Sunday, August 31, 2003


I retired recently after 40 years as a nurse, and realised that there was so much that I did not understand of the world and it's affairs. What started as a 'simple question' from my husband about the history of the war in Lebanon, led to what has been a six month obsession with the internet, trying to comprehend the history of the Middle East, Islam-( great insight thanks to Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Robert Spence et al)

I still feel after hours a day that I have no more than scratched the surface of knowledge, but have come to the conclusion that the Israelis, are as you state, the very bravest people on the planet. I also feel that if we do not see a a much more positive and strong support for Israel and her people we will face the same problems within the next 20 years.

I am English born, 'Protestant' and an Aussie citizen with no prior interest in Israel. I also felt great sympathy for migrant peoples. However I have become very concerned over the naivete of those who support so angrily, the 'rights’ of the illegal migrants to our shores, in particular the arrival of young unaccompanied males and whom the Catholic societies expend so much concern.

How do we know that these young men are not brainwashed students, from madrassas in Pakistan and othe Islamic states who have been sent here as the vanguard for future muslim expansionism. They will use young naive Australian woman, lonely misfits and breed large numbers of children in the future. They will not need to invade with an army they can weaken us from within by using their 'victim status and social services. Our young are marrying later and having single child families in their thirties whilst Islamic families have arranged marriages in their teens and are expected to produce large families. Not much math knowledge required to work out what this means for our cultural future.

I try to talk to others 'nice middle class Australians' who seem locked into the 'she'll be right’ mentality and who think that I have too much time on my hands. Perhaps they are right.

However I fear very much for the future when we may have to confront a generation of young Middle Eastern people brought up from birth to hate the West and whose avowed goal is to destroy the 'infidel', both Jews and Christians.

Of course I realise there are people of good intent form these countries and they should be given the opportunity for a new life , but they must be prepared to endure a long period of detention unless they can prove that they are who they claim to be and swear allegience to Australia. They should not be given citizenship for at least 15 -20 years and if in that time ther are seen to be any connections that are not in our interest they go back to their country of origin.

I have friends form Brunei- Chinese who have been there for several generations who tell me that any non national cannot retire or buy property no matter how long thay have lived and worked there and ther is a system of coloured cards to denote ones status.

Perhaps it should be tried here and also many of us would now like to see the introduction of an ID card and to hell with the civil libertarians.

I have many family and friends in the UK and they are VERY impressed with our present governments handling of the Immigrant issue and are not at all happy with what has happened in Britain over the past 30 years. One British City has now reached the 'distinction' of having more people of colour and many of Islamic heritage than white Anglo Saxons.

When first I came to these shores, I thought Arthur Calwell a nasty and dangerous man now I think he had it just about right.

I cannot believe my own thought processes and I certainly held no admiration for Pauline Hanson and 'One Nation' but now I think all parties should take note of some of what she/they are saying.

I feel that John Howard is doing a good job in very difficult circumstances.

I an pretty tired of the negativity that comes from our National broadcaster and especially from than 'benign” reporter George Negus.

Monday, August 25, 2003

Dysfunctional Arab Men

By Arlene Peck

I've always said the Italian mothers and Jewish mothers came from the same cloth. Oh, there might be a few differences like, Catholic Shame and Jewish Guilt. But, when you come down to it, they're pretty much the same. But, what about the Arab mothers? I wonder what kind of influence harvests a child for profit to kill himself and anyone else within a fifty yard radius in order to go to heaven to be a martyr. I've seen videos of those 'camps' where three year old babies are dressed in army fatigues and march around holding guns while mommy beams. Later, when they get to the fourth grade or so, they have school plays and again, mommy is fastening his 'suicide belt' while clapping how wonderful he is in making the choice to be a "suicide bomber" Hey, we know her baby boy is in training to be a murderer but, do you think his mother actually believes that he's going to make the whole family proud? Not to mention putting several thousand dollars in the family coffers.

But, what makes men freaks like that? Why don't any other cultures strive to kill themselves in their efforts for a better life? As a mother, I've always believed that mommy is the guiding light for the kind of man her baby boy is going to turn out to be. Did you ever wonder why these people are such a violent culture? What makes them a people who seem to have no reverence for life? Why do they harbor what seems to be a bottomless hatred for everyone else's?

I've traveled to many Islaminic countries, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordon and Turkey to name a few. One of the things that struck me odd was how women were rarely seen. In the evenings, women were never walking on the streets. However, the sidewalks were filled with men. Men who seemed to have nothing to do but sit in coffee houses and play back gammon and smoke. Many times I would see men walking with their arms locked around each others waist while walking which struck me as kind of odd. Women were out of sight and out of touch. The male bonding, to me, looked like a trip to West Hollywood.

After looking into the results from being socially segregated from women, many have obviously turned into homosexual behavior. A word incidentally which is not even in the Arab language. The reason behind this, I've been told is because since there are no available women around they turn to other males, usually boys, or effeminate men, to have sex. Amazingly this is seen as some sort of accepted social norm. In their twisted minds, they somehow rationalize this sick behavior as not emasculating the young boy because he is not yet a man. No wonder they are totally confused because the Koran is against any homosexual relationship and gay Muslims remain fearful. This, eventually, I think, leads to anger. But, beneath it all is the unnaturalness of it all. Repressing and suppressing and punishing natural emotions are good enough reason for making them sick and sadistic.

Then I found out that throughout the Islamic Middle East, they are taught at a very early age that it is vital to be opposed to pleasure, especially if it concerns anything sexual. No wonder they go to mosque five times a day. Since they are raised that it is forbidden to touch women, these guys aren't even supposed to look at them. Sex before marriage is punishable as a criminal offense. They don't have to depend on cold showers. All they have to remember that at the very least, if caught, they receive a severe beating. Hey, some even die over the 'crime' of premarital sex. These guys are so warped that their culture teaches that women's sexuality and social independence could destroy what passes as their 'male supremacy'. So, they must be controlled at all cost. The frustration that they walk around under is so deep-seated that it emerges as a violent form of misogyny.

No wonder they run around the streets screaming by the hundreds of thousands having regular 'day of rage'. You would to if you were raised believing that getting it on with another male is a manifestation of male power which somehow makes you 'hyper-masculine and you are supposed to achieve your highest pleasure through violent domination.

Of course, nobody talks about this issue. And, in doing so, legitimizes this. Hey, how many articles do you read about 'honor killings" of women family members who might have done something to dishonor her family like see a man without their permission. Or, how about female circumcision? By not bringing their despicable behaviors into the open, it allows their victims, who are the young Arab boys to become invisible. So, is it any wonder that these dysfunctional men walk around the rest of their life trying to recover from sexual abuse and hating the world? Usually their way of recovery is by abusing even younger males since women are hated in their world. The core of their Arab masculinity is centered into hurting other by violence and hate. Mommy isn't much help either so she becomes just another one who threatens what's left of their masculine order.

Hey, I'm sorry about their society not seeing their sexual exploitation as being anything wrong. I even find it sad that they are traumatized by the lack of dignity that they are allowed and will spend the rest of their lives having days of rage. However, I'd rather see it be at those responsible and not their neighbors, the Jewish State. In the male Arab mind, their way of retaliation is to strike out as terrorists as their way to humiliate the foreign 'enemy' in the way as they have been. This of course, means violence in as vicious a way as possible. Personally, I think it would be better for them to take more cold showers as a way of releasing their sexual energy. With all that testosterone running loose and no logical outlet it usually ends up on a Jerusalem bus.

Recently, the LA Times ran a column about a group, Al-Fatiha which helps Muslim Gays. "Al-Fatiha, with chapters in Los Angeles and other big cities, gives them a place to come to terms with hostility toward homosexuals." It seems that if they are caught in their hometowns being 'gay' they also get killed. So, "some gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender Muslims are finding a safe haven in this group which was founded in 1998 to support those who want to reconcile their sexual orientation with Islam."

The more I've learned about the Arab culture, the more I appreciate the men here. No longer will I complain that all the men I meet in Los Angeles are gay, married or dead....sometimes all three! :)

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess - Arlene speaks regularly around the country and keeps a packed suitcase ready to GO.

Arlene can be reached at: and

Saturday, August 23, 2003

How Much Is Enough?

By Arlene Peck

At what point do the beleaguered Israelis call a halt? When do they finally sit down and say, "I'm mad as hell...and won't take it anymore?"

They are dealing with animals, soulless vermin who don't deserve negotiations.

Israel is in a war and the only road they’ve been is the road to hell...not peace.

When do the Israelis finally accept the fact that they are in a war and conduct themselves accordingly? This is the First World War of the twenty-first century.

Maybe when it spreads to Bloomingdales or Starbucks and not just to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or the Baghdad United Nations, it might make us, here in the United States, realize that we have the same enemy.

The same Arabs who are bombing the embassies are the same vicious people who are boarding Israeli buses and murdering the children of Israel.

I'm tired of political correctness. Islam is an entity gone mad and, in my belief, a violent culture.

If I'm wrong, let’s see Islam protest the terrorism of their Arab brothers. Not surprisingly, virtually all of the current wars around the globe have their origin in Islamic fundamentalism.

What does it take to realize that these are violent people, most of whom have the IQ of eggplants, and who have been raised on hate, death and destruction?

You cannot negotiate with them. There is no peace...nor will there be! What part of the word terrorists don’t people understand?

Their goal in life is not to live peacefully with Israel or anyone else for that matter. The only thing on their agenda is the complete and utter destruction of the Jewish state of Israel as well as Western civilization.

I'm outraged when my home paper the Los Angeles Times distorts the fact with a headline that says that Israelis retaliation shattered the truce.

I'll bet your home paper said pretty much the same thing. I'm also outraged when immediately after the violent deaths and maiming of over a hundred Israelis on a bus, I hear the talking heads on television discussing how "this cannot detour the peace process."

What peace?! How long are the Israelis going to hold back?

They have the means although, apparently, not the will. War is never a pleasant alternative.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how Israel continues to listen to George W. Bush about anything.

He is a spoiled fraternity boy who has never seen war nor knows how to attain peace.

Israel does not have the luxury to play the restraint game to satisfy payback promises.
Let Bush stay on the golf course and play war games with other countries.

His policies, and before him, Clinton's, are failures.

I find the double standard that applies to Israel totally unacceptable.
It has made Israel's situation far more precarious.

I am disgusted when I read the Iraq bombing being reported as a horrific attack on peaceful people by "terrorists".

Yet, these same murderers are reported in the press as being the usual "militants" and "activists" when it comes to Jewish victims in Israel.

Not one paper reported the terrorists as for what they are: murderers!

Enough of standing like a deer in the headlights and acceding to the wishes of others while world opinion tries to force Israel to "show restraint".

We in the United States wouldn't stand for a minute the thought of courting terrorists to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

These are murderers who have never hidden their agenda of a master plan which is the destruction of Israel. In fact, the Arabs want to get rid of all Western influence.

Israel is in the midst of an area, which the Arabs regard as their own preserve. Israel's existence is unacceptable to them.
Always has been, always will be.

The "vision" of two states living side-by-side exists only in the news media and State Department.

Despite years of promises from the enemy, the Palestinians still glorify the homicide bombers and name streets, summer camps and schools after them.

They may publicly deplore each individual bombing in the hopes of holding back Israeli retaliation, but their failure to renounce terrorism is unacceptable. They can't do that because their hatred is the fodder that feeds their very existence.

War is not going to cost the Israelis anything. They have nothing to give up.

They are being picked off daily in terrorist and ambush attacks.

Every "peace" road that Israel has been forced to travel has done nothing to ensure its greater security.
Its citizens live in fear and the Arabs, like dogs, smell weakness.

Even more, I believe, the Israelis fear public opinion and what will be said about them throughout the world. It doesn’t matter.

They will have their United Nations emergency meetings anyway.
With or without Israel defending its people.


If there are people out there who still harbor thoughts that a
negotiated peace is possible with neighbors possessed of an eighth
century mentality, then in my view that is equivalent to the morons who still look at a pack of cigarettes and believe the propaganda from the tobacco industry.

Unless the world also accepts Israel as a Jewish state and stops equating retaliation of a people defending themselves from the terrorist acts of the Palestinians, the situation will not change.

It's going to take more than the United States sending another memo or even sending hatchet man Colin Powell over to tell what's-his-name Abbas, otherwise known as etc. etc. that he has to dismantle the terrorist organizations.

He doesn't have the will and he is a Holocaust denier and a terrorist also.

It is up to Israel to disarm the Palestinians and destroy their infrastructure.

Israel must not only retaliate with force but also to prevent the enemy from using any lull in hostilities to regroup and rearm.

When you have a cancer, you cut it out. They are a cancer and transfer is the answer!

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess - Arlene speaks regularly around the country and keeps a packed suitcase ready to GO.

Arlene can be reached at: and

Friday, August 22, 2003


Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Why Fence In The Tigers?

By Arlene Peck

Sometimes I allow myself to be lulled into that false sense of fantasy that so many of us like to live.

There was even a time when I listened to President Bush and felt a twinge of faith in his words and felt a little sorry for my columns about “Like Father, Like Son”.

After all, didn’t he say we have a war on terrorism and a terrorist is a terrorist, etc?

But that was before I felt that he spoke with forked tongue and it was going to be a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

I feel like Charlie Brown and the football that Lucy always withdrew just when he thought he was going to make the kick.

Lately, though, George W. has been using the carrot and stick theory.
On one side of his mouth he talks about what a friend we have in Jesus and Israel.

Then, on the other side, he dispatches emissaries to go on television to tell us how disappointed and angry he is with the "Fence" which somehow is an obstacle to peace.

Gee, wasn’t that the mantra that his father used to say about the "settlements" and Shamir?
Whatever, the whole situation has just gotten out of hand. Hamas, a violent terrorist group, is referred to as an organization whose havoc needs to be negotiated.

They are never described as the animals they are but as "fighters", “militants" or "senior Hamas leaders" as though they were part of some yuppie organization just doing their job.

As of late they seem to be the favored form of terrorists.

Recently the Bush administration assured them that they wouldn’t be targeted for elimination in the war against terrorism.

Instead, when they’re out there bombing Israeli civilians, Secretary of State Colin Powell goes on camera and says, "The United States would continue to seek dialogue to persuade Hamas and the other Palestinian insurgency groups to end their attacks on Israel.”

Powell continued, “Such an approach has been part of the U.S.-led war against terrorism and efforts to reach peace between Israel and the Palestinians.” any of you see any trace of doublespeak here? Enough of their weakening Israel in the eyes of the Arabs by their constant talk of how Bush isn’t going to let a few things like homicide bombers get in the way of the “Roadmap”.

No way would we accept such a situation. Yet, almost without question Sharon and his incompetent and self-serving colleagues did.

Recently, someone sent me the following about the fence. "The border security fence is comprised of many sections totaling scores of miles. Some sections are concrete, others sheet metal.

The barrier is three layers deep in parts, fifteen feet high and surrounded by razor wire.

The area around it is lit by spotlights, monitored by cameras, motion detectors and magnetic sensors, and patrolled by armed guards with attack dogs.
But enough about the USA border with Mexico. Let's talk about Israel.”

Why is there a difference between Israel’s terrorists and ours?

We capture prisoners and nobody tells us to open the jails and let them out in the interest of "peace".
Why are our fences any better than theirs?

However, there is one important difference. The ones in Israel are built to keep out vicious murderers who want to sneak into the country.

That, folks, tells it all to me.

If it were up to me we would be sending stationed American soldiers from all those countries that don’t want us, starting with France and Germany, and deploy them along our border with Mexico to keep out the thousands of illegal immigrants who are coming across the border every day.

And they are only coming in to get better jobs and to get on our welfare rolls.

The people from Tijuana aren’t jumping over the fence to kill us. Why should Israel even be criticized for protecting its civilians?

Because it is Jews who are being slaughtered? Can anyone logically explain to me why Israel shouldn’t be encouraged to do everything in their power to prevent Palestinian homicide bombers from sneaking into Israel to do their damage?

Is there a reason that the Bush administration can’t accept the fact that the entire terrorist infiltration came from the West Bank where the barrier is being erected?

Gaza already has one in place and that is the reason why they haven’t been coming in from that hellhole to commit mass murder.

These aren’t the kinds of neighbors where it is possible to have a "mutual understanding.” I relate them to a day at the zoo. I walked into the tiger and lion house and marvel at how nice they seem sitting in the sun and walking around.

Yet, not for a minute do I wish to consider what it could be like without bars to separate me from them. Without that I know I’d probably never walk out of there alive. It’s good to have a mutual understanding that they stay there and I’m on my side of the fence.

There is a sound reason why the fence is snaking along the Trans-Israel Highway. That’s where the Palestinian killers have been shooting along the highway at the Israeli cars along the road.

In fact, I fail to understand how Israel is forced into the Roadmap to Auschwitz and in her compliance suddenly is at fault because they don’t open the jails and let all the terrorists out to do what they might have missed the first time around.

Then, even though there is nothing in the Roadmap agreement to open prisons OR about the Fence, Israel is , as usual, pressured into releasing prisoners and made a target of criticism for the crime of defending its beleaguered citizens.
The Roadmap pretty much says what is supposed to be done.

Yet, for some reason the Bush administration continues to add addenda and to accommodate Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, also known as etc. etc.
Hey, we're dealing with a man who can’t even make up his mind what his name is.

So is it any wonder that he keeps making new unjustifiable demands because Arafat’s wonder boy feels he has the support of our government?

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess - Arlene speaks regularly around the country and keeps a packed suitcase ready to GO.

Arlene can be reached at: and

Saturday, August 16, 2003


A Perilous and Fighting Life - From Communist to Conservative: The Political Writings of Professor John Anderson

Edited by Mark Weblin, Pluto Press, 278pp, $29.95

Review by Peter Coleman

THE famous philosopher John Passmore of Canberra tells a curious story about another famous philosopher, John Anderson, his teacher at the University of Sydney in the 1930s. At the first public exhibition of William Dobell's portrait of Anderson about a year before his death in 1962, a reporter asked: "Professor, do you want posterity to remember you by this painting?" Anderson replied that he was not sure he wanted posterity to remember him at all.

Passmore sees this as reflecting Anderson's sense of his life's defeats. These included his bitter disillusionment with the Soviet Union and his chagrin that the term Andersonian had been taken over by a group called the Push, whose libertarian ideas Passmore says Anderson scomed. He might also have added Anderson's awareness that his philosophic school of realism was sputtering out or that he had made a mess of his personal life....

Mark Weblin of Sydney University has edited [this book] with insight and care. (He is preparing a biography of Anderson.) Subtitled From Communist to Conservative, the selection begins with Anderson's first pieces written 76 years ago for Workers Weekly and The Communist. They have titles such as The Moral Factor in the Proletarian Revolution. The book ends with articles in university and academic journals. They have titles such as Democratic Illusions.

The polemics trace Anderson's political development from revolutionary to reactionary They also reflect his lifelong preoccupation with the Soviet Union and his growing rage with the lie on which it was based and which he believed for a time. Yet the dominating note of this collection is not disillusionment but liberation. The early communist articles are often turgid and obscure. But by the mid1930s the illusions fall away and the style becomes clear, often passionate and sometimes riveting.

By 1946, in the shadow of the Cold War against the seemingly inexorable advance of Stalinism, he began to develop his conservative position - his defence of traditions, small government, low taxation, free enterprise, private property and multi-parry liberalism, and his opposition to the welfare state and economic planning. Yet his new conservatism never had the influence of his communism or anti-communism. This is partly because he had spent so much of his life attacking conservatives - ridiculing their patriotism, religion, middle-class confomusm, the British Empire - that they were not disposed to take lessons from him later.

It was also because, even when developing a conservative doctrine, he naturally used the language of radicalism. It was his mother tongue. He managed to imply that consetvatives were unworthy of their traditions. He was, in truth, less a conservative than a reactionary, despising equally progressives and conservatives. He had come to believe that decadence - the preference for security over freedom, for comfort over courage - is the natural state of mankind. Whatever else this doctrine may do, it does not appeal to your run-of-the-mill conservative.

The above is an excerpt from a book review by Peter Coleman that appeared in the “Review” section of The Weekend Australian on August 16th (p. R11) but which does not appear to be otherwise online.

Sunday, August 10, 2003

Sterilization group hit with charges of racism

By Liz Trotta


NEW YORK — A group that is paying drug addicts and alcoholics $200 apiece not to have babies has expanded its reach into this city amid an outcry from liberal activist groups and a cold shoulder from the health care establishment.

Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK), also known as Project Prevention, seeks to stop addicts from giving birth by offering money in exchange for sterilization or long-term birth control. It also offers vasectomies for the same deal.

Its philosophy is blunt: It is better for a child not to be born than to suffer the physical and psychological damage inherited from addicted parents.

Barbara Harris of Orange County, Calif., founded the group in 1997. Mrs. Harris, who has given birth to six children and adopted four black children, has been branded a racist and more by some, but she scoffs at the detractors.

"Everybody on the left and right and middle loves us because they agree it's not OK to abuse children," she said. More white women than black have availed themselves of the group's services, Mrs. Harris said. "To assume that they're all black is more racist than they could ever accuse me of. Black babies matter, too. And even if it were all black people, is that unacceptable?" she said.

In October, Mrs. Harris announced the group's opening of an office in New York City at an unruly news conference attended by more anti-CRACK demonstrators than journalists.

The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPR), Mrs. Harris' chief antagonist, accused her of "racial targeting" and says that her group's activities are reminiscent of Nazi Germany's sterilization programs of the 1930s.

"Nearly half the women she has paid are African-Americans," said Lynn M. Paltrow, NAPR executive director, adding that Mrs. Harris' statistical information is faulty.

Asia, Tepper, a 27-year-old Brooklyn woman, constitutes CRACK's New York office. Mrs. Tepper volunteered to start the chapter after hearing about CRACK on a radio program. Part of her job is to distribute and post leaflets that read: "Get birth control. Get cash If you are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol then this offer is for you."

She said the response among addicts, social workers and the homeless has been "amazing," adding that "not one person has said it's a bad idea." Mrs. Tepper, a mother of two, said it is important for children to be born into an environment where they are wanted. "Nobody wants to see a 2-day-old baby left in hospital without a name," Mrs. Tepper said. "I don't know one taxpayer who will say, 'Let's support a crack baby for the next two years.' We're targeting people who don't want to have children."

In the two months since the office has been operating in New York, four persons have applied to the program, according to Mrs. Tepper, and some hospitals have expressed interest.

But New York's medical establishment is not likely to take up CRACK's approach. The city's Health and Hospitals Corp., which runs 11 municipal hospitals, said in a statement that it is "philosophically opposed to coercing women, economically or otherwise, to make reproductive choices."

Dr. Van Dunn, HHC's chief medical officer, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he opposed the group's methods because sterilization is irreversible. "Offering a woman, a poor woman, money to give up her reproductive rights is unethical," he said.

Addicts and alcoholics apply to CRACK through a hot-line number on the group's fliers or Web site and through methadone clinics and other drug-treatment programs. They are required to fill out a form that must be taken to a doctor or clinic for "long-term birth-control" and also prove that they have a drug problem.

CRACK has paid 838 women, half of whom received sterilization, according to Mrs. Harris. Twenty-two men have had vasectomies.
Before contacting CRACK, the women treated had had a total of 1,322 abortions, with some having had 15. "They use abortion as birth control," Mrs. Harris said.

This story originally appeared here:

On Jan 8th, 2003 but now appears to be offline.