Category Archives: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Geert Wilders: The Jihad Against Israel Is The Jihad Against The West

EU, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jihad, The West

Before reading the heroic Geert Wilders’ talk, The Jihad against Israel is the Jihad against the West, delivered in Jerusalem, consider: The greatest danger to Israel comes from Israel itself, and, in particular, from the Israeli left which controls the country’s institutions and is committed to the Palestinian cause. The same holds for the Netherlands, Wilders’ homeland: There too, the threat comes from within.

December 14, 2008 (Via Andrew Bostom)
Thank you very much.

It’s a privilege for me to be here in this beautiful city Jerusalem, the capitol of the only democracy in the entire Middle East. When I was a teenager I lived some years here in this city and after that I visited Israel more times than I can count. Israel: the only country in the region with a functioning parliament, a rule of law and free elections. The only country in the region that shares the values of our Western societies, in fact is one of the foundations of our Judeo-Christian identity.

We are here to voice our concern over the growing Islamisation of the West. We do this in this city, the city of David. The city that, together with Rome and Athens, symbolizes our ancient heritage.

Perhaps a few of you may be new to Jerusalem, yet, Jerusalem is not new to any of you. We all carry Jerusalem in our blood, in our genes. We all live and breathe Jerusalem. We talk Jerusalem, we dream Jerusalem. Simply because, the values of ancient Israel have become the values of the West. We are all Israel, and Israel is in all of us.

This city is the capital of a democracy under threat. Israel is under siege, like the Jewish community in the Land of Israel is under siege for over a century now. Israel with all its glory and splendour is unique, and its history unparalleled. Yet, Israel’s security situation is not unique, and neither is its enemy.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, just like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way of the Islamic advance. Just like West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other places to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Therefore, the war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Thanks to Israeli parents who see their children go off to join the army and lie awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and have pleasant dreams, unaware of the dangers looming.

At present the front-line of jihad runs not just through the streets of Tel Aviv and Haifa, but through the streets of London, Madrid, and Amsterdam as well. Jihad is our common enemy, and we better start Facing Jihad before it is too late.

Therefore, if we voice our concern over the Islamisation of the West, we have to do it here, where our civilization borders on Islam. Where jihadists fire Qassams into civilian homes in Sderot and Ashkelon, and where a doctor like Aryeh Eldad is characteristic of our civilization by treating terrorists the same way as he treats the Israeli victims. I salute Professor Eldad for his work for humanity, and for his patriotism. And I thank him for hosting this conference in this great city. Aryeh I am proud to be your friend.

I will say a few things about the Islamisation of Europe and my film Fitna. I will use some examples from the Netherlands, because they are indicative for the situation on the continent.

The mass migration to the Netherlands continues full-speed ahead. Currently, a staggering number of new immigrants arrive every year, many of them Muslim, often uneducated, if not illiterate. Bringing along with them the local customs of the mountains and deserts of backward Islamic countries. Thousands and thousands of Muslims arrive in the Netherlands every year, while already one million Muslims are living in our tiny country.

There are many problems concerning this massive influx: immigrants are overly represented in social benefits and crime statistics and the overall costs are staggering. The financial costs of mass immigration in the Netherlands exceeds 100 billion euro’s.

But what we have to fear most is the creeping Islamisation, the stealth jihad. Because every Islamic neighbourhood, every Islamic shop, every mosque, every Islamic school, every burqa, every veil is regarded by many Muslims as building blocks towards a larger goal, towards domination.

This is in fact the essence of the problem. Not crime, not even the financial burden. The biggest problem is the demographic development, and the way it influences our society at large. Immigration from Muslim countries and the demographics will result in the Eurabia that the brave Bat Ye’or is warning about. It will become reality if we don’t act now.

A decade and a half ago, a then unknown American politician used the following slogan in his political campaign: “it’s the economy, stupid.” From now on the motto of my party will be: “it’s demographics, dumbo”.

More than forty years ago a British politician gave a famous speech. He stated that, looking into the future, he saw ‘rivers of blood’ as a result of the uncontrolled influx of immigrants. Enoch Powell’s speech was the starting point of a debate on mass immigration in Europe. As usual, the leftist establishment labeled him an extremist and his career went down. But the British people loved him, and supported Powell. London’s dock workers took him to their hearts, marching by the thousands in support of Mr. Powell.

Looking back, I share Enoch Powell’s alarmist views on mass immigration, but ‘rivers of blood’ is not something I see happening. We will not face civil war. Our political elite is trying to make us believe that the influx of Muslim immigrants is similar to the waves of immigration that took place centuries ago. Or they say that “Christianity developed towards modernity, and therefore Islam will do the same”.

How are we to remain a democracy if a large part of the growing Muslim population is in favour of introducing sharia law? How is Amsterdam to remain the gay capitol of Europe if gays are regularly beaten up by non western immigrants, often Muslims? How are the Jewish communities of Europe to survive with a growing presence of an ideology that is so blatantly anti-Semitic? How are we to remain a centre of cultural and scientific excellence if Islam opposes art, and academic exploration? How are we to remain an open and tolerant society if we are faced with part of the Muslim community favouring self-segregation and showing no desire for assimilation? How can we look to the future with confidence, when a large part of the population turns to a seventh century desert for answers?

These are the questions the multiculturalists don’t want to answer.

Instead of providing leadership our political elite fooled us by using our own principles against us. I will give you five examples.

First. Our tolerance is used as an argument to bring in more Islam, to bring in more Muslims, and a way to tell us that we should not criticize their Islamic culture, if you do you are labeled intolerant and racist.

Second. Democracy. A growing Muslim electorate is too hard for politicians to resist, so they give in to their grievances and demands to win their vote. Before long sharia law will be introduced, legally and democratically, by means of majority vote. The former Dutch Minister of Justice once said that sharia law could be part of the Dutch legal system if a two third majority of the population would be in favour of it.

Third. Our religious freedom is utilized by an ideology that has no plans whatsoever to play by our rules, yet demands the same rights our traditional religions have had for centuries;

Fourth. Our welfare state that once was the envy of the world, now functions as a magnet for a lot of non-Western immigrants, dreaming of a cushy life in wealthy Europe.

Fifth. Our open borders came to symbolize our open mindset, an example of our cosmopolitan hospitality. But now we have lost control of our borders and we can’t even keep track of who is entering our countries, let alone prevent them from entering.

Our Western principles are hollow if they are not accompanied by a desire to sustain our culture and our civilization, based upon knowing who we are and where we come from. We are not from Saudi-Arabia. We are not from Iran. We come from Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. That makes our civilization special, and certainly worth preserving.

In spite of all that, the political elite are still madly in love with their pet project, the multicultural society, as they call it romantically. Apparently they don’t live in the neighbourhoods that are turning Islamic. They will tell you “they are nice people. I don’t see the problem?” The Muslim immigrant’s demands sound reasonably to them, like: “let us have an extra-large mosque”.

It is very difficult to remain optimistic in the face of the growing Islamisation of Europe. The tide is turning against us. We are losing on every front. Regarding the demographics, Islam is gaining momentum. The ruling elite is even proud of the Muslim immigration. After all, this way they can show everyone that they are not racists. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism is the biggest disease modern day Europe suffers from. Not all cultures are equal. Our Western culture is better than the Islamic culture. In the words of the brave Dr. Wafa Sultan: “It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality”. Indeed also here in Israel you are not fighting a territorial war, it’s not about territory it’s about ideology. The Islamic ideology does not seek cooperation or assimilation but aims for submission and dominance over non-Muslims. There is no moderate Islam, there will never be a moderate Islam. There might be moderate people who call themselves Muslim, but there is no moderate Islam.

Leftist journalists and leftist politicians hasten themselves to label anyone critical of the Islamisation a ‘right-wing extremist’. The entire establishment has sided with Islam. Leftists, liberals, and Christian-Democrats are now enslaved to Islam. They are Dhimmi’s. Lenin once labelled ignorant people that unknowingly aided his cause ‘useful idiots’. Well, the West is now full of these ‘useful idiots’, and they are even proud of it.

Now some words about my film Fitna.

I felt I had the moral duty to educate people about Islam and the Islamisation of Europe. The duty to make clear to everyone that the Koran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

I have warned against the dangers of the Koran and Islam in numerous interviews, opinion articles, speeches and of course parliamentary debates, but pictures often say more than words. That is why I made Fitna.

Fitna is a documentary that shows what is being done in the name of Islam. Without placing all Muslims into the same category, I think I have succeeded in showing that the Koran is not some dusty old book, but that it is still used today as a source of inspiration for, and justification of hatred, violence and terrorism across the world.

A few weeks ago the world has once again seen what Islam is capable of. In Mumbai, jihadists separated Muslims from non-Muslims, according to a witness in a Belgian newspaper. The non-Muslims, the Kaffirs, were subsequently shot. The terrorists also went straight for the tiny Jewish centre in Mumbai, where, according to reports made to an Indian news website, they horribly tortured Jewish people before brutally murdering them.

Most of the Western media stick to naming the culprits as being members of ‘separatist movements’. In doing so, they are missing the main point and are unjustly ignoring the Islamic nature of the terror attacks. After all, if it is a conflict about borders, why are they killing Jews in Mumbai? Why, in a city of tens of millions, find the jihadists the shortest way to the only rabbi in town – in order to kill him and his wife? Why are Israel’s enemies always shouting “Allah hoe-Akbar” and “kill the Jews” if all they want is peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding? Maybe, I’m just guessing, is it because they have an ideology that tells them to kill Jews, to kill unbelievers, and to advance Islam until there is world domination. Islam, after all divides the world in a dar-al-Harb, and dar-al-Islam. Islam is a totalitarian ideology full of hate, violence and submission.

From the day the plan for my short film was made public it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands, in Europe and across the world. First there was a political uproar, with government leaders across the continent in sheer panic. The Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs called on me to abandon my film project. The Minister of Justice let it be known that post hoc criminal proceedings could be initiated if the movie was shown. The Dutch government investigated the possibility of having Fitna banned in advance. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organization Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while the Grand Mufti of Syria stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the film.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were burned as well. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued statements in the same cowardly vein as those by the Dutch government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell out. It was treason to our Western principles, it was treason to freedom of speech, it was treason to liberty itself. My own government was not defending me, but became my worst enemy in the process.

Because of Fitna the State of Jordan is currently litigating against me. Jordan wants to prosecute me for blasphemy, demeaning Islam and slandering the Prophet Muhammad; violations of the Jordanian Penal Code, even though the alleged violations did not even occur in Jordan. As you all know, Jordan is a non-democratic country, without an independent or impartial judicial system and without a strongly developed civil society. According to a recent study by Human Rights Watch, torture is a routine and widespread practice in Jordan.

Jordan’s attempt to prosecute me is an infringement on the sovereignty of my country, the Netherlands. It is an infringement on freedom of speech. Jordan’s attempt is in fact a hostile act towards freedom itself.

If Jordan succeeds in prosecuting a democratically elected member of a Western parliament, what kind of precedent would that set? But its not about me. The principle is not Geert Wilders. If you look at the press and the rest of the political elite in the Netherlands, nobody cared. Nobody gived a damn. This was the worst thing. A nondemocratic country like Jordan cannot use the international or domestic legal system to silence anyone. If this starts, if we allow this, we can get rid of all parliaments, and we should close down every newspaper, and we should shut up and all pray to Mecca five times a day.

But there is some hope. For instance there is some hope with the middle class workers. Underneath the empty bravado of the elite, the middle class worker, the average Joe, is starting to realise that there is something terribly wrong with Islam. In the Netherlands, sixty percent of the population considers mass immigration to be the worst mistake since the second world war. And an equal sixty percent sees Islam as the number one threat to our national identity. But the Freedom Party is the only political party in the Dutch parliament that shares their view.

And there is hope that political parties critical about the Islamisation of the West are gaining momentum all over Europe, are getting stronger. And we will work together with common legislation, with common initiatives, perhaps even with a common group in the European parliament as defenders of the West, defenders of our culture, defenders of our identity, defenders of our freedom.

We need a new way of thinking, a new paradigm, to defend our liberties. Just reiterating our devotion to tolerance and democracy is not good enough, as we are Facing Jihad. We need a new set of goals and ideas. We need new leaders. And we should always remember where we come from. We all come from Jerusalem.

Let me wind up. The essence of my short speech today is that Europe is in the process of Islamisation, and that we need to fight it. Because if we don’t fight the Islamization we will lose everything; our cultural identity, our democracy, our rule of law, our liberties, our freedom. We have the duty to defend the ideas of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. The ancient heritage of our forefathers is under attack; we have to stand up and defend it.

A century and a half ago, on the other side of the world, a young President said exactly what I mean. This is what Abraham Lincoln said in 1862, and I leave you with that:

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

(Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862)

It is five to twelve. Freedom must win, we have to win and we will win.

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2008 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved

Martyrdom In Mumbai Un-Jewish

Iraq, Islam, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Judaism & Jews, Terrorism

Rabbi B. Isaacson, my father—also a scholar of Judaism—imparted a bit of Jewish Halacha (law) during the bi-weekly telephone conversation I put through to South Africa, where he (sadly) resides.

The topic: Chabad Jews and their outpost in India, which is a hotbed of Jihad, anti-Hindu and other.

But first, with society’s unfaithful watchdogs (media) pretending that the larger population is statistically as likely as are Jews to be the target of Islamic terrorists—Mark Steyn’s wry reminder of the reality of anti-Jewish Jihad is warranted (via Jihad Watch):

At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.”

Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their 2-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mowed down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.
The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity – and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting.

[Snip]

Dad, who considers Chabadniks a dubious sect, avers that they should not have set up a post in India.

For long—since the 8th century—Jihadis have waged pitched battles against the “infidels” of India. India is a dangerous place, especially for Jews.

Jews don’t missionize; Mormons do. The object of the outpost was to provide a kosher meal for Jewish travelers.

More significantly, Jews don’t martyr themselves. Jewish law forbids the wanton endangerment, or squandering, of life. Giving one’s life unnecessarily is a sin in Judaism. The Palestinian culture of death banks on the Jewish culture of life to sustain its murderous momentum.

According to the Talmud, “To save one life is like saving the world.”

SIDEBAR: As a matter interest, this verse was later on claimed by the Quran, which quickly qualified the otherwise-universal Jewish credo. The Qur’anic ayah states:

On that account: We ordained
For the Children of Israel
That if anyone slew
A person—unless it be
For murder or for spreading
Mischief in the land—
It would be as if
He slew the whole people… (Verse 5:32)

“Mischief in the land” gives the Muslim wide discretion in killing Jews.

Back to Mumbai’s Jewish martyrs: Had they followed Jewish law, demurs dad, they would not have endangered themselves and their child.

Jewish law calls for martyrdom under these three contingencies only:

MURDER: If a Jew is instructed to kill another human being on pain of death, he must refuse, and prepare to die.

The Talmud states (in Sanhedrin 74a): “It happened with Rava: A man came to Rava and told him that the governor of the city had ordered that he (the man) slay a certain man or himself suffer death, and Rava said to him: ‘Rather than slay another person, you must permit yourself to be slain, for how do you know that your blood is redder than his, perhaps his blood is redder than yours?'” [Beautiful metaphor]

IDOLATRY. If a Jew is threatened with conversion to an idolatrous deity or death, he must choose death.

There is a famous example that can be found in the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 57b, the apocryphal II Maccabees 7, and other sources about Hannah and her seven sons, a story associated with the holiday of Hanukkah. Rather than prostrate before an idol of Zeus placed in the Second Temple, Hannah defies the Greek-Assyrian King Antiochus IV and allows her sons to be killed one by one before she herself is killed.

[Wikipedia]

SEXUAL IMMORALITY. If a Jewish woman is threatened with rape on pain of death, she must prepare to die.

[Source: Monty Python, “The Life of Brian.” Brian the Hebrew is told by his mother that his father was a Roman. Brian cries, “Tell me you were raped, Mother.” She/he replies, “Well, at first.” Sorry dad, I couldn’t help that.]

These teachings are expounded on in Wikipedia (bar “The Life of Brian” citation.)

Unexplained is their proper application. No other rabbinical authority that I know of has applied the teachings to the strange specter—and subsequent martyrdom—of members of a Chabad mission in Mumbai.

In any event, according to Rabbi Isaacson, had the unfortunate Chabadniks adhered to the letter and spirit of the Jewish law, they would not have decamped to India and died there.

Patriot Goes Up Against Treason Lobbyist

BAB's A List, Crime, Ethics, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, libertarianism

Patriot Peter Brimelow, founder of VDARE.COM, debated Treason Lobbyist Jacob Hornberger on immigration.

I await footage of the debate, but I expect “Bumper Hornberger” was intellectually disemboweled.

He ought to be used to it, although the bitch-slap he received from Robert Bidinotto occurred some time ago, so “Bumper” may need a reminder. See “Shame on Bumper Hornberger,” reproduced hereunder.

I have no wish to revisit the manner in which he (and his ever-righteous ifeminist handmaiden, or hyena, rather) swarmed me. I’ll say only this: Hornberger and his backers seldom fail to bend over backwards to avoid imputing evil intent to bad elements or evil characters (as Bidinotto elaborates hereunder). Yet me Bumper and his gang accused of malicious intent in the absence of any. In other words, they implied I was a liar; impugning my person rather than my positions.

Again, notwithstanding the intellectual differences we hold on the issues; what makes these people–who’re forever posing as paragons of justice–so despicable is that they convicted me of malicious intent when there was none.

In the universe of these twisted individuals, some are more equal than others.

In any event, in “Shame on Bumper Hornberger,” Robert Bidinotto explains why “Bumper Hornberger” is a lousy exegete, not fit to defend truth. This is why I am quite confident Peter Brimelow, a class act, will have tossed and gored Hornberger “real good.”

The BIDINOTTO BLOG
Shame on Bumper Hornberger
posted 08/26/03

Bumper who?

Okay, apologies. This impromptu post refers to a matter more arcane than you’ll normally find here, and I beg your patience for a brief setup.

A feisty columnist for WorldNetDaily.com, Ilana Mercer, recently took on some fellow libertarians for their one-sided view of Middle East politics: the view that Israel is the root of all evil, and that the poor, downtrodden Palestinians are merely responding defensively and justly against the Zionist oppressor.

Ilana (she’s a friend, so I’ll call her that) has a perfectly good point. There’s a curious moral asymmetry among some self-styled lovers of Liberty and Justice, who rage against Israel for targeting the likes of Hamas terrorists in self-defense, yet who simultaneously exude boundless sympathy toward those who encourage their kids to strap on explosives and blow themselves up, along with scores of innocent noncombatants in buses, restaurants, and nightclubs. For most Americans, this is an easy moral call; but then again, most Americans aren’t libertarian anarchists.

Anyway, it so happens that one of Ilana’s targets was a writer and editor, Sheldon Richman. Not one to mince words, she wrote: “I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all ‘the land’ belongs to the Arabs.”

Mr. Richman, who is of Jewish descent, took great offense. He claimed that with this sentence Ilana had implied that he, too, was among those who denied the reality of the Holocaust. One notes, though, that in her sentence, Ilana had fastidiously segregated Mr. Richman from the Holocaust Deniers by means of a parenthetical barricade. I don’t think that any fair reading of the sentence (that is, a reading by someone not personally involved in the counterpunching) would construe it to mean that Mr. Richman was similar to the I. H. R. in denying the Holocaust–only in their shared beliefs about Arab claims to Israeli land.

Now Ilana Mercer is perfectly capable of defending herself, and she has. But a bit of piling on against her has begun, with one Jacob “Bumper” Hornberger–head of something called the Future of Freedom Foundation–now hyperventilating against the lady and her online publisher, WorldNetDaily.

Mr. Hornberger believes that Mr. Richman was grievously wounded by Ilana’s parenthetical bludgeon, and has publicly damned WorldNetDaily (“Shame on WorldNetDaily” is his screed’s title) for daring to defend their columnist, rather than muzzling or disowning her. Along the way, he accuses Ilana of a “false and despicable insinuation” and of a “smear”; and he further claims that she “knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally chose not to pursue the truth…”

I would have stayed out of this particular little spat except for two things.

First, I don’t much like it when men gang up on a lady–especially a lady whom I know to be honorable.

Second, it so happens that I’ve had a bit of first-hand experience with Mr. Hornberger concerning the matters that he says so concern him: false and despicable insinuations, smears, and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth.

This seems an opportune moment to revisit that episode.

The July 1990 issue of his Freedom Daily column, “The Forgotten Importance of Civil Liberties,” found Mr. Hornberger striking his favorite pose–that of a self-righteous moralizer–this time to attack me for what he described as “a tremendous intellectual assault on civil liberties.” My offense, he proclaimed to his readership (such as it is), was my three-part series, “Crime and Consequences,” which appeared during 1989 in The Freeman magazine.

While I am gratified that, to Mr. Hornberger, my series was both “tremendous” and “intellectual,” I certainly didn’t recognize any of my views in his characterization of them. According to him, here is what I said:

“Concerned with ever-increasing crime rates in America, Mr. Bidinotto argued that the solution, at least in part, turned on the curtailment of the safeguards enunciated in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Bidinotto suggested that if Americans just loosened some of the strictures in the Bill of Rights which enabled so many criminals to go free, the crime problem could be significantly alleviated. Not spared from Mr. Bidinotto’s attack were civil liberties lawyers as well as such rights as trial by jury, right to bail, right to counsel, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and protection from self-incrimination.”

Now had I written any of those things, I would have been first in line to condemn myself, sparing Mr. Hornberger the strain of further moral posturing. But the reader will first note a curious fact: nowhere in his bill of indictment does one find a single word in quotation marks. [A technique “Bumper” and his ifeminist friend further perfected on me.]

That isn’t surprising, since not a single claim is true.

What Mr. Hornberger declared to be attacks on the Bill of Rights were nothing more than my unapologetic assault on the Warren Court’s infamous misinterpretations and manipulations of the Bill of Rights: their shameless departures from a “strict constructionist” approach to constitutional interpretation, and their wholesale invention of a category of criminal “rights” never envisioned, intended, nor codified by the Framers.

For example, I criticized Supreme Court decisions such as Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) for manufacturing evidentiary “exclusionary rules” that one finds nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yet Mr. Hornberger equated my criticism of this constitutional vandalism with criticism of the Constitution itself. Perhaps this is understandable. Mr. Hornberger is an attorney, and having gone through a modern law school, he may no longer be capable of grasping subtle distinctions–such as the difference between James Madison and Earl Warren.

To take another example, what exactly did I say that he declared to be an “attack” on the “right to bail”? Only this: “Career criminals–and anyone with a history of escapes or failures to show in court–should never get bail consideration.” That is hardly a radical assault on a “right”: in fact, it’s the essence of the 1984 federal Bail Reform Act, which grants judges the authority to deny bail to defendants who pose a danger to individuals or the community. My position is totally consistent with the wording of the Eighth Amendment, which says that “Excessive bail shall not be required”–leaving it to judges to determine whether defendants are trustworthy to appear in court, whether bail ought to be granted, and in what amount. I said nothing inconsistent with this established principle, leaving me to wonder if Mr. Hornberger believes that the Constitution guarantees bail to every defendant, no matter what his character or trustworthiness.

I could go on, but the interested reader can decide the matter for himself. The three-part series is available online: Part I, Part II, and Part III. [Links defunct.]

Afterwards, the reader may also decide for himself if the accusations Mr. Hornberger slings at Ilana Mercer more appropriately describe the accusations he made against me: “false and despicable insinuation” and “smear” by someone who “knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally chose not to pursue the truth…”

If Mr. Richman needs a defender concerned with the truth, it should be someone other than Bumper Hornberger.

Updated: Poor Baby: CNN Bleats About the Bulldozer Terrorist

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Palestinian Authority, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Terrorism

CNN’s Jack Cafferty was not happy with the label Israelis aptly applied to the man who barreled down a busy avenue in Jerusalem in a bulldozer, crushing and killing innocent bystanders: “Palestinian terrorist.” I guess that excessively demonizes this demon.

Cafferty, who features on Blitzer’s “Situation Room” with one of those Magic Daily Questions that must wow viewers, registered his displeasure. He wanted to hear more about what would possibly drive an otherwise good man to be so mean. Hey, ever hear of unadulterated evil? Cafferty then reached for that instant exculpatory construct: the so-called “mental disease.”

The of diseasing of behavior is now so thoroughly ingrained it has usurped right and wrong.

Accordingly, when people perpetrate evil, those who’ve habituated to these false categories toss free will to the wind. Since the Palestinian terrorist did a monstrous thing, liberals attribute his actions to causes. To perpetrate evil, one surely must be “mentally ill.” When a person does good things, those of this lax, irrational mindset attribute his actions to choice. They acknowledge free will and human agency if — and only if — adaptive actions are involved.

Read “Evil, Not Ill”.

Update: The contagion is spreading. MSNBC has placed the word “terrorist” in scare quotes, either “to distance the writer from the material being reported,” or “to indicate that it is someone else’s terminology.” Among MSM twits, “terrorist” is clearly a controversial term for a terrorist. It works for me.