The Danger Remains

America is such a complacent nation. This is a double-edged sword: in some ways, it is nice to live fat and happy in the freest nation on the planet. On the other hand, so many in America have forgotten what it means to be an American. America is divided: we are divided between those who are proud of America and want to defend her from the coming storm, those who are ashamed of America and believe that she deserves whatever she gets, those trying to take over or destroy America, and those trying to use America for their own purposes.

Unfortunately, those who are proud of America and want to defend and preserve one of the last bastions of freedom and justice left in the world are being overwhelmed by the self-interested and ashamed, who have more power in the nation's government. Meanwhile, Muslim extremist hate groups are cropping up across the nation even while illegal Mexican immigrants attempt to fulfill the "reconquista" movement to take back the land the United States won in its war on Mexico back in 1848.

The problems that America faces are not undefeatable. America could easily overcome these problems, given that enough of the American people have the will. The greater problem, in the context of the survival of America, is that the ashamed and the power-hungry have no real interest in solving problems; they would rather either put down America, or seek power for themselves even if their quest for power harms America. They put down nationalism as a step on the road to fascism, not realizing that nationalism is what has drawn Americans together for generations. It is nationalism that has made America the greatest symbol of freedom on the planet. It was nationalism that drew Americans together to free the world from the threat of Nazism. Without nationalism and the belief that America is an exceptional nation (also known as "American exceptionalism"), America would not have survived for as long as it has. Without nationalism, there would be no America, and without American nationalism, Europe would have been taken over by the Nazis.

The simple truth is that without nationalism, America will cease to exist. Some (such as Pat Buchanon), say it will take 50 years. Personally, I believe that it will take anywhere from 20-100 years, but regardless, the consensus among those who are truly looking at the big picture of how America is being targetted by enemies from without and within is that the end is approaching.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America first sent troops to Europe to defeat the Nazis. True, America fought the war on both the European and Pacific fronts simultaneousely, but Nazi Germany was seen as the greater threat. When Al-Qaida brought down the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, America first sent troops to Afghanistan, where Al-Qaida's main leadership was based. This was the greater threat. But the threat from Islamofascism was not defeated through the Afghanistan front only. Detractors love to point out that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." While the truth of this statement is tenuous, at best, it needn't be debated: that statement is tantamount to saying that "Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor."

Politics in America has become a game. Who has power? How can I get power? How can I get my party into power? How can I get my agenda passed? How can I make this work out best for me?

America is fast forgetting one of the wisest admonishments ever given it: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

America will fall if we do not unite. We have stopped teaching our children about the American dream, about American ideals, about American exceptionalism, substituting instead a kind of watered-down hate-America anti-establishmentarian curriculum in a kind of ritualistic mass-suicide, basically telling our enemies, "Do whatever you like. We wouldn't want to offend you." On the surface, their philosophy sounds rather noble, but in the end, all it amounts to is a sure way to be overrun.

I have been accused of being a liberal because I'm pro-war. While on the surface this doesn't make sense, the argument was that, as a conservative, I should be for small government...but by being pro-war, I support having a large military, as well as large intelligence agencies. Well, as I see it, when the choice is between going against some of the principles of the idealistic type of government I'd like to see in America vs. supporting policies that would hasten America's end, I'm willing to compromise on some of my conservative principles.

Basically, what it gets down to is balance. I believe that for most, if not all domestic policy decisions, the conservative answer is the right one. However, when it comes to national defense, conservatism is an invitation to destruction, especially when facing enemies such as Islamic fascism, an ideology dominant in an area of the globe that we are economically depenant on, and growing in many other areas of the world. Cutting our military and intelligence capabilities in times such as this would be counter-productive: across-the-board conservatism will not serve the nation if we are all dead. In the same way, liberalism will not cut it, either. If we spend too much on our military and intelligence capabilities, we will lose the freedom that makes America great, thus making America yet another dictatorship not worth fighting for.

The problem with arguments that America is becoming a fascist state is that they are quite simply not true. Even with measures such as the Patriot Act, Ameirca is still the freest nation on the planet. The evidence against America being, or even moving toward being a fascist state is overwhelming.

If America were anything close to a fascist state,

• CNN and at least 60% of American newspapers would be shut down.
• The Republican party wouldn't just be in control of the U.S. Congress and the White House...it would be the only party still allowed to exist. All other parties would be illegal.
• Bill and Hilary Clinton, Dick Duran, Michael Moore, Teddy Kennedy, John Murtha, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean, among others, would either be dead, or currently reside in a labor camp on the northern Alaska tundra.
• Anti-war rallies would regularly be broken up by police, and protestors would executed or shipped to labor camps.
• Interstate and international travel would be severely restricted, not just screened for safety reasons.
• Both the northern and southern borders would be closed to all traffic, and anyone trying to cross either border illegally would be shot.

America stands today as the freest, most prosperous nation on the planet. That didn't just happen - it came about because the people of America moved foward as a body of Americans, not a bunch of disparate multi-cultural groups. The chic saying among sociologists is that America is not a "melting-pot," it is a "salad bowl," because we are made up of many different groups of people...and this kind of multi-culturalist separationism is why America and Europe are falling apart today. America's first national motto was "e pluribus unum"..."out of many, one." Acculturation is the key. It is common culture that lends to the greatness of a nation, because it is common culture that allows the people of a nation to be united. Without a common culture, we cannot survive: "If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

Republican or Democrat, left or right, white, hispanic, asian, black, latino, or native American, we must stand together, united against our enemies. That is our duty as Americans. That duty must come before party politics, political ideology, or cultural pride, because if we do not stand united against our enemies, then there will be no more America to defend.

Why this man should give us all nightmares...

From an extremely relevant and revealing column in the Daily Mail:

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear bombs to deter attack from the 'Great Satan', America, let alone the two 'Little Satans', Israel and Britain? Sounds reasonable. But that pre-supposes that the Iranian regime is reasonable.

The mullah-mafia lied through their teeth for 18 years, denying they had a nuclear programme, despite their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And all the evidence shows that they are lying now when they say they only want nuclear power for 'peaceful energy purposes', despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

But, alas, there's nothing which we would recognise as 'reasonable' about President Ahmadinejad, the small, bearded blacksmith's son from the slums of Tehran - who denies the existence of the Holocaust, promises to 'wipe Israel off the map' and who, moreover, urges Iranians to 'prepare to take over the world'.

The UN gave him until August 31 to reply to its package of proposals designed to stop his nuclear programme. Significantly he chose yesterday to, in effect, reject the UN ultimatum because yesterday was a sacred day in the Islamic calendar.

It is the day on which the Prophet Mohammed made his miraculous night flight from Jerusalem to heaven and back on Buraq, the winged horse.

As one Iranian exile told me yesterday: 'The trouble with you secular people is that you don't realise how firmly Ahmadinejad believes - literally - in things like the winged horse. By choosing this date for his decision, he is telling his followers that he is going to obey his religious duty.

'And he believes that his religious duty is to create chaos and bloodshed in the "infidel" world, in order to hasten the return of the Mahdi - the Hidden Imam. So don't expect him to behave, in your eyes, "reasonably".'

This is why the US, the UN, and any other body on the planet should be taking a hard line on the Iranian nuke issue. Ahmadinejad has no interest in negotiating about their nuclear program. In fact, just about a week ago, there was a story out that Iran was willing to negotiate...but as I read on, the real story was that Iran was saying, "We'll negotiate, but we're not giving up our nuclear program." Ostensibly, their nuclear program is for nothing more than energy purposes...which makes perfect sense, considering that Iran sits on top of one of the world's largest oil reserves. Iran, of all nations, has no need for nuclear energy. They aren't like us here in America, where we cannot expand our oil production because of the environmental lobby. Iran is run by the Imams, and what they say goes (by the way, for those in America who complain that there is too much entanglement between government and religion here, try living in the Middle East, where religion dictates the laws of the government). The only feasible explanation is that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and this is now widely accepted as fact.

Iran is not only actively seeking nuclear weapons. They have been actively seeking the destruction of Israel. Iranian fighters were found among the Hezbollah dead in the recent conflict in Lebanon, and the rockets Hezbollah was launching into Israel were provided to them by Iran. The simple truth is that diplomacy will not stop Iran. If diplomacy were the answer, the problem would already be solved. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is no insurance against a zealous president who believes it is his religious duty to "create chaos and bloodshed." It is unreasonable to expect Ahmadinejad to act in a reasonable manner. He hasn't so far...why should we think he will in the future? The only time I have ever seen Ahmadinejad acting reasonably was when he was interviewed by Mike Wallace...whom he played like a violin.

Trusting Iran to turn from its quest for nuclear weapons is tantamount to expecting Al-Qaida to stop plotting terrorist attacks. It just isn't going to happen...and the longer the world seeks "diplomatic" solutions, the more drastic the measures we will have to take to stop the mounting threat posed by this hard-line Islamofascist state.

Iran unveils cartoon contest...

This week marks the unveiling of Iran's Holocaust cartoon exhibit. The exhibit features 204 Holocaust-denying and/or America- or Jew-bashing cartoons.

From Reuters:

"This is a test of the boundaries of free speech espoused by Western countries," said Masoud Shojai-Tabatabai, head of the Cartoon House which helped organise the exhibition, as he stood next to the Statue of Liberty drawing.

Basically, the Islamo-fascists are trying to provoke the West into a violent response, so they can say that we are no better than they are, after so many Muslims rioted in the streets after the Danish Mohammed cartoons. They ignore, of course, the fact that the cartoons that sparked the riots were, in fact, blurred copies of photographs given false captions, and another cartoon that was never published by any Western newspaper, rumored to have been released by Islamic Imams in order to gin up hatred of the West.

Of course, the expectation that people across the Western, civilized world will riot over these cartoons is ludicrous. After all, we have to put up with the so-called "modern art" movement, under which artists throw elephant dung on a portrait of the Virgin Mary (after covering much of the portrait with pictures of female genetailia) or submerge a crucifix in a vat of urine, call it art, and are then subsidized with our own tax dollars.


When anti-Islam riots start tearing up the West over these cartoons, I'll let you know...but don't get your hopes up. We've seen it all already.

Iran: America's Next Greatest Enemy

The longer conflict goes on in the Middle East, the more it becomes clear that Iran is the ringleader of Islamofascism there. Iran has long been a state sponsor of terrorism, supporting such groups as Hezbollah, HAMAS, and Al-Qaida, both with monetary and material support. It is now a known fact that the missiles Hezbollah has been firing into Israel originated in Iran and Syria. Recent news indicates that Iranians are fighting with Hezbollah in Lebanon. There have even been rumors that Hezbollah's initial actions were taken only after they were given permission by Iranian Ayatollahs.

In reality, the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon is nothing more than a proxy war between the United States and Iran; the problem is that the diplomats and politicians cannot speak about it in those plain terms.

In the coming weeks, it may well be that the world will see plain and clear just what kind of threat Iran poses. A UN resolution orders Iran to give up their nuclear program by August 31; Iran has already hinted at some announcement or revelation on August 22 (I only hope Iran doesn't announce it has nukes on my birthday...or do something even worse).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proven himself to be an anti-Semitic, unstable religious zealot with a flair for the somewhat insane. Taken holistically, he is not the kind of leader who is to be trusted with any sort of weapons, much less the nuclear sort. He has stated publicly that he believes that the Holocause never happened; it was just a bunch of Zionist propaganda made up to raise sympathy for the Jews. He has also stated that he believes that nuclear weapons are a God- (or Allah)-given right to the nation of Iran. It is also suspected that he believes that it is his role to bring about the return of the twelfth Imam...kind of like the Second Coming of Christ, only instead of world events hinting of the Imam's return, Ahmadinejad believes that it is the duty of Muslims to instigate Armageddon, which will bring about the Imam's return and hail the rise of the global domination of Islamofascism.

Everything about Ahmadinejad shows that he has been effectively indoctrinated in Iran's propaganda-driven schools, and has bought the party line with a vengance. The world would do well not to trust him, or any other government leader in Iran.

President Bush has indicated in past speeches that his overall goal in the War on Terror is to change the face of the Middle East. The problem is that the Middle East is resisting the change - and small wonder, considering that Islamofascism has kept much of the region in a state strongly resembling the Second Century. As the West pushes harder for change in the region, the more obvious it becomes that change is sorely needed there. Islamofascism has become a threat to the entire globe - Muslim terrorists have attacked America, England, France, Spain, Jordan, India, and others, with no signs of stopping. Muslims in Indonesia, Australia, and elsewhere have tried to justify rapes and beheadings of teenage girls with the defense of "they weren't wearing burka's." This kind of Islam (know as Wahhabism) is a danger to the world, as well as the very peole living under its thumb, especially the women, who are oppressed, and the children, who are put into fundamental religious schools and brainwashed into hating Jews and the West.

Now more than ever the Middle East needs to be freed from the clutches of extremist Islam, which has itself become a threat to the entire world. The problem is that political correctness has hampered our politicians and diplomats, keeping them from calling this conflict what it is: the War on Islamofascism. In the overall War on Terror, there are other threats than extremist Islam, but none more dangerous. It is high time that the world came to the realization that we can no longer afford to play politically correct games with terrorists, or play at diplomacy with terrorist states. We have to be united. We have to be strong. Or we will be overrun.




By the way, I found some interesting facts about Israel that you won't see in the mainstream media; they pretty much debunk the "they stole their land" argument by the Israel-haters.

1. Israel became a state in 1312 BC, two millenia before Islam.
2. Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood.
3. After conquering the land in 1272 BC, Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 AD lasted just 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule, (East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qar'an.
7. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the wto cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.
9. In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presence. 68% of them fled without ever setting eyes on an Israeli soldier.
10. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.
11. Some 630,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while close to a million Jews were forced to leave the Muslim countries.
12. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following WWII, they are the only group to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country no larger then New Jersey.
13. There are 22 Muslim countries, not counting Palestine. There is only one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them.
14. FATAH and HAMAS constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Israel ceded most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, and even provided it with arms.
15. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths.
16. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to 1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 General Assembly resolutions, 429 were against Israel.
17. The UN was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 Synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetary on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the Temple Mount and Western Wall.

***UPDATE: Finally, nearly five years after 9/11, President Bush has named our true enemy, stating this morning in a speech, "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

***UPDATE 2: Headline: "US Muslims bristle at Bush term 'Islamic fascists'"
What they try to gloss over in this report is that the criticism is coming from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who, in union with the media, tries to censor any mainstream condemnation of Islamic terrorists. The director of CAIR was quoted as saying, "We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims." The problem: this is a religious war, whether we like it or not. The US isn't being attacked by Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Shinto terrorists. We are under attack by Islamic fascist terrorists. Iran, an Islamic fascist state, is our enemy. Saudi Arabia, an Islamic fascist state (though not quite as fascist as Iran) was the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers. Strangely, even though we are at war with Islamic Islamic fascists, CAIR thinks it is "ill-advised" and "counter-productive" to frame the war in those terms.

What the report fails to mention is that CAIR officials have been investigated, and some even arrested, for actively supporting Islamo-fascist terrorist groups. Why we should let CAIR define anything having to do with the war is beyond me.

When it comes to anti-Semitism: Which is more important?

There was an extremely interesting column on Townhall.com that contrasts two cases of anti-Semitism in the United States and how those cases were portrayed in the media.

The first case is that of Mel Gibson, who, after being arrested for drunk driving, went on a drunken anti-Jew tirade. It absolutely dominated the press for the better part of a week, and Gibson was bashed and/or denounced almost constantly for his remarks.

The other case occurred in Seattle. A Muslim man entered the offices a local Jewish organization and opened fire with two automatic handguns, killing one and wounding five others. The story produced a small blip in the national news scene, but not much more than that.

As Jeff Jacoby said in the Townhall piece, "after six days, a Nexis search turned up only 236 stories mentioning Haq -- about one-fourth the number devoted to Gibson’s drunken outburst. Why the disparity?"

When The Passion of the Christ was released, Gibson was accused of being an anti-Semite for two reasons: Gibson's father is known to be a total anti-Semitic wacko, and the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem was responsible for Christ's crucifixion. Prior to Passion's release, the Christian-hating press went wild with stories speculating on whether it was truly a Christian film, or merely a product of Gibson's anti-Semitism. Of course, the press failed to realize that if Passion is anti-Semitic, then the Bible itself is anti-Semitic, which simply is not the case (especially if you take into consideration that Jesus, the 12 disciples, Paul, Silas, Mary, Joseph, and Mary Magdalene were all Jews and that the vast majority of Christians see Christianity as an extension of Judaism rather than a completely new religion).

But all of that aside, it is a dark day indeed in America when a celebrity's drunken rantings garner more attention from the press than a terrorist attack perpetrated within the United States. What's more, members of the media have gone to great lengths to avoid calling this a terrorist attack...but even if this doesn't qualify as terrorism, it is premeditated murder, not merely a "hate crime."

And what's more, this isn't the only time this has happened.

Political Correctness: The Terrorists' Best Friend

Now more than ever we see the true fruits of political correctness, not only for America, but for Israel in its current conflict. Due to 9/11, political correctness did not play too much of a part in Afghanistan, which is why American troops were so successful there in overthrowing the Taliban and installing a new government. In Iraq, it has been a different story. The Iraqi government was overthrown in short order, primarily due to the unwillingness of Iraqi troops to die for their beloved leader, Saddam Hussein. The Hussein regime was overthrown in what turned out to be the swiftest victorious invation in the history of the world. Bringing stabilization to Iraq is where political correctness has effectively ruined the US cause. At the outset, various military units had "embedded" reporters that travelled around with them, shadowing them and reporting on the action. This was both good and bad: it allowed Americans back home to see what was going on in the war, but when the tough decisions had to be made on the ground, having a reporter there made our soldiers think twice.

When the insurgents started firing out of and storing weapons in mosques, there was a huge debate over whether the US should start bombing those mosques. By firing out of and storing weapons in mosques, the Iraqi insurgents not only violated the Geneva Conventions, but they turned their own religious sites into military targets...yet, due to political correctness, we could not bomb these now-legitimate targets.

It has also become very un-PC to deny that the United States engages in torture. After the Abu-Garaib scandal surfaced, US status as the worst violator of human rights ever became something akin to Gospel truth. Whether Abu Garaib or GTMO, the only PC conclusion is that the US is evil...never mind the fact that terrorist training manuals uncovered in England instructed terrorists to make up allegations of torture...or the fact that Senator Dick Durbin, one of the most outspoken of those condemning GTMO could suddenly find no words of condemnation after he visited GTMO himself and saw what was going on there with his own eyes.

What's more, the political Left in America did everything it could to re-write the Bush Administration's arguments for the war, bringing them all down to a single issue: weapons of mass destruction. When the US military didn't find WMD ("the smoking gun," as the Left called it then), the war suddenly became unjustified, and "Bush lied." Then there was the "16 words" scandal, when President Bush said in his State of the Union Address that British Intelligence had stated that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium ore from the nation of Niger. The evidence that this was incorrect hinged on the informal testimony of Joe Wilson. Now, all other aspects of "Plamegate" aside, in his assessment of the situation, Wilson said that Saddam Hussein had been trying to open commercial ties with Niger. Niger is is a third-world nation. Most of its economy consists of subsistence agriculture. Niger's primary export is uranium, of which it has one of the richest supplies in the world (its second export is livestock...but it's a very distant second). If Saddam Hussein was looking to open up commercial ties with Niger, then he really was trying to acquire uranium ore.

Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, not only is it not politically correct to try and point out that the Administration had several reasons for the invasion of Iraq (WMD, human rights violations including torture, rape, and mass murder, and 12 years of continuous violations of United Nations resolutions), but "Plamegate" made it very un-PC to point out that the British intel that the President referred to in his speech was right.

Here in the United States, we're even too politically correct to secure our own nation! After 9/11, we had a brief moment of unification, and then the politically correct machine ramped right back up again, hindering efforts to bring security against further terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act? Too strict. Forget the fact that citizens of America have temporarily given up certain rights during wartime throughout history in the interests of defeating the enemy, and we are better off for it. Forget the fact that the Clinton Administration's blundering had to be fixed. Secure our ports? Why? Why should Congress do anything substantive to secure our ports when they can just yell and holler and criticize the Bush Administration for not doing anything about it? Secure our borders? Never! We have a responsibility to the poor peoples of the world, and that includes allowing them to cross our border illegally. We should stand up for these "undocumented workers." What? There are drug smugglers and terrorists coming across our border, too? Ya don't say! (It's interesting how the issue of border security, just like President Bush's arguments for the Iraq war, are re-written by liberals to have one, single reason backing them up, when, in fact, conservatives have posited several equally legitimate reasons for a secure border). Unfortunately for America, liberals, particularly liberal leaders, would rather politicize our national security, criticizing any measures taken to make our nation secure, criticizing the Bush administration over measures not taken, defending media outlets such as the New York Times when they reveal covert measures taken, and obfuscating issues surrounding other measures so that they seem unrelated to the issue of national security.


Now there is another crisis in the Middle East, and the Political Correctness movement is doing all that it can to ensure victory for Hezbollah terrorists. Israel is expected to follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter and beyond...because they "stole" the Palestinians' land, which was a very un-PC thing to do. Meanwhile, Hezbollah fighters hide among the civilian population, all the while not allowing those same civilians to leave (because then the terrorists would lose their human shields). They hide in hospitals and mosques and use ambulances as troop transports. They hide behind UN outposts. And all the while, they have been shooting unguided rockets into Israeli towns and villages.

The reason Israel is being condemned so much for its actions in this campaign is because they are fighting war in the classic style: the un-PC style which, while more effective, was usually fought without a 24-hour cable news cycle showing images of dead people constantly. Civilians have been killed in Israel's attacks, and all fingers are pointed at Israel for those deaths, in spite of the fact that the reason civilian areas become military targets is because Hezbollah uses those areas to launch its rockets. Meanwhile, the PC crowd bandies around intelligent-sounding phrases like "disproportionate response" and "collective punishment", seemingly forgetting that the goal of war is to crush the enemy (and maybe Hezbollah shouldn't have provoked Israel if they didn't have the military might to withstand an all-out Israeli attack), and that it is Hezbollah that is turning civilian and UN areas into military targets, not Israel. But it is very un-PC to point that out, and if conservatives start winning arguments, the PC crowd always has the "stolen land" argument to fall back on.

At the root of this current conflict is the fact that Hezbollah is putting civilians into harm's way, and then parading their bodies around in front of the cameras in order to turn world opinion against Israel. And it seems to be working. The deaths of these civilians, the blame for which should be laid squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah, who are using them for propaganda purposes, are tragic, but are not the fault of Israel. Israel, from the start, has done its best to hit only strategic and military targets. That civilians are in the way is the fault of Hezbollah, who is actively preventing them from leaving. Furthermore, many of the press reports on the number of civilians killed get their numbers from Hezbollah. How many of those civilians were actually Hezbollah fighters is unclear, but what is clear is that if Israel is at fault for anything, it is not doing enough. The most effective means to combatting Hezbollah would be an all-out, hard-and-fast invasion of Lebanon, bringing quick death to any and all Hezbollah militants they find, and searching out and destroying any and all weapons caches found within Lebanon. Unfortunately, though, that would be very, very un-PC.

The conclusion is this: if we fail or are failing in the War on Terror (aka the War on Islamic Fascism), it is because the Politically Correct Left and the Politically Correct culture is forcing us to fight a Politically Correct war...and a Politically Correct war is a war that cannot be won. In order to win this war, we must kill the enemy until they are either entirely dead, or forced to surrender. Israel, by facing up to Hezbollah, is fighting another front in the War on Terror, and they are showing us just how much political correctness enables our enemies. If we want to win the War on Islamic Fascism, we must learn, as a people, that Islamio-fascists are our enemies, and if we don't kill them, they will kill us. It doesn't matter why they hate us. We don't have to understand them beyond their aspirations to convert or kill each and every man, woman, and child on the planet. That may not be politically correct, but it happens to be the state of affairs on planet Earth, and if the politically correct don't come to terms with that, we will all pay the price. As Ann Coulter wrote on September 13, 2001, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."