"A Date Which Will Live in Infamy" (satire)

Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" Speech To the Congress of the United States:

[revised and updated]

[...] I also want to speak tonight directly to the Japanese people.
We respect your culture and your faith. Shintoism is practiced freely by many millions of decent Japanese. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Shintoism blaspheme the name itself. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack the peaceful religion of Shintoism. The enemy of America is not our many Japanese friends. Our enemy is that small radical group of Japanese fanatics who have hijacked the peaceful Japanese nation and declared war on humanity. (Applause.)

The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation. My friends, we must be strong in the face of adversity. The enemy wants to destroy our American way of life. We must not let this happen. We must not alter our day-to-day activities and our constitutionally-guaranteed right to the pursuit of happiness. If we change our way of life in anyway whatsoever, then the enemy wins. (Applause.)

A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more. So, take the kids and get out the car and go out there and have some fun, my friends. Remember, our enemies are hoping that we will change our way of doing things here in America. We must not give them that victory. Good night, and God bless you all. (Applause.)

We will not change our way of life or the enemy will win.

In other news:

Antiwar activists busy at home

Antiwar widow, Mrs. Emily Ferguson, whose heroic Marine husband Homer was killed in April on Saipan writes another angry letter to President Roosevelt protesting our inhumane treatment of Japanese prisoners of war.

The fiery Mrs. Ferguson, the highly-visible symbol of the growing American antiwar movement WWAW (War Widows Against War) has opposed the War in the Pacific from the very beginning, referring to it as an illegal and unjust act of revenge. "Our treatment of our Japanese POWs is inhumane and unconscionable and goes against all that we stand for as a nation of principles," said Mrs. Ferguson at a recent Peace Rally in Philadelphia. Her message to America: "We should be ashamed of ourselves."

Antiwar rally in Chicago

Friday May 15

America First Committee decries war effort. Calls for tolerance and understanding.

Several speakers took to the podium in today's rally at the Grovesner Auditorium in southwest Chicago and accused the federal government of racism and unfair discrimination against Japanese-Americans. The AFC has repeatedly accused FDR of lying to the public in order to bring America into an unnescessary and unwanted war with Japan. "We have brought nothing but death and suffering to the innocent people of Japan," said an AFC spokesman William Connors. "We were attacked on December 7th because of the selfish imperialistic policies of this current administration. We cannot go around the world bullying other nations and not expect to make enemies. We should be ashamed of ourselves."

And from Washington

Washington DC

FDR appoints U.S. Envoy to Japanese Empire, repairing battered image and explaining ourselves

In a move which some critics describe as an effort to mollify the growing antiwar elements within his own party, FDR appointed Japanese-American businessman and philanthropist Yushido Osaki special envoy to the Japanese Empire. His mission, according to a senior White House spokesman, is to repair the fundamental misunderstandings between the Japanese people and the Americans. "It is hoped that by explaining our American culture and our long-term international goals that we can end this unfortunate atmosphere of suspicion and hostility which currently exists between our two great nations."

To some, this is seen as a move to appease some of his more vocal critics both within and outside of the administration, who have long argued for conciliation and dialogue with the Japanese government, rather than continuing military confrontation. We shall see what this latest effort produces.

Tomorrow's story: Rising American casualties in the Pacific. Is it worth it?

Note from Radarsite: Beginning in 1942, gas was rationed at five gallons per week; later that year, sugar and coffee were rationed, followed in 1943 by rationing of shoes, meat, cheese, fats and all canned goods. Over 95% of Japanese POWs survived the war, while only 49% of Allied POWs returned to their native lands.

voted by Gop Hub

From Other Sites on the Line: 10 Mar 08

Obama Must Disavow His Dangerous Pastor and Racist Church

But to what people?

Cross posted from Faultline USA
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/

Update:

So Obama is the man who will unify all America? Don’t make bet on it! His continued support of his church and pastor makes a mockery of the word “unity.”“Like a member of his family” is the way Obama refers to his good friend, pastor, and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Wright is the man who gives awards to the high profile head of the Nation of Islam racist and anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan. Wright is a man full of the same racist venom as Farrakhan. Obama tries to have it both ways saying that “there are things he(Wright) says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees.” No there are not just a few “minor” racist “things” that Wright is saying – it’s the entire body of Wright’s constant message and that of his church. Now the church is being investigated for violation of tax laws – and this is right and good!!! Will the MSM call out Obama on this one? Will the pundits demand that Obama take a stand one way or another for once in his life??? Don’t make bet on it!


Read this entire explosive article here:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-must-disavow-his-dangerous-pastor.html

The Dragon Box

As I recall it, I sent away for my first secret decoder ring when I was about eight or nine years old.

I grew up in the 1940s and 50s. My mother worked as a full-time mom, my brother was in the service, and my stern, officious, lapsed-Quaker father was a Philadelphia stockbroker who took the same train into town every weekday at exactly the same time, and said exactly the same thing to the same old conductor every morning for exactly twenty-five years.

As I recall it, I sent away for my first secret decoder ring when I was about eight or nine years old. This was probably in 1945 or 1946. For those of you who don’t know what a secret decoder ring is, first of all, I genuinely feel sorry for you. By this simple error of bad timing you have unfortunately missed out on one of life’s greatest pleasures — the exhilarating thrill of being able to understand something that no one else in the whole world can understand. Secondly, I’d suggest that you go out and rent that wonderful little holiday movie “A Christmas Story”, and let little Ralphie explain it all to you.

Just as with little Ralphie, it seemed to take forever for my decoder ring to arrive in the mail; but when it finally came, those first few days were absolutely thrilling. Every evening, I’d scrunch down by our big Philco, next to the fireplace, and tune in to my favorite program and eagerly receive and decode my secret messages — which I was firmly convinced were meant for me alone. Unfortunately, given the infamous attention span of nine year olds, I started to lose interest in my decoder ring after about three or four weeks.

Now, I had a favorite uncle named Uncle Bill. I bet you all had your own favorite Uncle Bill. He was flamboyant and optimistic and funny and profane and I loved him. Uncle Bill sold Lincolns, and he’d show up in a dazzling canary yellow Continental about a half a block long, with a jazzy metal tire casing on the trunk, and honk his specially-made musical horn. He called me Spanky, as everyone did in those days; and every time he came to visit he’d bring me a present. One time, he brought me a beautiful Chinese brass box with dragons carved on the lid.

I, like so many kids that age, was obsessed with death and burials. Unknown to most adults, kids have their own private rituals, one of which involves the mysterious and solemn act of burying things. And nothing is more gratifying and meaningful than burying a secret treasure. A short time after I received my Chinese Dragon Box from Uncle Bill, I got out my poor abused decoder ring and gathered together some of my other small and broken but meaningful mementos and took them out to the backyard. I dug a hole in the soil about a foot deep and buried the brass box with its secret contents and soon forgot all about them.


A couple of summers ago I made the long trip back to that small suburban town and visited the house where I had grown up. It had been fifty years since I had been back there and the tree in front of our house had become huge and thick-waisted. But the house looked pretty much the same.

Graciously, the new owners allowed me to come in and tour my old home — the living room with the big granite fireplace, the dining room, the kitchen, and of course, best of all, my own little room upstairs, which was now, appropriately, their little nine year old girl’s room. Before I left they took me out back and showed me their new patio. They had constructed one of the most beautiful and impressive patios I had ever seen, on a large concrete foundation. It was then that I remembered my long-buried Dragon Box. For a moment I was tempted to tell them about it, but for some reason I didn’t.

Later that afternoon I visited our local movie theater, grandly named the Egyptian, which we kids referred to as the Eggpit. The lady manager kindly let me in to see how it had changed. It had been divided into two separate cinemas, each with their own screen; but the walls and the ceilings still had their elaborate and fanciful bas-reliefs and that suave and elegant 1930s Art Deco decor. The manager left me alone for awhile; and as I stood there in the semi-darkened theater, I tried to remember what it was like in this magical temple of make-believe way back then, when whole families would get all dressed up to come here and sit through two feature films, three cartoons, a comedy serial, a travelogue, two or three previews and a newsreel.

Yet, through all this, The War was never far away and certainly not forgotten. Before the show started we all stood to attention with unabashed patriotism while they played the “Star-Spangled Banner” to stirring scenes of our proud flag unfurling in the breeze and endless squadrons of khaki-clad GIs marching in parade. After the movie, we’d sign up for War Bonds and give our precious coins to those hard-working Red Cross ladies.

That evening, before I started the long trip back home, I went back to my old neighborhood and walked up that quiet street once again that I hadn’t walked up in fifty years, that street that I knew so well. It was a warm, balmy night and it had just gotten dark, and I tried to remember what it had sounded like to hear all of those radios playing, coming from all of those open windows, everyone listening to the same programs.

I tried to remember the unity of it all. The sureness and the clarity.

I thought about my secret decoder ring, buried in my beautiful brass Dragon Box, under a stranger’s patio, patiently waiting in the dark for a half of a century for a new message to decode.

What, I wondered, would that new message be?

Originally published by Political Grind - September 17, 2007
http://politicalgrind.com/2007/09/17/the-dragon-box/

Is Enough Enough Yet?

"Wilders must be punished with death for his fascistic comments about Islam, Muslims, and the Palestinian cause."

“I know definitely that you, Hirsi Ali, will go down.”

France: Philosophy Teacher Receives Muslim Death Threats For Islam Article

Germany: Muslim Death Threats Force Woman Lawyer To Quit

Sir Salman Rushdie celebrates his 60th birthday today in familiar circumstances: he is once again the subject of death threats across the Islamic world.

The Pope must die, says Muslim

Excuse me -- but is anyone out there listening?

Are we still not convinced?

Is enough still not enough yet?

An Alternative Christian History

What if we just switched names?

Christ receives messages from God and travels to Jerusalem to preach his revelations. He is rejected by the religious establishment and forced to leave the city. He takes up his new residence in Bethlehem and through his preaching succeeds in creating a large loyal following.

He sustains this new movement by raiding passing caravans and -- after receiving special divine dispensation -- beheading the defenders. He then marries several wives, including -- after receiving special divine dispensation -- a nine year old girl. Next, he raises an army and attacks Jerusalem where, after putting all of his enemies to the sword, he succeeds in capturing the city.

His new found religion flourishes and after many bloody wars spreads over the entire geographical area. He dies. There ensues a violent dispute over the succession between Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Saint Paul is assassinated and his followers go into exile. Saint Peter is proclaimed to be Christ's legitimate successor.

Several generations pass and eventually the Pauline exiles find a new leader in Saint Jerome. Under his inspired leadership they rise up and attack Jerusalem. They lose the battle and Saint Jerome is beheaded. The Jeromists become a persecuted minority within Christianity and spend the next fourteen centuries waiting for revenge. Their symbol is the severed head of Saint Jerome.

This religion is known the world over as a religion of peace.

Sound familiar?

A note on the illustration: The picture accompanying this article was chosen because it seemed perfectly appropriate to the subject of this post. However, as some have no doubt noticed, this is the same illustration that caused such a furor at Wikipedia. This picture was not used in order to either make a statement or to create controversy, but, having said that, it will not be removed for fear that it may be interpreted that way by some people. The image of our Christ has sufferred far too many gross indignities for the sake of "art" for us to be concerned about offending muslims with an inoffensive depiction of their murderous "prophet". rg

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2007/07/alternative-christian-history.html

Understanding the New Left

-- for the sake of world peace, the idea of individualistic nations with finite borders and selfish agendas must be done away with completely and forever...



If I understand it correctly, the argument of the liberal, multicultural, internationalistic left goes like this: Over the course of history, the concept of nationhood has been thoroughly discredited; it has wrought nothing but divisiveness and trouble to the world community. The two greatest and most destructive wars in human history were the direct result of the opposing selfish ambitions of several major nation states. Nationalism breeds patriotism; patriotism breeds chauvinism; chauvinism, in turn, breeds ultra-nationalism -- or as it is more commonly known, fascism. Therefore, for the sake of world peace, the idea of individualistic nations with finite borders and selfish agendas must be done away with completely and forever and replaced by the more rational, humanistic concept of internationalism.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the left lost its champion for the worldwide movement of internationalism, which it had hoped would defeat the self-interested powers of nationalism and capitalism. Following the disintegration of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R., and the abject failure of communism in general, the left had to look for a new paradigm, and for new leaders. Not surprisingly, the new left would find its leaders amongst the liberal intelligentsia, who were, themselves, largely products of the Communist-infiltrated radical protest movements of the Sixties and the "cultural elite".

This new social revolution would be led by artists, writers, academics and left-leaning politicians of the world who would unite to create a new internationalistic order. Whereas the goals of the Communist state-based old left were primarily political, the new left's battles are primarily social -- political power, as such, is seen only as a means to an end.

This internationalist new left is ideologically opposed to any intrinsic national characteristics -- such as, language, monetary systems, customs, etc. -- which would set one nation apart from another. Most particularly, they are opposed to borders -- borders, after all, define nations, which, as has been proven, are a fundamentally disruptive and dangerous concept. Secondly, once the whole construct of nationhood is done away with, then those intransigent problems of racism and immigration (two issues high on the new left's agenda) would disappear.

In the last several decades Europe has already moved (perhaps irreversibly) in this direction, with its creation of the European Union, the introduction of the Euro, the pan-European capitol at Brussels, with its International Court at the Hague and, of course, its "moral" opposition the the "nationalistic" United States.

More ominously, Europe's intrinsic cultural identity is in the process of being obliterated by the mass influx of (mostly Muslim) immigrants who, rather than assimilate, more often than not form their own separate enclaves, follow their own cultural leaders and laws, and continue speaking their own languages. Less and less do these new immigrants show any sense of affiliation with, or loyalty toward their new European host countries.* In fact, in many instances, they thoroughly despise these liberal societies which they have infiltrated and actively seek to tear them down from within and replace them with something more "internationalistic", like the universal religion of Islam. Unfortunately, far from being some compassionate, all-encompassing, peace-loving world order, this radical form of jihadist Islam -- whose rights the new leftists so passionately defend -- is, in the end, far more tyrannical and fascistic than any of these so-called brutal imperialist nations that they would like to do away with.

These ideological battles with the forces of the multicultural, internationalist new left and their allies at the ACLU, the universities, Hollywood and the media, etc., are being played out daily in our own country with our ongoing and hotly contested debates over border enforcement, immigration legislation, English language issues, illegal alien rights, racial profiling, etc.
The new left's Utopian and monumentally ambitious goal is to eventually have an America without borders, either northern or southern, a North American Union, similar in concept to the EU, a thoroughly homogeneous socialist society, minus, of course, any culturally unique Americans, governed by international laws, adjudicated by international courts.

These current societal conflicts are essentially battles of migration, similar to the great Germanic migrations that overwhelmed the increasingly vulnerable Roman Empire of the third, fourth and fifth centuries. They are battles of demographics. And they are battles that, for various reasons, the peoples of the Western Democracies are losing.

However violent and bloody they might be, the most serious threats to our democratic societies do not necessarily come from these well-publicized, intermittent terrorist attacks but, rather, from these insidious -- and seemingly unstoppable -- ubiquitous cultural invasions, against which we, in our liberal and open societies seem woefully incapable of defending ourselves.

*[According to Claire Berlinski in "Menace in Europe", over 30% of European Muslims believe that Europe is evil and decadent and deserves to be overthrown and replaced by Islam. Whereas, Benjamin and Simon state in their book, "The Sacred Age of Terror", that 98% of London's Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain.]

Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub.



http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2007/12/understanding-new-left.html

From Other Sites on the Line: 8 Mar 08

What Price Truth?

Geert Wilders
"He is an enemy of Islam and he should be beheaded"

Originally posted in Sons of Apes and Pigs:
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/03/geert-wilders-1400-years-ago-w.html




A note from Radarsite: All of us are aware of Geert Wilders and the courageous stand he is making against the inroads of barbaric islam in his country the Netherlands. Because this particular speech which he recently gave to parliament on this subject is so important and so brave Radarsite is reproducing it here in its entirety. This is the voice of the resistance. However, there has been an enormous cost attached to this personal bravery. Mr. Wilders has been forced to leave his home and live in hiding. He can only see his wife in protected visits twice a week, and travels with six bodyguards accompanying him at all times. His life has been threatened repeatedly by the monsters he has dared to confront and expose.


The least we here in the US can do is read his prescient words and hopefully learn by his example.





Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present! Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war – a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them
[47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).

Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens. The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today’s Muslims. This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past. Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.

Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”. As Turkish Prime MinisterErdogan said the other day, and I quote, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”. Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (8:39). This is clear from European history.

Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683. Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared “dhimmis” in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.
Apart from conquest, Madam Speaker, Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds ofmillions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc). Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non‑believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.

Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it.
Where is our Prime Minister in all this? In reply to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered. Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so‑called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister’s Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists. In spite of all this, Madam Speaker, there is hope. Fortunately. The majority of Dutch
citizens have become fully aware of the danger, and regard Islam as a threat to our culture. My party, the Freedom Party, takes those citizens seriously and comes to their defence.
Many Dutch citizens are fed up to the back teeth and yearn for action. However, their representatives in The Hague are doing precisely nothing. They are held back by fear, political correctness or simply electoral motives. This is particularly clear in the case of PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, which is afraid of losing Muslim voters. The Prime Minister said in Indonesia the other day that Islam does not pose any danger. Minister Donner believes that Sharia law should be capable of being introduced in the Netherlands if the majority want it. Minister Vogelaar babbles about the future Netherlands as a country with a Judeo‑Christian‑Islamic tradition, and that she aims to help Islam take root in Dutch society. In saying this, the Minister shows that she has obviously gone stark raving mad. She is betraying Dutch culture and insulting Dutch citizens. Madam Speaker, my party, the Freedom Party, demands that Minister Vogelaar retract her statement. If the Minister fails to do so, the Freedom Party parliamentary group will withdraw its support for her. No Islamic tradition must ever be established in the Netherlands: not now and also not in a few centuries’ time.

Madam Speaker, let me briefly touch on the government’s response to the WRR [Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy] report. On page 12 of its response, the government states that Islam is not contrary to democracy or human rights. All I can say to that is that things can’t get much more idiotic than this.

Madam Speaker, it is a few minutes to twelve. If we go on like this, Islam will herald the end of our Western civilisation as well as Dutch culture. I would like to round off my first-reading contribution with a personal appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of a great many Dutch citizens: stop the Islamification of the Netherlands! Mr Balkenende, a historic task rests on your shoulders. Be courageous. Do what many Dutch citizens are screaming out for. Do what the country needs. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad. Accept your responsibility! Stop Islamification! Enough is enough, Mr Balkenende. Enough is enough.



Question for the West: Is enough enough yet? Is this brave Dutchman's courage just wasted political rhetoric? Or have we finally reached our saturation point?
We shall see...