by the Hamas leadership.  If Hamas fails to do so Israel should use the next major terrorist attack on its soil as a pretext to the resumption of a state of all-out war with the Palestinian Arabs who, through their overwhelming vote margin against the “peacemakers” of the Fatah Party, have themselves functionally declared war on Israel. As a sovereign nation and full member state of the U.N., the Israeli government has a legal right, and a moral obligation to its citizens to defend its borders and quell domestic uprisings.  In this new war, Israel should not relent until total victory is achieved even if that means driving the militant Arabs remaining west of the Jordan River over the Allenby Bridge into Jordan; or walling off those areas of the West Bank Israel is willing to cede to the Arabs, leaving them to their fate-whether annexation by Jordan, which has already granted citizenship to all non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs, or eventual statehood.

For Israel to allow a belligerent fifth column of Muslims dedicated to its destruction to remain within its sovereign borders is tantamount to national suicide and is unacceptable as a national policy.  The results of such a policy are self-evident not only in Israel but can be seen as well in Indian Kashmir, where a similar minority of Muslim malcontents have been instrumental in inciting three wars between India and Pakistan in the past half-century.  When peace is declared before victory, the result is a self-perpetuating standoff or an interlude between violent flare-ups as seen on the Korean peninsula, in Kashmir, and in Israel.  The west must stand with Israel, the only Democracy in the area until a lasting peace may be achieved through victory.


[i] H.L. Mencken, ed., A New Dictionary of Quotations on Historical Principles, from Ancient and Modern Sources (N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), 897

.

[ii] Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial (U.S.A.: JKAP Publications, 2002), 149

[iii] Mitchell G Bard, Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Md., U.S.A.: AICE, 2002), 24

[iv] Peters, 363

[v] Peters, 241

[vi] Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th ed. (N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005), 52

[vii], Bickerton and Klausner, 60

[viii] Bickerton and Klausner, 44

[ix] Peters, 239

[x] Bickerton and Klausner, 37

[xi] Peters, 519

[xii] Peters, 13

[xiii] Bard, 35

[xiv] Bickerton and Klausner, 151

Posted in Islam and Terrorism | Leave a comment

Hello world!

Welcome to the place where I get my opinions off my chest so I don’t drive my family and friends nuts with my rants.  This site is my personal therapist.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment