Know Your Enemy

The new Dutch video, Fitna, by Geerts Wilders, released last week caused international controversy for its shocking exposition of Radical Islam and the Quran. We offer it here in the interest of reminding our readers of the vital importance of remembering the character of our enemy and the nature of our present world warfare. - GJM

Nowhere Man: The Audacity of Barack Obama's World View

By Garry J. Moes

One of the frightening signs of the great and terrible condition of our time is the enduring popularity of John Lennon's song "Imagine." One of the most diabolical artistic expressions of all time, it is yet regarded far and wide as among the greatest of all time. Rolling Stone, in 2004, named it the third greatest song ever. A year earlier, former President Bill Clinton joined 80 children to sing it to Shimon Peres on his 80th birthday. Former President Jimmy Carter once said, "In many countries around the world — my wife and I have visited about 125 countries — you hear John Lennon's song 'Imagine' used almost equally with national anthems."

The song, originally produced by recently accused murderer Phil Spector, was one of the most performed songs of the 20th century. It has been used in countless films and television programs. It was played as a wake-up song on the Space Shuttle Columbia during its ill-fated mission. It has been played just before midnight on New Year's Eve in Times Square in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Hardly a year has gone by without it being featured by one or more contestants in the fabulously popular TV singing contest American Idol — the most recent being this year's spectacularly talented 17-year-old contestant David Archuleta. At least, the young man had the good sense to skip the first and second verses, which call on the world to "imagine" no heaven, hell or religion and everyone "living for today," a world with "no countries," where no one has anything "to kill or die for" and everyone is "living life in peace."

Explaining to suspicious Idol judge Randy Jackson that he skipped those verses because he lacked time for a full-on performance and that the last verse had such a wonderful message, the smiling, breathless young Archuleta had, however, just reminded us musically to . . .

Imagine no possessions;
I wonder if you can;
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.

You may say that I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

There can be no dispute that the entire song, even that last verse, is pure utopianism. In fact, the absence of possessions, greed and hunger was one of the hallmarks of Utopia, Sir Thomas More's fictional 16th-century island nation and prototype of communism. It was a land in which, among other things, all production was readily given over to a common store, and everyone could take freely from it — in a "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" sort of way. Utopians disliked wars and fought them, not by themselves but through mercenaries, only when forced to do so in self-defense. Money, even gold, was evil and useless to Utopians, who believed that as long as money and private property were standards of living, there could be no justice or happiness.

Lennon plainly stated, as noted in a book by Geoffrey Guliano (Lennon in America), that his song was "anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic."

Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono, on April Fools Day 1973, created their own conceptual country and called it Nutopia, a nation (?) with "no land, no boundaries, no passports, only people. Nutopia has no laws other than cosmic." Its national flag is all white — never mind that the white flag is the flag of surrender. Lennon and Ono defended that association, saying that only through surrender and compromise can peace be achieved.

Yes, John Lennon, you were a dopey dreamer. The greater tragedy, though — the tragedy that now threatens our body politic and very existence — is that you were not the only one. Indeed, our nation is being increasingly populated by succeeding generations of dreamers like yourself who continue to sing and love your dangerously stupid song and really believe it to be reasonable. I fear that this growing naïveté may be reaching critical mass in much of the West and in these United States.

All this is written, not primarily to critique a song or review an American Idol performance, but to note with alarm that the "philosophy" of Lennon's song is deeply ingrained in a new political wave sweeping the country this election year. It is the undercurrent of Barack Obama's "audacity of hope" and the surging tide of swooning support he is receiving across the land, particularly among the young but swelling well beyond that demographic. It is particularly audacious because it demagogues a "hope" without a foundation that can truly deliver on its vague but powerfully emotive promises.

Hope without a reasonable basis for its realization is, of course, not true hope. It is wishful thinking. It is sentimentality and romantic longing, nothing more. It is fancy at best and delusion at worst. It is utopianism, pure and simple.

The New Testament of the Christian Bible tells us what true hope is and how hopes may become reality. A hope that is worth holding is one that has a foundation in faith — faith placed objectively in a Source that can deliver with certainty the thing that is hoped for. Faith gives substance to that which is hoped for and evident certainty to things unseen, says the writer of an epistle addressed to first-century Hebrews. The faith spoken of here is a sure reliance on the infinite abilities of a Creator God with a proven record of providence — providence of all things needed for ultimate happiness and prosperity.

But what does Obama's religion of hope promise us, and on what basis does it pledge to deliver on our hopes? Well, this prophet and priest of the new (no, make that, the old recycled) religion of political hope has not yet spelled it out. Instead of a biblical kind of objective hope, he offers us the circular reasoning of faith in hope itself. At least, that's what his fawning audiences seem to be hearing.

If you carefully dissect his more substantive speeches and position papers, though, you will discover that he does offer something that is objective, if not very hopeful, because underlying his soaring rhetoric is an old suggestion, repeatedly proven false in the real historical world, that our unformed hopes can be realized by faith in an all-provident civil government and/or global community. Obama's entire (though brief) political life and civic record reveal that this is where his hope and promises lie; yet he dares not speak it plainly just now, since there is so much suspicion still rife in the land that government will continue to fail us. So rather than saying outright, "Hope in government," he calls us to put our faith in change — change that only he and his movement can bring about. As his campaign motto has it: "Change you can believe in."

"The 'hope' being sold by Mr. Obama and his true believers is misplaced," says columnist Cal Thomas. "Mr. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America's dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil."

The name Utopia was coined by Thomas More from a combination of Greek words which together mean "no-place land." In his campaign's call to utopian hope, Obama is thus perhaps better found in another John Lennon song:

He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his nowhere land,
Making all his nowhere plans
For nobody.

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere man, please listen,
You don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere man, the world is at your command.

He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere man can you see me at all?
Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere man, don't worry,
Take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
Lend you a hand.

He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his nowhere land,
Making all his nowhere plans
For nobody.

Barack Obama is an authentic nowhere man — a citizen of an ancient Utopia, yet with a rhetorical tone of postmodernism (see one analysis below). He has identified the spirit of the age and has become its voice.
"(T)here is a moment in the life of every generation, if it is to make its mark on history, when its spirit has to come through, when it must choose the future over the past, when it must make its own change from the bottom up," he recently told an adoring audience in Virginia.

The spirit of the age channeled by Obama is a sentimental version of utopian socialism. Yet his followers, more religious devotees than electoral supporters, are not so concerned with the content of his world view as with the vibrancy of his essence.

We haven't seen its equal since John and Jackie Kennedy's Camelot, but well grounded citizens must remember that Camelot is almost as mythical as Utopia. We can only hope (pardon the expression) that by November 2008 enough voters will be sufficiently mature to look beyond childish fairy tales and the imaginings of John Lennon dreamers and elect a president who understands the real world with all its practical challenges and jagged terrors.

It is the existence of these challenges and terrors that makes the prospect of an imagination-driven postmodern Obama presidency so frightening.

This issue becomes clear when considering the political implications of this world view. Dr. Mary Klages, associate professor of English at University of Colorado, Boulder, says, in Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed (Continuum Press, January 2007):

"There are lots of questions to be asked about postmodernism, and one of the most important is about the politics involved — or, more simply, is this movement toward fragmentation, provisionality, performance, and instability something good or something bad?"

Dr. Klages says that one of the consequences of postmodernism seems to be the rise of Muslim fundamentalism, "as a form of resistance to [postmodernism's] questioning of the 'grand narratives' of religious truth."

"This association between the rejection of postmodernism and ... fundamentalism may explain in part why the postmodern avowal of fragmentation and multiplicity tends to attract liberals and radicals. This is why, in part, feminist theorists have found postmodernism so attractive...," she says.

"On another level, however, postmodernism seems to offer some alternatives to joining the global culture of consumption, where commodities and forms of knowledge are offered by forces far beyond any individual's control. These alternatives focus on thinking of any and all action (or social struggle) as necessarily local, limited, and partial — but nonetheless effective. By discarding 'grand narratives' (like the liberation of the entire working class) and focusing on specific local goals (such as improved day care centers for working mothers in your own community), postmodernist politics offers a way to theorize local situations as fluid and unpredictable, though influenced by global trends. Hence the motto for postmodern politics might well be 'think globally, act locally' — and don't worry about any grand scheme or master plan."

Here is why a nation with Obama as president will be in such mortal danger. It is because we currently face determined enemies which have a well-honed grand scheme / master plan and are highly motivated to carry it out. Dreamers imagining us "living for today" in a "brotherhood of man" are no match for enemies such as these, who have no interest whatsoever in brotherhood with those who imagine no heaven, no hell and no religion. (They decapitate and vaporize those who imagine such things, even if only in cartoons.) Lennon- and Obama-inspired dreamers are "blind as they can be" nowhere men, seeing only what they want to see.

* * * * *

Audaciously Hopeful Postscript: Imagine there's no John Lennon; it's easy if you try. He's in hell below us. What a sorry guy!"

In Praise of Xenophobia

By Garry J. Moes

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation...." — Abraham Lincoln

Though not often the focus of analyses of the Gettysburg Address, those last three words — "a new nation" — have significance. They signify, that is, that America, upon its founding, was something innovative and unique in the history of nations. It had from the outset, as Alexander Hamilton noted, a particular "national spirit and a national character" — a complexion so vastly worth having that virtually any sacrifice could be afforded for its development and preservation.

This fact is rapidly being driven to the nether lands of our present national consciousness as our cultural elite vigorously propound a philosophy of multiculturalism and contend for policies of borderlessness and unconditional immigration. The multicultural ethos urges us to unreservedly embrace all traditions, value systems, and world views and the sojourners who come here while steadfastly maintaining their former civic spirit and character. Those who seek to advance this ethos are fond of citing parts of the inscription on the tablet of the Statue of Liberty ("Give me your ... huddled masses...) as if it were an utterly open invitation to all comers without restriction, ignoring that this inscription, when read in its entirety and intended context, is an invitation to absorption into the considered liberties of that unique American system alluded to by Hamilton and others of our Founding Fathers. Rather then extending an unconditional embrace to immigrants who desire to maintain a native disposition alien to the American spirit and character, our approach should be to embrace the notion once put forth by American social philosopher Eric Hoffer when he argued, "America needs new immigrants to love and cherish it" (The New York Times Magazine, April 25, 1971, p. 25).

Theodore Roosevelt proffered that "Every man has a right to one country." Note carefully: a right to "one country."

"He has a right to love and serve that country and to feel that it is absolutely his country and that he has in it every right possessed by anyone else," Roosevelt said in 1918 during the closing months of America’s war with the German-led Axis Powers (Kansas City Star, July 15, p. 2). "It is our duty to require the man of German blood who is an American citizen to give up all allegiance to Germany wholeheartedly and without on his part any mental reservation whatever. If he does that it becomes no less our duty to give him the full rights of an American, including our loyal respect and friendship without on our part any mental reservation whatever. The duties are reciprocal, and from the standpoint of American patriotism one is as important as the other."

George Washington put it another way when he said, "The bosom of America is open to receive [all], whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment" (emphasis added).

In 1802, Hamilton wrote: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family" (quoted by Michelle Malkin, "The Importance of Assimilation," The Washington Times, July 9, 2007).

Hamilton also warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader. ... To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty." (ibid.)

What then is the "common national sentiment," the "uniformity of principles and habits," the "national spirit and national character," that constitute the uniquely American world view from which our culture grew?

"The study of the historical development of civilization and culture is a study of world view," writes Jay Rogers ("Whatever Happened to Western Civilization," The Forerunner). "World view is defined as the basic presuppositions of a people in a given society; how they look at life; and the basic truths which form their values and beliefs. When we look at any civilization or culture, it is as though we are looking at a vast tapestry made up of many intertwining threads. The picture formed by this tapestry symbolizes the world view of that civilization's culture."

Today’s multiculturalist and xenophoric "Americans" deny that there is such a thing as a uniquely American world view or at least that there should be such a thing. Yet their unflagging exertions to destroy the "citadel of our liberty and sovereignty" only prove that it exists or once did.

The American cultural ideal has some roots, of course, in the broader category we call "Western civilization."

"The campaign against Western culture — sometimes called multiculturalism — is not simply a call for equal time for other cultures that make up the world," says Rogers. "Clearly this would be a noble cause. Yet more often than not the champions of multiculturalism promote an accompanying disdain for the values and beliefs that have sustained Western culture. Nobody knows for sure exactly what these people are so angry about. And even more baffling to the casual observer, there seems to be no certain agenda for reform except a destructive nihilism.

"But let us propose that behind the diatribe against Western culture is an attack on the religious faith that has characterized the West. Indeed the basic theme of multiculturalism is as much anti-Christian as anti-Western. At the root of the attack on Western civilization in America is a more subtle attempt to discredit Christianity."

But Western civilization is itself somewhat of a paradoxical amalgam, assimilating some of the ancient Greco-Roman world view along with the Judeo-Christian world view. These two systems were in many respects fundamentally at odds with each other, especially at their religious cores.

The American system, though it developed in the context of broader Western system, found its fundamental character in the Protestant Reformation, particularly in the understandings of the Calvinist Puritans and Scottish Covenantal Presbyterians, such as John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence whose sermons and writings were perhaps the leading doctrinal inspiration for the Revolution. There can be no doubt that proponents of the humanist Enlightenment sought to contribute their comprehensions to the development of the American system, but the foundations and most of the superstructure of the emerging American polity reflected the Presbyterian paradigm. Calvinist models are credited with playing a a role in shaping the American political structure with its recognition of basic human depravity, its consequent system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and constitutional limits to authority.

Growing out of Luther’s discovery of the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers," the Puritan civil polity, which gave the world its first representative, parliamentary democracy, saw that human governing authority comes from God the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ (who was given "all authority in heaven and on earth by reason of His obedience to the Father’s redemptive plan), directly to the federal head of each human family. There was no divine right of kings to rule, and there was no sacerdotal priest to intervene as a mediary in the rule of men, but God’s authority (His law) was to be exercised on earth by patriarchal individuals at the foundational level of society. Families thus governed formed the local community, and communities combined to form the whole society, the greater society being governed by representatives of the decentralized community of families. In short, those who govern do so by consent of the governed who, in turn, get their authority as an endowment by their Creator, to whom all authorities owe their allegiance and gratitude. This concept was a death blow to top-down authoritarianism, despotism and hierarchical priestly rule, all of which were anathema to the society sired by the American Revolution.

While it would take volumes to fully describe the comprehensive nature of the American system, this fundamental element is clearly at odds with virtually all competing world views. Thus any ascendency of those competing world views in America would constitute catastrophic trauma to the system which has produced the world’s and history’s most successful, productive and highly sought society.

It would also take volumes to compare this system with all other competing systems, but we must at least briefly consider two of its strongest contemporary competitors: Islamism and the Latino world view.

We hardly need to discuss how radically disparate Islamism is from the American set of ideals and common governing principles. There could hardly be two more divergent world views, and it should be abundantly clear that Islamism is a potentially fatal threat to all that our American civilization stands upon and for. For this reason, it must be resisted at all costs, save the sacrifice of our system itself. We must pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to prevent its ascendancy in our country and its dominance in our world.

The world view of the historically militant and imperialistic version of Islam is universalist and borderless, envisioning a worldwide House of Islam (Dar al-Islam) governed by the revealed law of Allah and demanding pandemic submission to its demands and principles, with death to all who resist.

Islamic scholar Mohammed Salam Madkoar notes that "Islamic Law is very different from English Common Law or the European Civil Law traditions."

"To understand Islamic Law one must first understand the assumptions of Islam and the basic tenets of the religion," Madkoar says. "The meaning of the word Islam is ‘submission or surrender to Allah's (God's) will.’ Therefore, Muslims must first and foremost obey and submit to Allah's will.... The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled, and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law, and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government and civil authority rests upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion."

Though less dire in its consequences than Islam, the world view of Latin America is also problematic as its influence spreads through North American culture. Again, as always, this world view has its basis in religion, and at its heart is the concept of sacerdotalism, a doctrine basic to the Roman Catholicism which has molded Latin American culture. "Sacerdotalism is the establishment of a rigid hierarchy that separates man from God, the interjection of a ‘priestly’ class between man and God, through whom the ‘layman’ must go to reach God" (William A. Simpson). Carlyle viewed this doctrine as the polar opposite of Puritanism.

A sacerdotal mindset gives rise to a polity in which a hierarchical government is the foundation of society. It is predisposed to the maternalism of the socialist state. "In Latin America, the female runs the household. She educates the children and manages the finances. As a result, the Latin American family is matriarchal. Whereas the father is distant, the mother is ‘linked with love and proximity’ and has a greater influence on the children" (One Hundred Years of Solitude/Cien Anos de Soledad : The Buendía Family).

This foundational aspect of Latin American culture has vast implications for change as its influence spreads throughout traditional North American culture. It is a foreign element which can elementally altar this nation. We could go on to discuss the vast differences in historical experience, linguistic understanding, and institutional memories of Latin America and the United States.

Without going into further comparative detail, let it suffice to say that if we are to preserve our admirable character as an American nation and culture, we must be vigilant in examining the influences and impulses which may be anathema to our common spirit. For this reason, we may rightly be xenophobic. We must hasten to say that we do not fear foreigners per se. Indeed, we may welcome foreigners who yearn to embrace our founding principles and contribute their own hues to our already colorful national complexion — those immigrants who, in Eric Hoffer’s words, will "love and cherish it."

My family once emigrated to Sweden for two years. During that time, we shared our American values and traditions, much to the delight (and sometimes curiosity) of friends and neighbors in our temporarily adopted country. But we did not strive to fundamentally alter the culture of our host nation. Indeed, we acquired many delightful traditions there which we carried home to America and still enjoy to our greater delight and human vision without submerging our native spirit.

While we as Americans do not fear foreigners, we should fear that which is foreign, i.e., destructively alien, to our national character. We have every reason to delight in our American heritage, for it has fostered the most cherished and brilliant form of human existence, liberty and creativity the world has ever known. We are well disposed to share these blessings with all who would embrace them, and have every right to require that they learn and absorb them into their own lives. But we are equally justified in standing firm against all who wish to smother or dismantle them in favor of a strange spirit.


E pluribus unum!

Faint, Yet Pursuing

By Garry J. Moes

I write this while visiting the home of my son-in-law and daughter, Maj. Mark and Shiloh Hand, at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California. My family and I have come here for the base’s big Fourth of July celebration, in the expectation that one could hardly find a better place to celebrate Independence Day. Mark, who has spent two lengthy tours of duty in Iraq, is now in the field here at this Mojave Desert base coordinating a training program for Iraqi military trainers. He’s a remarkable leader both on the field of earthly battle and in spiritual warfare.

Yesterday, after returning from a late-night session wisely mediating a conflict in his church, he introduced me to an old devotional book, Morning Exercises for the Closet for Every Day of the Year, written in the early 19th century by a British cleric, the Rev. William Jay (1769-1853). While he is not well known, some consider him second only to Charles Spurgeon among English preachers. This devotional book, companion of Jay’s Evening Exercises..., is reminiscent of Spurgeon’s classic Morning and Evening devotional book.

On the eve of the annual celebration of our nation’s independence, I am perusing Jay’s meditations for July 3 and 4, brief studies of a phrase in the Old Testament book of Judges, chapter 8, verse 4: "Faint, yet pursuing." The passage concerns a reluctant but obedient military leader of the ancient Hebrews, Gideon.

Jay’s devotionals for July 3 and 4, although written as an exercise of encouragement for spiritual warfare, contain language which I find to be a remarkable admonition for our country in the present prosecution of the war against the implacable enemies of both our faith and our cherished civilization.

Following are excerpts which should be taken to heart by our citizens and our leaders in this critical time when many are more inclined to faint than to pursue:

-------------

[July 3] — What war is there that has in it nothing to depress, nothing to animate, and that does not furnish a diversity of feelings in those who carry it on?

Yes; while engaged in this good fight ... they may be faint. We need not wonder at this, if we consider the enemies they have to vanquish. ... If we also consider the qualities of their adversaries, their number, their malignity, their power, their policy, their success, for they have cast down many mighty, yea, many strong men have been slain by them. When we think of the heroes, the statesmen, the princes, the philosophers, the divines and all the myriads they have enslaved and destroyed, who is not ready to tremble, and exclaim, "I shall one day perish!"

There is also the length of service. It is not for a season only, but for life. We are not allowed to receive any proposals of peace. We cannot enter into a truce, no, not even to bury the dead. Let the dead bury the dead. We are to fight on through summer and winter, by day and night, in every situation and condition. He that endureth to the end, the same only shall be saved. ... While we are here, something is still to be done, something still to be avoided....

There are also occasional difficulties too common to be overlooked. It is easy to suppose a few of them. What marvel if the soldier is faint, when the road is rough and thorny, and the weather is warm and oppressive — and he hungers and thirsts for want of seasonable refreshments and supplies, which are interrupted, if not cut off — and he feels a loss of strength, occasioned by a wound from without, or an indisposition from within? ...

And if this, therefore, be my experience, let me remember that there is nothing ominous nor even peculiar in it. ... And let me be thankful that to will is present with me, though how to perform that which is good I find not. If I faint, I do not flee. Faint, yet PURSUING.

[July 4] — ... There is ... much to eoncourage [us] in [our] cause. It is a good warfare. It will bear examination. Conscience entirely approves of it. ... There is therefore nothing to make us waver or hesitate. Every thing in the conflict feeds courage. We ought to engage and persevere. It is the cause of truth, of righteousness, of glory, of real glory....

And let me think of the certainty of the issue. Fear unnerves; but it would make a hero of a coward to assure him in the conflict that he should overcome. This can rarely or never be done in other [than spiritual] contentions, for nothing is so doubtful as the result of battle. Prudence therefore says, Let not him that putteth on the harness boast himself like him that putteth it off. ... [Yet] however trying or lengthened the struggle may be, he fights not uncertainly. Yea, in all these things we are more than conquerors.

--------------
Jay’s words found an echo when Francis Scott Key penned the fourth stanza of The Star Spangled Banner:

Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Dark Visions

I have previously posted commentary by a Romanian relief worker and visionary, Michael Boldea, Jr., who, like his late grandfather, seems to have unique and curious insights concerning the future, especially as it relates to coming judgments for the United States and the West. I am posting his latest vision, which had special impact when, shortly after reading it, I came across a secular expert's predictions, which I reproduce below the Boldea comments. – GJM

* * * * *

A New War Is Coming
By Michael Boldea Jr.
Hand of Help Ministries

Jeremiah 50:22, “A sound of battle is in the land, and of great destruction.”

James 5:8, “You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.”

One of the most important lessons I learned as a young man traveling with my grandfather, as being his interpreter, is that one must always prepare for battle, before he is faced with it. Just as a soldier must know the weapons of his warfare, train with them, and be comfortable with them, so must a servant of God know his weapons and prepare himself before he ventures out into enemy territory. It was so ingrained in me that a servant of God must be prayed up and fasted up before he goes out to minister that, before every tour I begin, I take a couple weeks to simply fast and pray and draw close to God and see what He would have me share at the upcoming meetings.

I was still in Romania the first few days of February, about halfway through a two-week fast, when after having spent some time in prayer, I went to bed and fell into a restful sleep. Sometime during the night, I began to dream. I dreamt I was hearing what were at first faint hoof beats, but the closer they got, the louder they grew, until it was a thundering roar of not one or two horses but what seemed like hundreds. I felt as though the ground beneath me was shaking from the onrushing horses, and the sound of them became so loud that I suddenly awoke in my bed. As I blinked a few times, adjusting to the darkness in my room, I noticed a shadow at the foot of my bed. I blinked again, and there stood the same man I have seen on previous occasions, dressed in battle armor, his hands resting atop each other before him on the hilt of his sword.

“What is the meaning of what I just dreamt?” I asked, somehow knowing he had come to give me the interpretation.

“What you heard,” he began, “were the chariots of war, and they are swiftly approaching. A new war is coming, but it will be unlike this present one (emphasis added). Speak as you have spoken, pray as you have prayed, and walk as you have walked for dark days will soon come upon the land to which you are returning. Even now their enemies plot, even now their enemies unite under one banner, and soon they will make their intentions known to the world. There is no refuge but in the Father, and He will guide and protect those who know His voice.”

I blinked again, and the man was gone, and I was left to ponder the words I had heard. I struggled with whether I should make this dream public, for I know the reaction that some will have to it, and the last thing I desire is to stir fear in the heart of any man. After much prayer, I felt I was supposed to publish the dream, and though some may receive it as a reason to fear, the true children of God will receive it for what it was, the forewarning of a loving Father, preparing His children for what is to come. God’s desire for us is not ignorance, but rather knowledge, that we may prepare our hearts, in prayer and fasting, that we may draw closer to Him, that we make Him our place of refuge long before hardship forces us to seek one. The wise man prepares, while the foolhardy is caught unaware.

As always my prayers continue to be with you and yours, and with a grateful heart I thank you for all that you do on behalf of those less fortunate.

Jeremiah 19:15, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘Behold, I will bring on this city and on all her towns all the doom that I have pronounced against it, because they have stiffened their necks that they might not hear My words.”

(April 6, 2007)

* * * * *

Expert Predicts 'High Probability' Attacks
By Jim Meyers

NewsMax.com

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

An expert who helped prepare a 1994 report that uncannily predicted the threat terrorists would pose – including key aspects of the 9/11 attacks – now warns of even more ominous attacks.

"Muslim extremists will acquire nuclear weapons within the next 10 years, if they do not possess them already," writes Forecasting International founder and president Marvin Cetron in the new issue of The Futurist magazine.

Cetron played a key role in the 1994 report titled "Terror 2000: the Future Face of Terrorism."

The report was part of a Pentagon sponsored conference that took input from several experts, including Paul Bremer, formerly ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism and administrator of Iraq; Brian Jenkins, now senior vice president at the RAND Corp.; and others.

At the time, the common wisdom was that terrorism was becoming obsolete, for no state would be likely to sponsor future terrorist acts for fear of crippling reprisals.

The authors of the "Terror 2000" report saw it differently. Terrorism, they predicted, would be sponsored not by states but by Muslim extremists motivated by hatred of the West.

Among the particulars, the compilers of the report foresaw a new, more successful attack on the World Trade Center towers, the crash of an airplane into the Pentagon, and the threat of simultaneous assaults on widely separated targets.

Among the particulars, the compilers of the report foresaw a new, more successful attack on the World Trade Center towers, the crash of an airplane into the Pentagon, and the threat of simultaneous assaults on widely separated targets.

The accuracy of that report lends considerable credence to Cetron and his organization, and their new predictions.

"Rather than obtaining nuclear weapons from a sympathetic government, al-Qaida or its spin-offs will likely become the government in any of perhaps a dozen countries," Cetron writes.

"Wherever secular government is weak, it might easily be replaced by a much stronger and more virulently anti-American theocracy with leaders drawn straight from the terrorist movement."

He cites Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and the predominantly Muslim nations of the former Soviet Union.

"However," Cetron notes, "our own choice for ‘most likely to undergo a religious revolution' is Saudi Arabia, where the royal family has supported the extremist Wahhabi sect for some 200 years."

Interestingly, Cetron's report was published before Saudi officials arrested last week 172 militants it claimed were planning massive and coordinated terror attacks at installations, including numerous refineries, across the kingdom.

* * * * *

EDITOR'S NOTE: The first article above is one in a long series of prophetic warnings written by Mr. Boldea and his grandfather, Dumitru Duduman, founder of Hand of Help, a small charitable ministry working with the poorest of the poor in Romania. Both men, over the years, have related a host of dreams and visions in which serious warnngs and calls to repentance have been revealed.

The Fundamentals of Armageddon

By Garry J. Moes

Fanatical liberal extremists, such as the reality-challenged butch whack-job Rosie O'Donnell, are fond of charging that the United States of America (read United States of Bush) is a greater force for terror in the world than the self-proclaimed terrorists who have been blowing up everything in sight for some 40-50 years now. The charge is so absurd that it does not deserved to be discussed. So I won't.

I would like to discuss, however, a parallel charge, also from the same quarters (including Rosie the rabid riveter), that there is no essential difference between Islamic "fundamentalists" and Christian "fundamentalists," except that the latter are probably more dangerous. The "dangerous" part of that allegation is as patently absurd as the broader charge cited in the opening paragraph. However, it would be enlightening to consider what parallels there might be between Islamic fundamentalism and certain Christian elements. (Actually, "parallels" is a less appropriate term than, say, "mirror images.")

First of all, the religiously ignorant loudmouths making the charges know virtually nothing about the tenets of either Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism. I would be happy if they would only acquaint themselves with the former, because a keen, even basic, understanding of the religious inspiration and motivations of the Islamic imperialists would be sufficient to end the discussion.

In modern Christianity, the term "fundamentalism" is a theological term of art. Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian Fundamentalism (with a capital "F"), is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, led by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to "modernism," set forth a series of fundamental Christian beliefs: the literal inerrancy and authority of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ through His death on the cross, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

In the late 19th century and early to middle 20th century, Christian Fundamentalists became highly identified with another set of beliefs which mainstream Christianity did not hold to, namely a scheme of historical interpretation of the Bible and a particular systematic eschatology known as "dispensationalism." Dispensationalism teaches biblical history as a number of successive economies or administrations, called dispensations, each of which emphasizes the continuity of the covenants God made with the Hebrews/Jews, said to be His original and eternally chosen people.

Most dispensationalists also espouse an eschatology (doctrine of the "end times") known as "premillenialism," which holds that Jesus Christ will return to earth at a certain point in history (that point delineated by certain benchmarks including the end [or beginning, in a variant view] of a seven-year period of severe persecution or "tribulation" ) and literally reign on the earth from a throne in Jerusalem for 1,000 years, after which the earth and all the wicked in it will be destroyed. Christians will be "raptured" out of the earthly environment either before, during or after the millennial reign, depending on which of several views of premillennialism one holds.

Among the benchmarks or "signs" of the end times and coming of the millennial reign of Christ are these, according to the premillennial Fundamentalists: the rise of false religious prophets, teachers and messiahs; wars; famines; earthquakes; tribulations; the spread of the Christian Gospel throughout the world; increasing godlessness; apostasy (a falling away) from the faith among Christians; the rise of a 200-million-man army in the East; the redevelopment of the Roman Empire (now taken to mean the European Union); the return of the Hebrew language within Israel; the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, along with the return of Temple worship and animal sacrifices; the appearance of a certain Red Heifer in Israel; increase in global knowledge and travel; the return of Ethiopian Jews to Israel; the rise of Russia as a strong military power; an alliance or pincher movement of Russia and China; the return of Russian Jews to Israel; the rise of certain technologies which will result in all of the enemies of Christ receiving a "mark of the beast"; the rise and establishment of "one world government" and a universal language under the rule of political superman or "antichrist"; the rise of Satanism, the occult, and sorcery; a rise in homosexuality, adultery, feminism, sex, violence, disobedience/rebellion among children and drug use; false peace movements; and instant worldwide communication.

Many premillennialists believe most of these benchmarks have recently been met and that the return of Christ to wage a final battle against His enemies, to establish His 1,000-year iron-fisted rule over the wicked of this world and to enter His Final Judgment against evil mankind is imminent. Some scan the daily news reports in great detail looking for evidence of the arrival of these signs. Many are working feverishly, in the open and in secret, to hasten the arrival of benchmarks still unrealized and thereby usher in the Rapture and Millennial Kingdom.

Over against the Fundamentalist Christian millennial view (by no means universally held among Christians, some believing that a figurative or spiritual "millennial" reign of Christ began with His original Incarnation and will continue until the end of history) is a particular eschatological view held by some adherents within Shi’ite Islam. These Muslims are expecting and/or working for the imminent return of a figure known as the Twelve or Hidden Imam, who will lead the world in an Islamic brand of millennial rule.

While the stories of the first eleven Imams are historical in nature, the history of the Twelfth Imam is mystical and miraculous. He was born in A.D. 868 as Abu'l-Kasim Muhammad (which is the name of the Prophet himself). When Hasan al-Askari, the Eleventh Imam, died in A.D. 874, the seven-year-old boy declared himself to be the Twelfth Imam and went into hiding, according to scholar Richard Hooker of Washington State University.

"The central Shi'a doctrines revolving around the Hidden Imam are the doctrines of Occultation (Ghayba ) and Return (Raj'a ). The Doctrine of Occultation is simply the belief that God hid Muhammad al-Mahdi away from the eyes of men in order to preserve his life. God has miraculously kept him alive since the day he was hidden in 874 AD/260 AH; eventually God will reveal al-Mahdi to the world and he will return to guide humanity," Hooker says.

This return is the most significant event in the future for the Shi'ite faithful and has thunderous eschatological consequences. This return will occur shortly before the Final Judgment and the end of history. Imam Mahdi will return at the head of the forces of righteousness and do battle with the forces of evil in one, final, apocalyptic battle. When evil has been defeated once and for all, the Imam Mahdi will rule the world for several years under a perfect government and bring about a perfect spirituality among the peoples of the world. After the Imam Mahdi has reigned for several years, Jesus Christ will return (raj'a ), as will Husayn and others. It is the return of the dead that falls under the Doctrine of Return; the Mahdi will only appear to humanity.

Twelver Shi'ism is, then, a deeply eschatological religion. Important to understanding Shi'a religious belief is the understanding that the end of time will be preceded by an era of perfect justice and spirituality. The world, for the Shi'ite, is a deeply immoral, degenerate, and corrupt place; these are the necessary preludes to the appearance of Imam Mahdi. Like Christianity, Shi'ism is also a deeply prophetic religion. Like Christian belief, the end of time and the appearance of the Mahdi will be preceded by a number of events foretold in prophecy. The Shi'ite, then, like many Christians, lives in a world full of signs of the impending concluding chapters of history. This is vitally important in understanding Shi'a culture and political theory. Most of Iranian history can only be understood in relationship to the Doctrine of Return and the prophecies associated with it. For instance, during the Iranian Revolution, several Iranians believed that Ayatullah Ruhollah Khumayni, the spiritual and theoretical head of the Revolution, was the Hidden Imam returned to the world of humanity. While Khumayni never admitted this, he never denied it either. In many ways, the Revolutionaries believed that they were engineering or inaugurating the beginning of the reign of justice in the world, just as the radical Protestant English who settled America believed that they were inaugurating the one thousand year rule of saints that would precede the end of the world. Contemporary Iranian politics can in no way be divorced from the fundamental religious tenets of Shi'a Islam.

As described by John von Heyking of the Ashbrook Center for Public Policy at Ashland University:

One of the differences between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam is that the latter, who dominate Iran and form the majority in Iraq, believe that Allah shielded or hid Muhammad al-Mahdi as the Twelve Imam until the end of time. Shi’ites expect the Twelfth Imam, which Jews and Christians would recognize as a messianic figure, to return to save the world when it had descended into chaos. Shi’ite orthodoxy has it that humans are powerless to encourage the Twelfth Imam to return. However, in Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos to encourage him to return. Ayatollah Khomeini banned the group in the early 1980s because they rejected one of the primary commitments of the Iranian revolution: the concept of Vilayat-i Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). In other words, they opposed the notion of an Islamic republic because it would hinder the Twelfth Imam’s return on account of it being too just and peaceful. Today, in addition to the possibility of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad himself being a member (or a former member), the group has connections to Qom ultraconservative cleric Mezbah Yazti whom Iranians frequently refer to as the "crazed one" and the "crocodile." Four of the twenty-one new cabinet ministers are purportedly Hajjatieh members. Some reports state that cabinet ministers must sign a formal pledge of support for the Twelfth Imam.

* * *

According to Shi’ite teaching, the Twelfth Imam will not require an introduction upon his return. His identity will be self-evident to all, or at least to those capable of recognizing him. One view states that he will rule through a deputy, or perhaps the deputy will precede the Imam’s return. Perhaps the deputy’s identity should also be evident to all who can see. [Could this be the Beast or False Prophet of Christian Premillenialism’s Antichrist? — GJM]

While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam’s return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi’s return. The deputy would promote Iran’s nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. The deputy would also purge diplomats, dozens of deputy ministers and heads of government banks and businesses, and challenge the Iranian ruling clerical establishment. All these moves push the regime toward a "coup d’etat" (according to one Iranian source) or at least a constitutional crisis. But a constitutional crisis would be a mere stepping stone for a president for whom the Twelfth Imam does not require an Islamic republic to return.

Western observers need to be able to understand the ideological and religious overtones of the current situation in Iran. Ahmadinejad’s peculiar references to the Twelfth Imam are no mere eccentricity to be taken lightly. Nor do they seem to be the rhetorical ploy of a politician manipulating the excitable masses (as some have interpreted Saddam Hussein’s embrace of Islamism in the later part of his rule). Minimally, Ahmadinejad’s speeches and actions portend a constitutional crisis for the Iranian regime. Maximally, there are times when one should take bombastic statements not as double-talk, but for what they are.

Historian Victor Davis Hanon of the Hoover Institution observes, "In all his crazed pronouncements, Ahmadinejad reflects an end-of-days view: History is coming to its grand finale under his aegis."

It is not difficult to see that the Dispensationalist Premillennial Christian view of the end of history and the eschatology of the Shi’te Islamic Twelvers are on a powerful and potentially dangerous collision course, with Israel at the center of both apocalyptic views.

Beyond eschatology, there is a second area of theology which must be examined to clearly understand the clash between Christianity and Islam. The key word in this discussion is "theonomy" — the rule of divine law.

Islamic fundamentalists are currently on a worldwide crusade to establish the rule of divine law as the governing force in society, not only in traditionally Islamic lands but throughout the West as well, including Britain, France, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States, all of which currently have enclaves where Sharia is practiced.

Islamic law is known as Sharia. The term means "way" or "path." It is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. Sharia covers all aspects of day-to-day life, including economics, politics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues. There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws pertaining to Sharia. It is more like a system of derived laws, based on the Qur’an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent. Sharia has certain laws which are regarded as divinely ordained, concrete and timeless for all relevant situations (for example, the ban against drinking liquor as an intoxicant). It also has certain laws which derive from principles established by Islamic lawyers and judges.

For fundamentalist Muslims, there is no division of "church" and "state" (although in Islam there is neither church nor state). All of life is one, and all is guided along the path of Sharia. "As Islam makes no distinction between religion and life, Islamic law covers not only ritual but every aspect of life" (infoplease.com Encyclopedia).

"...Sharia ... contains the rules by which the Muslim world is governed (or should govern itself) and forms the basis for relations between man and God, between individuals, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, as well as between man and things which are part of creation. The Sharia contains the rules by which a Muslim society is organized and governed, and it provides the means to resolve conflicts among individuals and between the individual and the state," according to the Middle East Institute.

In Christianity, the concept of theonomy is being advanced primarily by a highly influential movement known variously as Christian Reconstructionism or Dominion Theology. This movement, sparked by the late California theologian Rousas John Rushdoony, author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, and drawing on principles advanced by early Calvinist Reformers in Europe and American Puritans, also holds that divine law (Biblical law) is, once was, and again should become the fundamental organizing principle for all aspects of society and every area of life.

In the terminology of Christian Reconstructionism, theonomy is the idea that, in the Bible, God provides the basis of both personal and social ethics. In that context, the term is always used in antithesis to autonomy, which is the idea that Self provides the basis of ethics. Theonomic ethics asserts that the Bible has been given as the abiding standard for all human government — individual, family, church, and civil; and that Biblical Law must be incorporated into a Christian theory of Biblical ethics (Wikipedia). The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect God's character, which is unchangeable, theonomists hold. Most of the laws are intended for all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the present time.

"Theonomic ethics, to put it simply, represents a commitment to the necessity, sufficiency, and unity of Scripture. For an adequate and genuinely Christian ethic, we must have God's word, only God's word, and all of God's word. Nearly every critic of theonomic ethics will be found denying, in some way, one or more of these premises" (The Theonomic Antithesis to Other Law-Attitudes).

Rushdoony writes that "the god of a culture can be located by fixing its source of law. If the source of law is the ontological Trinity of Christian revelation, then that Trinity is the God of that culture. If the source of law rests in the people, then the voice of the people is the voice of God (vox populi, vox dei), and that voice finds expression and incarnation either in a leader, a legislative body, or a supreme court, depending on which gains the ascendency. The highest point in the processes of law is the god of that system" (The Politics of Guilt and Pity).

Theonomists support public policy changes in accord with Biblical principles, but see those changes as coming about as a result of, and not the cause of, conversions to Christianity. By contrast, fundamentalist Muslims would base public policy on Sharia by whatever imposition is necessary, including by arms, terror or forced conversions.

Many Christian theonomists seek a future earthly "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They cite the numerous scripture passages referring to God's collective judgment upon unrighteous nations and God's blessing upon those rulers and societies heeding His Word as evidence that the presence or absence of Christian values may profoundly influence the rise and fall of nations.

"Theonomy means literally, ‘God's law,’ or the belief that the moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding today. This idea states that only Old Testament laws specifically fulfilled in the New Testament are non-binding (such as sacrificial laws, ceremonial laws and dietary laws). The moral Law of God is still the ethical standard for governing individuals and society," writes Jay Rogers, editor of a Reconstructionist-oriented publication called The Forerunner International.

The moral Law of God, when codified as a basis for civil law, restrains the passion of the sinner (i.e., capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime). It also acts as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Knowledge of the moral Law of God brings individuals knowledge of sin. Then more may be converted through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. How can we be saved unless we first know that we are sinners?

Theonomy implies the systematic theology of covenantalism: the belief that God operates through covenants, or eternally binding legal agreements; that there is no division between the Old and New Testaments; that the New Covenant includes the moral Law of the Old Covenant; that the Old Covenant required grace through faith in Jesus Christ as a means of obtaining personal salvation.

The system of government resulting from theonomy is called a theocracy: literally, "God's government." When we speak of a theocracy, it should be clear that we are not talking about a state run by a national church, or an ecclessiocracy, such as the Holy Roman Empire, or the totalitarian military dictatorships in Muslim fundamentalist states. In a true theocracy, the state does not control the church, nor the church the state, but both spheres of society are under the government of God. There is implied a decentralization of power or a "Christian Republican" form of government.

Christian Reconstructionism repudiates Zionism and vehemently opposes the views of the Christian Fundamentalist Dispensationalists and Premillennialists, which they say have captured much of the Christian Right in America.

"The Christian Right may be criticized for putting an undue emphasis on ‘political solutions’ and for not relying strictly on biblical law," says Rogers. "Simply put: either we will have man’s law or God’s law as a standard for civil legislation. We are not looking for a ‘voice a the table’ nor are we seeking ‘equal time’ with the godless promoters of pornography, abortion, safe-sodomy subsidies, socialism, etc. We want them silenced and punished according to God’s Law-Word. ... Civil law must has some standard: either it is human autonomy (what man sees as right in his own eyes) or it is biblical law (what God declares to be right in His Word) .... take your pick!"

We believe that there are two biblically prescribed punishments enforceable by the state: execution and restitution. We do not believe in jail sentences. We believe in only the biblically prescribed punishments for violations of the moral law.

We do not believe that the state is the final arbiter in all matters pertaining to the moral law. Most of these cases would be resolved within families or within churches. However, only the state may execute criminals for capital crimes; only the state "bears the sword’ (see Romans 13).

We want civil government to punish evil doers according to biblical sanctions. We want all moral laws of the Old Testament to be enforced according to biblical standards.

Reconstructionists hold that any person — Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant — would be free in a biblically reconstructed society under the civil law to worship. "The civil government has no power to restrict religion," Rogers says. "The civil government has an obligation to see that all people obey the moral law as it falls into civil jurisdiction. Thus religious expressions which contradict the Ten Commandments would not be publicly tolerated. The domain of the church is to preach truth. Because Reconstructionists are postmillennialists [the view that Christ will return at the end of an undefined figurative millennium in which the church and world are now living], we believe that eventually, organized false religions will become rare, if not extinct. This will be accomplished mainly through the efforts of the church, not the state."

Such views produce hysteria among theonomy’s critics, avowed secularists and atheists. One such critic who calls himself an Evangelical Atheist, says, "My friends, Christian Reconstructionism and Muslim Fundamentalism are the two most dangerous ideologies in the world today. Under either, unbelievers would be oppressed at best. At worst, who can say? Which is more of a threat? The Muslims can only blow us up; the Dominionists get to vote. Al-Qaeda can take our lives, but Christian Reconstructionists can take our country, and ultimately, our freedom."

Reconstructionists energetically deny such charges and say that they hold only that as biblical thought competes in the marketplace of ideas, it will eventually win the day because of its inherent goodness, righteousness and justice and eventually become the basic character of society, with biblical ethics codified as law being the natural result. According to Rushdoony, "Now as Christians we believe that the basic starting point is the regeneration of man. Then man takes and applies that faith. For Christians the basic government is the self-government of the Christian man. Then the basic governmental unit is the family. This means that every father and mother will be more important in the sight of God than heads of state, because He controls children, property and the future. Then the third is the church as the government, fourth the school as a government, fifth your job governs you, then sixth society governs you with its ideas, beliefs and standards, and seventh, one among many forms of government, is the civil government."

Meanwhile, the clash of religious fundamentalisms will no doubt continue to grow. The strategies and tactics of the opposing fundamentalist forces are vastly different, with Islam renewing is centuries-old violent imperialism in an attempt to take the world by force through a growing army of terrorists, insurrectionists and violent propagandists. In the modern world, the nations of Christendom have no religiously motivated crusader armies, indeed few have much left of Christianity. Unless the formerly Christian nations of the West awaken to the harsh realities that Islamic fundamentalism seeks to impose on them, the outcome of this civilizational Armageddon looks bleak for the West. It is time to reassert the moral foundations of Western society, which find their genesis in the civilizing impulses and values of Christianity and the Hebrew-Christian Bible. Without the reinforcement of these foundations and the repudiation of its present moral corruptions, the West will crumble, and great will be the fall thereof.

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." — Jesus in Matthew 7:24-27 (KJV)

What Must Be Done: Thoughts on the 4th Anniversary of the Current Hostilities in Iraq

By Garry J. Moes

If there was any good in the Islamic attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 (and many good and noble things did happen on and around that day), one of the highest was this: for one brief, glorious moment, Americans and much of the rest of the world East and West knew what had to be done.

For more than 30 years before that fateful day, the maniacs of imperialist Islam had been on the attack, mostly with impunity. Airliners were hijacked and blown out of the sky. Cruise liners were commandeered and old men in wheelchairs were thrown overboard. International games were disrupted and athletes murdered. Journalists, ambassadors, embassy workers, businessmen and tourists were kidnapped, held captive for months on end, and/or murdered. Novelists were marked for death and were forced into years of seclusion. Barracks, airbases and warships were bombed, and soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors were slaughtered. Servicemen on humanitarian missions were brutalized, murdered, and burned and their corpses were dragged through the streets. Embassies abroad were blown up and skyscrapers at home were shaken. Suicide bombers quietly penetrated supermarkets, cafes, buses, night clubs and schools, bloodying the landscape with the dismembered bodies of ordinary people living their ordinary lives. Jihadist organizations with nothing but violence on their programs proliferated, while some of their leaders won Nobel peace prizes. Whole nations were subverted into terrorist states. Literally thousands of such incidents could be cited.

Save for a few successful precision air raids (President Ronald Reagan's retaliatory strike on Libya) and some ill-fated rescue attempts (President Jimmy Carter's helicopter fiasco in the Iranian desert) and off-target retaliations (President Bill Clinton's inept missile attack on an aspirin factory) over the years, America responded to the incessant succession of Muslim attacks with hand-wringing, head shaking, regrets, sadness, resignation and apathy.

But on September 11, 2001, and for a brief season thereafter, that all changed. Americans and much of a sympathetic world saw with great moral clarity what had to be done. This clarity was distilled in President George W. Bush, a plain-spoken man who almost instantly put it forth in a sweeping Doctrine that promised a dark destiny for all individuals, organizations, enterprises and nations whose purposes were to bring the world to heel through terror.

The impulse to do what had to be done was so powerful and instinctively clear that few at the time heard the president's warning that the civilized world's necessity would be a struggle spanning decades and generations. Few thought to consider whether what had to be done could, in fact, feasibly be done at all -- whether the armies of civilized nations could ever secure a victory against a million fanatics making a million unpredictable and undetectable little but deadly forays at any moment at any place. It is likely that few contemplated, beyond their instincts, the nuances or harsh future realities that would accompany the doing of what we knew in our hearts (but not so much in our heads) had to be done.

The breathtaking truth we knew on 9/11 was that what had to be done was this: We must return to war and stay at war for as long as this implacable enemy insists on pursuing its vicious vision of subjecting ("Islam" means "submission") the world to the demands of Allah and rule by his people. This pan-Islamic vision has always existed among the Mohammedans, who have, ironically, almost constantly warred among themselves over which of their religious factions or dynasties will control and implement the vision.

And so this nation went back to war. I say "went back" because it had launched a major campaign in this war just over a decade earlier when the patriarch of the Bush dynasty saw what had to be done in the face of a bold move by one of the most brazen of the modern antagonists to establish a dominant position in the renewal of the pan-Islamist imperialistic vision, namely Saddam Hussein. Whether President George H. W. Bush (the elder) had a full understanding of the need to stand against this historic broad Islamist vision is unclear; he spoke only of the need for a "new world order" of powers partnered under the United Nations to stand against international aggression. (His son seemed to labor under a less grandiose and morally simpler assumption; namely, that any person, organization or nation who uses terror to accomplish any end must be stopped by any reasonable means necessary.) Not long after Bush the Elder left office, there was a blatant terrorist attack on our home soil, the first in 50 years. The enemy attempted to bring down one of the centers of our economic life, the World Trade Center, in 1993. But our new playboy president at the time was too busy with his perversions and the country was having too much fun mimicking or watching the antics of President Goodtime Charlie to give the attack a second thought.

The renewed campaigns which began shortly after 9/11 proved spectacularly successful. Within weeks of the start of retaliatory hostilities on two fronts, two enemy regimes were easily toppled. In the case of Iraq, the conquest was so swift that our forces outpaced their own supply lines occasionally. The leaders of the fallen regimes and many of their organizational allies and terror masterminds fled for the safety of spider holes, caves and cross-border sanctuaries. Successful generals retired, and one aircraft-carrier captain allowed his ship to be festooned with a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished" as his commander-in-chief landed a jet on deck to offer thanks to his accomplished warriors. Though many later scoffed at that slogan, the fact was that the mission of the campaigns to which the slogan applied had indeed been accomplished.

What many failed to realize at the time was the fact that new campaigns were about to be launched by the enemy. There seems to be evidence that our war planners had not fully prepared for this fact. The regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq had created two more "Israels," and the hit-and-run terrorists who had always plagued the original Israel now took their tactics to the new fronts.

But by now, the memories of that fateful day in 2001 had begun to fade among the Western masses whose earlier instincts had led them to pursue what had to be done. Patriotic country singer Darryl Worley wondered in song: "Have you forgotten how it felt that day?" Perhaps one of the reasons the memories had faded can be found in the words of that very question. We had been remembering for a time how we "felt" on that day, when what we should have been remembering were the cold, hard facts about what led to that day. It is natural for most normal people in the West to find it hard to sustain powerful emotions for a long period of time -- unlike the enemy, whose anger and commitment never seem to fade. We, the people of a rational civilization, must understand historical and ontological realities if we are to succeed in the defense of our world and way of life. The problem is that in recent generations, owing to our crumbling educational system and moral/philosophical foundations, we are quickly losing our ability to reason, especially to morally reason, and to see clearly what has to be done. We may respond to our latent instincts for a time, but these are not enough to see us through to the necessary end in the long haul.

And so, like the circus-goers of ancient Rome, we have turned our attention to what furthers our enjoyments: the fun of singing competitions and flesh-flashing dance contests, acquiring the latest gadgets and downloading music and zippy ringtones to them, fixating on the "tragic" death or head-shaving meltdowns of celebrity harlots and the paternity of their offspring, awarding gold statuettes to goofball former politicians turned pseudo-scientists, endlessly debating sexy social issues which once were sensibly undebatable, following virtually every hedonistic opportunity available to us -- the very corruptions which lead our enemies to so deeply despise us.

Our lagging interest in pursuing what has to be done is exacerbated by the devilish efforts of some of our own number and of countries abroad who had been strategically silent in the instinctive moments following 9/11 but who had never forgotten what the madman Hitler-Bush had pledged to do back then. These sanity-challenged anarchists and revolutionaries, and their useful idiots in major political parties, realized at the time that what the rest of us knew had to be done could only be done through the leadership of the world's only remaining superpower, a global military-industrialist power which they hate with a burning passion. Many of these secretly or openly work to stop us from doing what must be done and would be delighted to see our enemy succeed against us -- forgetting, of course, that the enemy will also come for them. They desperately need to see the 4,000-year-old Hebrew-Christian civilization fall, because they cannot abide its claims on their lives. The problem is that if this civilization falls, all the world will be forced to abide the claims of a barbaric system of religious and societal horrors too terrible to contemplate. Too terrible to contemplate...but very easy to examine, for this system has operated in plain view for centuries and does so still in myriad and diverse places in our contemporary world. Still its civilized rival, incredibly, is viewed by some in the West as the greater terror.

The evident horrors of today's Islam are only the modern manifestations of a centuries-old imperialistic holy war by the practitioners of a malevolent and malicious religion sworn, bound and determined to persevere till all the world falls under the dominion of their "merciful" god.

"History confirms with great clarity that Muslims, beginning with Muhammad, launched their conquest of Christendom one-thousand years before the Europeans responded rather feebly with their Crusades. Yet today, Muslim propagandists want the world to believe that the West stole Islamic lands and that Christians alone are imperialistic. This mindset is used to fool fools into believing that Muslims fight Christians because Christians have fought Muslims. Those who deceive don’t want you to know that Christians were victims, not villains in this affair or that Islam alone is why Muslims kill," writes one chronicler of this reign of terror.

"And yet, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Islam is presented as innocent and passive. The religion is seldom if ever held accountable for the terrorism it inspires. Even when so-called experts discuss terror in the context of the religion they universally apply the qualifier 'radical' to Islam, suggesting that a corrupted form of the doctrine is to blame for its carnage when the opposite is true. But to have access to the media and to sell books one must be willing to lie. This suicidal pathology is born out of Socialist Secular Humanism and its campaign against Christian values.

And make no mistake: the present opposition to any Western war on Islamism is a "suicidal pathology." In the face of the certain destruction which the do-nothing position will bring about, the opposition advocates doing nothing. To these opponents -- from the terminally naive to the political opportunists to the flat-out traitors who work for our destruction -- the thing that must be done is nothing. For the traitors, Western capitulation is a desired strategy -- suicidal and pathological though it may be. The naive and the opportunists, if they consider at all the practice of terrorism in the 40 years before 9/11, apparently believe that the thing that must be done is simply to endure the troublesomeness of it all. We survived the nettlesome irritation of terror before; we can survive it some more, miserable as things may be from time to time.

But they have forgotten. They have forgotten 9/11, the day we knew for a moment what really, truly had to be done. For that moment, we knew this was more than nettlesome irritation; this had the nature of history's ultimate showdown.

Indeed, that is how the enemy sees it. The visionary leaders of of al Qaeda and Iran have made it repeatedly and abundantly clear: a conflagration must occur to usher in history's climax -- the eternal golden age of Islamic triumphalism -- and they are sworn to fulfill their perceived destinies to bring it to pass in their (our) lifetimes. This is why the present opposition to the war is so utterly and profoundly and stupidly wrong.

To those who argue that the "war against terror" may be necessary but the "war in Iraq" is not, we submit again that this is a terminal case of ignorance. Whatever rationale may have been given by the American administration and its allies four years ago for returning to the Iraq theater, the place of Iraq in the enemy's grand understanding of history's progress and end must be considered. At the heart of the pan-Islamic vision for the world is the restoration of the caliphate -- abandoned by the corrupt Ottoman Turks in 1924 and seemingly lost for good with the defeat of the Axis Powers, which included the (by then disheveled) Ottoman Empire, in World War II. For certain factions within Islam, Iraq is central to the vision. (Thankfully, this is and always has been a factious matter within Islam and the internecine struggles on such issues have frequently weakened the movement from within. One of the West's most promising strategies would be to exploit this factionalism in every way possible. Saddam's aggressions were more than bravado but his effort to position himself in the forefront of the coming Islamic world dominion, and it is why he could not capitulate to the pre-war demands of the West despite the impossibility of his situation.)

The tactics now being employed by the Democrats in the U.S. Congress completely ignore the centrality of Iraq in the pan-Islamic vision, and their shamefulness is outweighed only by their dangerousness. For if the present West-accommodating Iraqi regime or some similar successor of it falls, there will be little to stand in the way of a vast renewal of the imperial push of greater Islam. Again, whatever rationale may have been publicly given for U.S. action in Iraq, our presence in the strategic heart of the Middle East -- if for no other reason than to be a hedge against the vicious rivalry between Arab and Persian Islam, which could produce chaos on a colossal scale -- is critical to our national interests and the peace and safety of the world.

The opportunistic Democrats have been idiotically clear on what they think should not be done, despite the realities of the present world and the remembrance of their own instincts on 9/11 of what had to be done. To them we ask, "What do you propose to do to accomplish what still must be done?"

"Nothing" is not good enough. A pox on your house if you allow your thirst for partisan power to so blind yourself to what you must do that our national house and the civilization that it still barely nurtures is forced to fall to the House of Islam.