As the presidential election quickly approaches Americans are hungry for all the information they can get on the candidates. Americans know that this election held during wartime and in the midst of an astounding national financial crisis is the most important in recent memory. A trip to Kenya by Mr. Obama in 2006 sheds important light on both Mr. Obama’s predilections and the nature of the conflict that we are in against political expansionist Islam. Mr. Obama’s active involvement in the presidential elections of Kenya during his trip have an appearance of impropriety about them, but more importantly his active support for the opposition candidate Mr. Odinga is instructive. A controversial document signed by Mr. Odinga on August 29, 2006 which promised the imposition of sharia law (Islamic law) across Kenya tells us a great deal about Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama supported Mr. Odinga, even appearing at campaign rallies with him. If the document is legitimate and there is strong reason to believe that it is Mr. Odinga supports sharia law.
We shall examine Mr. Obama’s trip to Kenya, his association with Mr. Odinga, and examine the pros and cons of the legitimacy of this document in light of Islamic doctrine. Mr. Obama’s associations and judgment are the central controversy of the current presidential election here in the United States. We must learn as much as we can about Mr. Obama’s associations because through them we can get an accurate understanding of Mr. Obama himself.
We are known through our associations and our accomplishments. Whom we choose to associate with indicates the state of our judgment. Mr. Obama’s associations indicates extremely poor judgment and a preference for extremism. His involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the second highest recipient of donations from those failed and corrupt institutions and his direct approval of and involvement with the CEOs of these institutions further brings his capacity for reasonable judgment into question. These men and these institutions are at the center of the failure of the American financial sector. It is the responsibility of the electorate to educate themselves on the candidates and the issues. With this responsibility in mind, the following is presented for your review.
Late in August, 2006, as part of a week long tour of several African nations Barack Obama visited the country of his father’s birth, Kenya. Arriving as a famous American politician and renowned son of Kenya Obama toured the country during their presidential election railing against government corruption. The sitting president, Mr. Kibaki, did not take this approach very favorably. Obama’s involvement in Kenyan politics became quite clear when he appeared at campaign events with the opposition candidate Mr. Odinga. A fellow member of Obama’s own ethnic group/Luo tribe Obama, according to the Chicago Tribune of August 29, 2006, “Obama appeared with opposition leader Raila Odinga — a Luo running for president — at stops on Saturday in his father’s native district..” Mr. Kibaki’s spokesman Alfred Mutua put a decidedly negative spin on the proceedings suggesting that visiting American politician Barack Obama was nothing more than a “stooge” and that Mr. Odinga was using Obama as “his puppet” (see Chicago Tribune, above). While it seems somewhat unseemly and ethically questionable for an American Senator to travel to another country and dive so deeply into their presidential politics, that is not the core of the issue here. (Read the oath of office here. Mr. Obama must be given credit for understanding the poltical climate in Kenya for, as his foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice said in an interview with German magazine Spiegel, “He bows to nobody in his understanding of this world.” (Interview, Susan E. Rice, Speigel, July 21, 2008) His decision to actively support the Sharia candidate Mr. Odinga could not then have been anything but purposeful and based upon the situation in Kenya, and most importantly, Mr. Odinga’s positions.
Kenya is gripped by political, religious, and ethnic violence. In early January of this year, 2008, “In broad daylight, a crowd of Kenyans set a church filled with hundreds of terrified families on fire and listened to their screams as flames engulfed them.” Such events are almost beyond our comprehension. But they continue to happen. (Read the report here. Further commentary here.) According to the CIA FactBook only 10% of the population of Kenya is Muslim. This is important because Mr. Odinga, the very same candidate that Mr. Obama actively supported during his visit to Kenya signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the leaders of the “Muslim Leaders Forum” (NAMLEF) that promised upon his presidential victory that Sharia law would be implemented across the country within one year. This would require a complete reshaping of the country and would likely spark massive conflicts and violence as Kenya is a country in which 90% of the population is non-Muslim. The Factbook (read it here states that, “KIBAKI’s reelection in December 2007 brought charges of vote rigging from ODM candidate Raila ODINGA and unleashed two months of violence in which as many as 1,500 people died. UN-sponsored talks in late February produced a power sharing accord bringing ODINGA into the government in the restored position of prime minister.” The situation in Kenya is highly volatile. Why, other than his father’s connection to that country would Obama concern himself with Kenya and Odinga? And what of this memorandum of understanding?
Some weeks back during an interview with George Stephanopolous, Mr. Obama had a controversial slip of the tongue in which he referenced, “my Muslim faith” (available here). It may have been something more, we may never know - hopefully we shall never know. But if Mr. Obama does win the election, his association with Islam is something that must be understood. Ideally, we will all do our homework prior to the election so that we can make the best decision possible for the future of our country. (Robert Spencer has comments on Obama and his connections to Islam here.) However, it would appear that Islamists prefer Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain mainly on account of his past connections with Islam, “Iran’s leadership has expressed ‘great pleasure’ at the prospect of a Barack Obama victory in November, according to Menashe Amir, the Iranian-born head of Radio Israel’s Persian language service.” (See column at Newsmaxhere.) One could readily dismiss such statements as propaganda or slick opposition “spin”, but when seen in light of Obama’s trip to Kenya and his active support of Mr. Odinga concerned Americans must be as clear as they can on this matter. It should give any American pause that the enemies of our country support Mr. Obama over McCain. ““One of the Iranian religious leaders said if Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation.” (See Robert Spencer’s comments on this issue here.) There is no longer any question that Mr. Obama was at one time a practicing Muslim. (See Daniel Pipes on this issue here.) His support of Mr. Odinga in Kenya could become more understandable in light of this understanding of his background.
Despite Mr. Obama’s active campaign support with his fiery rhetoric and impressive “American statesman abroad” approach, Mr. Odinga lost the election. Immediately claiming fraud his supporters went on riotous rampages in Nairobi and other parts of the country killing hundreds. But why would churches be targeted? As a mainly Christian country, Kenyan society is founded upon churches. Islamists seek to replace churches and other institutions with Sharia and Islamic law - attacking churches is part of the gameplan to undermine the country. Now, Mr. Odinga and his erstwhile rival Mr. Kibaki have a power-sharing arrangement in which Mr. Odinga is the Prime Minister and Mr. Kibaki the President.
While Mr. Obama was visiting Kenya (dated August 29, 2007) Mr. Odinga signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. Mr Odinga promised in this Memorandum, among other things, the rewriting of the national constitution (within 6 months) to recognize sharia as the only true law for “Muslim declared regions”; “within 1 year facilitate the establishment of a sharia court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters”; popularize Islam, the only true religion, in the Coast and North Eastern Regions by ordering every primary school in Kenya to in the Regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.” There is more of course, and you can see the document here. The key point is that Mr. Odinga signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Muslim leaders promising to bring sharia law to Kenya. This could only mean intense internal strife in a country of predominant Christian population. Why would Barack Obama support a political candidate in Kenya, or anywhere else, who supported sharia law?
Many writers and analysts have speculated on this issue, and one can only wonder at the answer. But doesn’t this support of a doctrine of absolutism, misogyny, cruelty, and total intolerance for non-Muslims completely exclude Mr. Obama from any national leadership position in the United States? Doesn’t Mr. Obama’s support of a Kenyan politician who supports sharia law make him unfit to lead a democracy anywhere?
Daniel Pipes, one of the leading scholars of political Islam in the United States says that “The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy’s ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur’an.” (Read the article here.)
If Mr. Pipes is accurate, and he is, how can we consider Mr. Obama - a supporter of Sharia law through his support of Mr. Odinga in Kenya- as a viable and desirable candidate for President? Imposition of sharia law is the goal of Islamist terrorism. The terrorists themselves are quite clear on this point. An AlQaeda training manual found in a terrorist’s house in Manchester, England is clear:
PRESENTATION
To those champions who avowed the truth day and night……And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases…
-*-The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates…,Platonic ideals…, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
***… Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils.
They are established as they [always] have been
by pen and gun
by word and bullet
by tongue and teeth
There are three kinds of Jihad according to Islamic doctrine: by the sword, by the tongue, and by money. Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. (Read about the Islamic doctrine of Jihad here.
Back in Kenya in November of last year a great controversy about Mr. Odinga’s Memorandum erupted.
There is some doubt as to the veracity of the Odinga/Muslim agreement linked above. According to the BBC,
“Muslim leaders decided to make the pact public after a document circulated on the internet claimed that Mr Odinga’s ODM had pledged to introduce Sharia in parts of the country where Muslims are in the majority.
‘There was a fear that Muslims will force their faith on other people, Islam does not allow suppression of other religions and we will be the last to advocate for this,’ said Abdullahi Abdi of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.
Instead the memorandum of understanding, signed in August, states that Mr Odinga has pledged to defend Muslims against harassment and victimisation by state security forces who claim to be fighting terrorism.”
There is a serious contradiction here. While the document on the internet is quite specific about sharia law in Kenya should Odinga win, including a timetable for it’s implementation, the National Muslim Leaders Forum suggest in the BBC article that the extant document is a fraud and the real one is far less offensive to the majority of Kenyans who happen to be non-Muslim. How can we determine the truth, how can this contradiction be resolved?
Other websites have suggested the same, that the Odinga document is a fraud and that, according to one site, “…it doesn’t take very advanced math, wikipedia or googling skills to recognize that risking up to 80% of the vote (Kenya’s Christian majority) to cater to a minority of 10% (its Muslims) doesn’t add up and both Raila Odinga and NAMELEF publicly declared the document a forgery.” (Source, here.) But there is a problem here of omission: when were these denials issued? Had Odinga won the election would we ever have heard of this Memorandum at all? It is unlikely. Interestingly, the Muslim Council of Kenya originally denied that any Memorandum existed at all. After calls from Christian leaders in Kenya to release the document and respond to allegations raised by the leaked version that the Muslim community in Kenya was working with presidential candidate Odinga to bring Sharia to the country,
Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi of Namlef said, “There was a fear that Muslims will force their faith on other people, Islam does not allow suppression of other religions and we will be the last to advocate for this,” reports the BBC.
In Islamic doctrine a Muslim is not obligated to be truthful with a non-Muslim, a kafir. The truth is reserved for other Muslims. This is called “Taqiyya”, the doctrine of deception. If deception advances the cause of Islam it is considered acceptable and honorable.
Deceit is part of Islamic war against the kafirs.
Bukhari 4,52,267 Mohammed: “The king of Persia will be destroyed, and no one shall assume his throne. Caesar will certainly be destroyed and no Caesar will follow him; his coffers will be spent in Allah’s cause [jihad].” Mohammed cried out, “Jihad is deceit.”
Read more about the “Doctrine of Deceit” here. And here.
The Sheikh’s comments above that “Islam does not allow the suppression of other religions” is contrary to 1400 years of violent expansion and suppression. For example, Saudi Arabia, an Islamic state under sharia law, according to the US Department of State is described as follows:
The country is ruled by a monarchy with a legal system based on Islamic law (Shari’a). The Government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice and does not define this right in law.
Section II. Status of Religious Freedom
Legal/Policy Framework
Freedom of religion does not exist. It is not recognized or protected under the country’s laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims.
The statement that “Islam does not allow the suppression of other religions” is an obvious case of taqiyya. In light of this, we must then come to the conclusion that the leaked document is the true version of the Memorandum.
The late Yasser Arafat, Nobel Peace Prize winner and terrorist leader was noted for use of taqiyya, deception of the kafirs. “Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences.” (Source article here.) Many in the West were unaware of these contradictory statements and, if they became aware of them, could not reconcile the contradiction of leaders speaking about peace to one audience then speaking of war and Jihad to another audience in Arabic. Taqiyya explains this contradiction and places this approach entirely in its proper context, Jihad against the kafirs, the unbelievers.
In light of taqiyya, can Arafat’s message of “peace” to the Nobel Prize committee be taken at face value, especially since Islamist terror attacks against Israel continued after the awarding of his Nobel? Can the Sheikh’s denials about the Memorandum in Kenya be believed? (Arafat’s speech available here. These extremist associations that clearly display a preference for extreme beliefs do not cause much concern among the American left and for them, why should they? These people and organizations with whom Obama affiliates himself are all agents of change, and that is exactly what the left says that they are screaming for, isn’t it?
But how can any American countenance Obama’s support of Sharia? This is a mystery. Islam has expanded for 1400 years. It continues to grow. It’s goals are contrary to our own. There could not be a more implacable foe of American democracy than political expansionist Islam. How can any American Jew support Obama’s candidacy?
It is likely that they are unaware of Mr. Obama support of Mr. Odinga. Islamists have made it clear that they prefer Mr. Obama. For them, he is the candidate of choice. For Americans, now armed with this information how can they support Mr. Obama when his motives, his background, his associations are all suspect? Now that they know this information, how can they support Mr. Obama? This issue must be the source of soul-searching for every Obama supporter. Can they support in good conscience a candidate who supports a political ideology who goal and purpose is the destruction of our country, our culture, our religions? The leftist can choose to ignore this issue preferring to believe the explanations of the Kenyan Muslim leaders as quoted in the BBC and dismiss the matter entirely. But if they do, can all the other issues also be dismissed?
When these are taken in totality, the conclusion is that Mr. Obama ought never be the president of the United States. In the midst of existential war, in the midst of economic crisis at home, and possible future wars and conflicts, how can the American people elect someone with a history such as this?
Mr. Obama continues to falsify his record and dissemble about his associations with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezco and other questionable characters.
Mr. Obama’s associations and obfuscations about his past relationships with these men would prevent him from ever acquiring a U.S. government security classification. Could it be possible that we could have a President who is considered a security risk? Indeed! According to an FAQ about obtaining security clearance for job seakers the following is shown:
I’m Tempted to Keep Quiet About Something In My Past and Hope Nobody Finds Out.
If you conceal information on your security form or during your subject interview, an adjudicator may determine that you are unreliable and dishonest. In fact your clearance could be denied for withholding information or purposely lying, even though what you were seeking to conceal would not have resulted in an unfavorable clearance determination
There is little argument that Mr. Obama has been less than forthcoming about the truth of his associations. By the measure described above, Mr. Obama could not receive a security clearance from the US government.
Political Islam and its sharia law are the existential enemies of the United States and of freedom everywhere. Islam does not descriminate, everyone must submit to it. “Islam” translates literally to “Submission”. A Muslim is “one who submits to Allah”. All countries and cultures and peoples must submit to Allah. The goal of Islam is to bring about world domination of Islam and universal submission to Allah. (The history of Islamic expansion through Jihad is a bloody and horrible one. Read about the high cost of Jihad, here) In such a world there can be no democracy, and no United States as we understand the term to mean and as our Founding Fathers meant it to mean as empowered and characterized and guided by our Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama is favorable to sharia and is therefore excluded from any leadership role that requires him, as specified in the presidential oath of office, to: “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Sharia law is fundamentally opposed to the Constitution.
As the Koran is considered in the Islamic world to be perfect and, having originated directly from Allah to Mohammed, it cannot be changed, challenged, or questioned. There is little chance of changing the doctrine, though some are attempting it (see Muslims Against Sharia. As they say, “Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy.” Terror attacks from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers to 9/11, Madrid, London, Paris, Bali, Moscow, USS Cole, Beslan, attacks in Iraq and Israel to the recent bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, we have seen the methods of the terrorists quite clearly. Sharia and the expansion of Islam is their goal, destruction and enslavement of the kafir (the non-believer) is a requirement of all Muslims through Jihad. Islam means submission. All must submit.
Did Mr. Obama know about Mr. Odinga’s agreement with the Muslim leadership of Kenya to bring sharia law to that predominantly Christian country? Mr. Obama was educated in an Islamic school/madrassa in Indonesia- he must understand the basic foundations of Islamic doctrine. We will likely never know for certain if Mr. Obama was aware of the Memorandum. If the veracity of the document itself is questioned, and Mr. Obama will never discuss the matter, and no American journalist will likely ever ask him about it, is that matter an important one? It is, and here is why.
If we examine this matter from a legal perspective under American jurisprudence one must take a preponderance of evidence to come to a conclusion. The preponderance of evidence leads one to the conclusion that the document which Odinga and Muslim leadership signed stating that Sharia law would be implemented across Kenya within a year of his election is legitimate. Mr. Obama was in the country campaigning with Odinga on the day that the document was signed, it is possible that Mr. Obama was aware of the agreement. After the loss of Odinga his supporters went on violent rampages in Kenya even burning a church and its occupants. This response appears to show that the violent response to Odinga’s electoral defeat was against the Christian majority. Burning of churches and destruction of houses of worship are the tools of Jihad.
We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation…All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continued maltreatment [by Muslims] which well nigh crushes us. No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition.
Stirring up trouble, burning churches, terrorizing the population are all earmarks of Jihad.
Can Mr. Obama be held accountable for his associations with Mssrs Odinga, Wright, Rezco, Ayers, Farrakhan? He certainly can. We must not vote for him. Trust is the foundation of democracy. We must trust that the laws are just, and fix them if they aren’t; we must trust that our leaders are capable and honorable, and remove them if they prove otherwise; we must trust that our system of government is a good one, and protect it when it is under threat; we must know our leaders as best we can - that is the purpose of the lengthy election cycle.
We know Mr. Obama fairly well now from his actions and from his lack of veracity about his associations. The Odinga case is instructive because it adds another facet to the disturbing enigma that is Mr. Obama. If we give him credit, as does his senior foreign policy adviser that his understanding of the world is not outmatched by anyone, and we can come to the conclusion that the Odinga Memorandum signed by Odinga while Mr. Obama was campaigning in Kenya for him is legitimate (that is, not a fraud/forgery) then the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Obama was likely aware of the agreement. If he was aware of it, and we will never know this for sure, then he supported it because he was campaigning for Mr. Odinga.
Anyone who supports sharia law should be excluded from serving in any government or official position in the United States. Sharia law is contrary to democracy, freedom, equality, inclusiveness, justice, and religious plurality.
In this time of war, and economic difficulties, (in which Mr. Obama is deeply involved, and some would suggest culpable) the United States must have a president whose sense of duty, sense of honor and love of country are beyond question. Mr. Obama is not that man. This is an election about judgment. Mr. Obama demonstrates again and again a profound lack of good judgment. For example prior to the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which resulted in a spiraling failure of the American financial sector, Mr. Obama took campaign contributions from both, he “…received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.”
(Source, here and more, here.)
The former CEOs of these failed and corrupt institutions are now, or have been deeply involved in Obama’s campaign. Franklin Raines advises Obama on housing policy. Can anyone be less qualified to give advise on such matters? Mr. Johnson was the chair of Obama’s Vice Presidential search committee. “Johnson was appointed to head Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.” (See source above.)
Mr. Obama’s political, personal, professional, and advisory associations are all suspect and all show a serious lack of judgment on his part.
As Joe Biden, Mr. Obama’s Vice Presidential running-mate has stated recently, it is patriotic to pay higher taxes. (Source) Certainly, it is common knowledge that adding to the citizen’s tax burden during a time of economic contraction and crisis puts further strain on the economy and the people. Increasing taxes during a downturn does nothing to stimulate economic growth, quite the contrary. Another example, one of many, of poor judgment.
This may be one of the most important elections in American history, certainly on a par with the election of Roosevelt prior to WW2, or the election of Lincoln prior to the Civil War. In a struggle of existential proportions it is critical that our leadership be qualified, honorable, honest, and thoughtful more of what is best for the country rather than what is best for the next edition of one’s memoirs.
The failure of the mainstream press to vigorously pursue and investigate Mr. Obama’s associations and personal beliefs is a disservice to the American people. There are those on the left who are contrite in ignoring any contrary or disturbing information regarding their candidate’s questionable activities, and find no cause for concern. They seem pleased that the “change they need” is coming, and for some reason are confident that Wall Street crooks, and crooked politicians will be brought to justice and our enemies across the world will be either made our friends or effectively “dealt with”. They are confident for some reason that corruption will be eliminated and the guilty punished. There is far too much to be ignored however regarding Mr. Obama and what his real beliefs truly are.
The democratic party promises to fix the problems in the economy, and to bring America’s standing in the world to a glorious high through new friendships with those who mission is our destruction. We will provide our enemies with timetables they say so that our enemies can prepare for our departure and their victories; Mr. Obama says that he will talk with dictators and legitimize them and their cruelties and illegalities; Mr. Obama says that our military spending will be cut. This is naivete and shows a lack of understanding about how nations are governed and how nations interact. Mr. Obama promises to solve problems of the economy but uses two of the very people who caused the crisis as his advisers. The decision in November is a clear one. Mr. Obama is the lesser candidate.
It is decision time. You know what is at stake, and the character of the candidates are playing out every day on the campaign trail. Make the right decision on voting day.
The first presidential debate, September 26, 2008 was instructive for many reasons. Most importantly however is one comment made by the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, that is far more revealing of his character and mind-set than Mr. Obama had intended. (Debate transcript available here.)
During the discussion about Iraq and Afghanistan Senator McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet given to him by the parents of an American soldier killed in action in Baghad, and that he wore the bracelet with honor. The mother of this soldier, according to McCain’s telling of the event, implored him to “do everything in your power to make sure that my son’s death was not in vain.”
Not to be undone in such an emotionally charged moment, Senator Obama spoke of the bracelet that he wears for an American soldier killed in action. According to Mr. Obama, the mother of Sergeant Jopeck implored him to make “sure another mother is not going through what I’m going through” which is taken to mean the loss of a son in war.
Both mothers are right and all Americans share in their grief. But the next sentence spoken by Mr. Obama shattered the good feeling and opened the closet of Mr. Obama’s innermost thoughts for all to see.
“No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided.”
This is not a slip of the tongue, in the classic Freudian sense. It is a statement of purpose and belief, clear as day. It is loaded with meaning that is as unpleasant yet as instructive an any of the other disturbing and self-serving statements made by the Democratic candidate throughout the campaign.
Freud in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (given 1915-1917 at the University of Vienna, available here) describes a “slip of the tongue” as instructive to the nature and subconscious truth of the person uttering it. The slip of the tongue, uttering something not consciously meant to be spoken demonstrates a clash of “two mutually interfering purposes”.
“One of the two, the purpose that is disturbed, is of course unmistakable: the person who makes the slip of the tongue knows it and admits to it. It is only the other, the disturbing purpose, that can give rise to doubt and hesitation. Now, we have already seen, and in no doubt you have not forgotten, that in a number of cases this other purpose is equally evident. It is indicated by the outcome (italics in original) of the slip, if only we have the courage to grant that outcome a validity of its own.” (p.57)
…
“Do you not feel inclined to object that the information given by the person of whom the question was asked - the person who made the slip of the tongue - is not completely conclusive? He was naturally anxious, you think, to fulfill the request to explain the slip, so he said the first thing that came into his head which seemed capable of providing such an explanation. But that is no proof that the slip did in fact take place in that way. It may (emphasis in original) have been so, but it may just as well have happened otherwise. And something else might have occurred to him that would have fitted in as well or perhaps even better.” (p.58-59)
The two mutually interfering purposes according to Freud and other psychoanalysts is the obfuscation of the person’s truthful feelings by answering with another response that might be more palatable to the listener or less damaging in the telling. This is a common human activity brilliantly identified by Freud. All of us occasionally have a tongue slip or Freudian slip in which we say things we hadn’t meant to say that are closer to our true feeling than we had meant to communicate.
Mr. Obama’s recent slip of the tongue in which he mentioned to George Stephanopoulous that “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not ahh, talked about my Muslim faith…” (see the film clip of this instructive comment and stunning “slip of the tongue” here.) A responsible and professional journalist would have questioned Mr. Obama with something like “Mr. Obama what did you mean by just saying ‘your Muslim faith’?” Instead Stephanopoulus “corrected” the candidate saying, “you meant your Christian faith”. This was a miserable moment for both men.
This Freudian slip of Obama is potentially very important as it illustrates what is going on in his private unconscious mind, and it shows the ethical bankruptcy of the interviewer. In contrast to the secrets that Freudian slips often divulge quite unintentionally, Mr. Obama’s statement at the first presidential debate that
“No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided.”
is more important in that there is no psychoanalytical confusion involved with it. This is a clear statement of belief on Mr. Obama’s part. There is no debating whether he meant what he said or not (as in a Freudian “slip of the tongue”). It is obvious and clear as steel and as easily understood as any definitive statement made so far in the campaign.
All good and patriotic Americans appreciate the service of our men and women in uniform. All good and patriotic Americans mourn whenever our soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, or national or coast guard personnel are killed our wounded. Our service men and woman serve with the understanding that they may be called to make sacrifices for their country, and in the service of their country.
American soldiers swear an oath when they enlist (available here and here).
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
National Guard (Army or Air) personnel also swear to be obey the orders of their respective state governor.
Mr. Obama’s statement that American soldiers killed in war have not died in vain because they have obeyed the orders of their Commander in Chief (the President) is a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the relationship between America’s armed forces and its government and its leadership (in the person of the President, most specifically).
American soldiers serve and sacrifice in the defense of the nation itself and in defense of the Constitution upon which the nation is built and the freedoms which are derived from it. While soldiers in combat often make extreme sacrifices and show extreme bravery and courage and selflessness for one another, their overall sacrifices even to the sacrifice of their lives are not validated nor given value because, as Mr. Obama believes, they have carried out the “missions of their commander in chief”. Duty to country, to the Constitution, and to American freedom are the motivators of those who serve in the American military. The sacrifices of our soldiers are not validated due to obedience to orders of one person, the commander in chief.
Lincoln said, in the Gettysburg address (available here):
“We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live.”
A recent article (available here) about the history of African-Americans in the United States military summarized the motivations of American soldiers as follows:
“Since the birth of America, African-Americans have been fighting and dying alongside their countrymen as the United States has struggled for freedom and peace at home and abroad. “
American soldiers fight and die to uphold the Constitution, secure the country, and for freedom and peace at home and abroad. American soldiers do not fight for their “commander in chief”.
The President is the “commander in chief” of the Armed Forces of the United States. As the United States is not a dictatorship, nor a tyranny, but a democracy and a representative republic our military fights for the country and the ideals of democracy and freedom upon which it was founded. In the military sense, the commander in chief’s orders are to be obeyed but such orders and obedience to same do not in themselves legitimize or explain the sacrifices of our soldiers, as Mr. Obama believes. The foundational ideas of freedom and democracy are what brings us to war and brings our men and women to take up weapons in our country’s defense.
Mr. Obama’s misunderstanding and mischaracterization of why American’s fight and for what reasons Americans die in war is disturbing. The President is the commander-in-chief of the military, but he/she is not the embodiment of the state or nation itself. The oath that our soldiers take upon enlistment is clear on this point. The oath of enlistment is not an oath to the person of the President, but rather acknowledges the position of the President as leader of the nation, and leader of the military forces protecting and defending the nation.
The President of the United States is not the state nor an embodied symbol of it. However, there have been recent examples of countries in which the leader was considered the embodiment of the state and, in such cases, the state itself. The most telling and instructive example in recent history is Germany during WW2.
All German soldiers were required to take an oath of obedience to Hitler (available here) personally-not to the German state or nation but to Hitler himself. The Fuhrer was the state. So, when German soldiers died in battle it is accurate to say that they “did not die in vain because they had carried out the mission of their commander in chief” (to paraphrase Mr. Obama).
The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934
“I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.”
Americans do not take oaths to their commander in chief. Americans serve their country and their fellow Americans. The commander in chief has a four year mandate (renewable for another four, if re-elected), given to him/her through elections by the people of the country. There is nothing divine about them, nothing in our democratic representative form of democracy that would suggest that anyone give a personal oath to the President.
Mr. Obama’s goal is to become the Commander-in-Chief. His recent comment that demonstrates his misunderstanding of the relationship between the President and those who wear the uniform of the United States is deeply troubling. Mr. Obama’s belief is out of context with American history; it clearly demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about how the American political system functions and most importantly about the relationship between the Executive and the military.
But for Mr. Obama himself, he is perfectly in context. This disturbing megalomania precludes Mr. Obama from high office.
Addendum: The mother of Sgt. Jopek mentioned above had asked Barack Obama to not wear Sgt. Jopek’s bracelet at any public forum after the bracelet was given to him in Green Bay, Wisconsin recently, and Sgt. Joepek was mentioned in Obama’s speech there. According to the Sgt.’s father (now divorced) in a story posted on ABC News “Political Punch”:
“She had told me that in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet anymore at any of his public appearances.”
It is not mentioned in the story how Mrs. Jopek made her request to Mr. Obama or if he acknowledged it. Needless to say, Mr. Obama’s mentioning this brave heroes death, the wearing of his bracelet, and the subsequent statement upon which this blog post is based has opened a new line of national discussion and soul searching that Mr. Obama would likely have preferred remained closed. (See story here.)
The Presidential campaign of 2008 ended this afternoon with the suspension of John McCain and Sarah Palin’s campaign. Their stunning announcement is the sea-change moment of this election cycle. Now the truth and a leader emerges. The leadership we need in this time of war and crisis in our financial markets has arrived. The election of 2008 will signal not only the presidency of John McCain but the demise of the Democratic party in its current form.
The suspension today of John McCain’s presidential campaign is the turning point in the election. Of the two key moments thus far in this election season, the first at Saddleback forum and now this stunning announcement by McCain and Obama’s inability to understand and respond appropriately to it - today’s events are by far the most important.
McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign and ask for a delay for the upcoming Mississippi debate is high risk and shows excellent leadership qualities. It is a demonstration of leadership to recognize a crisis, make a decision based entirely upon that crisis, understand and accept one’s duty and take action. McCain is a leader. Mr. Obama is not.
Mr. Obama says that the debate will go on - he simply cannot see that he has a duty as a US Senator, just as McCain does to return to Washington and help resolve this worst financial crisis since 1929. McCain’s slogan is “Country First” and he lives it. Suspending his campaign to get a growing crisis that could have disastrous consequences for the entire world under control is the mark of a leader. McCain can see, where Obama cannot, that this crisis could derail the economy of the world not just that of the United States. As a US Senator McCain saw his duty and acted. He is not a professional candidate. His job remains as a US Senator until the election is over and he takes his place in the Oval Office. Mr. Obama’s inability to understand the gravity of the situation and take his place in Washington where duty calls him is stunning and instructive. The contrast between these two men cannot be more stark than it is today.
The American people are waking up to the fraud that is Mr. Obama. Without any significant experience, with no accomplishments of moment, and with few intimates speaking his praises Mr. Obama is a fraud with only Lyndon Johnson perhaps on the same level. We are understood by our accomplishments and our associations. Mr. Obama has few accomplishments in comparison to McCain or Governor Palin. His associations are with radicals and extremists.
This campaign for Mr. Obama is clearly about Mr. Obama while for McCain it is about his country. The country desparately needs leadership now as the corrupt fools in Washington and Wall Street who broke the economy and walked away with millions in perks, profits, and “golden parachutes” even as the house of cards they had built collapsed around them quickly try to make a repair. But the damage is immense, almost beyond reckoning - it is time for strong and decisive leadership to get us through this astounding mess.
This disgusting scandal of corporate and government greed and incompetence has the potential to swallow the entire country and the rest of the world up in its darkness. We need leadership and solutions now. McCain saw his duty and acted. Suspending his campaign was the right thing to do. Even pulling his adds from television McCain is a serious man. His approach is bi-partisan, unlike Obama’s. Our economy is on a razor’s edge and now is the time for leadership. We need a solution that will not break the economy and ruin citizens and we need to see the criminals behind this debacle do their obligatory “perp walks” to court, then on to jail where they belong.
Today we saw McCain step up and take decisive action based upon his responsibilities as a US Senator and as an American patriot. In comparison we have seen Mr. Obama continue on with the campaign insisting that the debate scheduled for several days hence “will go on”. Mr. Obama is out of context. His followers and the entire Democratic Party are out of context. He is out of context because for him and his acolytes this race is clearly now about him and little else. He does not consider his duty to country the overriding issue in the campaign nor for himself personally. This atttitude precludes him from the presidency.
The Democratic party will never be the same after this election. The American left, self-hating and self-destructive, arrogant and aggressive and hateful must be re-tooled; its moral and ethical corruption and confusion rooted out. As demonstrated by its leaders particularly Mr. Obama the Democratic party is a self-motivated monstrosity. It is a failed political party. It must be reorganized and restructured. Only with a thorough re-assessment by the few rational voices left in the party will it ever be relevant again. Today’s events have brought clarity through the haze of the lies and manipulations from the Left. The American people can now see the truth so clearly displayed before them.
During times of war and crisis our country needs leadership built on character, decisiveness and recognition of duty to others and to country. McCain has demonstrated these things. Motivated by duty and principle McCain has put his campaign on the line and suspended it choosing his duty at the Capitol over the hustings.
This risky decision will pay off in a big way as the American people can now see who is ready to lead and which candidate puts country and duty over self, over ambition, over partisanship. Mr. Obama is the lesser candidate. Refusing to recognize the financial crisis for the critical problem that it is, Obama insists that the debates must continue without a break in the schedule. This is lunacy. During the campaign up to this turning point of today McCain had repeatedly requested that Obama debate him at TownHall style forums again and again. Every time Obama refused. This is much bigger than debates. McCain “gets it”, Obama clearly does not.
This election is not about change. It is not about Mr. Obama, regardless of his own high opinion of himself. It is rather about the very future of our country. Now is the time for leadership, and strong decisions to pull us out of this absurd fiscal corruption spiral that the greedy and the foolish have brought upon us. Now is the time for leadership in war and in peace. Now is the time to unite the country and build bridges that lead to the future and not to nowhere. We have found the bridge builder, the man driven by duty and responsibility. It is John McCain.
The people can see the truth. It is clear. The leader has emerged and that is the purpose of election cycles. In the midst of crisis and war we have found the man and the woman to lead us for the next 4 years.
The election is over - it ended this day, September 24, 2008 when John McCain suspended his campaign and headed back to Washington. It ended today when Barack Obama refused to return to Washington. It is clear now to all - Barack Obama’s campaign is about Barack Obama. John McCain’s campaign is about the future of the United States. The campaign is over, and so is the Democratic party in its current form.
“The core assumptions of the post-cold war years collapsed almost as soon as they were formulated,” writes Robert Kagan in the Return of History and the End of Dreams (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2008). This is accurate, but not entirely. Some assumptions that have been consistent for over ten centuries have never collapsed and are now, post 9/11 resurgent. The minimization and mischaracterization of the threat of expansionist political Islam is the central error in an otherwise excellent analysis and word portrait of likely things to come.
Kagan’s book is important not only because its author is one of John McCain’s leading foreign policy advisors but for its keen yet flawed understanding of geopolitics. So incisive in some areas, but so mistaken in others, Return of History and End of Dreams is a mixed success.
Most importantly Kagan’s confidence in the inevitable failure of Islamist goals is dangerously mistaken. At the core of Kagan’s book is the growing conflict between democracies and autocracies. The United States and Russia/China are at the center of these two opposing blocks, but this conflict is only half the battle that the United States faces.
The other battle is with Islamist terrorism and demographic expansion of non-assimilating Muslim immigrants, jihad does not necessarily require bombs. No less a definitive conflict than that with autocratic regimes the fight against the political ideology of Islam is as dire and important. It is critically important that the United States and our allies balance our attentions and resources between these two conflicts.
Recent unpleasant events in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, Russian threats against Poland in response to the latter’s acceptance of American missile defense systems, and Russian support of Iran, among many other similar events in the same vein have all but vindicated Kagan’s central thesis; that the end of the cold war did not bring a new, unprecedented, shining peaceful world order. It was, rather, a pause in the never-ending game of politics, conflict, and self-interest that nations play on the world stage.
The relief felt in the west at the implosion of the “Evil Empire” was short-lived; 1989 (fall of the Berlin Wall) and 1991 (disillusion of the Soviet Union) now seem like events of the distant past. Kagan argues a strong case that a resurgent Russia with its autocratic, pseudo-democratic, totalitarian-style capitalism will be at the core of a great new international conflict, not necessarily leading to open war, that will pit democracies against autocracies. Flush with oil capital and apparently still smarting from the loss of its former regional supremacy and international super-power status Russia is belligerent and bellicose and not afraid to both rattle its saber and also occasionally pull it from its sheath. Kagan suggests that we are entering a new Cold War-type era but just like the first Cold War we live in dangerous times.
Europe’s response to WWII and the Cold War was a greater reliance of American power and a concomitant diminishment of their own military capabilities. There seemed a heady long moment after 1989 in which the European Union’s foundational concepts of the unity of formerly antagonistic European nations would extent to eastern Europe and enfold the former Soviet Republics on Russia’s western frontier if not Russia herself in its cooperative, supranational embrace. After the Cold War Russia seemed to be lurching towards a kind of democracy that would be understandable, workable, and most importantly, non-expansionist. There was hope in the West and in western Europe that Russia would be brought into the fold of the EU concept where formerly military conflicts would be adjudicated at The Hague and battlefields would run red with capital gains and losses rather than blood. The invasion of Georgia blasts these conceptions to dust.
Now that Russia is openly belligerent, bellicose, and expansionist what response can Europe have? Insufficient in military capabilities to deal with the threat and entirely (and understandably) adverse to conflicts that might involve continental powers, and under severe domestic immigration pressures of their own making, Europe is now almost powerless against an expansionist Russia.
The eradication of national borders, national currencies, and state-based military power has now backfired. Proponents of the EU have created a European multicultural bubble of apparent economic unity, opportunity, and most importantly an absence of warfare between member states but stricken with devastating societal pressures from non-assimilating (and often violent) Muslim immigrants. The price of peace is quite high.
Kagan writes that, “the post-modern, ‘post-national’ spirit of the European Union was Europe’s response to the horrific conflicts of the twentieth century, when nationalism and power politics twice destroyed the continent.” What then can the response be of a block of countries who are understandably averse to war when faced by a nation such as Russia or Iran having no such qualms?
Since WWII, Europe has relied upon the United States for its security while criticizing and castigating it for it’s ‘militarism’. Can there have been the funds to create an EU with its programs and expensive universal benefits if the member states were still required to support significant standing armies for their own defense? As Russia continues to flex its not-inconsiderable economic and military muscles thus challenging the post-Cold War post-modern concepts of European peace, the EU will certainly move closer to the United States.
Kagan writes that, “the great fallacy of our era has been the belief that a liberal international order rests on the triumph of ideas and on the natural unfolding of human progress.”
Kagan’s insight is accurate as there are clearly forces at work in the world that do not have the same concepts of “progress” as those held by western democratic societies. The international stage upon which nation states have always come together and apart in alliances, conflicts and warfare has not been reworked since the fall of the Soviet Union. Kagan is clear on this point and his analysis of the near and far future has a decided ring of truth about it. But it is not the “one ring” - the British understand this as do the French and the Americans. The reawakened “Russian Bear” has announced in no uncertain terms, most clearly in its recent invasion of Georgia and threats against Poland, that it has once again made a quite loud entrance on the world stage and will likely not make a gracious exit any time in the near future. Wealthy, with money and weaponry to spare (and sell), and anxious to reestablish its lost respect and honor, Russia is once again a serious open opponent of the West. Kagan’s analysis of the current and likely near future international situation is impressive but for one no at all minor consideration- the minimization of the very real threat of expansionist Islamism.
The threat of the political Islamist movement is discussed in only six pages of Return of History. The issue is essentially dismissed rather than analyzed in any depth. Kagan describes the goals of the Islamists as a “hopeless dream”. His dismissal of this threat is a serious error in analysis. Even after 9/11, London, Paris, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Istanbul, constant attacks in Israel, and so many other terror attacks perpetrated by Islamists so few analysts demonstrate a deep understanding of this existential threat. It is a serious mistake to suggest that these events of terror are only the actions of isolated extremists. While the United States focuses its national energies on propping up and defending the EU and facing off against Russia - and perhaps China and other autocracies - we will lose the war here at home precisely as it is being lost in Britain and France through demographic jihad. Democracy vs. autocracy is not necessarily an existential conflict The war declared upon us by Islamists is existential. As assailed as is Israel, the West seems unable to believe it.
Mr. Kagan’s insights into international geopolitics are, in the main, so insightful it is discomforting and bizarre that he should minimize and so mischaracterize the conflict between freedom and Islamist expansionism so completely.
It is a lonely and ultimately desperate fight, however, for in the struggle between traditionalism and modernity, tradition cannot win - even though traditional forces armed with modern weapons, technologies, and ideologies can do horrendous damage.
He is not altogether mistaken, but he has missed the point entirely.
The conflict between the West and expansionist and political Islam is not a conflict between tradition vs. modernity. Islam represents an all-encompassing belief system that, in its totality, is antithetical to the foundations of modern democratic societies such as those in Western Europe and the United States. Islamic states do not reject the benefits of modernity - Riyadh, Dubai, and Kuwait City are certainly illustrative - they embrace them; but they do not share the concepts of modern thought regarding religious tolerance, women’s equality, peaceful coexistence, freedom of speech, and liberal republican forms of government driven by the voice of the citizens through their representatives. The forces of political Islam do not ascribe to modern ideologies as Kagan’s suggest, theirs is an ideology from the 7th century. The age of their philosophy ought not to confuse analysts, they are more than happy to employ modern tools in their jihad against the West.
The vast majority of the people of the Middle East have no desire to go back 1400 years, proclaims Kagan.
This may be so but it cannot be proven, and in it’s delivery is a misleading assertion. There appears to be little of the luddite in the Islamist’s goals, only the dominance of their religious, political, and societal concepts to the exclusion of all others. However, if there is such a “vast majority” as suggested by Kagan who do wish for peace and democracy and freedom of speech and religious tolerance but are silent while an “extremist” minority runs their countries and controls every aspect of their spiritual, political, and intellectual lives, what does it matter what Kagan’s silent, compliant “peace-loving” and progressive “majority” believes?
Kagan suggests that the autocrats of China and Russia are behind the change in political positioning and approach that will likely separate the world into two opposing democratic and autocratic camps. But, he does not discuss the “vast majority” of Russians or Chinese. Why aren’t the “majorities” of China and Russia as salient to Kagan as the “majorities” in the Islamic world, “the vast majority of the people of the Middle East”? And what of these supposed silent “majorities” who, much like those of the Islamic world, would prefer freedom to tyranny and representation in government to dictats from some central committee of autocrats and theocrats?
If the “majority” is in silent conflict with their governments they are of no moment in this ugly calculous of geopolitics for as goes the government, so goes the population until such time as the government abjures totalitarianism and cares for the will of the people, or these governments are overturned and new ones put in their place. If such a population of silent dissent exists in the Muslim world, what options for dissent and reform do they have?
Where was the outcry from moderate peaceful Islam after 9/11, Bali, London, Madrid, etc.? The silence has been deafening. Thousands did however came out in the streets across the world to protest satirical cartoons of Mohammed but less than a pittance spoke out in public about the violence perpetrated by fellow religionists. In some Muslim countries people were seen dancing in the streets as the Twin Towers burned and fell on 9/11.
In societies where questioning the holy books is punishable by death; where non Muslims are not afforded equal rights; where women are less than second-class citizens; where conversion is forbidden and punishable by death; where homosexuals and adulterers are stoned, hung, and beheaded; where children are considered legitimate carriers of explosives and sent on suicide/murder missions; where expansion, conquest, anti-Semitism and a deeply troubling duality of falsehood and truth (the Koranic concept of taqiyya; Koran, 16:106; Ishaq 224; Ishaq 771) how can the “silent majority” who certainly must exist according to Kagan even begin to start a discussion that could lead to reform? Kagan’s calculous falls on the swords of the religion of peace.
The “cartoon controversy” of 2005 is ample illustration of the deep challenges faced by non- Muslim societies in Europe and North America. The worldwide extreme response across the Islamic world against the Danish cartoons is as illustrative as 9/11 and all the other terror attacks that have occurred in the West, Israel, or Iraq. “Islam” means submission. The message of the violent Jihadists and cultural warriors of Islam is that adherents and non-adherents alike must submit to their ideas of society, government, and jurisprudence. After Germany was defeated, there was a de-nazified Germany; after the communist countries fell, there were post-communist societies. Where Islamism and sharia have prevailed, there have rarely been post-Islamic societies. Once a society is Islamized it rarely takes a different path or returns to a previous political or social system. This is certainly an existential struggle. 9/11 and the “cartoon” reaction are two sides of one coin - global jihad. Muslims are specifically commanded by Koran to participate in jihad, not doing so is apostasy. Muslims are not allowed to question the Koran or Islamic law. A fundamental purpose of global jihad is to make non-Muslims obey the laws of Islam or face the consequences.
And what of Kagan and his autocracies vs. democracies world view? Kagan negates this greatest of struggles and minimizes what is at stake - nothing less than national and cultural survival. The West is faced with violent jihad and long-term-horizon cultural jihad through non-assimilation and demographic conquest - the very challenges faced by France and Britain today. Expansionist political Islam and its supporters strike terror on the one hand and gain legitimacy on the other while the West sleeps and is preoccupied with autocrats in Beijing, Tehran, and Moscow. The uses of multiculturalism are myriad most notably to those forces whose goal is the destruction of those societies having multiculturalism at their core.
Winston Churchill spoke against appeasement prior to WWII. Churchill said of Islamism that
no stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedism is a militant and proselytizing faith.
In our politically correct world of carbon footprint obsessions, multiculturalism, empty chants of “change”, in our world of hot wars, an apparent new Cold War, and this ongoing jihad against us, it is astounding that the people of Europe and the United States who embrace inclusiveness and tolerance, will not speak out and give a name to the forces of intolerance, exclusion and violence among us.
One would have thought on 9/10 that the events of 9/11 and beyond would suffice to hearken the populations of the West to this grave existential threat. Following attacks in London, Paris, Bali, and Madrid, there continues to be appeasement for political Islam and sharia but a hardline against Russian hegemony in Georgia. The clear hegemonic behavior of aggressor states is much easier for the western mind to comprehend than terrorism and demographic conquest. We fail to learn the dangers at our peril.
This confusion of conflicts pulls us in several directions - now, thanks to Return to History and End of Dreams we are told that the critical threat is but a “hopeless dream” of the jihadists and that we ought to give our attentions more to the democracy-aristocracy conflict.
There is a glaring fault line in Kagan’s minimization of political Islam and its growing internal and external threat to the United States. The experience of England and France in particular is illustrative of the dangers of demographic jihad against the West. After decades of almost unfettered immigration - in large part from Muslim countries - Britain and France now have the painful challenge of integrating millions of immigrants who are opposed to the culture and political system of their host countries and demonstrate little interest in assimilation. Inspired by hate speech from mosque pulpits, the Islamic minorities of Europe support by their silence and deeds the extremist agenda of their jihadist coreligionists. The United States now faces the same problems, but not on such an extreme level, yet, as that faced by many European nations. Lack of immigration controls and multiculturalist ideas that limit a society’s ability to defend itself against non-assimilating cultures are at the root of this problem.
“One of the problems with making the struggle against Islamic terrorism the sole focus of American foreign policy,” Kagan writes, “is that it produces illusions about alliance and cooperation with other great powers with whom genuine alliance is becoming impossible.”
Alliances based on mutual aid against common threats (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is as common an approach to statecraft for as long as there have been nation states and long before. Such alliances are not “illusion” in the past they have often been necessities (the Russo-German pact then the Soviet/Allied pact come to mind). In the midst of conflicts some take more precedence than others, and these ought to be the foundations for new and unexpected alliances in the future. For Kagan to suggest that nontraditional alliances between states in conflict is illusory is an error of analysis and suggestion. Could one have foreseen a U.S.- Soviet alliance after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1940? And, even more importantly, the Lend-Lease program kept the Soviets fighting on the Eastern front when, without it, they may have fallen to Nazi conquest. Mutual challenges and mutual enemies make strange bedfellows. It has always been so. Such alliances of mutual need and temporary convenience and necessity should not be dismissed so cavalierly. And upon such temporary agreements, new more permanent relationships can be born.
After 9/11 and numerous terror attacks across Europe, the Far and Middle East since with Islamist goals of dominance at their core, expansionist Islam is the fundamental challenge facing every non-Islamic state in the world - autocracies included. Mutual challenges can bridge the gap between antagonists otherwise engaged with each other. The challenges of today that pit absolutism and intolerance against democracies can be, and ought to be, the unifying issue that unites otherwise antagonistic nations. Global Islamist terrorism is a clear signal to the United States, China, Russia, and even those secular Arab states that are seen by the Islamists as insufficiently orthodox. The fight against Islamist terror and the political and religious zealots who use such cruel tactics is, essentially, part of a global conflict and world war already underway.
In the last world war unexpected alliances were made brought about by the recognition of mutual threats and common interests. The profound lack of respect that Islamism has for the cultures of the west and our lives is not difficult to understand. The innocent dead of 9/11, Beslan and London, Madrid, Bali, Paris, etc., are the binding forces of a new international contract of cooperation - or, at least, ought to be.
Islamism is the common threat faced by China, Russia, and the United States. Recent Islamist violence in China during the Olympics is evidence that even highly controlled societies like China’s are not immune to the threat of global jihad. No country, and no political system is immune.
Kagan has missed the point. The United States, its allies and rivals are all under threat of terror and worse by the jihadists of a global expansionist, violent, political philosophy. If Mr. Kagan does indeed have the ear of the next president, I hope that he will say to him, “Let us form surprising new alliances. Let us acknowledge this mutual existential threat and fight it together with our friends and rivals. Let us be the guide for our former rivals - now friends - to the City on the Hill and hope and pray that they follow.”
An Important Story Goes Untold - Ted Kennedy and the KGB
by Daniel Mallock
If the claims of author Paul Kengor in a recent Frontpage magazine interview are accurate, one of this country’s senior democratic Senators had what appears to be highly questionable and likely inappropriate communications with the government of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, or worse.
Mr. Kengor claims that he has a bombshell document which came directly from the KGB archives (discovered after Yeltsin opened them to western researchers) that has been vetted by scholars of Soviet archival materials and deserves a wider hearing by the American people. I agree entirely.
This story is worthy of investigation and discussion.
Why has this story not been given more media play than it has up to this point, which is to say, very little? Are we afraid to discuss issues because they are politically incorrect, or perhaps because the mainstream media is awash in self-censorship and will not discuss issues that may be detrimental to the leadership of the Left?
A good and professional investigative journalist would possibly undertake a discussion with the Senator’s office on this issue as a reasonable first step. Querying the office of the Senator as to weather or not the document was known to them, and was legitimate would be one of the first steps in the investigation. This was done:
For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.
Such an allegation relating to an American leader, living or dead, currently serving or retired deserves a fair hearing and a proper intensive investigation. If this document from the KGB archives is legitimate - the response from Kennedy’s office would suggest that it is - it is certainly worthy of further study and discussion. Mr. Kengor states that the document has been both investigated and vetted:
It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”
But, according to Mr. Kengor, no western mainstream media outlet will run this story or put their “investigative journalists” onto the issue. In addition, Kengor had additional analysis done on the document.
I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.
It would appear that Mr. Kengor has done his homework.
Isn’t this potentially very serious issue worthy of investigation by America’s “objective” journalists? Where are they? Why is Kengor’s recent interview in Frontpage one of the few public discussions of this matter? Partisan political opinion should not prevent anyone from investigating this matter further. Nor should political correctness concerns prevent investigators, historians, and analysts from uncovering the full truth about this or any other controversial issue.
American journalists should be Americans first and foremost, political commentators and political partisans second. Certainly, our politicians have the same responsibility?
It has become a new theme in American “journalism” to be activist writers rather than the chroniclers and reporters of truth. Partisanship and “Journalism” are not complimentary.
“We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger,” said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College.” (source)
The letter in question in the KGB archive was a forwarding of an offer by Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy as presented by his “old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California” to:
… reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president—Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.”
This is a potentially very serious matter. If the letter is a true communication from a US Senator (currently still in office) to high officials of the Soviet government whose purpose was to undermine the policies of this country - this is a serious matter indeed.
American journalists should be investigating this issue and either dismissing it as as silly or an innocent and misunderstood communication, or they should be pursuing it as something much more serious. They should go where the truth leads them - that is their mission and little else.
It is insufficient to dismiss this issue as something out of some classic partisan political playbook during an election cycle, or as something that could not possibly be so, or as something unworthy of American journalists due to Mr. Kennedy’s recent health problems.
For American journalists there should be nothing more important that finding the truth as isn’t that the mandate for a free press in a free society?
If the silence from the mainstream press on this potentially explosive issue is on account of some bizarre form of self-censorship or some kind-hearted conception of “protecting” public people from old mistakes or “unfortunate” events long in the past, it is an abrogation of the fundamental purpose of journalism in a free society.
The suggestions in the Frontpage interview regarding this previously undiscussed document are extraordinary. This document from the KGB archives must be investigated by independent sources and investigators. Mr. Kengor has stated that that is exactly what he wants - independent validation and discussion of this document. Mr. Kengor is confident that it is a legitimate document and, if so, what on earth can it mean? On its face, it is particularly unpleasant and belies a nasty partisanship on the part of a currently serving American political leader.
Even in a jaded world, it is breathtaking to discover a U.S. senator — brother of a former president — actively and secretly collaborating with Soviet leaders in an attempt to undermine the president of the United States’ nuclear defense policy during the height of the cold war.
Partisanship in journalism belongs on the Op/Ed pages, not in the body of reportage. This story may or may not now have any “legs”, but it remains for the journalists of this country - if there are any left without a partisan political bias - to refute or confirm the contents and character of this very disturbing letter from the archives of the KGB. It is the duty of the American press to report the truth, regardless of their opinion on the matter under discussion. Anything less is unworthy of the “profession” and a disservice to the American people.
Recent disturbing events in Naples that have shocked Europe and sent shockwaves around the world from the United States to Australia, and an Indian immigrant’s congressional candidacy in the state of Tennessee are two polar opposites of the same coin.
Over the weekend just past two young Gypsy girls went for a quick swim at a crowded beach in Naples, Italy. They were caught up apparently in rough surf and both were drowned. Their bodies were recovered and placed under towels on the sand. Beachgoers continued to relax, drink their drinks, chat their chat, and enjoy their day at the beach only feet away from the bodies of the two unfortunate children. “Indifference is not an emotion for human beings,” said the Archbishop of Naples cardinal Crescenzio Sepe in horrified response to learning of the events and seeing the photos showing people relaxing nearby the two bodies.
English newspaper “The Independent” describes a now ubiquitous photo of the two girls under towels and beach goers relaxing in the background in “The picture that shames Italy”. The majority of media coverage on this horrible story places it in the context of Italian racism against the Roma (Gypsies).
While there is an ongoing conflict between Italians and Roma placement of this event in that context alone misses the point entirely.
This failure of human compassion and respect shown so appallingly at the beach in Naples is an illustrative moment not only of indifference by Europeans towards Gypsy children who have died in a tragedy it is also indicative of a much larger failure across western society. Not only in Italy have there been such cases where passers-by stand mute to a tragedy; where a lack of interest in others’ pain lead to inaction and further tragedy; where individuals are denied aid and comfort because bystanders are indifferent and lack compassion.
Italian newspaper “La Repubblica”, as quoted in USA Today, reported that “While the lifeless bodies of the girls were still on the sand, there were those who carried on sunbathing or having lunch just a few meters away.” According to the press in Europe and around the world this event and the photo showing people completely unaffected by the tragedy have caused a “furor” and “shock” - which it should. But, it should also bring with it a great deal of soul searching for us all.
Those callous people at the beach relaxing near the bodies of the two girls have been described as disinterested and “unmoved”. This is a lack of compassion, and a complete ignorance as to what is considered civilized behavior around tragedy, death, and loss.
This loss of perspective is closer to nihilism than it is to what we in the United States understand European culture, in its best forms, to represent. The events on the beach, the passivity of the beachgoers and their complete lack of concern or empathy for the two drowned girls and their families is illustrative of a deep cultural break that is not limited to Italy alone - it is rife across the West.
A society without compassion is a broken society; a culture that does not respect death, or have a care for the deep loss and tragedy of others is deeply troubled; the west is at a moral and ethical crossroads illustrated by the horribly thoughtless and cruel events at the Naples beach in which the majority appear to have no understanding that they are in the wrong. This moral confusion is the foundation upon which Islam makes such large inroads into western societies. Typified in the United States by leftist’s moral relativism and confusion that, in its more dangerous and absurd embodiments, identifies climate changes as the greatest threat to Americans and ignores the clear and present dangers of terrorism, radicalism, and cultural indifference to standards and morality - the culture of the west is the perfect place for philosophies of absolutism like Islamism to gain ground.
Islam is considered the fastest growing religion in the world, but why should be this be so? In a society where previous norms have been over-turned, and previously understood and universally accepted fundamental concepts of culture and how we relate to others are in doubt, absolutist philosophies can take root at a much faster rate. We are seeing it daily.
The rise of Islamism and radicalism, terrorism, and leftist subversion of cultural and political institutions and norms have put the United States and Europe at grave risk. When people aren’t sure anymore what to believe in because the old institutions and foundations of society have been deconstructed and undermined, absolutist philosophies and religions can appear attractive - mainly on account of their complete surety on every issue. New adherents no longer are required to think, as all decisions have already been made.
This rise of absolutist thinking and in particular religions with violence and misogyny at their core is a grave threat to our culture and country. There are few who seem to understand this, and fewer still who will take a stand and speak out. In Nashville, there is one man who is speaking out, speaking truth and even more importantly he is running for Congress in the 5th Tennessee Congressional District, ironically Al Gore’s home district. Mr. Vijay Kumar’s candidacy gives me a sense of pride in my city and gives me hope that the American people will have a voice in Congress on the most critically important issues of our time.
Mr. Kumar is the only person in American politics who I am aware of running for national office on a solid Reagan Conservative foundation but with a great twist. Mr. Kumar is entirely anti-Sharia. In fact, his stand against the encroachment of Sharia into our culture and institutions is the premier platform of his campaign.
Sharia is the brutal “legal system” of Islam that the Islamic extremists want to implement in this country and every country in the world. The American people need to hear Mr. Kumar’s voice, fully knowledgeable on this issue and dedicated to defending American institutions and sovereignty. We face a very determined enemy whose goal is nothing less than the complete undermining of our institutions, system of government and justice, and accepted cultural norms. The horizon of the Islamists is a long one, much longer than most Americans, used to quick solutions and unaware in the main of history and political contexts that explain these tactics, can conceive.
Mr. Kumar is an immigrant to these shores. How fitting that an immigrant, as we all Americans were at one time, should be the clearest voice for defense against the cultural and society-wide onslaught that we face from the Islamist extremists. Must we have another 9/11 before the majority of our people will awaken to this cataclysm that is encroaching upon us? Even today in New York, the Islamists want to advertise their special brand of religion, on the public subways! We must stand against this invading philosophy and political movement whose goal is the destruction of our country. Nothing less than our existence as a people and a nation is at stake. Do our people on their way to work in the New York subway system, in the very city of 9/11 need to see advertising for the religion that was behind that horror? When do we stand up and say to those who want our destruction, No! We will not allow it! The time is now, and we are late in doing it. Mr. Kumar is prepared to be the standard bearer in saying, No! to Sharia and no to Islamic radicalism and their projects of propaganda and incitement.
Mr. Kumar’s positions are classic Conservative. He supports the War in Iraq, the “War on Terror”, is Pro-Life, Pro-Gun rights, etc. You can see his positions all explained in detail here: http://www.kumarforcongress.com/Issues/
Mr. Kumar is for secure borders, free trade, English as the official language of the land, and more. Can there be a more attractive list of issue positions such as this coming from an American politician at this time in our history? Mr. Kumar supports Israel and positive relations with the largest democracy in the world, India. But it is his position on Sharia that makes him most exciting and so very important. There are no American politicians currently serving at the national level who speak cogently, clearly, and as bravely as Mr. Kumar does on this existential issue that effects all Americans.
His anti-Sharia platform begins:
“Sharia (Islamic) Law is slowly permeating America. We are focused on the global ‘War on Terror’ and are ignoring a more dangerous threat developing within our country.
Muslims are beginning to insist that they do not have to follow our laws and customs. Some of their activists are making demands requiring that Muslims’ religious rights be put above our Constitution. This ploy is particularly pernicious, because the United States Constitution is based in Judeo-Christian principles. These principles conflict fundamentally with Islamic principles”
This identification of a fundamental cultural conflict is the essential truth of our times. Mr. Kumar has identified the issue, and will speak out to educate the people and our leaders at the Capitol. We need Mr. Kumar’s voice to ring in the halls of Congress and the parlors and meeting rooms of the White House.
I like to send interesting stories and commentary to my friends.
Recently, I sent a friend a link to an article written by Alan Dershowitz, the great Harvard lawyer and champion of American liberty and of Israel, which defended and explained Israel’s right to defend itself against the ongoing rocket attacks by the terrorist group Hamas I thought quite convincingly. (You can read the article here.) My friend did not like the article at all, finding fault in it, and declaring himself in disagreement with it.
I had thought Dershowitz’ arguments solid and difficult to refute as they were so grounded in international law, precedent, and logic. The reaction of my friend, which so confused me, gave me great pause and took me on a path that finally led me to the beginning of understanding how some Americans, otherwise intelligent and thoughtful, can be so self-hating and so seemingly out-of-context that what they consider reasoned, thoughtful argument is, in actuality, some form of Orwellian anti-rational intellectual and moral confusion.
To me, my friend, a very religious man was, in his astounding refutation of Dershowitz a man sunk in moral confusion. I wanted to understand how this could be so.
I asked him to explain.
I wrote, “What are your counter arguments?”
He replied, “They are all insane over there. I hope someday sanity will return.”
“They are not ALL insane,” I replied. “There is such a thing as good and evil.”
The correspondence continued with his reply, “Those who are in power over there have chosen the path of mutual destruction. That is evil. Nothing good will come of this until another path is chosen. You see, I can tell the difference. It is obvious.”
I replied, asking, “Those in power in Israel have chosen mutual destruction because they are defending their country from attack which is their right according to every international law and treaty? Your world is upside down.”
My friend replied asking if I thought that “mutual destruction is their right? Now whose world is upside down?”
Things were getting very interesting. I could sense that this discourse would lead somewhere important. And maybe I could understand finally how and why he thought in a way that I simply could not comprehend.
I replied that I had never suggested such a thing (that mutual destruction is either party’s “right”).
I asked, “Are you suggesting that self-defense is equivalent to mutual destruction?”
His response was instructive. “Yes, you are finally starting to see the light. In the long run, (making war) in self defense or any reason=mutual destruction. Both sides are engaging in a conflict that NEITHER can win.”
My friend concluded by writing, “They are both engaged in hurting themselves. This is insane and evil. It is important for everyone to understand that what is going on over there has got to stop.”
What was happening here? My friend, an otherwise brilliant and caring fellow, was deeply confused about the morality that characterized the aggressor and the defender (or victim). For him, conflict itself was evil and any party engaged in it was “wrong” regardless of the fact that they were defending themselves from attack.
This moral confusion does not allow him to differentiate between right and the wrong in the midst of conflict, the attacker and the victim. I finally began to understand. My friend could not, would not, make a moral stand and identify aggressor and victim, both were in the wrong, because both were in conflict. This irrational approach to the world is contrary to all of human history and contrary to our own experience of 9/11 and our post-9/11 world.
In his mind the United States is wrong to be in Iraq, though we have freed an entire country from despotism and are building a nascent democracy in a region that has never known freedom. Our several thousand casualties are mourned by us all. The cost in treasure and blood is high. However, in the context of previous wars the cost has been comparatively low in the bloody calculus of war. Consider: at Antietam 5,000 casualties in 15 minutes; at Cold Harbor 5,000 casualties in ten minutes; at Franklin 7,000 casualties in 4 hours. Comparatively, the war for Iraq has been astoundingly low in casualties after conquering the country, fighting a brutal insurgent enemy, and having some 3,000 American’s killed in 5 years of war there to keep the country free and to prevent its return to barbarism and tyranny. This does not include the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan where fighting has been increasing lately. If we are successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, our futures are all brighter as are the Iraqis and Afghan people’s and that is why we fight.
There is the complaint (and demand) that the soldiers must come home- now! But the war is not over, and to leave would create a vacuum that would be filled by our enemies nullifying every gain, and showing our hardened and callous enemies that we are weak. The context of history shows that restructuring countries and cultures is time consuming-WW2 ended in 1945, but US forces are still in Germany, and still in Japan.
During World War 2 the refrain had often been “this is why we fight”. The country was reminding itself that the horrifically high costs of fighting Nazism and Japanese Imperialism in blood and treasure were justified. Our current war is much different.
9/11 was a far more horrific attack than Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor the entire society of the United States was mobilized for war. But since our enemies now do rarely wear uniforms but turbans and beards and burkhas, and a book, the response has been quite different. The West has long been in conflict with Islam. Wars have been fought in the past between the West and Islamic expansion, this current conflict is the newest campaign in a centuries old conflict of attack and defense. Now, we in the United States who look mainly to the future are faced with an enemy who looks to the future only as a means to return to the distant past. This is an enemy we can barely understand… but slowly it is sinking in with some of us that their goals are contrary to our own survival as a nation and a people, and that they will do anything and everything to achieve them. Fundamentally, their goal is the destruction of our society, culture, religions, and way of life. How many beheaded Americans, and blown up office towers does one need to understand the goals of the enemy?
My disturbing but enlightening correspondence with my friend got me to reading and research. How can my friend be so confused? The answer is complex and simple. Please watch the video posted at the end of this thread. I found it very enlightening and very important.
I read “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom makes a convincing case that the culture and our higher educational institutions are to blame for my friend’s moral confusion. Our universities teach inclusiveness, to the exclusion of all else, and political correctness - we mustn’t offend, we mustn’t suggest that our culture is superior, that our way of life of government is better than some other form(s). This could cause offense or upset. So it must be avoided. But the fact remains that our system is by far superior to most other forms currently in existence or those that have passed into history. It ought to be no crime to suggest it, or state it.
Our enemies see this pervasive almost bizarre desire in American society to be inclusive, to not offend as one of our greatest weaknesses. They exploit this flaw in our culture and political and legal institutions and our rampant moral confusion to undermine our society, sow dissent and legitimize their own cruelties and destructive and malicious goals. Our enemies have a long-term horizon that we can barely even conceive.
Albert Einstein was the greatest thinker of the 20th century. A native German who fled the rise of Nazism, Einstein’s mother tongue was German. When he died in 1955 his last words were heard, but not understood. I compare the modern American left with Einstein’s nurse.
“He died in his sleep at a hospital in Princeton, New Jersey on April 18, 1955, leaving the Generalized Theory of Gravitation unsolved. The only person present at his deathbed, a hospital nurse, said that just before his death he mumbled several words in German that she did not understand. He was cremated without ceremony on the same day he died at Trenton, New Jersey in accordance with his wishes. His ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location.”
It seems that so much is happening, so much that is so clear and so important, but simply cannot be seen by so many. It’s almost as if a great segment of the country has become Einstein’s nurse and the world is utterly unintelligible to them.
There is more of course.
An angry, deeply confused columnist in the Philadelphia Inquirer today posted a piece stating that the United States has “sinned”, and that “America doesn’t deserve to celebrate its birthday.” Mr. Satullo suggests that we have betrayed the July 4th “creed”, and that we have trampled the vows we have made as a country. He says that we must “put out no flags” on the 4th, and that we mustn’t sing patriotic hymns as “we deserve no Fourth this year”. Mr. Satullo demands that we all “atone” for our “sins…in quiet and humility”.
Can there be a more disrespectful, clueless, bitter, partisan, out-of-context screed anywhere published in the country more abysmal and disgusting than this tripe from a disaffected Utopian in Philadelphia - for July 4th during time of war?
Where is Mr. Satullo’s condemnation of our enemies? Where is the congratulations for our brave military men and women? Where is the acknowledgment of our current economic difficulties and tribulations? Where is the appreciation for the greatness of this country?
I ask all of my readers to cancel their subscription to the Philadelphia Inquirer. I ask any reader who advertises in the Philadelphia Inquirer to cancel all business relationships with that company.
Otherwise intelligent people like Mr. Satullo, apparently have no context in which to judge the actions of the United States; have little understanding of international events and their complexities, have a minimal grasp of conflict and of warfare and of history.
Abraham Lincoln, considered by many to be the greatest President in our history might have closed the Philadelphia Inquirer for sedition, had Mr. Satullo been published in 1862 or 1863. Mr. Lincoln actually did close newspapers for sedition in Baltimore. I am not suggesting that Mr. Satullo be censored, or the paper closed.
I am hoping instead that a groundswell of public revulsion will greet the Philadelphia Inquirer in the coming days and months so that they are impacted where it hurts the most for them - in their pocket books. If every reader of that publication were to abandon it- that would be perfectly acceptable to me.
Undermining our will to fight, supporting our enemies who want us all dead or enslaved - during wartime - is an abysmal thing and ought not to be countenanced. Mr. Satullo is certainly welcome to his mistaken opinions, but he should understand that most Americans do not concur with his self-hating and ignorant ideas. In fact, most Americans most assuredly find his article reprehensible and worthy of strong criticism.
The moral confusion of my friend, and the obvious self-hatred and ignorance of the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist are not isolated or rare events.
This deeply confused and morally corrupt approach to the world, based on a slanted mis-education from our universities overrun with leftist activist “educators” to a culture that demands a legitimazation of philosophies having even our own destruction at their core, and the diminishment of our martial abilities and a revision of our recent and distant pasts so that we will not fight, because as my friend has stated, “fighting is wrong” is a hideous response to attack and will not sustain us. We must accept that the world is not Utopia, and likely will not be, ever. IF however, Utopia is possible, we must defeat evil first in order to bring it about, yes?
But we must fight - there is no alternative.
Can one convert a Nazi? Can one convince a Hitler that world domination is not the best course? Can one overturn centuries of hatred and arrogance with words, when the world is overrun with swords and bombs and guns - and a book that instructs adherents to “kill the unbelievers”? We are almost too sophisticated for our own good. Too many of us cannot conceive that there can be so many millions who believe that “unbelievers” (us!) must die, that no form of religion is acceptable to them but theirs and that no form of law or society can exist but theirs.
How can it be that 9/11 was not “enough”? Do we require another attack before the country will unite and fight against this horrific philosophy whose goal is our destruction and enslavement? I pray not.
We are in an existential fight. To quit, or undermine our will to fight, is the end of all things.
There is right, and there is wrong; there is evil and there is good. Our country G-d bless her has the finest government ever conceived, and blessed by our brave men and women who protect our way of life and guided by the brave and selfless of ‘76, of ‘12, of ‘61, of ‘18, of ‘41, of ‘65 and now in 2008 we have our path, we have our heroes, we have our cause. G-d help us all.
Because so many cannot see evil does not mean that it does not exist; because so many cannot see the greatness in their own country does not mean it is not great. Happy 4th of July, and G-d Bless America.
