You are on page 1of 6

Drawing the Line

by Yashiko Sagamori

I t is possible t o dr aw a st r aight line f r om


any point to any point.
Euclid's 1st Postulate
We hold t hese t r ut hs t o be self -evident,
t hat all men ar e cr eat ed equal, t hat t hey ar e
endowed by t heir Cr eat or wit h cer t ain
unalienable Right s, t hat among t hese ar e Lif e,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence

Sean Hannity

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving home from work while listening to Sean Hannity on
WABC. Sean was telling his audience how much every human being outside the United
States, in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, craved democracy. He was proudly
saying that the US army had liberated 26 million Iraqis. He seemed to think that the
Euclidian clarity of the most famous quotation from the Declaration of Independence made it
immune to disbelief and objections.
What he apparently failed to understand was the simple fact that if the equality of all men
had been universally self-evident to all men, there would have been no need to state it
explicitly. What the Declaration of Independence actually means is that "We, unlike the rest
of the humankind and against the laws and customs of its majority, have decided to hold
these truths to be self-evident".
What he apparently failed to take into account was the fact that every society, every
civilization is based on a set of truths its members hold to be self-evident and irrefutable,
and that more often than not any two sets of those self-evident, irrefutable truths prove to be
mutually exclusive.
What he apparently could not comprehend was the fact that it is even theoretically
impossible to liberate a person for whom only two human conditions exist: a slave and a
slave-owner. (The Arabic equivalent of the English adjective free literally means not a
slave.)
What he disregarded completely was the fact that 1.2 billion people living on this planet
and, in rapidly increasing numbers, among us in this country, adhere to a totally different set
of self-evident truths, namely, that all men are created Muslim, even if they are born to
infidel parents. And if those infidel parents commit the crime of raising their inherently
Muslim children in a false faith, it is both an inalienable right and a sacred duty of every
properly raised Muslim to undo their crime by either converting the victim back to Islam (the
Muslim term for conversion to Islam is reversion) or, if the victim is unwilling to submit (the
Arabic word Islam means submission), then by killing him or her, thereby earning oneself a
place in Paradise.

While still driving and listening, I received sudden and painfully humiliating proof that I
was right. I was driving in the left lane. In the middle lane, a couple of car lengths ahead of
me, I saw a black SUV with a custom license plate. The license plate read:
SHAHID K
I have no idea what the K stands for.
I pulled forward a bit to take a look at the driver and saw a fat woman in her forties with a
heavily made up, stupid, unhappy, un-American face. In case you are wondering, this
encounter took place neither in Ramallah nor Fallujah. It happened in Westchester County,
NY, and the offensive license plate was issued by the New York Department of Motor
Vehicles, whose wisdom and efficiency have caught my attention before.
I came home and sent an e-mail describing the sighting to the Department of Homeland
Security. They never bothered to respond, and I believe that in the foreseeable future, the
woman with the un-American face will continue driving along American roads unmolested,
along with millions of her fellow observant Muslim settlers in this country. For all I know, that
woman might even be working for Homeland Security herself. You don't expect the
Department of Homeland Security to practice profiling, do you?
Now, please don't take me wrong. I don't believe that the purpose of the First
Amendment is to protect my patriotic feelings. Neither do I believe, however, that its purpose
is to provide safety to enemies of the United States of America on American soil, among
American people, during a war they have unleashed against us. We used to be a powerful
country. Benign power breeds magnanimity. In times of peace, we could afford to ignore
anti-American verbiage of our many enemies. But our power is waning, and these are not
times of peace.
Again, don't take me wrong. I am not calling for restricting anyone's freedom to express
him- or herself by using the license plate to announce their heartfelt desire to exterminate
us. I am calling for throwing our avowed enemies out of the country before they have a
chance to fulfill their loud and clear promise. Then, and only then, we will be able to enjoy all
the freedoms the Constitution grants us.

During World War II, half a dozen German agents were smuggled aboard a submarine
to our shores with the purpose of committing sabotage and terrorizing the population. They
were captured, tried, and soon afterwards hanged. I don't believe they were allowed to keep
their copies of Mein Kampf while they were awaiting their execution. If they were, they never
complained about their jailers' disrespect to the sacred book that had brought them to the
gallows. Or, if they did, nobody paid attention, for those were the times before liberalism
degenerated into multiculturalism, and political correctness.
Mohammad Atta as a student
of Cairo University

During World War III, millions of Muslims openly and, for the most part, legally, just like
Mohammad Atta and his cohorts, immigrated to the United States and settled here with the
openly stated purpose of replacing the rule of the Constitution with the rule of Sharia,
planning to turn this land into yet another province of the world-wide Caliphate. They are
being accommodated in every way possible. They walk among us unafraid and unmolested,
protected by the Constitution that, due to its novel, purposely defeatist interpretation, can no
longer protect us from them.
While the government removes all references to the Ten Commandments from public
display, the White House openly celebrates Ramadan, and Muslim employees of our
government shamelessly go on all fours during their working hours to perform the salat.
Even though everyone knows that the next massacre on our soil will be planned, executed,
and openly celebrated by observant Muslims, government-issued edicts effectively forbid
subjecting them to the same regular security procedures at the airports and other points of
extreme vulnerability that the rest of us, thanks to our uninvited guests, have to go through
without complaining.
The politically correct crowd keeps reminding us that this is exactly what makes the
United States of America a free country. Unfortunately, there is a problem with their
optimistic assertion. This problem stems from the obvious fact that a murderer and his
intended victim cannot be equally free at the same time and place. You either restrict the
freedom of the former or, eventually, you will have to bury the latter. The enemy's ever
growing presence in our land has eroded our freedom beyond anything even the most
vicious, right-wing government conspiracy could ever dream up. To give you an idea of the
terrible scale of that erosion: we are no longer free to kill our enemies in the time of war. But
we are still free to tolerate their vile presence in our country.
John Walker Lindh,
t he Amer ican Taliban

John Lindh is an American citizen. He was captured in Afghanistan while fighting against
the United States on the side of the Taliban. Obviously, this constitutes a crime. As every
human being, he is entitled to a due process. Considering the circumstances of his capture
and the nature of the crime he undoubtedly committed, due process in his case should have
consisted of exactly two steps: a speedy hanging and hygienic disposal of the body.
Unfortunately, we don't do this kind of thing anymore. Instead, he was brought back to
the United States to stand trial inexplicably, in civilian court. The government quickly
realized that, due to excessive humanity of our civilian laws, hanging him for killing our
soldiers was out of the question, because no one who had witnessed him killing American
soldiers had come forward to testify against him. He entered a plea agreement and was
sentenced to 20 years in jail. His parents, looking as if their heads were still reeling from all
the weed they had smoked in the 60's, called a press conference and shamelessly
announced that their Johnny was a true American patriot. Nobody threw an egg at them.

Zacarias Moussaoui,
t he 20t h highj acker

In a more recent case of American idiocy, a jury that had previously decided that
Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for a death penalty, failed to sentence him to death.
Apparently, they subscribed to the defense assertions that his role in the 9/11 conspiracy
was minor. I also happen to think that his role was minor. Let's say, he bears just 1% of the
responsibility for the attack. It means that he is personally responsible for the murder of 30
American civilians. How does that mean that he deserves to live even one hour longer than
absolutely necessary for the process to be deemed due ? But even if his role in the attack
of 9/11 was completely non-existent, he, according to his own proud admission, came to this
country with the purpose of killing Americans. In a time of peace, he should have had his
head examined before, or maybe even instead of, the trial. In a time of war, he should be
hanged.
Of course, from now on, Zacarias Moussaoui's life will not be too pleasant. He will be
locked up in one of the Supermax prisons where he will be subjected to 23 hours a day of
solitary confinement in a sound-proof concrete cell for the rest of his life. The main
difference between his punishment and being buried alive is that it will take him much longer
to die. Judge Brinkema promised Moussaoui that he would die with a whimper. However,
where there is breath there is hope. Apparently, the French government is preparing to
initiate proceedings to transfer Moussaoui, who is a French citizen, into French custody. He
may still die with a roar.

On a wider scale, consider the terrorist organization commonly known as the


Palestinian Authority . Imagine that Israel, instead of celebrating its 58th anniversary,
miraculously disappeared overnight without a trace, along with all its Jewish population, all
Jewish cities, all Jewish settlements, all Jewish hospitals, all Jewish greenhouses, all
kibbutzim, all synagogues, and everything else that Jews have created on their land and
heroically defended throughout six decades of incessant Arab war against them. Regardless
of who runs that terrorist organization Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or any other bunch of
Arab murderers do you really believe they would be able to cease the opportunity and
become a country?
I think not; because the people the world calls Palestinians , besides being Arabs, have
only one thing in common: their passionate desire to murder Jews. Let history students
correct me, but the Arabs, throughout their bloody history have demonstrated no more talent
for nation building that for any other kind of positive, constructive endeavor. The borders of
most Arab countries you can find on the map today were drawn either by the British or by
the Turks. As to their hatred of Jews, no matter what suicidal intensity it reaches, it cannot
provide a foundation upon which a nation can be built.
Since 1964, the world has poured billions of dollars into their little enterprise. How have
they used the money? To kill thousands and maim tens of thousands of Jews; to make
Arafat and his minions rich; to brainwash hundreds of thousands of their own children into
becoming suicidal maniacs; in short, to do everything in their power to avoid the
responsibilities of nation-building for themselves.
They have managed to not even create a rudimentary economy. Their jurisprudence
makes lynching seem humane in comparison. Their differences in political opinions are
being routinely resolved by one group outgunning, rather than outvoting, the other. As soon
as the West, in a hopeless attempt to save its long lost face, responded to Hamas electoral
victory by withholding a part of its regular donations, the authority found itself unable to
even pay salaries to its employees. In what twisted vocabulary have the proponents of
Palestinian independence found their definition of the term?

Following its age-old tradition, world opinion blames the Jews, and this time I happen to
share that world opinion. This festering wound would never have existed had Israel not
waived its sacred right to kill those who are trying to kill it. It is as simple as that. I can
understand the reluctance of civilized people to kill enemy children, even if it means saving
the lives of one's own people. However, I refuse to understand the reluctance to kill those
who dedicate their lives to turning their own children into murderers.

Or consider Iran. One of the major oil producers in the world, a country technologically
backward even when compared with some other Muslim countries, Iran declared its burning
desire to switch to nuclear power. I wish my government had done that. Their diplomats
assure everyone that their intentions are perfectly peaceful; however, their president
threatens to obliterate Israel and to share nuclear arms with every Islamic entity in the world.
And their nuclear facilities are well protected by layers of rock and closeness to population
center. Can we do anything to stop Iran?
Of course, we can. Remember, arms don't kill people. People kill people. This is equally
true for an illegally purchased handgun, as well as the nuclear arsenal of a backward
Muslim country. We don't need to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. What we need instead is
to eliminate forever Iran's capacity to threaten us. It means sending their leadership to the
long awaiting heavenly virgins, turning their religious institutions into dust, confiscating their
oil fields, and killing as many Iranians as it takes to render them harmless till the end of time.
No democratization; no nation-building; no Marshall plan. And, most importantly, no
attempts to install a friendly government, because a country whose people hate us, literally
to death, cannot be our ally, no matter who is in control of its government. Unfortunately,
we've been too slow to learn this simple lesson as it pertains to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and even Iran, as well as every other Turdistan on the planet
whose kingpin doesn't mind dealing with the infidel for the sake of promoting jihad and
making a few extra billions in the process. Come to think of it, had we done this to Pakistan,
there would be no problem with Iran today.
Am I talking genocide? No, our enemies are talking genocide, openly and without
shame. What I am talking about is merely necessary self-defense.
Can we expect this from our government?
Here's where one of the major achievements of our democracy comes into play in the
international arena. I am talking about term limitations. President Bush has produced more
than his fair share of major blunders during his six years in office. His desire to postpone
any development that might force him to take action against Iran is palpable. He strongly
prefers his successor to have to deal with that problem, along with every other problem he
or, most probably, she, will inherit from Bush-43.
In the meantime, our situation becomes simpler with every passing day. We are quickly
nearing the point where killing our enemies, both foreign and domestic, will no longer be one
of the many options that have been historically available to us as a superpower. Beyond that
point, the alternative to kill or to be killed no longer exists. It won't be us or them. Inevitably,
it will be just them.

May 10, 2006


The article above is presented as a
public service.
It may be reproduced without
charge with attribution.

© 2002 2008 Yashiko Sagamori.


All rights reserved.

You might also like