Foreign Policy and Roosting Chickens

blowout911by Glenn Fairman  9/12/14
Insomuch as the lessons of history are engraved with an iron stylus on the DNA of modern man, what circumspection have we compiled concerning the monstrous ambitions of the malignant heart? Consider this now futile thought experiment: What should have been the world’s prudent response when Herr Schicklgruber of the Twisted Cross lifted his reptilian orbs and salivated over Germany’s endless horizon in the waning days of the twentieth century’s fourth decade? Should we, like a lightning strike, have fallen upon and consumed him, and every black-hearted confederate who dared invoke martial necessity by the gnarled authority of a counterfeit Truth? Should the West have strangled National Socialism in its infancy, before it was capable of upending the earth? If we claim to hold dear the conservation of life, how many lives could have been saved through the common sense marriage of wisdom and courage?

Or, are we fated, as drowsy creatures who delight in drink and lovemaking, to awaken only after the house is ablaze? After all, who appointed us judge, jury and executioner? Is it inevitable that the strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must? Are we tone deaf to the violence of the earth until it falling man2reaches our front gate? Have we learned nothing about the nature of absolute evil and the supreme confidence it displays – like the vain strutting of a shrill and capricious god?

It is this same quality of god – this bat-like deity projected against the backdrop of Heaven that moves termite-souled men to diabolic deeds more suited to Hell’s asylum. Having meditated deliciously upon the worm of loathing – having consumed that toxic diet of terminal civilizations whose crimes extend past the portals of distant memory has allowed Islam to consecrate vengeance, overweening pride, fratricidal ecstasy, and metallic cruelty into the congealed form of a savior who will raise it to the stars and exact every last drop of suffering from its enemies. In swearing to the annihilation or absorption of the infidel billions, their Allah of the Raging Furnace sanctions a litany of acts no casual lunatic would entertain:

The crucifixion of unbelievers, the auctioning off of captive women, brothels containing Christian girls for serial ravishing, the rounding up and dispatching of little boys with 9 grams behind the ear, the raping of virgin girls before murder to deny them paradise, the beheading of non-combatants, the summary execution of surrendered forces.

All of these acts, and others bearing the fingerprints of demoniac imaginations, are what comes when men sanctify that hideous presumption festering within and sculpt that viciousness into the alabaster mantle of a distant and terrible god.[pullquote]The shape-shifting mask of Islam, given the grim reality of its relentless demographics, should not be allowed a foothold here to secure a dagger into our backs at a time of its own choosing.[/pullquote]

The fecal soul that mutates to embrace the cause of ISIS is of the very same pedigree that commandeered American jets and introduced the manifold works of Islam to a nation of Sleep Walkers a scant 13 years hence. Indeed, Mohammad Atta and Co. were only the advance scouts – the furtive ambassadors throwing down Islam’s gauntlet before their disappearing act in a deluge of smoke and ashes. It is not mere saber-rattling rhetoric when they affirm loving death more than life: it is their sine qua non. What we deem incomprehensible about 9/11, they hold as holy. There is no middle ground that Islam will accede to unless we put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger ourselves.

In case you weren’t paying attention: This is war. And the sooner we realize that these zombies mean what they say, will not be mollified with saccharine overtures, and will keep coming at us until they are put down en masse, the sooner we can steel ourselves to the necessary resolve for the monumental task Isisheadat hand. Our Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. Curbs on immigration and maybe even the expulsion of 5th column elements who mean us evil should be on the table and strongly considered. The shape-shifting mask of Islam, given the grim reality of its relentless demographics, should not be allowed a foothold here to secure a dagger into our backs at a time of its own choosing.

Yet, a disheartening problem remains. Republics comprise a multiplicity of competing interests, and the more democratic they become, the greater the tendency for private lives to take precedence over public virtues. At the conclusion of last century’s horrific first Great War, the traditional political life of Europe lay in shambles, and men took refuge in personal pursuits or in abstract utopian strivings to drown their disillusionment and despair at the loss of their idyllic world. Since then, it seems that as the pace of Modernity accelerates, so languishes the attention span and endurance of free peoples. Without a strong seamless animating vision to capture the moral/political imagination of men increasingly consumed with bourgeois passions, they grow exhausted at the interminable conflicts which require continuous cauterization as freedom’s adversaries bloom like weeds and rise to the challenge. After 8 years of sacrifice, America succumbed to such fatigue; and Barack Obama emerged to stroke our necks and console us with the flattery: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” “We are the change.”

Despite what we are told by our compliant media organs, America and the entire world are not bogged down in some insipid struggle with an abstraction of terror, we are locked in a civilizational battle with the unadulterated visage of Islam Ascending – a war that assumed focus when hijacked airliners fell from the skies. 9/11 was an unmistakable declaration of a combatant ideology’s bellicose intentions. Years later, a great swath of America has psychologically withdrawn from the struggle, but that has not averted Islam’s exacting eye from our tender throats. As the once august European powers slide even more deeply into the Anti-American and Anti-Semitic orbits of Islamicists, America and Israel will become increasingly isolated and the temptation to choose the paths of least resistance will lure our country to follow the Old World’s inevitable decline into the morass of civil war or even an outright acquiescence to domestic political co-existence with Shar’ia’s principles. If this detestable camel should ever burrow its head under our republic’s constitutional tent, it will signal the death knell for any hopes we have of passing on a patrimony of limited governance, natural rights, and the liberty of free conscience to those we leave in our wake.

If you think that such self-delusion could never happen here, consider that self-proclaimed God Emperor Barack Obama has now officially “jumped the shark” with his claim that ISIL, ISIS, or whatever these devils call themselves, is an aberration of Islam’s tenets. This is a lie from the very heart of Gehenna. In truth, Abu Bakr and the subsequent spiritual sons of Mohammad employed the exact same strategies that ISIS now mimics, as they raced across the Middle East and into the Western world a millennia and a half hence. We have only Providence to thank that the Horde of the Crescent Star’s continued advance was arrested by the stalwart Charles the Hammer at Tours. A great parcel of the earth did not come under the hegemony of mass tyranny within the brief span of a century by the humble door to door dissemination of Watch Tower-like leaflets. If conquering by scimitar and submission in the name of Allah, venerating the Koran, and the institution of a universal caliphate are not Islamic, do they then belong to the confession of Five-Point Calvinism? Indeed, chopping heads and taking names are the signature moves of those fanatics who are determined to party like its 699.

Regrettably, our schizophrenic Solon now finds himself in the unenviable position of having to aerially bombard those he had promised to stand with “should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Word to Obama: It doesn’t get much uglier than this. Barry is like the reluctant father who finds himself isiswaresstuck with a litter of little curs who are short on discipline and long on enthusiasm. He’d like to be rid of them and their shenanigans, but his furious neighbors are in the front yard with pitchforks and torches, screaming that his brood have been tearin’ stuff up and actin’ the fool. And so, in order to hold onto his increasingly shaky government digs, he now has to go all Joan Crawford on the little scamps – and his heart just ain’t in it.

To add insult to injury, It’s rumored that Valerie Jarrett has laid down the law and locked up the Prez’s golf bag and that last carton of Kools. Oh lord! Where’s Reggie Love to relieve the tension?

Readers: As far as ISIS is concerned, keep a sharp eye on what Obama does, and hit the mute button when you see his stomach churning image on the tube. Better yet, do something profitable – like addressing that stubborn ring on the family commode.

Not a moment too soon, Obama’s chickens have come home to roost — except that these birds are better described as black carrion auspiciously returning to pick clean a morbid foreign policy’s carcass. How ironic that on the 13th anniversary of America’s 9/11, history will record that a mediocre multi-culturalist hack, whose boilerplate rhetoric confused America’s founding with Islam’s abominable virtues and who pressured NASA to bolster Muslim self-esteem, stood with mouth agape as ISIS delivered that unkindest cut of all to his policy of arrogant naiveté. Imagine George Washington promising to cast his lot with King George shortly before Valley Forge or FDR symbolically offering the Nazis a chance to sit in on the Manhattan Project’s briefings. Having, by virtue of his great hubris, first stepped out on that trajectory towards folly, shall we then be shocked that those paper mache’ Greek columns portend a Sibylline prophesy heralding the dissolution of this “Hollow Man” who believed he could lead from behind? If the gods first make mad those whom they would destroy, then we may be provided a window to that prophetess’ final utterance. Let us hope that we are not in the general vicinity when that terminal judgment alights from on high.

Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (3057 views)

Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Foreign Policy and Roosting Chickens

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    One must never forget Adolf admired Islam and many Muslims today admire Adolf.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Great article, Glenn.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    There was in fact almost a cottage industry of people trying to assassinate Hitler in 1938 and later, including one who wanted to shoot him either at Berchtesgaden or (when that didn’t work out) at the 1938 Beer Hall Putsch parade. Too bad none of them succeeded. Even the 1939 bombing might have aborted most of the horrors of the war in Europe (though the war between China and Japan would have continued, of course).

    A recent article divided ISIS supporters into 3 groups: psychopaths (including most of the Western fighters excited by the violence), true believers (mostly Middle East volunteers acting on behalf of sharia fundamentalism), and the “practical” sorts (locals who oppose their government and support ISIS as an alternative — and can be persuaded to change sides again if a good alternative is available).

    Incidentally, since a 150th anniversary is a sesquicentennial, it seems reasonable to me that one could use “sesquicentury” to represent 150 years (more or less) and “sesquimillennium” for 1500 years.

    • glenn fairman says:

      that one rolls off the tongue

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      There is every reason to believe Hitler could have been stopped had the Allies called his bluff of marching German troops into the Rhineland, in 1936. Hitler certainly greatly feared the Allies might call his bluff. And his friendship with Mussolini grew from Mussolini’s tacit approval of this act.

      Guderian believed the Allies missed a great opportunity to bring down Hitler by allowing this breach of the Versailles Treaty.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Let me state for the record that Glenn is right-thinking. There’s very little useful idiot in him. (“Little” he says?)

    Another fellow who understands the situation is Andy McCarthy. His current article at NRO is worth a read. Here’s an excerpt:

    When you are dealing with an administration whose officials look you in the eye and tell you the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization, it’s tempting to laugh off the idiocy spouted by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry about how the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. We should resist the temptation, though, because there is a dangerous purpose behind the laughable assertion.

    Obviously, Bing West and Daniel Pipes are correct that the terrorist group is entirely Islamic. As I’ve been arguing here more times and for more years than I care to remember, what we presume to call “radical Islam” (a/k/a Islamic supremacism, Islamic extremism, political Islam, Islamism, and whatever other “Islam [fill in the caveat]” terms we devise to avoid considering whether Islam itself inevitably breeds terrorism) is not very radical among the world’s Muslims. There are pacific constructions of Islam, too, but it is silly not to acknowledge that Islamic supremacism is a mainstream interpretation of Islam. It is firmly rooted in Islamic scripture and endorsed by many of Islam’s most influential scholars. Indeed, when you read what the scriptures say, there is a good argument that the pacific constructions are the ones that are radical revisionism.

    There’s barely a hair’s breadth of difference between McCarthy’s position and Glenn’s, although McCarthy has (at least publicly) evolved a more realistic and forthright opinion of Islam in the last couple of years.

    So Glenn and Andy are first-tier people, not even with their little toes dipping into useful idiotness.

    On the other hand, some people, such as Jonah Goldberg, are still getting up to speed. In his current article he states:

    The president faces the same dilemma that bedeviled George W. Bush, and I sympathize with him. It is not in our interest for the Muslim world to think we are at war with Islam, not just because it is untrue but more specifically because we desperately need the cooperation of Muslim nations. That’s why Bush constantly proclaimed “Islam means peace.”

    There was certainly a pragmatic element for Bush to call Islam a “religion of peace.” But the thing is, I think he really believed that. He’s way on the left of the spectrum of denial, with our Marxist president himself being on the far end of delusion, stating that ISIS (or ISIL) is not Islamic.

    The reality is an uncomfortable one, and I commend Glenn for not being a spineless noodle when he stated:

    Our Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. Curbs on immigration and maybe even the expulsion of 5th column elements who mean us evil should be on the table and strongly considered. The shape-shifting mask of Islam, given the grim reality of its relentless demographics, should not be allowed a foothold here to secure a dagger into our backs at a time of its own choosing.

    All immigration of Muslims and those from Muslim countries should cease. And all political correctness regarding being “sensitive” to the demands of Sharia should be scoffed at, if not mocked.

    This becomes difficult because the masses (and they deserve that name at the moment) have been taught the tenets of multiculturalism, that it’s Christians we have more to fear from than Muslims.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I see the problem as being Koranic Islam. Most “moderate” Muslims turn out not to be very aware of the contents of the Koran (leaving aside a few groups such as the Sufis, who are very definitely not mainstream Muslims), which is why they sometimes go off the rails once they find out what’s really in it.

      There were good pragmatic reasons for Bush to call Islam a “religion of peace” — but relying on CAIR members to advise him indicated, as you say, that this was also a self-delusion. In Obama’s case, the question is whether this is self-delusion — or the dishonesty of one who favors the Muslim Brotherhood.

      I know I’ve seen that concept — that the Constitution is not a suicide pact — before, maybe even from a Supreme Court Justice, but I can’t remember who.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There were good pragmatic reasons for Bush to call Islam a “religion of peace”

        What if Bush had simply said the truth: “Islam is a problematically violent totalitarian movement, particularly because its leader, Mohammed, spread this supremacist movement from the get-go by the sword, often massacring innocents by the dozen and murdering kindly old ladies simply for ‘dissing’ this somewhat demented leader.”

        Would we be in any worse shape than we are now? We’ve spent billions of dollars on foreign wars and all for naught. I’m sorry to say, but all of the sacrifices of our blood and treasure have gone for nothing. We’ve viewed the problem as trying to remove a cancerous growth to save the body. But the truth is, the body itself is the problem.

        That’s not to say that killing active Islamic terrorist operatives is a bad thing, as has often been done. Indeed, killing any and all Muslims who plan, support, or perpetrate violence against us is where we should put our resources. And in the long-term, we might come to understand that this will include taking and holding territory.

        What might we have gained with a simple bit of clarity by calling a spade a spade and sending the signal that “Muslims, we know who you are and we’re not going to play the game of pretending we do not”? How would we be worse off?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. It has been said that hindsight is 20/20, unlike foresight. There is much truth to this, which only makes the record of liberalism (which refuses to learn from experience and thus is blind to even the clearest hindsight) even more atrocious than it already is.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Timothy, certainly I’ve learned much about Islam since 9/11. I was never predisposed to calling it a “religion of peace.” But until 9/11 and the aftermath, I had no idea how depraved it was. Just ask India, for one, how murderous of a culture it is.

            People can be forgiven to some extent for not knowing about Islam. After all, they’re not taught real history anymore in many places. They’re taught revisionist history. They’re taught a lie to suit the political ends of the Left.

            I just got back from visiting, for the first time, the local 9/11 memorial. It’s a very nice piece of work. It features two twisted steal beams from the towers.

            And although it mentions “terrorists,” for all the casual observer would ever know was that some old steal beams had been planted in the ground to commemorate perhaps a natural disaster or an accident. The memory fades because even in our memorials, we do not name the enemy. I do not believe that is true of memorials regarding WWII. Perhaps some of you know otherwise.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I remember the disputes over the Pennsylvania memorial where the flight went down. The original plan involved lights forming a crescent — coincidentally, the symbol of Islam. This was changed when people realized it, but this makes it doubtful the nature of the enemy who caused the atrocities is acknowledged. On the other hand, the museum in New York was attacked by Muslims for stating the truth, so it isn’t entirely hopeless.


        Tim – I’m pretty sure it was Associate Justice Robert Jackson, not exactly an apostle of freedom but certainly a smart man and incidentally our lead prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials, who said this.

        As for Bush, I’m not inclined to give him any slack on that “Religion of Peace” nonsense. It just goes to show how Establishment Republicans are more like Lefty Democrats than Conservatives, and both Bush and his key advisors like Condoleeza Rice were definitely cut from Establishment cloth. Remember how concerned they were about about an anti-Muslim backlash, which never materialized but should have?

        Good article by Glenn, by the way.

  5. glenn fairman says:

    Any gardner knows that allowing weeds to grow until they are unmanageable and intertwine amongst the good plants—-or the wheat and the tares, if you will, is a slovenly practice—and its application to politics and states craft is obvious. Allowing something to run amuck and then using half measures to arrest its dubious progress brings moral opprobrium to both Kings and fishwives.

  6. glenn fairman says:

    I have been reading Daniel Pipes and Middle East Forum for years now. Pipes understands the language and the zeitgeist of Islam. He was on the mark from Day 1 when people were tripping over themselves trying to split Solomon’s Child with tortured scholasticism.

    Although I cannot be certain, I am confident that Bush 43, by virtue of the men he surrounded himself with, understood the nature of the beast he was handling with kid gloves. The art of realpolitik requires uneasy alliances with unsavory characters. But I would seriously doubt if the Religion of Peace claim, also made by Clinton, was anymore than the rhetoric of instrumental diplomacy to a concrete end. One can not call one’s neighbor a thieving “MF” and expect him to help you drain the septic tank.

    But Obama is “hose of a different color.” His worldview is predicated on the writings of Edward Said and the Colonial Orientalist critique of the West. He despises the West because it tacitly reveals the moral and civilizational inferiority of Africa and the Middle East. The White Man’s Burden was ironic to Kipling. Obama and the Left take it at face value and see only condescension and servitude—-even though the relation between east and west had always been a two way street with the east profiting greatly from Britain’s tutelage. Obama despises any vestige left of the colonial world, and that is why he boxed up the bust of Churchill as his first official act—effectively slapping one of our greatest allies in the face.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      What is taught is that Christians were cultural imperialists (at best) who dissed other cultures by not “respecting” them and instead trying to convert them to Christianity and/or exploiting them via economic imperialism. Given the barbarian religion that Islam is — not to mention the primitiveness of many third world tribal cultures — you could objectively call this a good and necessary task.

      But multiculturalism teaches that all other cultures must be “respected,” that they all have “value.” Implicit in all this is that the Western/Christian culture did not believe this and instead was an oppressive force.

      To give up this stilted and bigoted view, one would have to acknowledge that they got it all wrong and got it in reverse. Christianity/Western Civillization is the higher culture and most third-world cultures (especially including Islam) were a lower form.

      One reason, Brother Fairman, that I don’t take too quickly to Christianity is that I’m on guard against having my emotions manipulated. And that is the state of affairs that we face today. Trying to reach the indoctrinated with pure reason and facts is difficult. If you’ve grown up in our culture, particularly if you went to college, a person is acclimated to thinking that being “tolerant” of Islam sets one up as the especially enlightened. And to mock Christianity is to portray the same kind of enlightenment. These become deeply embedded emotional reactions that bypass all thought, reason, and evidence.

      We don’t do that here. In some ways, I’m more “onward Christian solider” than a lot of these namby-pamby so-called “Christians” who are CINO (Christians in Name Only) and who are de facto useful idiots for socialism, have delusions of a “moderate” Islam, and orient toward their own religion in a narcissistic way. [Breathe.] College graduates are typically worse. Rather than just narcissism, they regale you with their smarmy sense of moral and intellectual superiority as they tell you the Islam, in fact, saved Western Culture while we were stumbling through the Dark Ages.

      The truth is, Islam has brought darkness wherever it has gone. Christianity has done the opposite. Thank you, England (and other Christian countries of Europe) for colonizing America and bringing light and progress to a backward continent. Thank God Islam did not do so. Yeah, maybe it sucks that a stone-age people fell victim to disease (unintentional) and to a better way of life. But no Westerner need apologize for carrying “the white man’s burden” to a world that has consistently been populated by brutes such as Islam and the various barbarian tribes who are typical of the world, in generals.

      And although we may quibble about whether Bush and others truly thought of Islam as a “religion of peace,” the other thing that Goldberg said that is due comment is: “not just because it is untrue but more specifically because we desperately need the cooperation of Muslim nations.”

      We relate to Islamic nations as we would a Magic Eight Ball. We keep shaking it up in order to get the answer we want, always looking for those “moderate” Muslims with whom we share interests, never quite figuring out that we have no long-term interests with any of them, and the short-term ones we think we find are just robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. The “moderate” Muslim we get in bed with today will soon be the one we meet on the battlefield tomorrow. Or we go through these ridiculous fictions such as assuming Saudi Arabia is a controllable, or at least pragmatic, partner that we can use against even worse Muslims, all while their Wahhabism is the very source of much of the spreading of “radical” Islam throughout the world.

      Jonah doesn’t get it yet. There are no Muslim countries who are our friends. There are just some we anoint that way as we try to play “whack-a-mole” with whatever new “radical” faction we see as perverting true Islam. We are fools and that foolishness is in its purest form in Obama. Smaller forms may be seen elsewhere.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, technically, some Muslim countries aren’t all that Muslim, at least among their leaders. This is why countries such as Jordan and Egypt can deal with us and even make peace with Israel, and even Saudi Arabia now prefers Israel to Hamas and Hezbollah. (The Saudi royals mostly don’t seem to follow Wahabism, but for the most part they find it convenient to push it and thereby keep its mullahs from opposing the throne.) This is also why those who follow Islam more (such as Qatar and Turkey) turn out to be such shaky allies — they really aren’t our friends at all.

  7. Glenn (the lesser) says:

    Obama is a coward who sticks his neck out only when preening his Mussolini pose. Islamic terrorism is only a distraction for him. He has no stomach for a fight and little interest in things that don’t enrich him in one way or another. The fact he has no strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism is not a surprise at all.

    Bush, on the other hand, had good intentions but a misguided strategy. Should he have foreseen that when Saddam’s political totalitarianism was removed it would be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism, and therefore it would take a long term commitment by the US and our allies to foster true secular democracy in Iraq, and that long term commitment was probably not going to be supported by the American people? The tragedy of taking half measures isn’t just that they don’t work, it’s that they cost American lives and treasure for ultimately no gain.

    As the Gipper said “We win, they lose”. That should be the strategy. The tactics should be no holds barred and whatever it takes.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The tragedy of taking half measures isn’t just that they don’t work, it’s that they cost American lives and treasure for ultimately no gain.

      And they make it more difficult to address other problems in future as the people become tired of failure.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Liberals will never accept the notion that “we win” and are equally uncomfortable with “they lose”. GOP Beltway Bandits aren’t much better, because they’ve imbibed that liberal DC brew too strongly.


      Bush’s biggest problem was that as an Establishment-man, he accepted the thinking and advice of “recognized” authorities, i.e. academic intellectuals like Condoleeza Rice who embraced the fundamentally flawed thinking that is in control of all our major universities. Thus he sent some law school dean, whose name escapes me at the moment, to write the new Iraqi Constitution. A more intellectual type than Bush (meaning less Establishment) would have recognized the intellectual corruption of our law schools and chosen some dissident voice therein who would have realized that for the Islamic world to make progress, the political power of the faith must be broken. Instead, our law school dean inserted a provision into the constitution that no law could contravene Islam(!), guaranteeing that in addition to its other problems, the new Iraq would come under Sharia law and never be truly free.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Condi Rice was a specialist on Soviet/Russian affairs. Before 9/11/01 she probably was a good choice (events since then have shown that Russia definitely remains very relevant). Unfortunately, the Middle East wasn’t her area of expertise, which naturally meant she relied on the advice of others.

      • Glenn Fairman says:

        To perform such a Herculean task would have required a Solon, a Lycurgus, or a Montesquieu to square that intractable Arab circle.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          What Iraq needed (as I believe George Will pointed out) was its own James Madison and George Washington. But such men are rare, and America was lucky to have both at the crucial moment.

  8. James D Smith says:

    Dear Glen;
    The toilets in my house are already sparkling clean. I simply cannot bear the sight or sound of that leading behind of the demonicrat party.
    But, Oh how I enjoy reading your articles. They make my day!
    I was warned about 20 years ago, by an elderly Christian sister that islam would be our and our nations greatest threat. I did not believe her then.
    My question is, did you intend for the picture of the man falling from one of the towers to be a depiction of someone’s political demise?

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    James Lewis has a good article today: The utter failure of our political class to respond to mortal danger:

    The future of liberty, electoral legitimacy, political balance of powers and rationality is by no means assured. Unlike the Founding generation, the generation of Lincoln, and the Greatest Generation of World War 2 our people today are steeped in folly and self-indulgence.

    We can win against the Left-Islamist alliance just as we won the Cold War. But so far we have done little but retreat in confusion, for lack of clear leadership and unity.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As Jonah Goldberg pointed out on NRO today (in a different context), you must know the nature of the enemy to confront him successfully. I think there’s a pretty good understanding of the nature of militant Islam among conservatives (though there’s obviously disagreement over whether there truly is such a thing as moderate Islam), but most people don’t want to face up to the implications of modern liberalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *