D'Souza Tha Louza

Are American Liberals to blame for 9/11 or is neoconservative mouthpiece Dinesh D'Souza inventing a right wing conspiracy theory to avoid the truth and responsibility that ultimately leads to the real reasons we were really attacked in 2001?

Ultra-Conservative Indian American Dinesh D' Souza has risen a few eyebrows and perhaps even a few fists with a new book that blames Liberals (what else?) for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

I am guessing D'Souza's next book will blame Liberals for killing the dinosaurs.

The book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" should be offensive to all Americans with an ounce of decency and a sliver of logic.

But, before attacking the inaccuracies of the new book, let's take a look a D'Souza's track record of bigotry.

Though he is an Indian American and a minority himself D'Souza has the audacity to attack African Americans, who unlike he, were actually born in America.

In an older book written by D'Souza ironically titled "The End Of Racism" D'Souza wrote "Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." What an appalling thesis.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in America based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to call for a repeal of it is to call for a return to the Dark Ages of America.

In the same book D'Souza also claims that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”

Pretty well???? I didn't realize selective breeding, routine beatings and forced labor was a "pretty well" way to be treated. Furthermore, being treated like property is perhaps one of the worst ways to be treated and perhaps on of the worst crimes to commit.

If that doesn't simultaneously disgust and disturb the reader D' Souza has also stated that he does not believe slavery was a racist institution.

Really? So that's why there were not any white slaves in America? There were African slaves, and even Native Indian slaves but I don't recall reading about the plight of the white slaves in the history books, so yes, it was a racist institution.

D'Souza must live in AmeriKKKa, not America. Because D'Souza is a minority himself I really have a difficult time understanding his inherent racism.

D'Souza also wrote Caucasians who were accused of being racist were not racist but only responding to the so called deficiencies of minorities. To me, that just sounds like a false basis for a false justification for racism, period. Actually, that sounds like something Hitler would have said.

These are some of the most heinously racist statements I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and it is all inside of a book titled "The End Of Racism". It would have been more appropriate to title the book "The Revival Of Racism" by a guy who knows squat about America.

D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" rolls Liberals into a mass that can alone be blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Never mind that Anti-Israel and Anti-American militant organizations that attack always declare the same reasons, Israel and Palestine, American Imperialism, American troops in the "Holy Land", "Christian Crusaders", and most recently, as with the 7/7 bombers in London who blamed their attacks on the War in Iraq.

Militant Muslim groups often claim that "the West" is in a "War against Islam" being led by "Christian Crusaders" in pursuit of "imperialism" in the "Holy Land". It's that simple!

As for D'Souza's remarks that rampant sexuality offends traditional Muslims, I will not disagree with that assertion and to a certain extent does factor into the equation, but they are the secondary, not the primary modus operandi of terrorist who are attacking the United States.

If one were to blame the terrorist attacks on Liberalism alone, which is absurd by the way, one would have to ask why very Liberal countries in Europe had never been attacked by Islamic militants.

There are counties in Europe where newscasters actually strip their clothing and gay marriage is legal - so if Liberalism and rampant sexuality were to blame it would only be natural to question why these countries had not been attacked, or even threatened.

Is it because these countries have never meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, which we have been doing quite frequently, extensively and unsuccessfully for the past six decades?

But, as written I will give D'Souza a shred of credit, to point out that yes, rampant sexuality does offend right wing militant Muslims, traditional and even moderate Muslims, it offends Christians and Jews as well.

But Liberalism is not the basis of the terrorist attacks against us, there are real reasons behind their attacks and if we are ever to put an end to militant Islam we must address the real problems and the real basis of their attacks if we are to ever hope to change the future.

Remember Martin Luther King Jr And His Opposition To Oppression

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man with a dream, a dream most Americans know well. A dream of equality and tolerance and integration that he tried to pass on to the rest of America and the world.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of great courage and conviction with an extraordinary vision of peace and equality for all man, and even those of caucasian ancestry should honor his memory and his principals, he was and is an American hero, very much responsible for shaping our country.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a hero, but he is also one of the few true martyr's borne of this nation of great men and cowards alike. Dr. King was the former of the aforementioned, and his opponents were the latter.

As with all activist, King had enemies, enemies who were eventually successful in quelling his voice but not his vision nor his movement.

What we recall the most about this great American hero was his role in the Civil Rights Movement, his intolerance of injustice and opposition to oppression, his inspiring speeches and the strength of his character.

What we have forgotten about Martin Luther King Jr. was his stance against the Vietnam War, which could be meaningful to remember in the time in which we are living in. A time that is already drawing up comparisons to Vietnam.

One can read the text of King's speech "Beyond Vietnam" to understand the specific reasons he was opposed to the war, or on can read the several quotes of Dr. King on the war in Vietnam below.

"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation."

"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it."

"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."

"The bombs in Vietnam explode at home; they destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America."

"We have guided missiles and misguided men."

"We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace."

"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government."

It is eerie how one can look at King's observations of the Vietnam War and easily apply the same expressions to the Iraq War.

Martin Luther King Jr. had a very strong stance against not only the Vietnam War, but against all war and all aggression in the world, he made that very clear with the statement "I have condemned any organizer of war, regardless of his rank or nationality."

So on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day of 2007 let us consider his words on war and aggression as we prepare to escalate the war in Iraq, a war that has become like Vietnam in more ways than one.

Pro-War Critics Of War Critics Try To Quell Dissent By Fear And Guilt By Association

Recently an article caught my eye, titled, "Criticism gives comfort to the enemy" I didn't need to even read the article to understand the rhetoric and propaganda that was written inside.

I have a question, Why do we even care if criticism comforts the enemy or leaves him cold inside? Should that stop us from observing the obvious?

Should we let that not very significant and regrettable fact stop us from doing the right thing? The answer is a firm "no".

It is my belief that our real enemies, the ones who are capable of hurting us at home, want us to continue to fight in Iraq.

The enemy loves seeing America tied down in a Civil War in Iraq, wasting our time and resources while leaving our country vulnerable by trying to build a "democratic" nation in Iraq which is being met with the full resistance of factions of warlike and feuding Iraqi's and amplified by foreign terrorist, while countless Iraqi civilians lives get washed away in the bloodshed.

These "critics of the critics" need to step back and logically evaluate the situation.

We have no one to blame for our misfortunes in Iraq but ourselves for we have done more damage to ourselves in Iraq than any terrorist organization could pray for.

We cannot continue to deceive ourselves for the sake of the fact that the truth is ugly.

We deviated from the path, our mission should have been the metaphorical decapitation of Osama bin Laden and those who plotted against the United States. Instead we went on a nation building foray in Iraq and all but abandoned our true call to war.

While these critics of the critics shield the President, what will they feel in six months or nine months when the situation in Iraqi has likely deteriorated further?

How will they feel to know in a year Muqtada al Sadr will most likely still be controlling masses of Shia in Iraq?

How will they feel to know the Iraqi government yet again was unable to live up to their promises?

You heard Condoleeza Rice, there is no "plan B", only a "plan A" which is precisely how we became mired in Iraq in the first place, no "back up plans" for when and if your original blue print falls through.

How will they feel when Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a sectarian war by proxy that we are stuck in the middle of, while the only people who gain from the experience are terrorist and companies like Halliburton?

Will they even care, or will they have made up even more rhetoric filled slogans to guide the nation threw a war that should have never been and didn't need to be?

Will they still feel criticism comforts the enemy, or will they finally become concerned with our overburdened military and the incredible damage that has been done to US credibility?

Will they shield the President further, or will they realize aligning themselves with him is to sell our country out to war profiteers who have no real intention of solving these problems before their reign of power has ended?

These defenders of Bush need to realize the obvious.

The only way that we are possibly winning the war in Iraq is if our mission was to cause a Civil War and destabilize the region, let Osama bin Laden go free and give the terrorist cause to celebrate and fight. If that is so, then we are winning the War in Iraq.

We have helped placed men who are loyal to sects and not to Iraq in positions of power.

We have placed men who fought against Iraq in the war between Iraq and Iran in control of Iraq.

We have helped prop up men who have allegiance to Iran, not to Iraq, in dominance of Iraq.

These men were also aided in their elevation to power by militant Shia organizations in Iraq, who are accused of running "death squads", I do not need to write names, if these critics of the critics are so well informed then they should know precisely who I am writing of.

It is unfortunate that the President's policy is so misguided it is met with the criticism of all, including his own constituents.

Regardless of what terrorist in the Middle East or right wing pundits believe or say it does not change the fact that we were misguided into a war by a President who knew very little about who he was fighting and what tactics would be necessary.

It only aides the President, not the terrorist or the people to spread the belief that "criticism comforts the enemy" because it serves as an effective buffer of freedom of speech and dissent, aimed at trying to make war critics feel as if they are on the enemies side by criticizing such a transparently tragic policy