LITMIR.BIZ

We, in the West in general, and the United States in particular, have witnessed over the last twenty years a slow erosion of our civilizational self-confidence. Under the influence of intellectuals and academics in Western universities, intellectuals such as Gore Vidal, Susan Sontag, Edward Said, and Noam Chomsky, and destructive intellectual fashions such as post-modernism, moral relativism, and mulitculturalism, the West has lost all self-confidence in its own values, and seems incapable and unwilling to defend those values. By contrast, resurgent Islam, in all its forms, is supremely confident, and is able to exploit the West's moral weakness and cultural confusion to demand ever more concessions from her. The growing political and demographic power of Muslim communities in the West, aided and abetted by Western apologists of Islam, not to mention a compliant, pro-Islamic US Administration, has resulted in an ever-increasing demand for the implementation of Islamic law-the Sharia- into the fabric of Western law, and Western constitutions. There is an urgent need to examine why the Sharia is totally incompatible with Human Rights and the US Constitution. This book , the first of its kind, proposes to examine the Sharia and its potential and actual threat to democratic principles.This book defines and defends Western values, strengths and freedoms often taken for granted. This book also tackles the taboo subjects of racism in Asian culture, Arab slavery, and Islamic Imperialism. It begins with a homage to New York City, as a metaphor for all we hold dear in Western culture- pluralism, individualism, freedom of expression and thought, the complete freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness unhampered by totalitarian regimes, and theocratic doctrines.

Подробнее

After the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States went to war. With thousands of Americans killed, billions of dollars in damage, and aggressive military and security measures in response, we are still living with the war a decade later. A change of presidential administration has not dulled controversy over the most fundamental objectives, strategies and tactics of the war, or whether it is even a war. This book clears the air over the meaning of 9/11, and sets the stage for a reasoned, clear, and considered discussion of the future with a collection of essays commemorating the 10th anniversary of the attacks. The contributors include supporters and critics of the war on terrorism, policymakers and commentators, insiders and outsiders, and some of the leading voices inside and outside government.

Подробнее

IN this illuminating Broadside, former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey shows how Barrack Obama has taken the war on terror from the adult realities of George W. Bush, where hard choices were faced and made, and the nation kept safe, to an adolescent fantasy world where we can at once be nobler than the law requires and safer than we were before. Obama rejects as an unnecessary sacrifice of our ideals the stern measures adopted by his predecessor, and offers instead to limit our intelligence gathering and provide terrorists with better conditions than common criminals, in the name of lofty idealism. Instead of protecting Americans, he builds castles in the air and invites us to stay safe by living in them.

Подробнее

Yasser Arafat's incremental conquest of Israel was learned at the feet of the North Vietnamese in 1970. The Vietnamese told the Arab leadership that they accepted the fact that victory in Vietnam would take many years, during which it would be necessary to temporarily accept the division of the country into two states, while they worked for a shift in the balance of power. In this, the Vietnamese were smart enough to permit the Americans to save face. They had no intention of respecting the agreements they signed with the United States; the point was to provide political cover for the American retreat.Today, Barack Obama is giving the Arabs the same opportunity as Nixon gave the Vietnamese. Obama told a Muslim audience in Cairo in the first months of his administration that America's support for Israel was «unbreakable,» even as he moved to compel Jerusalem to cede even more territory to its enemies. In, this new broadside, Michael Ledeen asks why the Obama administration has chosen this course, and examines what this betrayal means for Israel and the world at large.

Подробнее

After reaching high levels of public popularity in the 1980s and 1990s, political conservatism has become beset with criticism and disillusionment. As demonstrated by the 2008 election results, political conservatism has been blamed for an unpopular Iraq war, an economy nose diving into recession, and a barrage of high profile instances of corporate misbehavior. This crisis in the ideological identity of and public confidence in conservatism is partly due to conservatism itself. Contrary to the intellectual vibrancy that characterized the 1980s and 1990s, political conservatism in recent years has become complacent and dormant. It has been more focused on simply protecting political power than on reexamining its philosophical principles and policy prescriptions. Because of this failure to continually reexamine, conservatives have allowed their ideology to slip back into various ruts caused by certain historical deviations from the conservative creed. These deviations, beginning in the early twentieth century, mischaracterized conservatism as a special-interest defender of the wealthy and corporate class. The deviations also allowed conservatism to be miscast as a political creed that advocates aggressive U.S. intervention in the affairs of foreign nations.Perhaps because of all its successes, as well as the political influence it has been able to achieve, political conservatism in America has somewhat lost its foundational bearings. Its basic principles and ideological identity have been lost amidst the various political maneuverings and issues associated with partisan politics. Consequently, conservatives need to get their ideology back to a firm foundational setting, so as to allow it to once again provide a strong beacon of guidance to American society. In this book, Patrick Garry attempts to provide a clear definition and ideological identity to conservatism—an identity that not only connects conservatism to the past, but allows it to position itself for the challenges of the future. With a concise simplicity, Garry provides a definition of conservatism that relies on two fundamental propositions. Garry also argues that the focus of conservatism needs to be redirected toward the interests of the poor and disadvantaged. As Garry argues, it is conservatism and not liberalism that offers the best hope for the poor and disadvantaged to prosper in America. This new focus of conservatism will allow conservatism to flourish as a governing ideology.

Подробнее

Understanding the role of combat in the Iraq war is essential for both the American people and the U.S. military. Recognizing the objectives of both sides and the plans developed to attain those objectives provides the context for understanding the war. The Surge is an effort to provide such a framework to help understand not only where we have been, but also what happens as we move forward.

Подробнее

John Fund explores the real divide the country faces with the looming election. Through wary thoughts on voting integrity, he shows how eletions can be decided by the votes of dead people, illegal felon voters, and absentee voters that simply don't exist. If nothing is done to address the growing cynicism about vote counting, rest assured that another close presidential election that descends into bitter partisan wrangling is just around the corner.

Подробнее

Daniel Hannan, a British Conservative Member of the European Parliament, calls on Americans to avoid Europe's future. He traces the common roots of British and American liberty, and describes how both countries are losing their inheritance as government crowds out the private sphere. He calls for a renewed commitment to the Anglosphere: the alliance of free, English-speaking nations which has preserved freedom in our time.

Подробнее

Wages of Appeasement explores the reasons why a powerful state gives in to aggressors. It tells the story of three historical examples of appeasement: the greek city-states of the fourth century b.c., which lost their freedom to Philip II of Macedon; England in the twenties and thirties, and the failure to stop Germany's aggression that led to World War II; and America's current war against Islamic jihad and the 30-year failure to counter Iran's attacks on the U.S. The inherent weaknesses of democracies and their bad habit of pursuing short-term interests at the expense of long-term security play a role in appeasement. But more important are the bad ideas people indulge, from idealized views of human nature to utopian notions like pacifism or disarmament. But especially important is the notion that diplomatic engagement and international institutions like the u.n. can resolve conflict and deter an aggressor––the delusion currently driving the Obama foreign policy in the middle east. Wages of Appeasement combines narrative history and cultural analysis to show how ideas can have dangerous and deadly consequences.

Подробнее

Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, along with progressive economists like Thomas Piketty and Paul Krugman, have made a case for redistributing income from the wealthy to the poor as a means of reducing inequalities in income and wealth. Meanwhile, public opinion polls show that voters reject programs of redistribution in favor of policies designed to promote overall economic growth and job creation. While voters are concerned about inequality, they are more skeptical of the capacity of the government to do anything about it without making matters worse for everyone.   In this Broadside, James Piereson explains why the voters are right and the progressive politicians and economists are wrong. As he demonstrates, the progressive case is based upon a serious fallacy: it assumes that the government is actually capable of redistributing income from the wealthy to the poor. For reasons of policy, tradition, and constitutional design, this is not the case. The United States currently has one of the more progressive income tax systems in the industrial world but it does little to redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor. One reason for this is that, though the government spends vast sums on programs to aid the poor, most of these funds flow to providers of services rather than to the poor themselves. Thus, whatever one may think of inequality, redistributive tax and spending policies are unlikely to do much to ameliorate it but will instead line the pockets of providers and advocates who wield great influence in Washington.

Подробнее