K-Swiss, Taliban at Yale, Prager, Ali Sina, and more

TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss" checks in with a suggestion to link to a new column written by Israel lobbyist Morris "Morrie" Amitay. In the piece, Mr. Amitay explains that despite threats from Iran, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas, Israel and America have many reasons for optimism in the war on terror. For more information, visit Amitay's website, Washington PAC. Stay tuned also for a new political insider report from K-Swiss in the near future.

On a related note, William Kristol spells out what America must do to defeat the jihadist enemy.

Is Yale University insane? A former government ambassador for the Taliban, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, is a freshman at the school on a U.S. student visa. University officials have expressed their delight at having accepted a foreign student of his caliber. Apparently good grades and strong SAT scores are no longer enough; the true ticket to Yale admission is work experience with an evil regime that oppressed its people and sheltered terrorists. What's next - inviting the Iranian Mullahs as visiting professors?

Muslim apostate Ali Sina has written a highly insightful primer on fundamentalist Islamic society's Achilles' heel: its sense of shame. Sina's feelings toward his former faith are quite harsh and spare no wrath, but despite the unkind terms, his principal argument is both solid and revealingly eye-opening.

Dennis Prager on why the Left never blames Muslims for jihadist violence and instead always targets America and the West as causing the world's problems. A case in point: City Lights Books in San Francisco, which throughout its history has famously sold banned books in the name of free speech, refuses to carry a new work by Orianna Fallaci that criticizes Islam. Why? Because she's a "fascist" for claiming that Western civilization is superior, and City Lights won't carry books by "fascists." Typical of the far-left, they truly care about free speech only when it suits their political views.

Victor Davis Hanson has returned from a trip to Iraq and is wowed by America's stunning successes.

Blog of the Day: Meryl Yourish

Economics and Taxes: The Laffer Curve Explained

In his recent interview on our site, Texas congressional candidate Van Taylor raised an important economic point that I'd like to clarify for anyone who may be unfamiliar: the phenomenon of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased, and not decreased, government revenue.

As Mr. Taylor mentioned, when President Bush's lowered our nation's capital gains tax by 25%, federal government revenue from that tax doubled from $300 million to $600 million. But how can this be, you might be thinking; given that taxes are the primary source of government income, wouldn't higher taxes logically lead to more money in federal coffers?

In reality, the answer is sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. And the explanation behind this apparent contradiction is best demonstrated through a graph called the Laffer Curve, which plots government revenue from maximum to minimum along a scale of taxation from zero to 100%.

So how do we make sense of it? Let me explain with an example. Say you have a hypothetical nation that has no taxes. Naturally, this means the government receives no tax revenue. But our government doesn't like having no money, so it decides to raise the tax rate on its citizens' incomes to 1%. Now, all of a sudden, the government has some funds, and it is happy. So it decides to raise the rate again to 10%. And now the government makes even more money and is happier still.

So far so good, but now the government gets greedy. It decides to raise the tax rate all the way to 100%, thinking it will maximize revenue. But all of a sudden, the nation's citizens decide to stop working, because what use is work if they don't get to keep any of their money? Government revenue hence plummets back to zero, and the government is as broke as when it charged no taxes at all.

As we can see, then, taxing people both too little and too much can hurt government revenue. Tax too low and you won't receive enough from each citizen, but tax too high and you'll disincentivize people to work and invest, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers available to fund you.

The optimal tax rate that maximizes government revenue, then, is somewhere between these two high and low extremes. It is this relationship, as expressed on a chart, that we notate as the Laffer Curve.

Being only a representation of data, the curve cannot by itself determine the optimal tax rate (the sample curve above may appear to be maximized at 50%, but this is only a random example); only real-life data can do so. And according to it, the optimal tax rate is very low - perhaps 15% or 17% on income tax.

But whatever the actual optimal rate, if your current tax rate lies above it, lowering taxes will move you towards the optimum and will increase government revenue. If, on the other hand, your current tax rate lies below the optimal rate, raising taxes will move you towards the optimum and therefore increase government revenue. The tax cut to which Mr. Taylor referred raised government revenue precisely because the original tax rate lay above the optimal rate, and cutting it helped bring it closer to maximization.

The question the federal government should ask itself, then, is not whether to raise or lower taxes purely to achieve a rise or cut, but how to adjust taxes accordingly so that they reach the optimal revenue-maximization point on the Laffer Curve. Right now, America's tax rates seem to be above the optimal rate, so cutting taxes toward that rate (but not overshooting it by reducing taxes too much) is quite certain to increase the government's pockets. Given that tax cuts also greatly boost private-sector economic performance, they seem in this situation like a win-win proposal for all involved.

News Roundup: Lawrence Summers, Free Speech, more

Plenty of important news from over the past few days:

In a sad blow to academic freedom, Harvard president Lawrence Summers has resigned from the university under heavy pressure from ultra-liberal faculty members. While Summers had butted heads with many left-leaning professors during his tenure, the turning point came when he dared to utter the politically incorrect statement that male dominance in science and engineering could contain a genetic component.

Regardless of whether Summers is correct (and let's be honest - he certainly might be; men and women are obviously physically different, so the possibility of innate gender differences in other areas at least exists), it is outrageous that these faculty members booted him for merely expressing the opinion. This is a clear demonstration of the lack of intellectual diversity at many of our top universities, and the biggest losers will be the schools themselves, as such episodes can only diminish their reputations for quality education.

More on free speech and its limitations: Notorious British anti-Semite David Irving pleaded guilty in Austria to charges of denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison. Many conservative writers, however, have posited that no matter how vile his statements, Irving's jail sentence is unwarranted due to freedom of speech. I understand these writers' concerns, but I must respectfully disagree with their assessments. I am, of course, a vigorous advocate of free speech of all sorts, but even in a free society, hate speech concerning genocide must not be tolerated. Perhaps Irving's sentence was too harsh, but formally denying the Holocaust should certainly be illegal.

This, by the way, is very different than the free speech issues involving the Danish cartoons. Yes, they may have been offensive and distasteful, but in no way were they hate speech on the level of denying the Holocaust. On the same token, if someone denied a genocide involving Muslim or any other victims (such as those in Sudan today), I would equally support prosecution of that person under hate speech crimes as well.

More on the cartoons as well: In light of recent violence in Nigeria and around the world, here is an insightful allegory that sharply exposes the outrageous Muslim hypocrisy that has continued into this past week.

But good news confirmed: Europe is finally starting to awaken to its large problem of hostile Islamic immigrants within a multicultural society. Of course, the linked reference being a mainstream media article, the writer tries to portray Europe's reaction as almost a bad thing. But the truth nevertheless emerges that the Continent has at last begun to respond to the increasingly violent Islamofascists in its midst.

On a related note, an L.A. Times columnist demonstrates just how mainstream media-reported news fails to accurately reflect trends in the real world.

And finally, some heartwarming news, as sent in by a reader.

Exclusive Interview: Van Taylor, Iraq War Veteran and Republican Candidate for the House of Representatives

Texas Congressional District 17 (based in Waco, TX) looks to be the site of one of 2006's most competitive political contests. Several prominent Republicans are vying neck and neck to win a crowded primary for the right to challenge the seat of eight-time Democratic incumbent Rep. Chet Edwards.

TheSolidSurfer.com recently caught up with perhaps the most prominent of these challengers, recent Iraq War veteran Van Taylor. A 7th generation Texan running in his first national election at age 33, Mr. Taylor is a former U.S. Marine Captain and intelligence officer, Harvard graduate, independent business owner, and husband and father. In an exclusive interview for this site, he spoke candidly about the congressional race, his views and positions, Iraq and the war on terror, and what needs to be fixed in America.

TheSolidSurfer.com: Van, thank you very much for joining us. Let's start out by discussing the coming elections. You're facing a very tough primary race against some conservative Republicans with similar positions on many issues. How do you stand out?

Van Taylor: Thank you, glad to be here. Around the district, people are really excited to support someone whose life experience as a marine and as a businessman speaks to the challenges of our times. My focus is on issues that truly affect our lives, such as winning the war on terror, securing our borders, restoring fiscal discipline to Washington, growing our economy, and fighting for traditional family values.

Solid Surfer: Sounds great. Let's discuss some of these positions. On supporting traditional families, what specific ways do you have in mind?

Taylor: I believe in the sanctity of marriage and will vote to support it. I'll support a constitutional amendment for that as well. I'll also work to eliminate the marriage penalty and the alternative minimum tax, and increase the per-tax child credit, and I'm going to vote for traditional family values, defend faith in public life and won't attack it, and defend religion.

Solid Surfer: How about taxes in more detail? I know you want to cut taxes in general, but any specific tax or taxes that especially stand out?

Taylor: It's really important to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, particularly the capital gains tax. Clearly it was too high, and cutting it has given both taxpayers a lower tax rate and the federal government more revenue. When we lowered it by 25%, revenue from it doubled from $300 billion to $600 billion in two years, and I think we should cut it down even further. This is what I like to call the Wal Mart strategy – lower prices every day. When your prices are too high for capital gains, people are afraid to take profits on long term investments, and fortunately the president stood up for it and voted for it, and everyone has been a winner.

I'm shocked and appalled, though, that certain Democrats want to raise the tax rate despite knowing all this evidence. The returns are indisputable - there is no question that lowering the tax rate on the capital gains tax has pushed revenue up. But for partisan reasons, a lot of Democrats want to charge higher tax rates and lower our treasury revenue, and this is a sad statement on politics in Washington today. But I'm going to fight for the right thing, which is to lower tax rates to benefit us all.

Solid Surfer: On a similar note, where do we have opportunities to eliminate wasteful spending, and what is your strategy?

Taylor: Unfortunately, there is a culture in Washington of wasteful spending, i.e. vote for my wasteful project and I'll vote for yours. Due to this, we've seen many significant wastes of money like a bridge built to nowhere, $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, half a million dollars to paint a fish on the side of an airplane, and so on. Those are galling examples of bad spending policy, and as a member of Congress I'll fight to root that out and to say, look let's be careful here and spend this money as if it's our own personal savings. Part of that means reforming how we do earmarks, if not eliminating them completely; that’s a path of corrupting power and wasteful spending that we should avoid.

Solid Surfer: What about border security? How should we beef it up?

Taylor: We need to implement the physical infrastructure necessary to secure our borders, shift the focus of the border patrol away from interdiction and towards prevention, and reform our immigration code internally inside the U.S. We should also work to replace our illegal labor force with a legal labor force. The problem on our U.S.-Mexico border is accelerating; as a Marine, I served on that border eight years ago, and not only did we not control it then, but it's worse today than it has ever been. Last year, one million people crossed our southern border illegally, which is a very serious problem that must be fixed. Without border security, you can't have national security.

Solid Surfer: Speaking of that, as a former soldier you have a significant insider perspective on the war on terror. How, in your view, is America is doing? Do you think we’re winning, and what can we improve?

Taylor: I have tremendous confidence in our men and women in uniform as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world defeating terrorists wherever they may be. I am concerned, however, about opportunistic politicians trying to implement bad military strategy and practice on the troops on the ground, such as tying their hands with benchmarks, milestones, and timelines. This really only serves to encourage and help the enemy, and it won't help keep America safe or free. I intend to make sure that our troops don't have their hands tied by politicians in Washington, and that they receive the latitude they need to successfully accomplish their mission, which is to provide for our common defense.

Solid Surfer: On a similar token, having been in Iraq, do you think the mainstream American media has been reporting the war fairly and accurately?

Taylor: Well, newspapers do what they do – they report exciting stories that are going to sell. Same with the broadcast media. But look at what happened (last) Friday. Iraq officially announced the successful conduct of its elections, released the results, worked out all the corruption issues, and not a single reporter showed up. Here is one of the great moments in Iraqi history, and not a word about it in the newspaper.

Of course the papers had plenty of words instead about a terrorist massacring eight innocent civilians in a mosque, but the media often tends to gravitate towards shocking stories and ends up missing the big story. And the big stories in Iraq over the last year have been three successful elections, the creation of a strong Iraqi military which by this June will control half the country, and the courage of the brave young men and women who serve every day in the war on terror with tremendous success.

Solid Surfer: How do you feel about America's prospects for achieving President Bush's goals of energy independence from Middle East oil? Is it realistic and how can we as Americans contribute to that effort?

Taylor: I think ultimately the market will solve this problem, just as it did in the 1970s, when we actually faced a much more severe energy crisis than we do today. High oil prices meant for high profits, and that prompted entrepreneurs to come in and create more supply, as well as causing consumers to consume less. As a result we have become twice as efficient with each unit of energy as we were 30 years ago.

The best thing the government can really do is to stay out of it. Every president since Richard Nixon had his own plan to reduce energy dependence through some kind of progressive new fuel or new technology, and they all failed completely. That said, we should always continue to keep trying. The federal government does have a small role to play, but the private sector’s role should be much larger, as ultimately they will be the ones to solve this problem. I don't agree with people who say the federal government should solve everything; I think they should create a level playing field and let the rest of us play on it.

Solid Surfer: Any other issues or positions you want to discuss, or more on the campaign itself?

Taylor: In my own story, people have come up to me and said, "Van we're excited to support you, not only because we share your beliefs and not only because you have real world experiences and will work to make Washington more responsive, but because you have a lifetime of leadership, from being an Eagle Scout and Senior Patrol Leader in Boy Scouts, sports team captain in school, Marine Officer, building and running your own company, bringing together business deals, and now running a political campaign."

I think when you talk with people involved in the campaign or who served with me in Iraq or have been in business with me, you’ll find a consistent theme that I have always sought out the opportunity to lead, and have been blessed with success in doing so and in helping others to be successful and developing themselves as well.

Solid Surfer: That all sounds great. To conclude, what's in store for you leading to the election, and how do you feel about your chances for success?

Taylor: I've been overwhelmed by the tremendous support across the district and really across the country as well, from small campaign contributions to emails on my website saying 'keep going'. I just talked to my platoon sergeant from Iraq ten minutes ago and he said, "My wife and I are going to be walking blocks for you on Saturday. We’re there for you. You kept me alive in Iraq, and I’m going to work to get you elected to Congress." And it's wonderful having people I've never known before come off the street and say "I want five Van Taylor bumper stickers and two yard signs, and how can I help and what can I do?" It's great to see such response to our message that experience matters, that experience can make a difference in your life. It's resonating across the district in a meaningful way, and I'm very excited.

Solid Surfer: Van, thank you very much again. It’s been a pleasure to speak with you and to have you on TheSolidSurfer.com.

Taylor: Thank you too, and I appreciate it.

Mark Steyn and Western vs. Muslim Demographics

I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.

In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.

This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.

Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.

But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.

On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.

At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.

I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.

Iran's Oil Bourse: A Threat To America?

In addition to nuclear weapons threats, Iran apparently has begun an economic offensive against America. According to Israel Insider (and several other publications), the Mullahs plan to open an international oil bourse (a European term for trading exchange) on March 20 that would trade petroleum using euros as currency. Currently the entire world uses American dollars for such trading, and Iran believes a euro-based exchange will encourage other nations to withdraw their ample dollar reserves involved. This, the Mullahs hope, would trigger massive dollar inflation and greatly increase the cost of and risk of default on foreign debt, sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

The article's author believes America is vulnerable both because foreign nations have accumulated large dollar reserves to help finance petroleum purchases and because America borrows large sums from these same nations to support its own budgetary overspending. With the euro available as an alternate currency, the foreigners will want to diversify so to hedge against any dollar depreciation, and the necessary dollar dumping will flood the U.S. market causing hyperinflation. Furthermore, without such high reserves, the foreigners will become less inclined to lend to America, and the cost of said borrowing (and hence the default risk) will rise. Collectively, the author predicts, this will lead to long term stagflation and the end of American economic dominance.

So now we must ask - is this threat legit? Does Iran really have such power over us? The possibility certainly seems alarming, but I wouldn't be so sure. Surely Iran aims to harm us, but whether their plan will succeed is another matter entirely. I believe Iran's strategy will fail due to several key factors the article's author overlooks.

First, oil trading is not a large part of our economy. Even if foreigners decide to trade oil entirely in euros, they are still likely to maintain their dollar reserves as backup for their enormous investments in U.S. stocks, funds, real estate, and other equities.

Secondly, even if they do begin to dump dollars, long-term inflation is no sure bet. America can always counter by lowering the cost of using dollars on its own NYMEX exchange, and naturally the foreigners will return to greenbacks to get a better deal. (See the first comment at the end of this article.)

In addition, a rise in the cost of foreign debt (unlikely anyway due to the two above principles) would have far less impact on the economy than the author conveys, because compared to GDP the debt itself is actually minimal. As long as GDP growth keeps up with debt percentage-wise (and we have little reason to believe it won't), we should run no greater risk of default than ever before.

Iran may intend to undercut the U.S. economy, but I don't believe their strategy will work. That's not to say they won't hurt us at all, but it shouldn't be nearly as catastrophic as they hope. The Mullahs may be overconfident as always, but then again, they haven't exactly been known for levelheaded political thinking. America must monitor this situation intently and respond as necessary, but market principles and our internal productivity should allow us to strongly pull through.

If we attack Iran, it will be motivated not by oil or economics, but to stop a fanatic regime from threatening the world with WMDs. As opposed to the oil bourse situation, on this issue we must hurry and act accordingly.

Sorry Norway and Denmark? Not Sorry Enough.

Happy Valentine's Day! Hope everyone has had an enjoyable February 14, and let's all be glad we don't live in Malaysia, where the government has come out against the holiday. (Take just one guess why before clicking on the link.)

On a similar note, anyone seen this website yet? SorryNorwayDenmark.com. It is a perfect example of radical-supporting Muslims pretending to be moderate.

The site contains a letter from certain Muslims apologizing for their co-religionists' violent outbursts in wake of the Danish cartoons. The letter affirms free speech and condemns the murderous incitement and vandalism that have occurred.

So what's wrong? Read the letter more closely:

When confronted with such a situation, we deplore the use of violence in all its forms, as well as threats of violence and derogatory and racist remarks being thrown in the opposite direction. We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.

So that's the real reason behind the apology. Not because they believe violence is morally wrong, but because it tarnishes their image. Read further:

There is a strong tradition of friendship and cooperation between the Norwegian and Danish people and Arab people. Of most note is the continued support that these governments give to the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and the brave stance that these governments have often taken to defend Palestinian rights. We sincerely hope these special bonds will not be broken. We hope that our Scandinavian friends would not be convinced by the actions of a few to believe that this is how Arabs and Muslims feel about them. There are racists, bigots and criminals in all countries, and it is the duty of the respectful and reasonable to reach out to each other.

In other words, the writers of the letter could care less about the actual citizens of Denmark and Norway; they apologize only because it hurts their own cause of supporting Muslims and Palestinians. And for good measure, they throw in a bit about extremists "on both sides," as if the Scandinavians were also threatening violence.

Nowhere in the entire letter do the authors condemn the violence simply for being immoral or against their religion. (Perhaps because the violence is indeed permitted by their religion?) A truly moderate Muslim certainly would have done this, and as such, we can see that those who penned the letter are, at best, passive supporters of the radicals' goals.


In other news:

Who else is glad Al Gore didn't become president? I think we all should be, considering his shameful apology to a Saudi audience for supposed American abuses after 9/11. So Saudi Arabia produces 15 of the 19 hijackers, bans all non-Muslim religions, grants its people few freedoms, treats women like property, regularly denounces America, and Al Gore thinks America owes them an apology? Just awful.

But good news from America too: Support for Israel highest since 1991. Let's keep it up.

Danish Cartoons and Moderate Islam: Reader Responses

Several readers have written in response to my recent essay on the Danish cartoons and moderate Islam, and after conversing with one, I'd like to reprint his words, along with my own commentary. Straight from the Comments section comes this letter from reader Verdant:

I don't believe the problem is Islam or Radical Islam. The problem is fascism.

As you allude to in a portion of your article, much of Islam currently exists in a fear society. In a fear society, physical strength, as opposed to democratic values, is ascendant. Physical strength, through intimidation, prevails, and is eventually idolized and worshiped, initially by younger idealstic generations but eventually be a majority of the population. This worship ostensibly takes the form of extreme nationalism, racism, religiousness, etc. but it is fundamentally bottomed by a powerful group-oriented narcissistic fervor that produces an overwhelming feeling of superiority coupled with anger in the affected group. This feeling of superiority overwhelms what often were previous feelings of inferiority felt by members of the group caused by actual physical events, and is perceived as a catharsis or transformation in the identity of the previously downtrodden group. The problem is that most members of the group, even apostates, at least secretly badly wish for and want the emotional release and identity reversal, even if those members rationally know their ostensible cause is immoral.

Islam is therefore not the problem in my opinion. Radical Islam is simply a form of fascism. Like Nazism, which a form of facism based on the narcissistic ideals of racist nationalism which dehumanizes members of other races, Radical Islam is based on the narcissistic ideals of religious nationalism which dehumanizes members of other religions. The problem is that stopping fascism requires destroying it. And destroying fascism requires inflicting sufficient pain upon it adherents that they become disabused of the notion that they are superior. Once fascism has reached a level of infection within the populace, its destruction can only be accomplished by force. Iran is becoming close to that level of infection and may have indeed reached it.

To summarize...any religion or philosophy can be twisted to accomodate fascism. Islam is simply the current superficial carrier of the fascist disease. The secret is to recognize the disease and not confuse it with its current manifestation.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Verdant, thank you for writing. I fully agree with your analysis on how fear societies fascistically emerge, and as you point out, they are sadly very difficult to stop without using military force. Hopefully we can reform Iran before it reaches this point; from all indications, we have only a short window of time before the military option becomes necessary. American support of Iranian opposition groups in the coming weeks and months will be essential to the hope for a peaceful democratic revolution.

At the same time, while I agree with you as well that any philosophy or creed can be twisted towards fascism, I also believe that some religions by their very nature are far more susceptible than others. And Islam appears to fall squarely into this category. As Pope Benedict recently remarked, for example, Islam greatly differs from both Judaism and Christianity (and, indeed, from almost all other religions) in that it believes its holy book (the Koran) was written without human assistance and is hence unadaptable to new situations. (Contrast this, for instance, to Judaism's Torah, which has always been accompanied by an Oral Tradition that elaborates how the written scriptures can continually apply to a changing world.) The result is that unlike practitioners of other faiths, observant Muslims live by a set of 7th century mores that naturally clash quite heavily with modernity. Unable to adapt, they react by building up anger in the manner you describe, and in the worst cases this has lead to fascism where they lash out at more successsful societies (i.e. everyone else).

Notice that other religions have not turned fascistic; the world's other prominent faiths (such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism) have also interpreted their core texts in light of modernity and resultingly have none of the Muslims' pent-up anger. Indeed, the only modern comparisons to radical Islamic rage have been that of the Nazis and Communists; unable to cope with their failed political and economic systems, they too turned to attacking more successful others (such as Jews and Westerners).

In summary, then, while we disagree over the source of the Islamists' fascism, we both know that it is a great danger to the world and must be fully defeated. Thanks again for the letter, and I appreciate the welcome contibution to the site.

Krauthammer, Putin and Hamas, Patriotic Videogames

Russia's increasingly authoritarian president Vladimir Putin has long been known as a leading far right figure. But his latest move to legitimize Hamas by inviting its leaders to Moscow shows a striking parallel to only those on the far left: a willingness to stupidly unite with one's natural enemies purely to oppose America. Just as the left's core principles (abortion, secularism, gay rights, etc.) would be outlawed if Islamists were to actually gain power, Russia's overtures will surely backfire given how such rewarding of terror could motivate the country's own Islamist Chechen rebels to become even more violent. Legitimizing terror never pays, and unless Putin backs down, he will most certainly learn this lesson the hard way.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent column slamming so-called moderates, both Islamic and Western, for condemning the Danish cartoons while continually ignoring the Islamic world's constant barrage of anti-American and anti-Semitic content. I agree entirely. As I mentioned in a recent essay, the West certainly should reach out to *true* Muslim moderates, but those who claim to be moderate while acting as jihadist apologists are nearly as bad as the terrorists themselves.

Anyone else tired of the anti-American Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days? If so, you might enjoy revisiting an old classic: the 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System. Even non-videogamers can't help but marvel at a console featuring games where you can take on the Soviets (the not-so-subtly named Rush 'n' Attack); fight against a stand-in for Libya's Col. Gadhafi (Metal Gear); destroy the "ultra-sheik nuclear attack tank" of Higharolla Kockamamie (i.e. Ayatollah Khomeini) (Snake's Revenge); and save Ronald Reagan from a gang of armed thugs (Bad Dudes). The NES may have originated in Japan, but it was proudly pro-American to the core.

Want to know why the West should be secure while the Islamists should not be? Because they're totally dependent on us. An in-depth analysis by Victor Davis Hanson.

Also, TheSolidSurfer.com wants to give a special thanks to RealClearPolitics.com for including our recent essay on moderate Islam in its February 10th blog coverage, and to fellow blogger Madzionist for kindly plugging last week's piece on phony Palestinian demographics on his site.

Madzionist also earns today's Blog of the Day designation; check out his many essential essays and article links on Israel, especially a recent post advocating a Jewish State of Judea in the territories beyond the green line.

Despite Cartoon Riots, Moderate Islam Still The Answer

A common view on the problem of radical Islam holds that the solution is simply moderate Islam. According to those who espouse this theory, most notably Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, only a bit of Western pressure is needed, and then the militants will be defeated ideologically by the silent majority of moderates in their midst.

In light of the violent reactions to the recent Danish cartoons, however, many have begun to reconsider this belief. As Jim Geraghty of National Review today discussed, many of the Muslim protestors appear to be not just fundamentalists, but ordinary run-of-the-mill folk as well. Furthermore, very few self-professing moderate Muslims have condemned the violence. Unsurprisingly, many Westerners are now starting to consider whether the idea of Islamic moderates is just a myth, and that Islam itself, rather than just "radical" Islam, is the true problem.

Could this all possibly be? I agree that Islam itself is indeed the problem, but nevertheless, moderate Muslims remain the solution.

Radical Islam (or Islamism or Islamofascism or whatever you want to call it), as we all know, is the religion's fundamentalist strain. And as religious fundamentalism by definition equals a return to a faith's core observances, fundamentalist Islam is a throwback to the initial Islam that was practiced back in the 7th century.

This essentially means, then, that fundamentalist Islam is not "radical" per se - it is the true Islam as practiced by the first Muslims. If fundamentalism has caused the religion's problems, then the real culprit is indeed authentic Islam itself.

While that conclusion may seem sobering, nevertheless I don't believe that it disqualifies moderate Muslims (and by this I mean only true moderates, not pseudo-moderates who call for peace in English and jihad in Arabic) from being the solution. Literalist Islam clearly contains many violent elements, but still, certainly not all Muslims believe in or practice them. Indeed, many born Muslims have become apostates, while others live only by the religion's peaceful aspects while conveniently ignoring the violent ones. Exclude the apostates from the discussion if you want (they too are part of the solution but technically are no longer Muslims), but the latter group still can truly be defined as "moderate Muslims." The cartoon reactions have demonstrated that perhaps this group's numbers are slightly smaller than we thought, but nevertheless the group firmly exists.

In addition, we must recall the difference, as brilliantly eloquated by Natan Sharansky in his book The Case For Democracy, between free societies and fear societies. In open, free, democratic societies, people can voice their minds without worry of censure. In fear societies, however, where most Muslims live (including many Muslim neighborhoods in Western countries), this is not the case. Legions of moderate Muslims may want to speak out, but the radicals pressure them into staying silent. Look how apprehensive certain newspapers have become in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon affair. Moderate Muslims live under a similar fear (likely to an even greater degree) every single day.

So while the violence problem may stem from Islam itself, the solution indeed remains the same. We must empower moderate Muslims to the point where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisal by fundamentalists. Many moderates may seem to passively endorse the radicals, but remember that in the 1950s, virtually no Russians spoke out against the horrors of the Soviet regime. Only when the West began to encourage them did the moderates' genuine voices finally emerge.

I believe the same holds true with Islam today. While we must certainly still take further steps to stop the jihadists (such as continuing counterterrorism efforts, limiting Muslim immigration to the West, and deporting those who encourage violence), supporting the moderates also remains key to our success.

Israel's Demographic Non-Crisis

With all the recent hoopla over Muslim vs. Western demographics in Europe, public discussion of a similar situation in Israel has been pushed slightly to the backburner. But within Israel itself, this issue has continued to dominate the political landscape, as successive leaders from Barak to Sharon and now Olmert have based key foreign policy decisions on the premise that Palestinian population growth rates far outstrip Jewish increases.

According to Palestinian Authority-provided statistics, 3.8 million Arabs live in the West Bank and Gaza. Add in Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens, and it appears that 5.2 million Arabs live west of the Jordan River, as compared with only 5.3 million Jews. Factoring in the Arabs' higher natural growth rates, an Arab majority in the region would seem almost certain to occur within a few years.

Believing these numbers, Israel's government has postulated that a long-term Jewish majority can be achieved only by ceding Gaza and most of the West Bank to the Palestinians. And thus Sharon withdrew from Gaza, and now Olmert intends to destroy Jewish settlements throughout Judea and Samaria.

But what if the numbers are actually wrong? In early 2005, an Israeli demographic study found that the Palestinians had far inflated their population count and growth rates, and that the actual number of Arabs in the disputed territories is only 2.4 million. Furthermore, so many Palestinians are emigrating from the territories in the wake of the intifada that Israel's share of the overall population may even increase. Going by this study, Israel has no demographic problem at all.

Both sides claim to be right; Israel stands by its numbers while the Palestinians stand by theirs. So who is telling the truth?

Until recently, it may have been difficult for an outside observer to know. But now that Palestinian election returns have come in, we have a definitive answer: Israel.

According to official polling station counts, there were 1.3 million eligible Palestinian voters, a number that corresponds only with Israel's findings of 2.4 million Palestinians. (Here is a thorough analysis of why.)

Just as the Palestinian leadership has always lied about its intentions and its true goal of destroying Israel, we see once again that they have spread deliberate falsehoods in order to advance their political cause. By emphasizing a phony demographic threat, they conned Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and threaten to do the same for most of the West Bank.

We must spread the truth before it is too late. Ceding land to terrorists is a terrible idea, and Israel must not fall into such a trap again.

More on Danish Cartoons, American Mainstream Media

As an addendum to the previous post, here is a link, supplied by a reader, to the actual Danish cartoons that have aroused so much Muslim anger. Are they offensive? Of course. And Muslims have every right to feel upset and to protest them peacefully. But once again, those who have threatened violence and murder have clearly stepped way over the line that divides civilized behavior from fanatical barbarism. These radicals have no respect for human life, and their only moral code is that any action that benefits Islamo-fascism is good.

As the world can see, this, along with the actions of Hamas and Iran's Mullahs, represents the true face of radical Islam. In order to defeat it, we must stand up ever more strongly against it. But while many other European newspapers have expressed free-speech solidarity with the Danes by reprinting the cartoons, I am sad to say that very few American publications have done so as well.

Particularly compared to Europe, you would think American media outlets would be the first ones to stand up for such vital freedoms. But apart from the New York Sun, virtually no major newspapers have picked up the cartoons. Most of these, of course, wouldn't hesitate an instant to print cartoons mocking other religions, especially Christianity. But once again, the left-leaning mainstream media is entirely silent (read what CNN has to say at the very end of this article and prepare to be completely disgusted) against a threat not deemed politically correct by their own elites. (If anyone wants to comment to CNN about its egregious decision, by the way, click here.)

Western civilization and values must not be taken for granted, and to paraphrase Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, the opposite of freedom is not tyranny, but indifference. We in the West must refuse to buckle to pressure and must stand up for our cherished beliefs.

Danish Cartoons and Muslim Intolerance

The Muslims who are protesting and threatening violence in response to Danish cartoons of Mohammed are acting at the absolute height of hypocrisy. You never hear a peep from them when Arab presses regularly publish deeply anti-American and anti-Semitic content, but when a Danish newspaper prints a few drawings they dislike, they threaten to kill Westerners all over the world for it. They feel content to trash everyone else at will, but can't accept the slightest offense to themselves.

It is vitally important that the newspapers who printed the cartoons stand up and defend themselves. Free speech is a basic hallmark of Western society and must be protected. Of course these Muslims have the right to feel offended, but threatening violence in response is absolutely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. We need to say "no" to this attempted suppression of freedom, and lend our full support to these newspapers in the name of basic rights.

A reader also offered an excellent recommendation, to which I give an enthusiastic thumbs-up: Buy Danish products!

Israel's Home Demolitions in Amona are a Huge Mistake

Israel's government, I hate to say, is making a huge mistake in tearing down Jewish settlement homes in the outpost of Amona.

Sure, the few homes in question may have gone against Israel's previous land promises to the Palestinians, but at this point, so what. It'd be one thing if the Palestinians had actually held up their end of the peace talks, but for crying out loud - they just elected to be led by a terrorist organization devoted to Israel's destruction. Removing your own people for the benefit of a genocidally minded enemy is the height of poor thinking and a waste of precious resources.

According to many observers, a key reason behind the home demolitions is the left-leaning Israeli government's opposition to the more religious settler movement. Other factors likely include Prime Minister Olmert's attempt to score political points with his Kadima party base and with the international community.

But regardless of any seeming justifications, the Israeli government is picking the wrong fight. Whatever their differences in politics and/or religious observance, the settlers are fellow Jews who believe in a strong, secure state of Israel. Instead of opposing them, the government should treat them as its closest friends. Especially in the face of true enemies like Hamas, internal fighting is the last thing Israel needs.

As I predicted before it occurred, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza led not to peace, but to more Palestinian terrorism and violence. On the same token, disengaging from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) would only bring more of the same. The Jewish residents of those regions are doing Israel a huge favor by living there, and the Jerusalem government should maximally support them.

Particularly in these difficult moments, it is imperative that Israel remains a unified nation. Religious or secular, resident proper or settler, Israeli Jews are one and the same. We should all hope and pray for the speedy recovery of all those who were wounded in the clash over Amona, and we must always support Israel's character as a strong and united Jewish state.