Wayne Laugesen explains for the Colorado Springs Gazette:

President Barack Obama’s administration finalized orders last week that will force all Americans, with few exceptions, to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and abortion pills without the burden of fees or co-pays. Obama is not merely ordering all Americans to accept abortion and contraception, he is demanding their support with mandatory purchases.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told the Gazette, “This extends telling Americans they must buy health insurance to telling them they must buy products that are contrary to their religious beliefs.” Laugesen added, “Freedom of religion is under siege.” Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum harshly criticized the president on similar grounds. House Speaker John Boehner vowed to overturn the policy by Congressional action.

True, the government should not force Catholics to fund birth control against their religious beliefs. But the government should not force anyone to fund any type of insurance coverage against their wishes. The government should not force people to buy insurance that covers birth control, acupuncture, maternity leave, or any other good or service. Such mandates violate the rights of insurance companies and their clients to freely negotiate terms, and they drive up the costs of premiums.

Insurance mandates not only violate Catholics’ freedom of religion; they violate everyone’s freedom of conscience and everyone’s freedom to use their own resources as they judge best. To be genuinely “pro-choice,” one must respect people’s choices across the board—including their choice of religion or philosophy, their choice of whether to buy insurance and if so what kind, and their choice of how to dispose of the fruits of their labor.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
• Newt Sides with Anti-Abortion Zealots

Image: Wikimedia Commons via Kancelaria Prezydenta RP

Yet, oddly, some continue to suggest that God may influence the outcome of football games. For example, a letter to the Denver Post, referring specifically to the outcome of sporting matches, suggests, “God and Tim Tebow are working together in wonderful and mysterious ways.” (The letter was written without any apparent hint of sarcasm; whatever the author’s intention, some people embrace its sentiment.)

The most glaring problem with such claims is that there is no evidence that a “God” exists, much less that such a being plays a direct role in human affairs.

A secondary problem with claims of supernatural intervention is that they are senseless even on their own terms. A God who would get involved in sporting matches would be even more petty than those fans who pray for such divine intervention. Further, as another letter to the Denver Post asks, why would God choose “to intervene in trivial sports contests and not [prevent] famine and genocide in Africa, or the murder of protesters in Syria, etc.?” This raises the issue formally known as the “problem of evil”: Why would a God with unlimited power to stop human suffering decline to do so?

Those who claim divine intervention in sports and daily life ignore the actual and obvious causes of human events: the willed actions of people and the nature of the things on which they act. A football crosses a goal line because men run it, kick it, or throw it over the line, not because God wills it to cross the line.

Neither God, nor the stars, nor some magical incantation helped the Patriots destroy the Broncos. They did it on their own.

Image: Jeffrey Beall via Wikipedia

The United States government is stepping up its efforts to increase sanctions on Iran in order to impede the Islamist regime’s development of nuclear weapons. These latest efforts, however, ignore how pressing this matter really is.

The Iranian regime has killed U.S troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, has long sponsored terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, has slaughtered its own citizenry, and continually calls for “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

That such a regime exists—even aside from its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons—should have moved the United States and its allies to obliterate the Iranian theocracy long ago. That the regime is actively seeking nuclear weapons clearly heightens the urgency.

Related:

• Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
• “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
• An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
• The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go

Image: Wikipedia Commons

Craig Biddle:

Thank you for joining me, Peter.

Peter Huessy: Thank you for inviting me.

CB: I want to hear your thoughts on U.S. national defense in the post-9/11 world, but let me begin with a broad question to set the stage. What do you regard as the purpose of the U.S. government in the realm of foreign policy and the use of our military?

PH: Part of its purpose is to protect the United States from existential threats such as a nuclear exchange with a nuclear power such as China or Russia. It’s also to prevent terror attacks on our homeland, to protect our borders, to secure trade and investment and beneficial economic activities, especially secure oil and energy.

CB: Who in your view attacked us on 9/11 and what motivates them?

PH: The attack itself was planned primarily by Khalid Sheik Muhammad. We know that Iran as well as Syria and Hezbollah have been found by a U.S. district judge to be complicit in the attack. As to motives, Khalid Sheik Mohammad’s dominant motivation in my view has always been seeking revenge and he may have secured the support of myriad sponsors, including Iran.

The regime in Iran believes that we are the major impediment to its goal of conquering the world. And however fanciful people may think it is that Iran wants to conquer the world, it is certainly acting toward that end. The constitution of Iran says that it’s obligation is to spread jihad all over the world and to kill the infidels. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says Israel should be destroyed, and he talks about a world without the United States. Whether that’s to be accomplished through an EMP attack or through a nuclear terrorist attack in Times Square, I don’t know. I do know what capabilities they’re seeking to have, and whatever their motivation is within Shi’ism and the Twelfth Imam, they believe they have the obligation to create Armageddon—which they think will bring back the Mahdi and cleanse the world of the unbelievers. They have said so. There’s a video, as you know, circulating around Iran and made by the government that very clearly indicates that they believe the Supreme Leader is the conduit to the Mahdi. So whether anyone thinks it’s nuts or not is immaterial.

Syria’s motivations are bound up with its alliance with Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah are allied with both Syria and Iran, as they were with Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi when they were in power. Then you have the hangers-on in North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and China—all of whom gave weapons, money, sanctuary, training, and financing to what Michael Ledeen called these state sponsors of terror, or terror masters.

Osama bin Laden’s goal was to show the world that he could fight “the Great Satan” and so that people would flock to Al Qaeda as the Islamic organization best suited to lead to the creation of a new caliphate. So 9/11 for him was like a business card, it was like an advertisement—“look what I can do.” That’s why he wanted something spectacular.

We know that the Taliban supported Al Qaeda so we went and took them down in Afghanistan. The problem with Iraq was that it was never firmly connected in any particular way by the administration to terrorism in general or specific acts of terrorism, and I think that caused enormous problem in how Americans view security policy, terrorism, and our foreign policy.

CB: Which of the enemies that you’ve named would you say is the fundamental enemy—the one that poses the greatest threat and makes the most others possible?

PH: I would put the Iranian regime, if you want to rank them, at the top.

CB: What can and should America do about this regime?

PH: It’s worth noting that Khameini was so worried about Ahmadinejad that he banned the sect he belongs to. These people are genocidal maniacs and in my mind the only way you solve that is to get rid of the regime. Condi Rice said we should do exactly this. Former Secretary Albright doesn’t agree. That says a lot. Ledeen is right—we cannot persuade Iran to change.

We’ve been playing kissy-face since 1979. Look at the Iraq study group. James Baker and Lee Hamilton may be smart men, but they repeatedly say “Iran is interested in stability in the Middle East.” As former Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden said, Iran is the major source of instability in the Middle East and the world today. I would say that the “stability” Iran seeks is the stability of the grave. I find myself not only nonplussed but just flabbergasted at Baker and Hamilton. Why would they say something so absolutely nonsensical? The Iranian regime is interested in only one thing and that is the destruction of Jews, Christians, and infidels in general. They will use nuclear or biological or chemical weapons or anything they can get their hands on to do that. I think they only understand one thing and that is force.

As to the fight in Congress about sanctions on Iran’s banks, you know we did those in 1996 or 1998 under Clinton and they never were enforced. We did another round in the Bush administration and they were half-heartedly enforced. This administration has done more than the previous two, but on a scale of 1 to 100, we’re still at 10. We need to be at 100. The United States should divest from Iran—forbid  anyone in America to invest in any company doing business in or with Iran, including its oil markets. I’ve written about why we should not be investing funds into companies via our public pension funds that do business in Iran. Iran uses those profits to make IEDs that they use to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan—soldiers who are the sons, daughters, uncles, and aunts of the very police, fireman, and teachers who are investing their money in the public pension funds.

And then there are all the major endowments of the public universities—over a trillion dollars. Candace DeRussy wrote the top fifty schools in America and asked if they had thought about their endowments being what Roger Robinson has called terror-free investments. We got fourty-nine letters back saying get lost and one letter, from Texas A&M, asking what we had in mind. Candace did this to see what kind of reaction we’d get. She wrote all the letters herself and sent them—and she basically got the backs of their hands.

If by means of divestment and sanctions we were to drive oil down to $30 a barrel, that would bankrupt the Iranians. It wouldn’t solve the problem, but if we did this in conjunction with special ops missions in Iran, using drones to go after them, and most importantly, as Ledeen says, give the democratic resistance in Iran the tools to overthrow these SOBs by creating the conditions by which their leadership becomes very shaky, I think we could get rid of the regime.

It’s kind of a seven-part program, similar to what Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. We did all of that to the Soviet Union—plus went after them in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Angola, Afghanistan, and around the world. To the extent we sold them technology, we did so to our advantage. When Reagan and [then-Canadian Prime Minister Brian] Mulroney discovered that companies were selling technology to the Russians, they decided to sabotage the technology. That pipeline that exploded in Kazakhstan and everyone thought it was a nuclear explosion—it exploded because it had defective computer chips.

I believe [GHW] Bush did some of this kind of thing. Bill Clinton did some too. And I think some of the problems the Iranians have been having lately may have something to do with the current administration doing more of it.

In short, my view is that we should use every means available to end the Iranian regime.

CB: One problem is that we haven’t even named the regime as our enemy. Following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, America named the enemy outright—the imperialist Japanese regime—declared war on it and, in less than five years, ended it, after which Japan became a key trading partner and a good friend to the United States. More than ten years after 9/11, we’ve not only failed to eliminate the enemy; we’ve not even named it. We just keep talking about a “war on terror,” as if our enemy was a tactic.

PH: You’re exactly right. We’ve never identified Iran as the enemy. Prior to 9/11 we had identified Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, but we’ve never named it as the enemy. So what was the point in designating it a state sponsor of terror? Were they sponsoring terrorism against Puerto Rico or against Switzerland? No, they were sponsoring terror against us. The new national security strategy talks about terrorism as being instigated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates but fails to mention the state sponsors! The states direct the terror groups, not the other way around.

One of the reasons we don’t name Iran more openly now is that Americans are fed up with what the media describe as “endless war.” Afghanistan has lasted more than a decade. (Ron Paul capitalizes on this when he says, “I’m against these endless wars.”) Americans have the attitude that we should fight the war, kick ‘em hard, win and come home and have a barbeque. I’m not being flippant. Americans don’t like to fight, but if they must fight they want to be ferocious and get the job done.

CB: That’s the attitude we ought to have.

PH: Exactly. But we’ve never applied this to Iran. From ’79, through the end of the Cold War, all through the Clinton administration—except for reflagging the Kuwaiti tankers and shooting down the Iranian airbus, which I don’t believe was on purpose—we have taken very little military action of any kind against Iran. Consequently, the regime believes they can get away with all that they have done and are doing with impunity. They think we’re weak. We withdrew from Beirut, Lebanon—whether you think it was right or not to go, the rules of engagement there created a disaster, and we left. We also withdrew from Somalia. Osama bin Laden and his friends took from this the lesson that we will retreat if hit.

Granted, after 9/11 we went into Afghanistan, and Americas largely understood and advocated this; they saw it as a good war because the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda. But then Iraq came around and people wondered what the hell we were doing there. If it’s about democracy, what about North Korea, what about Venezuela, what about Cuba? You can take that argument to dozens of countries around the world.

Now, having ignored the Iranian threat for so long, we’re faced with the prospect of Iran with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. We know where some of their missile factories are and we know where some of the nuclear facilities are. We could take them out and I’m in favor of taking them out.

CB: For the sake of argument, if the U.S. decided to eliminate the Iranian regime as quickly as possible, using the full capabilities of our military, how long in your estimate would it take?

PH: I’d have to take a bow toward the generals [Thomas] McInerney and [Paul] Vallely, who have spoken and written a book about this. I think they said it would be a three to four month campaign. They’re basically proponents of air power and I agree. I don’t think you have to send in American ground forces. I certainly wouldn’t support that.

CB: Turning to Egypt, the recent elections in Egypt delivered a large majority of the vote to the Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Freedom and Justice Party” and the even more-radical Salafist’s party, Al Nour. As the Economist puts it, “the success of Islamists in Egypt marks a trend throughout the region where political Islam is everywhere on the rise.” What could the U.S. have done to prevent this situation in Egypt, and what can or should we do now to deal with the problem of political Islam being everywhere on the rise?

PH: That’s a tough question. We should never have withdrawn our support from Mubarak. There was a reason we supported him. It wasn’t because we liked him and it wasn’t because he was a good guy; it was because he was a bulwark between the Muslim whackos getting government power in Egypt and using the Suez Canal as a lever. Also, as a neighbor of Israel, if the Sinai becomes remilitarized, then Israel has a problem on its southern border as well as on its northern border.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has taken the opportunity to play to popular discontent and promise jobs and security—as if that’s their intention. But it’s interesting that the Economist also quotes some guy saying not to worry about the Brotherhood, because once they have to build sewers and roads and stuff—to deliver on their promises—they’ll forget about jihad. Sorry, but this isn’t going to happen. Our State department said that was going to happen with Hamas in Gaza—that they’d have to provide some kind of government in Gaza, so that will take up all of their time and they won’t have time to launch rockets on Israelis. We know how that worked out.

CB: Final question: What in your view should American citizens demand of our government with respect to Iran?

PH: I think Americans can insist on divestment; sound defense, including missile defenses; sanctions, especially on the Iran energy sector and banking; assistance to the democratic resistance inside Iran; and provisions of necessary hardware to our allies, which we are now doing. And although as citizens we may not be able to call up the president and get anything done, we can have an impact on our state legislatures, we can have an impact on our governors and our state reps. We can also advocate the adoption of a sound energy policy, which is critical to a sound policy on Iran and the Middle East.

Part of the difficulty here, though, is that sanctions will affect people and businesses in America that we don’t think of as having anything to do with Iran. Hyundai, for instance, is the biggest automaker in Iran. I’ve lived in Korea and love Korea—I’m not against the Korean people—but they should not be doing business in American if they are doing business in Iran. I know that’s not going to make everyone happy, but if Hyundai is given a choice, it’s going to choose to do business in America.

CB: It’s been a pleasure talking with you, Peter. Let’s do it again soon.

PH: I’d be delighted to do that. Thanks.

Related:

• Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
• An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
• Interview with Clare M. Lopez on Islam and the Enemies of America

Image of Airplanes: Wikipedia Commons

Remarkably, many people are claiming (whether seriously or not) that divine intervention may have been at play. That was the immediate reaction of several Twitter users: “Tebow with 316 yards. John 3:16 anyone?? God making a statement?” wondered one Tweet, referring to the popular Bible verse. “God has a sense of humor,” claimed another. “Maybe God thought we needed His attention,” suggested yet another.

Denver Westword, Colorado’s most popular alternative weekly, chimed in too, Tweeting, “Tim Tebow can’t wear 3:16 eye black, so he throws for 316 in win.” Michael Roberts, the paper’s media critic, explained in a blog post:

At Florida, Tim Tebow famously put the number 3:16 (as in the Biblical verse John 3:16) on his eye black. That’s a no-go in the NFL—so instead of writing the digits on his face, he wrote them in the box score of the Broncos’ unbelievably improbable 29-23 overtime victory against the Pittsburgh Steelers, by throwing for 316 yards.

Roberts suggests merely that readers should “ponder” whether the yardage “was a coincidence.”

No, they should not.

Although Tebow himself credits an alleged God for his success, he obviously owes his success to his own hard work (coincidental numbers notwithstanding). Likewise for all superstitious athletes: They owe their success to their hard work and dedication, not to their hair length, their special bat, the numbers on their jerseys, or some guy in the sky.

If Tebow had relied on prayers to improve his skills and abilities, he never would have made the high school team. Instead, Tebow devoted himself to developing his skills, building his physical endurance and strength, and working through the arduous track from high school to professional football.

Crediting a supernatural being for Tebow’s passing yards is an injustice to Tebow, as it denies him the credit he deserves. It also denies the credit to Tebow’s coaches and teammates, who called the plays, made the blocks, and caught the passes that contributed to Tebow’s success.

Congratulations, Tebow and the Broncos, the credit is all yours.

Related:

• Don’t Say Grace, Say Justice

Image: David Shankbone

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the plasma TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.

Related:

• Who Deserves Credit for Tebow’s 316 Yards?

CBS News

A spokesman for Gingrich said that he forgot to add the “or” in the statement. But still, to treat secularism and Islam as equally anti-American is absurd and outrageous.

Secularism merely denotes ideas that are non-religious; it does not specify whether those ideas are rational or irrational, pro-life or anti-life. Islam, on the other hand, specifically denotes irrational and anti-life ideas—ideas that lead people to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers, execute gays, stone adulterers, enslave nations, and seek a sharia-ruled world.

Equating secularism with Islam is like equating a liver, which can be healthy or unhealthy, with a cancerous tumor.

Related:

• The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go
• The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages

Image: Gaga Skidmore

“People have a right to keep what they earn”—“The government has a right to spread the wealth around”—“Women have a right to abortion”—“No they don’t”—“People have a right to an education, a job, a home, and health care”—“The government has a right to regulate corporate greed”—“The government has no right to interfere in the economy”—“The 99 percent has a right to the wealth of the 1 percent”—and so on. In some form or another, we hear such opinions daily.

But are anyone’s opinions on such matters more than mere opinions? Can anyone name the source and nature of rights and prove that his views are true?

Some say that rights are gifts from God. Others rightly reply: Prove it. Some claim that rights are grants from government. Others note that this contradicts the very idea of rights. Some claim that rights are matters of “natural law.” Others aptly ask: How so? What natural law? Natural law emanating from God? Wouldn’t that be “supernatural law”?

Although everyone has an opinion about rights, almost no one can prove that his opinion is correct. For advocates of liberty, this is a big problem. If we can’t identify the objective source and nature of rights, we can’t defend freedom; we can’t reverse the statist trend that is destroying our world; we will lose our liberty.

Fortunately, Ayn Rand discovered the objective source and nature of rights, and anyone who wants to understand these vital truths can—in the course of about half an hour.

In my article Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society, I examine the traditional theories of rights—God-given, government-granted, and “natural” rights—and show why none of these theories holds water. I then present Rand’s theory, showing step by step how it is derived from perceptual reality, why it is demonstrably true, and how it grounds the propriety of freedom in observable fact.

Rand’s ideas are radical. They go to philosophical roots and challenge the Judeo-Christian worldview to its core. But true advocates of liberty are not averse to radical ideas. True advocates of liberty know that America was founded on radical ideas. True advocates of liberty are willing to examine arguments in support of freedom and to embrace even the most radical ideas when such ideas are grounded in evidence and logic.

From Sarbanes-Oxley to Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to TSA molestations to countless coercive “stimulus” plans, we are losing our liberty. What will our political situation be in five, ten, fifteen years? Will we be free, semi-free, mostly controlled, or essentially enslaved?

It depends on what we are willing to do today.

Are we willing to consider radical ideas and evidence in support of them—even if they challenge the status quo? Are we willing to share with others the truths we discover—even if doing so makes us look radical? Or are we afraid of evidence that might contradict traditional views, afraid that knowing too much unpopular truth might entail too much mental and social fatigue.

“For my part,” said Patrick Henry, “whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth.” When enough people approach Rand’s ideas with Henry’s courage, liberty will live again.

Related:

• Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society
• Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism
• Economics in Atlas Shrugged

Image of Patrick Henry: Wikipedia Commons

Image of Ayn Rand: Wikipedia Commons

While Arab leaders warn that an international stalemate on Palestinian statehood threatens regional stability, it should be pointed out that some among them lay a foundation for such instability by, among other things, teaching students it is their obligation to commit violence against the religious “other.”

The prime example is Saudi Arabia’s national curriculum. Despite assurances in the State Department human rights report that the Saudi government has in the past year introduced “revised and newly written textbooks across the curriculum for most school grades,” these texts continue to promote violence against apostates and “infidels” of all stripes. Militant jihad is justified to “spread Islam” and exalted as “a profitable trade,” which “saves from painful punishment”. . . .

Top U.S. Treasury counterterrorism officials have called the Wahhabi teachings of these textbooks “kindling for Bin Laden’s match,” and warned that, without education reform, “we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”

Shea goes on to offer several harrowing excerpts from these textbooks. The situation, however, is much worse that she reports.

The murderous Saudi savages are not merely teaching Saudi children to become murderous Saudi savages; they are also paying other Islamists to murder Americans, and importing undiluted Islam into the United States. As I document in “The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go,”

the Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia is funding American-slaughtering terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, building mosques and “cultural centers” across America, and flooding these Islamist outposts not only with hundreds of millions of dollars for “operating expenses” but also with a steady stream of materials calling for all Muslims “to be dissociated from the infidels . . . to hate them for their religion . . . to always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law” and, ultimately, “to abolish all traces of such primitive life (jahiliyya) and to reinforce the understanding and application of the eternal and universal Islamic deen [religion] until it becomes the ruling power throughout the world.” The Saudi-sponsored materials further specify that those who “accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable,” have “denied the Koran” and thus “should be killed.”

None of this is news, at least not to the U.S. government. The Saudis’ anti-infidel efforts have been tracked, documented, and reported for years. As the Rand Corporation concluded in a briefing to a top Pentagon advisory board in 2002, “The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader.”

When will a sufficient number of Americans demand that the U.S. government act in accordance with its knowledge about the Saudis and take out the murderous regime? With apologies to Golda Meir: when a sufficient number of Americans love their children more than they hate being branded “intolerant.”

Related:

• 9/11 Ten Years Later: The Fruits of the Philosophy of Self-Abnegation
• The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go
• The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts

In other words, the United States should bribe the Islamic regime in Pakistan to work with the good guys in the war against Islamists. But in fact, America does not need Pakistan’s cooperation to destroy the Islamist threat. What America needs is to act in its self-interest and destroy all regimes that sponsor and/or harbor terrorists.

The solution to Pakistan’s belligerence is not to give the Islamic regime more money. (The United States has given billions upon billions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan since 1956, with the aid in 2010 alone totaling $2.5 billion.) Rather, the solution is for the U.S. government to give the Islamic state an ultimatum. The United States should inform Pakistan that the U.S. government’s only purpose is to protect the rights and security of Americans, and that if Pakistan stands in the way of that goal, the U.S. military will regard the regime as an enemy and treat it accordingly.

Related:

• 9/11 Ten Years Later: The Fruits of the Philosophy of Self-Abnegation
• The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go

Image: Wikipedia Commons