Here is an article by me, in NeoConstant: Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs, setting out some of my thoughts as an atheist conservative. 

Extract:

I am a convinced law-and-order conservative, an eagerly practicing capitalist, an ideological libertarian. I accept enthusiastically the whole package of US Republican Party policy and sentiment – pro-America, pro-victory in Iraq, pro-gun, anti-abortion (with sensible reservations), pro-death penalty, pro-tax cuts, pro-smaller government, pro-spreading democracy and freedom throughout the world, pro-Israel, anti-welfare – all except one of its usual ingredients: belief in God. I do not accept God.

Quite simply, I cannot believe in God. I am old, past my three score years and ten, and decade upon decade I have read and listened, and there cannot be much that is old or new, famous, terse, verbose, smart, innocent, insidious, widely published or commonly uttered, learnedly debated or popularly discussed on the subject of God that I have not read or heard. Because religious beliefs have been a hugely important factor in our history and the shaping of our world and time, I have long been deeply interested in how and why religions begin and develop. I have pondered well the better pro-God arguments but have found none that will do. Not one. The very lack of proof of God’s existence is a fair argument for his non-existence if one needs to produce such a thing.

 

 A warning from the Investor’s Business Daily that should be taken to heart by everyone who is thinking of voting for any Democratic candidate:

With the advent of $4 gasoline, Democrats began sensing an opportunity to drive the country closer to their vision of utopia.

These are the people — or in some cases representatives of people — who want $8 a gallon gasoline so we’ll get out of our cars, turn off our air conditioners, dim our lights, strangle our commerce and impose a global asceticism in a post-capitalism wilderness.

Of course, this spartan existence would be for the masses only. The elites will still be able to live their lives of opulence, just as high-ranking communists in the Soviet Union, the nomenklatura, had private Chaika lanes in Moscow streets that members of the working class — Marx’s proletariat — were forbidden to drive on.

Al Gore provided a clear example Thursday of how such privileges are granted to the privileged by the privileged.

Gore, who wants to push Americans onto bikes and buses, used a convoy of two Lincoln Town Cars and one SUV to arrive for and then leave from his carbon-free speech at Constitution Hall in Washington.

As an American, Gore has the right to be a hypocrite. Neither he nor our elected officials, though, have the right to compel a free people to live the lives the Amerikan nomenklatura has selected for them. Washington’s role is to serve the people, not the other way around.

 Gordon G Chang writes on the Contentions site of Commentary Magazine:

 Is the Bush administration crumbling? Asia experts Liu Kin-ming and June Teufel Dreyer, in postings on the Taiwan Policy Forum listserv today, ask a pertinent question.

The answer, unfortunately, is “yes.” An exhausted Dubya is now doing everything he once said he would not. The President, for example, is rewarding North Korea prior to surrender of its nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, the administration agreed to talk with Iran even though the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium and undoubtedly maintaining a covert bomb program. And on the same day, it was revealed that the Bush White House isundermining democratic Taiwan to please communist China by refusing to sell the former defensive weapons. Next month, the President will be joining the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to honor Chinese autocrats at the opening ceremony of an event recently described as the “Totalitarian Olympics.”

Mr. Bush probably won’t have to sit next to Sudan’s Omar Bashir–seating is said to be alphabetical for attending heads of state–only because the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday asked for an arrest warrant for the genocidal ruler.

The American leader who believes so much in freedom and democracy has done more than any autocrat to support the strengthening coalition of authoritarian states. Getting little in return, Bush is yielding on almost every request from Beijing and most of them from Moscow. In doing so, he is abandoning American allies and undermining critical American goals. By reversing course on major initiatives, he is eroding American credibility. Now, it seems every foreign policy of the Bush administration is, well, Kerryesque.

Some will argue that the President’s recent radical turns are only recognizing reality because Russia and China have been frustrating American initiatives. As an initial matter, it was Bush administration policy that helped put these two authoritarian giants into positions from where they could bedevil America and the rest of the international community. Yet more important, the President’s policy changes come too late to be effective. Now, even if they are the right approaches–and I do not think they are–they can only make the United States appear weak and irresolute. It would have been preferable for the administration to have stuck to its principled stands, which at least had the possibility of leading to enduring solutions, especially if they would have been continued by the next administration.

The President should have realized that, so close to the end of his term, the best he could do was to cause no further harm. Yet we are now witnessing policy disarray in a White House that has lost its confidence and bearings.

 Charles Krauthammer, always worth reading and hearing, writes brilliantly on Obama’s narcissism:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history – "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" – when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Read the whole column here.

 Melanie Phillips writes that appeasement, far from preventing war from happening, actually causes it.  

The Iranian regime should be under the maximum economic diplomatic and military pressure, treated as a pariah state and kept guessing about the possibility of a US attack, all in order to weaken and destabilise it. Instead this latest act of craven American appeasement will strengthen it because it displays in flashing neon lights the message that America hasn’t got a clue what to do about Iran and so could Tehran kindly help it out of this jam, please. Far from avoiding war, this only makes it more likely – and more likely also that when that terrible eventuality occurs, Iran will be on the front foot.

History teaches us, after all, that war is the inevitable outcome of appeasement because, instead of preventing bad people from doing bad things, it galvanises them further to do so. When the Americans talked to the Japanese, the result was Pearl Harbour. When Chamberlain talked to Hitler, the result was the invasion of Poland. And when Britain tried to appease the Arab Nazis in 1930s Palestine by offering to reward them for their terrorist intransigence by giving them half the land promised to the Jews, the result was the Arab war of annihilation against the reborn Jewish state – a war which continues to this day.

Moreover, Iran is as strong as it is today only because of the astounding fact that America has refused to fight back in the war that Iran has been prosecuting against it now for almost three decades. When its people were taken hostage at the US embassy, Jimmy Carter infamously sat on his hands. When more than 240 Americans were murdered when Iran bombed the US marine barracks, the US did virtually nothing. When Iran fomented attacks in Iraq and blew up coalition troops by its roadside bombs, America gave orders to its military that there were to be no covert ops in Iran and not even any hot pursuit of Iranian terrorists over the border. And when Iran turned Lebanon into a proxy battleground and stifled the nascent Lebanese democracy, America looked the other way. So much for the ‘Bush doctrine’.

It is however quite staggering to witness this change in attitude towards Israel by a man who had been arguably the most pro-Israel American president in history. Yet now he is giving the impression that – in the prescient cry of Ariel Sharon – Israel is to play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938, with William Burns about to join the EU in sealing its fate in a re-run of the Munich agreement. This in turn follows the intense American pressure upon Israel to reach a suicidal deal with Fatah to establish what would inevitably be a Palestinian terror state. But of course, entirely contrary to the false belief that America has its strings pulled by the Zionists, more often than not American presidents have by their actions shown they are no friend at all to Israel. Clinton, that quintessential false friend, was a key player in the Oslo peace process which armed Fatah and resulted in thousands of Israelis dead in the second intifada and the strengthening of the jihad everywhere. Over the years America has constantly forced Israel to make ‘painful concessions’ which have imperilled its security, while refusing to compel the Arabs to make any concessions at all and insisting on rewarding them instead for their aggression. It is that systematic accommodation with genocidal terror and the sacrifice of truth and justice on the altar of appeasement which is the single most important reason for the never-ending Middle East impasse – and why the whole of the free world is now about to be held to ransom.

 Read this story here, and just think what the life of this Iranian woman has been like since she was a little girl of 13.  Now, after 18 years in prison, she is about to be executed for a crime she did not commit, on the insistence of the actual murderer’s family.  

Needless to say, no Western feminist voices have been raised – at least not so we could hear them – in protest against the way she or any other woman is treated in the Muslim world.

Of course, wimmin are not concerned with such things as justice. They are too busy complaining that men don’t help enough with the housework , or something of that order of significance. 

 That Israel should unnecessarily capitulate to Hizbullah is  distressing enough, but that America should capitulate to Iran is not only distressing, it is immensely dangerous.

Yet that apparently is what ‘s happening. The US is reopening diplomatic relations with the Iranians. If the State Department has excelled itself in wanting to act even more against American interests than usual, why has President Bush let it do so? Or was it his own idea?    

His Middle East policy was reduced to tatters when he and Rice did all they could to sell Israel out to Abbas the Terrorist.

Then he went on his knees to Saudi Arabia for more oil. 

Now he’s crawling to Ahmadinejad.

Speak up, John McCain! Say  you are disgusted! Promise to use America’s might on the side of right!

 Israel went to war to get back two kidnapped soldiers. Ended the war without getting them back. Now exchanges live terrorists for the two dead (and mutilated) bodies, giving strong incentive to its enemies to kidnap as many more Israelis as they can, and kill them – by any appalling means.

It’s hard to say whether Prime Minister Olmert is more stupid or wicked. In my book he’s a traitor, several times over. His forcing Jews to leave their homes in Gaza was another of his betrayals of his own people.

As he’s notoriously a man susceptible to bribery, I wonder if he’s been bribed to use his office to destroy Israel? Just a thought.  

Melanie Phillips tells the story of the immoral exchange of murderers for corpses and comments on it here.  

 You can see a video of a stoning here.

What happens in Stoning?
In stoning to death, the victims’s hands are tied behind their backs and their bodies are put in a cloth sack. Then, this human "package" is buried in a hole, with only the victims heads showing above the ground. If its a woman, she is buried upto her shoulders. This is to give her an seemingly equal (but nonetheless impossible) chance to escape recognizing her lesser physical strength.
After the hapless individual has been secured in the hole, people start chanting "Allah hu Akbar" (meaning, God is great), and throw palm sized stones at the head of the victim from a certain distance (a circle is drawn). 
The stones are thrown until the person dies or until he/she escapes out of the hole and crosses the circle. Escaping is impossible, given that the individual’s hands are tied behind their backs and they are buried in a hole upto their necks or shoulders (in the case of males and females respectively).
Naturally, the procedure is extremely barbaric and bloody. 

 At least some Germans are:

In the case of the controversy over the mosque planned for Cologne’s Ehrenfeld neighborhood, the right-wing Pro protesters have indeed been pushed into the margins. Their complaints have been drowned out by more high-profile statements coming from prominent leftists and liberals including German Jewish journalist Ralph Giordano, women’s rights activist Alice Schwarzer and investigative reporter Günter Wallraff, who have all spoken out against the mosque. Representatives of Germany’s large churches have increasingly added their voices to the criticism as well. The "dishonest dialogue" with Islam described in SPIEGEL’s pages in December 2001 – in which church representatives simply ignored scandalous and unbearable aspects like persecution of Christians, discrimination against women, toleration of terror and "honor" killings for the sake of harmony – is now a thing of the past.

In place of the "fairy tale that we’re all ‘children of Abraham’," in the words of Leggewie, the churches are now making an effort not to entangle themselves in finding contrived common ground with Islam. Instead they are trying to find areas in which they differ – and this applies particularly to the construction of mosques.

 

Read the whole report here.