TIS WHAT IT TIS

THE LEFT IS NOTHING if not suicidal. Here is perfect example of how leftists "create what they hate."

Now, it is clear that the most progressive people in the United States come from its native, non-immigrant population. Most of these progressives are "white." Even the so-called evangelicals are far more liberal than most immigrant populations, such as Muslims, and even Hispanics.

But the left has visceral contempt for "whites," or anything familiar—boring to them—like Western culture. The left is addicted to foreignness, and "exotica." Immigrants, whether illegal or not, superficially fit that bill even though they are really the vast majority of humanity—not exotic at all. Immigrants from underdeveloped countries offer a double for insulated leftists--they are "different" from the hated "white" American culture, and they provide a way for leftists to act out their aggressions against more pragmatic Americans by concocting a strategy of phony moral superiority. So sure in their political correctness, even studying the suitability of immigrant cultures for integration into the United States is a condemned as being a racist act.

Read it all in the fierce vernacular of Max Publius.

And if you thought global warming is a tad bit overstated, here's the straight dope on that slippery slice of strategic misdirection.

REMEMBERING THE BATTLEFIELD AGENDA

"Some of us are wearing combat boots in a flip flop world..."

IT SEEMS TO ME that since the United States, with at least one hand tied behind its back in politically correct restraints, is fighting an agitating people that lives and thinks in 7th century terms, US leadership needs to come to a reckoning that its forces need and should fight like it is still the 7th century. Or perhaps they might ask themselves how the Roman Empire would have handled this strategic flummoxing that Afghanistan and Iraq have been? Perhaps someone in high command should ponder the question of how might the Babylonians have handled these invasions, retaliatory or otherwise? These ancient powers would have broken the countries up into little manageable pieces. They would have wiped out any town that had insurgency problems.

Until the West is willing to take the extreme measures that are required to reach the objective—defeating unconditionally the terrorist mindset—it must either leave or embrace what the military situation requires. Of course, the West will not wipe out villages. The PR would cause pandemonium within our own cultures, peacelovers that we are. And the West would certainly lose access to oil imports from unsympathetic nations and their allies.

So since the West can't win under these terms, it should get the hell out. Forget this nation-building agenda. Other Muslim countries don't give a damn about Muslims killing Muslims, only about the infidels killing Muslims. Set up a bloody puppet regime in Afghanistan and Iraq to restore temporary order, and leave, saving our own people much valuable human resources and treasure, leaving these impossibly backward tribes to hash out their own fates the only way they seem prepared to accept—under the brutality of increasingly radicalizing Islamic despots.

When a military entity enters into war it enters to win, not play political games or try to assuage the enemy's hurt feelings or those of the spineless here at home. WWII was the last war the United States has entered where we were in it to win it. Since then every skirmish American troops have been put on the line has been a political endeavor. Primarily, this strategy has been the result of the liberal agenda which maintains the fantasy that all ideologies and cultural policies are equal, except when America itself can be blamed.

There hasn't been much discussion, almost nothing in fact, concerning the details of the what and the why of this whole war crisis America finds itself funding way beyond its means. The candidates speak of some nebulous threat without putting the pigment and the masterful stroke into the line drawing. In fact, this same understatement of facts and passions seems to be the same sorry course of much of the political agenda being batted back and forth by the two major candidates, much to the chagrin of the American people. Don't We The People deserve better?

THE PRICE OF ETERNAL YOUTH

In a new book by Diana West—The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization—reviewer Christopher Orlet writes in The American Spectator:

"West concludes with a stern warning that permanent adolescence puts us at risk before a confident and imperialist political Islam. Not surprisingly her critics have had at her for implying that it takes self-assured grown-ups to recognize and respond to the threats posed to Western Civilization—that immature tree humpers and naked peace marchers are not up to the job. William Grimes of the New York Times dismissed West's book with the headline "Dress like Your Child, Terrorists win." Understandably, West's critics are discomfited. No one likes to hear that his worldview is infantile, and it is all the more unsettling when statistics and research support your thesis."

This might be an interesting read. Whether we can all agree that the liberalization of adulthood has made "happy feet" cowards and "naked to the teeth" hedonists who neglect our more somber duties of citizenship of far too many of us still grappling with the ideals of our founding fathers, I too suspect that something is wrong when we refuse to face up to the mortal threats imposed by the slow jihad, or the massive Islamic immigration surge seemingly bent on bringing its own cultural mores into the West rather than integrating into the host cultures, especially when coupled with the rise of authentic and militant aggression by those radicals also speaking in the name of Islam. And instead, turn the vitriolic back onto those who would stand against the well-documented dangers all civilizations have faced.

Parasitic Islamism: When the Guest Consumes the Host

Islam will not tolerate encroachment upon a Muslim’s freedom to worship and behave as Allah demands, and will use not only all but any means to achieve the submission of the violating party, i.e. surrender from the host country.

“When Muslim minorities become frustrated by the unworkability of a pluralistic society, either because they believe they are discriminated against or their expectations are not met, they become antagonistic to their host society. This is so much more so when they perceive the majority as having transgressed the limits of previous coexistence and encroached upon their freedom of worship or conduct. In such cases, they use Western vocabulary (freedom, tolerance, democracy, human rights, etc.) to impress upon their hosts that while they wish to play by the rules of their adoptive countries, it is the latter that violate them. In more extreme cases, like with some Muslim fundamentalist leaders (religious actors par excellence) in London, they claim that they came to Europe in order to change it, not to be reshaped by it, or they reject Western attitudes altogether. This sets the Muslim minority, and especially the fundamentalist elements in its midst, on a collision course with the host authorities. Militant elements among this disaffected minority may seek political or cultural autonomy (such as the London Muslim ‘Parliament’).

“In India, Muslims had conquered the land and subjugated Hinduism, but when Muslim power was eroded by the British, Islam sought and achieved separation from the Hindus for the most part, rather than submit to the democratic rule of modern India that would have allowed the Hindus to exercise political domination over the Muslims. When the majority of Indian Muslims established their own state (Pakistan), their 'ulama spoke of the reinstitution of the Shari'a as their state law. There was no alternative to this arrangement if one bears in mind the fact that Islam is incompatible with other political ideologies."

Read more.