»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 ::

On Islamophobia 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 11:25 AM

First, let’s define phobia.

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1971):

Phobia:  Fear, horror, or aversion, esp. of a morbid character….So Phobist nonce-wd. one who has a horror of or aversion to anything.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1956) states:

Phobia: An irrational, persistent fear of a particular object or class of objects.

The Oxford definition does not claim that a phobia is necessarily irrational, but however stresses its cause as being a person. The Webster’s definition does not even mention a person, just objects or classes of objects, which, of course, can include persons. Other dictionary definitions more or less track the Oxford and Webster’s definitions.

And here is the origin of the term Islamophobia, from Discover the Networks.

The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad -- who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT's ideology -- now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them….

Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11. Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-rights activists have regularly accused the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. The accusers charge that as a result of this "Islamophobia," Muslims are disproportionately targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and acts of discrimination.

“Hate crimes.” “Hate speech.” Discrimination. Bigotry. Racism. “Islalmophobia.” The lexicon of pro-Islam and pro-“Syrian” immigration is large and loathsome.

For an extended discussion of the term’s origin, see Robert Spencer’s August 2012 Jihad Watch column, “Did the Muslim Brotherhood Invent the term ‘Islamophobia’?” Spencer’s argument about the term’s origins is at odds with the account given by Discover the Networks.

Whatever its true origins, the term Islamophobia is a pejorative term used to describe a state of mind. That state of mind is not necessarily irrational but the term is intended to smear anyone who has or has expressed a rational and wholly justified fear of Islam and even of Muslims in general (the most humble-looking, innocuous-looking ones often turn out to be the slashers, the shooters, the killers and wannabe killers; observe the knifing jihad in Israel). Islamophobia may or may not result in action taken by the “phobist.” The term has become synonymous with “hate speech” and racism. If you are an Islamophobe, then you are automatically a racist and a bigot and a vehicle of hate who ought to be gagged and fined and made to perform community service. Michael Sturzenberger is only the latest Austrian to be charged and found guilty of “hate speech.”

Now, I think it’s safe to say that neither President Barack Obama, nor Chancellor Angela Merkel, nor Prime Minister David Cameron, nor French President François Hollande, nor Hillary Clinton, nor any other pro-immigration politicians here or in Europe, is an Islamophobe. Unlike so many ordinary citizens of America, Britain, Germany, and France, they are surrounded daily by security so heavy that no one would have a chance to spike their drinks or make an indecent gesture in their company. I imagine that if I threw a shoe or a shower sandal at Obama’s heavily armored limousine as it passed by – a vehicle and its string of decoys each of which could repel an RPG – I’d be instantly wrestled to the ground by Secret Service goons and charged with endangering the president’s life, and perhaps with “hate speech.”

They don’t need to worry about being threatened by ISIS or Muslims. They each have a “safe space” to insulate them from “microaggressions.” They don’t live in the same neighborhoods as those of us here in the workaday world. They’ve never needed to fear, mistrust, or abhor Muslims or Islam or immigrant brutes of any stripe, even though ISIS has threatened to kill them. It’s an empty threat, made just for show, because Obama, Cameron, Hollande, both Clintons, and Merkel are the best friends ISIS ever had. Lower-level elitists like Secretary of State John Kerry won't be encountering Muslims or “Syrians” or even hostile illegal Mexicans at their local laundromats, either. The only dangers Obama and Kerry might face is the possibility of a bicycle malfunction caused by a prankish Islamic jin.

This is an important ingredient in the positions of our putative guardians of the national security, that they are insulated from the consequences of their Platonic policies. It is, from their perspective, incumbent upon the hoi polloi to act out our fantasy worlds. They, the elite, must remain above and unsullied and undisturbed by those policies.

Did the Nazis ever fear the Vichy government in France? Not much. If you’re a contemporary collaborationist facilitating the invasion and occupation of your country by country’s enemies, you needn’t fear for your personal safety, or fear anything except perhaps reprisals from put-upon citizens either at the ballot box or at government-supervised rallies whose media coverage is also carefully supervised and managed.

I don’t think there were any prominent “Naziphobes” at large in the U.S. during WW2; the basic character of Nazi Germany was understood by most Americans as something not to sympathize with or welcome into the country. However, there weren’t very many prominent “Communistphobes,” either, not in academia nor in the news media of the time, because all the propaganda reportage and films and so on were geared to prep Americans to blow kisses to Uncle Joe Stalin. He was an ally. His dictatorship was attacked by another dictatorship. Poor baby. He was just your ordinary benevolent dictator and never mind the millions of Russians he’d had put to death, or starved to death, or shipped to Gulags, Walter Duranty to the contrary notwithstanding. He’s on our side. Never fear. What are you? Some sort of Slavophobe or something? Racist! Critics of the U.S.-Soviet alliance were squelched or ignored.

I'll confess here and now and for all time: I’m an Islamophobe, as well as a Naziphobe and a Communistphobe. I wouldn’t need to be an Islamophobe if our government did its proper job and declared war on Islam. After all, Islam declared war on us. On the West. But there’s been no proper retaliation against the states that sponsor terrorism that is worth noting, although what has been done has cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. This is because our government has not recognized Islam for what it is. And it isn't going to recognize its perfidy for as long as Islam is regarded as a “religion of peace” that’s been “hijacked” or stands as a model for what our current President regards as an ideal and enviable polity.

You hate what you fear, especially if you have no control over the nemesis, and especially if the nemesis, like Islam, is allowed to metastasize in your neighborhood, city, state, and country. There are rational approaches to curing or at least curbing one’s fear of snakes, spiders, rodents, heights, and so on. Even of one’s fear of politicians. That’s when you allow reason to take control of your responses and emotions. But Islam rebuffs reason and its Western defenders are proof against reason, as well.

One thing you may despise if not hate is the Muslim prayer ritual. This is the ritual that may take place in your place of employment and certainly takes place when ISIS fighters rape their Yazidi captives. A Jihad Watch reader describes the state of mind of the average Muslim when immersed in prayer.

Islam prohibits almost every pleasure. If a supernatural belief prevents a person from indulging in pleasures, then this belief also relieves this person of the guilt. And when the person is relieved of his guilt and shame because of this belief, his conviction that this belief is ‘genuine’ is consolidated. This re-enforces the validity of this belief in the person’s mind on a constant basis. He feels ‘pure’, clean about himself as a result, while those who indulge in pleasure, appear ‘filthy’, dirty to him.

Compounding this phenomenon are the Islamic prayer gestures. While a Muslim is engaged in pretentious bodily movements and gestures of the Islamic prayer, his brain is subjected to a trance like state, which resonates with his desire to believe in a god, thereby again re-enforcing the notion that this belief is genuine, and is making him a better human being with each prayer.

A particular part of the human brain plays a critical role in this phenomenon. This part gives rise to a thirst for supernatural connection, which is quenched by Islam, and hence manipulates and motivates the person psychologically toward believing in Islam. This feel-good factor acts as the psychological impetus behind him being attached to Islam. He now clings on to Islam, because Islam makes him feel better about himself. Hence this person is motivated to keep practicing Islam, continue being delusional and keep following the imaginary Allah. Even kill in his name.

This is the secret behind the success of Islam.

 See my column, “The Collectivist Mentality of Muslims” here, for an extended discussion of what makes Muslims tick.

So, if you see Muslim women in their sweltering robes and head bags pushing prams in the supermarket or on a street, there is a reason for that. Dymphna of Gates of Vienna cited information from the Center for Immigration Studies in a November 23rd column, “Immigration is Immoral,” and it contains some revealing and incriminating data. At first glance, it would seem that the separation of church and state in America has its limits, especially when the government is paying religious groups to bring in alien “immigrants” and “refugees” to settle in this country. It’s a horrible  and hush-hush racket.

The cascade of governors (over two dozen now) demanding that the State Department not send them any more Syrian refugees didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Local and state dissatisfaction with Washington’s dumping of refugees has been building for years. These communities were dubbed “pockets of resistance” by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement a couple of years ago, a moniker they [the resisters, that is — D] have embraced. The Paris atrocities merely turned the dial up to 11.

What’s driven much of this local resentment has not been security concerns so much as cost ones — concerns that apply to all refugees, not merely those from Syria or even the Islamic world generally. The paid agents of the State Department — the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (52 percent taxpayer-funded), Church World Service (57 percent taxpayer-funded), World Relief (70 percent taxpayer-funded), Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services (92 percent taxpayer-funded), and others — decide on their own, in secret, where they will send the refugees they’re paid to “sponsor,” whether the local schools and other institutions can handle them or not. I use scare quotes because sponsoring a refugee does not mean what you think it does — it consists of little more than signing the refugees up for welfare and then moving on to the next revenue-generating warm body (the agencies are paid by the head).

For states and localities, refugee resettlement can be is a huge unfunded mandate. This heavy use of state and local welfare and other services, combined with the imperious attitude of the State Department and its minions, has generated resistance across the country….

Think of the phenomenon in terms of a cattle drive over your lawn, and down your street. It is incumbent upon you, the citizen taxpayer funding the drive, to scoop up the cow patties and to repair the damage thousands of “refugees” will leave in their wake. You will be held responsible by your community for the physical and sanitary condition of the pavements. But you can bet that the executives of these and other government-subsidized “bring ‘em by the bushel” immigration facilitators won't be living anywhere in the vicinity of their paid-by-the-head charges. They have their privacy and peace of mind to consider, you know. Gated communities which also bar you are their reward for “doing good.” You? There’s nothing in it for you, except perhaps the cultural enrichment experience, which can assume all kinds of forms, mainly criminal. You are expected to be selfless about the invasion.

Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish on November 23rd in his column, “Everything’s Fine Until the Bombs Go Off,” noted about bringing in Obama’s 10,000 or more Syrian “refugees”: 

Any talk of vetting is nothing more than plausible deniability. Unless a terrorist is already in our database, vetting him is a lost cause. Our system couldn’t handle the World Trade Center bombers or the 9/11 hijackers and they came from functioning countries that weren’t in the middle of a civil war.

We are not going to be able to vet tens of thousands of people who claim they come from Syria, who have fake passports or who plead that they lost their passports at sea, whose names can be rendered in enough ways to give even a linguist a headache and who will get access to the United States long enough for them to disappear even if we did eventually turn up something on them.

And we’re not supposed to vet them.

No, we're not supposed to give any “refugee” a religious test, or an ideology test, or any kind of test that would screen out a Muslim Brotherhood “settler” who’s here to wage civilizational jihad while collecting welfare jizya and not to open a tobacco shop or a laundromat or a landscaping service. That would be so unbecoming, and offensive, and insulting, and maybe even unconstitutional!

Greenfield warns:

ISIS may have carried out the brutal massacres in Paris, but Hollande, Merkel and the other friends of the refugees helped make it happen. And they want to help make it happen around the world.

The migrant crisis is an invasion. The bodies in Paris could just as easily have been stacked up in any country that was foolish and feckless enough to open the door to ISIS by taking in “refugees”.

If Obama and Kerry succeed in their plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian migrants to America, the next brutal massacre might not happen in Paris. It might happen in one of our cities instead.

So, while considering whether or not “open borders” and unlimited “Syrian refugee” importations are viable options and that we mustn’t pre-judge especially Muslims, tuck this news into your calculations. Arms are making their way into Germany, smuggled in with all the “refugees.” Gages of Vienna has this story to report, from November 24th, “Suppressed Truth: Waves of Refugees, Trafficking in Weapons and Children:

What our media report every day about the new folk movement is surely a small snippet of reality. Why are politicians and the leading media silent about traffic in weapons and children?

In recent days, I [Udo Ulfkotte, reporting] was in the border area of Passau/Deggendorf and later also between Graz and Spielfeld in Austria, near the Slovenian border. At both border crossings there was open transporting of weapons in the direction of Germany and of children destined for abuse. No, that is not being said by conspiracy theorists, but by government security officials on the spot….

Amazed, I have heard confirmation from credible, contemporary witnesses: weapons and drugs are being smuggled in the waves of refugees.

And how did all those Bulgarian-made Kalashnikovs wind up in Paris?  Doubtless, the Islamic tooth fairy left them under massacre master-mind Abdelhamid Abaaoud’s smiley-face pillow one night.

Of course, that can't happen here. Don’t succumb to Islamophobia! It’s all in your head!

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::


:: Saturday, November 21, 2015 ::

Islam’s Psychotic Obsession 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 3:05 PM

 Nothing propinks like propinquity.
Felix Leiter to James Bond in Ian Fleming’s  
Diamonds are Forever (1956, Chapter 21).

It is also fortuitous happenstance that two accomplished students of the subject of Islam, thousands of miles apart and within days of each other, published columns about what drives Islam’s penchant for homicide, torture, rape, mutilation, conquest, and destruction. They are Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, in his November 11th column, “Why Islam is a Religion of War,” and the mysterious Norwegian writer Fjordman, in his November 17th piece, “Islam: A Permanent World War,” on Gates of Vienna.  Their common theme is why Islam makes war on the West. Their themes intersect at certain points, and then go off in different directions.

Greenfield led off with:

Islamic violence is a religious problem. Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.

This means that a jihadist is much like a schoolyard bully, who must triumph over his opponents and strike fear in and compel submission by the other kids. It is an absolute necessity. It is important that others witness this triumph. It is even better if he triumphs in cooperation with other bullies, or with their encouragement. It is proof of his faith. His being the “last man standing” over his vanquished and bloodied foe is taken as proof for him of the metaphysical supremacy and superiority of his faith, and of the efficacy of physical force in the name of Islam. He has faith in that fallacy. It must be true. It’s the only thing he’s sure of.

Rob him of that faith, and he goes berserk. He will lash out at reality for not conforming to his faith. Reality must be destroyed. Deny him his imaginary metaphysical anchor, and he is compelled to prove it with more mayhem, come what may, even if it entails his own death.

To such a mind, the possibility that Islam isn’t true, that it isn’t superior to anything, is inconceivable and blasphemous. A mind willingly, volitionally fastened to that belief is incapable of inquiry into its nature and roots. A Muslim’s faith in Islam is his proof. Period. No arguments are permitted. Arguments imply the employment of reason. Reason is not permissible. Circular logic is de rigor to “prove” faith.

There is no reaching a mind obsessed with its faith in an imaginary deity, an imaginary prophet, and existence after death. It’s a Hannibal Lector species of mind.

Suicide bombers obliterate themselves by obliterating anyone who doesn’t share their faith. It’s “proof” of the universal truth of Islam. In physical destruction, they believe, is the final and ultimate truth. In negation is victory. It is reality that suicide bombers and jihadist raiders wish to obliterate in an ultimate demonstration of the truth of Islam.   

That faith is set in some kind of insoluble epistemological cement. There’s no reasoning with such a mind, no modicum of persuasion possible to it, there’s no crack in it one can pry open with either a credit card or a set of professional burglar’s picklocks or a crowbar. It is closed to reality and closed to human communication. To such a mind, the belief is synonymous with a metaphysical given. “We are able to destroy you; ergo, the truth of our faith. We are able to force you to convert or submit; ergo, the truth of our faith.”

This is the syllogism of a psychosis and of a desperate obsession for things as they are not.

What André Servier said about Islam in 1922 (or 1923) supports my own contention that Muslims are self-lobotomized by remaining faithful followers of Mohammad and adherents to Islam. On Gates of Vienna is a video featuring the “mastermind” of the Paris carnage, the late and unlamented Abdelhamid Abaaoud, “What I did at summer camp” in Syria. At the end of the video were quotations from Sevier and Winston Churchill. Sevier said:

“Islam was not a torch, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”

That quotation was taken from a badly translated article, digested from a book by Sevier at Islam in its Own Words, dated April 2009. I quote further from the article, “Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman,” with my own emendations:

Against current opinion, Arabs have no imagination at all. They are realists, not able to imagine or conceive anything that is not directly perceivable. This explains the sterility of Arabs in painting, sculpture, literature, science and philosophy. 

It would be better to label Arabs as “compilers”. Even Islam itself is not an original doctrine, but a compilation of Greek, Latin, Biblical, Jewish, and Christian traditions. Arabs have a strong observation capability, but this is at the expense of imagination. And without imagination, no progress is possible. 

On the contrary, Arabs (or Muslims) are not realists. They are divorced from reality. The more devout they are to Islam, the further away they are from reality and from sanity. They are as divorced from it as are the likes of Hillary Clinton, who asserts that “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” She can say this with a backdrop of a growing pile of bodies on top of which is a black-clad Muslim waving the black flag of ISIS and giving the world the finger.

Fjordman wrote:

Peace is identical with submission to Islam. The absence of Sharia law is the absence of peace. Islam is therefore essentially an ideology of eternal global war. It advocates the permanent incorporation of the non-Islamic Dar al-Harb, the “House of War,” into the Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam” or “House of Submission.” The term “House of War” indicates that all areas under non-Islamic rule are viewed as a place of war until such areas cease to exist worldwide and submit to forces which are loyal to Allah and his Prophet. Some Islamic theologians use intermediate categories where Islam is making progress, yet does not yet reign supreme. However, the basic divide in Islamic theology is between the House of War and the House of Islam.

It is the physical occupation of non-Islamic space that is paramount in Islamic faith. It is that physical occupation, writes Greenfield, that is all-important for Islam to validate its means and ends. Fjordman quotes an Islamic scholar:

“It follows,” wrote the Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, professor of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University, “that the existence of a Dar-al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the Dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the Dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence….The universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”

At the conclusion of such a “struggle” (fitna) all the world will be at peace. Reality will have been altered making Islam the global “reality.” Fjordman concludes his article:

Islam contains elements of a traditional religion, but also elements of a totalitarian belief system centered around a personality cult of Mohammad. Islam is a creed of war, not a religion of peace. In theory, this war will end when all human beings on Earth have submitted to Islamic rule and eventually become Muslims. In practice, experience shows us that Muslim societies are far from peaceful. Muslims will continue to fight amongst themselves over who are the best and truest Muslims. Islam can with some justification be classified as a permanent world war, a war that has so far been raging for fourteen centuries and claimed countless lives. [Italics mine.]

Islam’s supreme goal is to take possession of the entire planet. Faith in Islam drives them towards that goal. Greenfield notes:

The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend death.

The cutthroats of ISIS, Al-Queda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and any other Islamic terrorist gang at large in our time also have the same religious incentive – and are afflicted with the same psychotic obsession. “I’ve got Allah and his Prophet! What do I need brains for? They’re all the truth I need!”

In April 2006 Fjordman penned an ominous “For Whom the Bell Tolls” piece for the Brussels Journal, “The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War.” He foretold the consequences of the migration of Muslims into Europe. Remember, this was in 2006, before German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the gates of migratory hell.

The population movements we are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe, they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Migration Period, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast. We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other countries. On top of that, the Romans didn’t have human rights lawyers advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that what we are witnessing now? The second fall of Rome?

If you are not too depressed, the Brussels Journal article, though long, is worth the read.

On that note, one would be justified in forming the hypothesis that President Barack Obama is an agent of that psychotic obsession, knowing full well that the Syrian “refugees” he wants to let into the country do not mean so much as “settle” here as terrorize and occupy it, was well. A Conservative Byte article of November 21st reveals his actual state of mind, which is to help complete the “transformation of the country.”

Citing insider White House sources, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson dropped a bombshell during an interview with Steve Malzberg (of Newsmax). Attkisson said President Obama has come to the point where he will not even listen to intelligence reports on certain Islamic terror groups – groups that are listed by the U.S. State Department as involved in international terror against Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims around the world.
Attkisson is a former CBS journalist who left that organization after it stifled many of her investigative reports. She now heads up the independent Internet news site Full Measure. Here is an excerpt from her interview Friday with Malzberg:

“I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind, I would say closed his mind, they say, to their intelligence they try to bring him about various groups he does not consider terrorists even if they’re on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has his own ideas. There are those who’ve known him for a long time that say this dates back to law school. He’s not necessarily going to listen to the people with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in. And I would say that’s because he thinks he’s right.”

“I don’t know the reasoning for it,” she continued. “I’ve only been told by those who have allegedly attempted to present him or been in the circle that has attempted to present him with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t want it, he said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it in some instances.”

Obama campaigned for the White House with every intention of doing this country grave harm in every possible way he could get away with. He has carried Islam’s water for as long. He wants to see this country hurt, and hurt more than it was on 9/11.

If you doubt Obama’s commitment to Islam, read Ben Shapiro’s Brietbart January 2015 article, “10 Times The Obama Administration Said Its Job Was to Promote Islam.”

It’s time he was called out. It matters not to me whether he’s a closet Muslim or dedicated Marxist or a combination of those “faiths.” Barack Obama is obsessed with destroying this country, and that makes him psychotic. He is evil. He keeps giving us the Islamic finger of victory.

It’s time we gave him our own.

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::



» Recent Posts

» On Islamophobia
» Islam’s Psychotic Obsession
» After Paris: The Perils of Pacifism
» Neither “Misguided” nor “Flawed”
» The Jihadi in the White House
» Raping the Swedish Corpse
» The Collectivist Mentality of Muslims
» Arguments from Ignorance
» A Troopship of the European Apocalypse II
» Censorship by Commission and Omission

» RSS Feed

» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.

» Feedback
We want to hear from you!


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy



Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster