re: "Still Think Islam Is Just One More Innocent Religion?"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road noted a symptom of Britain's reaching the demographic tipping point.

Money quote(s):

"Muslims sum to about 2% of the Sceptered Isle’s population. That’s the level of penetration at which Muslim militants commence thrusts such as the above. It’s possible at such a low national percentage because Muslims tend to form exclaves: concentrations within which their greater aggressiveness gives them local dominance. Secular law soon ceases to operate within such an exclave; Muslims who would prefer it are intimidated into compliance by their more militant neighbors.

In the past few years, we have seen thoroughfares in major European cities, most notably Paris and Amsterdam, daily taken over for Muslim prayer recitals. At such times no one can pass those streets. More often than not, the local authorities decline to act. What, react against a public prayer ceremony with police power? With violence? To the Europeans, the possibility doesn’t exist." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This strategy of colonization is not new nor is it unique to Britain.

7/28

re: "Getting the word out"

Ol' Remus at Eternity Road defends against the vandalism of our language.

Money quote(s):


"How many are brave enough to use honest, ordinary words when accuracy is equated to malevolency?"

Granted that this was posted back in July, it assumes new power and relevence during the "holiday season."

"Consider also Qur'an, Qur’ān, al-Qur’ān, and perhaps soon: 'Q'u'r'ā'n', all transliterations of the entirely satisfactory Koran. Perhaps we're expected to make little tic marks in the air with our finger. Also notice Muslim—commonly delivered as moose-lum—formerly Moslem, which incidentally is the preferred version as a given name. Treacly affectations one and all. We're reminded of television news readers suddenly acquiring the local dialect when pronouncing names of foreign cities, except for Chinese cities of course, fear of outright comedy allows us this reprieve. Such excesses occur from time to time, there's nothing for it but to outlast them." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Too funny. Like those who say "Pock-i-stan."

"Air quotes" are funny enough; "air diacritical marks" would accelerate beyond ludicrous speed.

"The purpose of these subterfuges is immediately clear. In rhetoric it's known as begging the question, where the argument is included in the premise. Adopting these smarmy terms suggests acceptance of the underlying agenda, absent a disclaimer at every mention. Whereas African American is ceremonial, akin to a trophy for participation, native American is both the most recent ersatz locution and the most aggressive. It dismisses all other native Americans, i.e., everybody else born here, as posers and interlopers, then shunts us to prepared ground, all in one motion. This may be the future of auto-confessional language.

Such misdirection is hardly new. A privately held, largely European banking cartel became the Federal Reserve in 1913 when in fact it's neither, the War Department became the Department of Defense in the late 1940s, to commit acts of defense one presumes, and total dependence on welfare was deemed assistance almost from the start, as if to assist the temporarily but unavoidably impecunious until payday down at the quarry. Clients, when they mean recipients, is older, dating from the New Deal of the '30s, as does relief, the marginally more honest term superseded by assistance, which in turn is giving way to entitlement." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

To be fair, the DoD consolidated the previous departments of war (i.e., the army) and the navy, together with the newly-born air force. So a more generic name was probably called for.

"The question was: how many are brave enough to use honest, ordinary words when accuracy is equated to malevolency? Probably not many, it's not an easy thing to do..... Plain talk, like all good guerilla acts, leaves them unsure who they're up against, the merely negligent or the purposely subversive. It's a thing of beauty. Noncompliance by way of honest and ordinary words, the words we own rather than rent, is an aggravation that lingers."

Merry Christmas!


7/13

re: "Ten Years After"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road aims to influence your opinions.

Money quote(s):

"I've received a fair amount of email this past week, inquiring about whether I planned to write something on the tenth anniversary of Black Tuesday: September 11, 2001, when Islam openly declared war on the United States. Yes, I said Islam, not "terrorists," "extremists," or "fundamentalists." We have it on the authority of a head of state -- Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey -- that there is no "moderate Islam;" there is only Islam. Any number of imams, mullahs, ayatollahs and so forth have said the same -- and have proceeded to justify the atrocities of Black Tuesday as a response to the "humiliation" Muslims have endured at America's hands.

What humiliation? Daring to rise and progress out of the seventh century. Proclaiming a doctrine of individual rights beyond what their scriptures allow. Treating persons of all races, sexes, and faiths as possessing a perfect right to be as they are and believe as they do. Letting women read, drive, and go about in attractive clothing, unaccompanied by a male chaperone.
We "humiliate" Muslims and Islam by being Americans: believers in freedom, a secular state, and an objective rule of law and justice." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

There're what, a billion muslims in the world? That's almost as many muslims as there are Catholics! Surely all of them aren't at war with the United States?

"If you're a person of wholesome values and rational mind, you were as outraged about Black Tuesday as I was -- and you remain so, as I do. If we differ at all, it's in what would constitute the appropriate responses, short and long-term, and the enduring stance America ought to take toward the perpetrators, their enablers, their apologists, and their co-religionists.

Needless to say, even among men of good will, that's a wide spectrum of opinion. What I'm here to do, today and every day, on this and every subject of public import, is to pull your opinions toward mine. Anyone who writes op-ed is trying to do the same. " (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

I know it's supposed to be a bad thing to hold onto anger all this time, but frankly I've come to doubt whether the veracity itself of that bit of modern-day folk wisdom. Anger isn't always a bad thing, it seems to me. It can help keep you focused on whatever, presumably important, thing that has angered you. After all, if the thing is still making you angry, maybe the fault isn't you after all.

Not to rule that out, you understand. Let's not rule anything out, let's keep an open mind to all the possibilities and then start to rule them out, based on facts and observations.

Regarding the bolded portion of the excerpt above, I have no quibble with Mr. Porretto's wording except the final three (including one compound-) words: "and their co-religionists." And I'll tell you why:

My issue, my anger, my "eternal hostility" remains with "the perpetrators, their enablers, (and) their apologists." And while I certainly don't limit that hostility to "their co-religionists," nor do I intend to categorically sweep them into the "eternal hostility" category unless, by their perpetration, their enablement, and their apologetics, they place themselves therein.

Frankly, those who are in essence accessories, before and after the facts of 9/11, constitute a sufficiently broad category within both the non-Muslim and Muslim worlds as to provide no end of enemies.

But, as we are in a war, not a criminal court, the object is not conviction of the guilty (including the accessories) but their defeat. So let not your heart be troubled.

"We are at war with Islam, and have been since Iranian "students" stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, took 52 Americans hostage, and kept them for 444 days.

Don't bother to argue with me about this. Either we are or we aren't. If we aren't, the evidence for the proposition demands a better explanation than any I've heard. Worse, there's no objective evidence that we aren't, and no Islamic apologist has dared to present any.

But we're not fighting that war. We're acting, in large measure, as if some other force were responsible for the crimes and atrocities committed in Islam's name. We're acting, in other words, as if Islam and Muslims generally are the victims rather than the cause and the perpetrators."

A couple of points:

First, while certain Islamic actors (including entire governments) have been at war with the U.S., indeed with Western civilization, for at least since the Tehran embassy takeover, we have not ourselves been at war back. At least not until 9/11 when the war which had been being waged against us abroad for all these years came crashing into the home front. No pun intended.

Second, the first (and last) victims of the Sharia-based ideology of militant, fundamentalist (and occasionally socialist) Islam are always muslims themselves. Muslims who disagree, muslims to aren't fundamentalist, aren't militant, aren't murderous enough; they are always the ultimate victims of our Islamist enemies.

This is not to minimize our role as an obstacle to a Sharia-controlled world where muslims may be terrorized and murdered without hindrance, since there won't be anyone else left to terrorize and murder; we're the Great Satan, after all. And with that greatness comes great responsibility.

"In part, it's because of the barrage of propagandization we've received about Islam, about American "imperialism," and about our duty to "tolerate" this totalitarian creed. Like it or not, people's attitudes and unconscious assumptions are shaped by the Legacy Media even today. They see, hear, or read a "news report" and accept it as undiluted, unpolluted fact. They read a bit of op-ed from some eloquent columnist with whom they agree on less weighty matters, and they accept his rendition rather than performing their own. They hear persons whom they admire, and whose good opinion they crave, declaim in this or that fashion, and they accept it and parrot it back to him for no better reason than their need for his approval.

And in part, it's because we've become uncomfortable with the concept of evil. We simply dislike the idea that there are persons in the world whose ultimate aim is our subjugation or destruction. And since it's an abstraction, not represented by any individual we have close at hand, we scowl and shrug it away.

Got a hot flash for you, sports fans: There is evil in the world. Now and then it's codified into a creed and set down between book covers. The Communist Manifesto. Mein Kampf. The Koran. Those who embrace such a creed are embracing evil.

Yes, it's a Christian's part to hate the sin but forgive the sinner and pray for his repentance. But it's a free man's part to fight the evildoer with all his power -- especially when at the end of the contest, one of you will be dead, and the other free to go on as he's done.

We are at war with Islam. We've been at war with Islam for forty-one years." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

See my remarks above. Islamic terrorists (including entire governments) have been at war with us for each of those forty-one years, but for much of that time we brushed aside the insults, the murders, the treachery, and the attacks against our military, our diplomats, and our civilians, as mere nuisances to be ignored or somehow bought off. Actual warfare, at least since the Jefferson administration, against Islamic terrorists, bandits, and pirates (but I repeat myself) has been quite rare, and more the occasional skirmish indicental to various rescue or other reactive and defensive missions.

"Try reading this concise report on Muslims' behavior in Western countries to which they've been admitted. Try rationalizing its evidence against any other conclusion than that Islam is an aggressive program of totalitarian conquest of the world, with a few theological trimmings as protective coloration.

Try imagining how "tolerance" for such a creed could eventuate any other way than in mass slaughter of the "tolerant" and the subjugation of the survivors."

Those with eyes to see need only observe developments in the erstwhile "Arab Spring" nations for a sneak-preview of what may be in store, Ralph Peters notwithstanding, for Western Europe.

9/11/11

re: "Children"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road ("where my shorter emissions will appear") is keeping tabs on broader trends.

Money quote(s):

"The Palestinian irredentists, as you're almost certainly aware, are demanding to be recognized as a nation-state by the United Nations. Their claim is hardly compatible with Westphalian criteria for statehood:

o Clear borders and the ability to maintain them militarily;

o The ability to maintain order within those borders, including the ability to suppress insurrections and avert civil war;

o Independence from external agents as regards domestic matters.

The absence of all three conditions from the autonomous zones along the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip hasn't slowed the Palestinian demand for recognition of state-sovereignty one little bit. They want it. They demand it. And for the other nations of the world to deny it to them is just not fair!

Mind you, the supposed president of this would-be nation-state won't grant Israel's sovereignty. Indeed, he's said he'll never do so. I have little doubt that anyone in his position would say so. Palestinians are quick to murder anyone who dares concede the legitimacy of Israel. Certainly no one who maintains it openly could rise to the top of their society. Yet Israel is a sovereign state by Westphalian criteria, and one of the most advanced nations in the world, at that. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA bows to none in his appreciation, even reverence, for the extraordinary civilizational artifact that is the Westphalian nation-state system. Yet, from its beginning, it has incorporated exceptions, some of which persist to this day.

"(T)he Greeks, whose country will collapse entirely without an infusion of cash from other European Union states, are unhappy about the terms of the deal the Eurozone central bank has concocted for them. It involves "going on austerity," a deadly phrase in European politics. The exact dimensions of that "austerity" are unknown to me, but they're probably pretty savage: you know, forty-hour work weeks and no retirement until age 62."

The horror. The horror.

CAA has a few Amcit relatives residing within the greater Athenian metropolitan area, including one whose recent retirement was greatly in advance of her sixtieth birthday.

It should be noted, to be fair, that although she retired more than two years ago, she has yet to begin receiving her promised retirement pay.

Where do you even start to fix a country like that?

11/2

re: "National Security Part 3: The Role Of Economics"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road reviewed the economic basis for military strength.

Money quote(s):

"The last thing any commander wants to do is take his men into an unwinnable war, especially a war unwinnable by reason of inadequate material resources"

Unfortunately, wars aren't always fought by two sides which chose to go to war against each other. It only takes on side to start a war. The enemy gets a vote.

"If a commander dislikes to go to war inadequately provisioned, a national command authority -- in the case of the United States, the president -- should dislike to send him there. Yet it's in the nature of nation-states that, as John Jay said most memorably, they'll go to war whenever there's a good chance of profiting thereby."

This pre-supposes that a commander-in-chief is sufficiently knowledgable, or sufficiently well-advised, that he (or she) knows the difference. Or cares.

(Yes, I'm still pissed about the whole "the army you have" crack.)

"Economic strength is both the precondition for military readiness and the requirement for military endurance. To be considered well defended, a nation must have both.

Analysts disagree on the extent to which a nation can endure various degrees of economic militarization. In the early years of the RAND Corporation, studies were submitted to the Pentagon that proposed that the United States could divert as much as 50% of its GDP to military expenditures, if that were necessary to meet some contingency. Needless to say, there was a wide spread of opinion on whether that was true, and if so, on how long the nation could remain in being under so large a military burden."

Full mobilization is something that the U.S. has never, not really, experienced. Nothing like what various European states, such as Britain, Russia, or Germany, experienced during World War II.

"(A)nnual military expenditures come to about $700 billion: 5% of GDP. Given that the armed forces are one of the seventeen enumerated powers of Congress, that doesn't seem disproportionate, especially considering the broadening of the military's missions and responsibilities in recent years."

Ah, but what about the penumbras!

"It must be said that we spend as much as we do on our military because our "allies" spend so little on theirs. Not only are we committed to their defense; we are all too frequently called in to handle crises they have disdained to address.

Yet despite all that spending and the large, capable military it supports, we are not secure."

There's no such thing as being completley secure, at least this side of the Pearly Gates. The writer discusses some of the ways in which he believes Americans perceive themselves to be insecure, which are worth reading, particularly with regards to the problems causing, and resulting from, illegal immigration.

"(N)ational security is affected by our willingness and ability to maintain mobilization bases: facilities from which we could rapidly develop new or previously rejected military capabilities, or greatly expand the ones we have.

Mobilization bases are important because few major wars begin as "bolts from the blue." There are normally clear indications that conflict is brewing well before the first exchange of fire. That would be so even in our present age, in which the interval between a firm decision and the ballistic nuclear bombardment of any point on the globe is no more than thirty minutes."

A firm decision should be made upon a basis of firm information. More than likely somewhat longer than 30 minutes would be required to assemble, to say nothing of developing, actionable intelligence.

"(S)uch mobilization bases cost money. Worse, it's money spent to remain flexibly poised against notional threats: possibilities that might never materialize. They're the first targets of budget-cutters in a time of austerity. Thus, we cannot be sanguine about building and maintaining such bases without maintaining our economic health and vitality. Even then, it would be necessary to keep unpleasant but yet unrealized possibilities in mind when the budget-cutters come to call."

Good advice for the strategic-minded, but the strategic-minded won't be calling the shots when the knives come out for budget cutting.

"America was not altogether ready for World War II. We had reduced our World War I Army to pre-war levels, and had retreated from most aspects of military production. Fortunately, the psychological response of Americans to the attack on Pearl Harbor left us ready and willing to endure a considerable degree of privation for the sake of the forces and materiel the war would require. Above all, America was rich enough, and free enough, to convert half of its productive sector to the making of weapons of war. It is unclear that we could do that today."

I'm a bit more optimistic about our ability to convert great swaths of our productive sector to war production, but I'm less sanguine about what of our productive sector actually remains within our own borders.

re: "American Denial"

Steve McCann at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") shared a little doom-saying to brighten our days.

Money quote(s):

"Many of us who immigrated to the United States from either war-ravaged or totalitarian countries, where freedom was either unknown or the quintessence of daydreams, find ourselves baffled by a trait common to the majority of Americans: the belief, consciously or subconsciously, that the worst cannot happen here. That somehow the demoralizing images and disturbing experiences of those elsewhere are confined to those poor souls and will never find their way to American shores."

Oddly, we import by the tens of thousands (as refugees) the very people whose folkways and cultures make this more likely.

"Is this mindset a by-product of 66 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity? Is there something unique in the American character that revels in denial? Is there over-confidence that Americans can accomplish anything? Is this outlook the end-product of a lack of education and appreciation of how the success of the United States is extraordinary and of the fact that since modern man took his first tentative step on the plains of Africa 200,000 years ago until the present less than 9% of all humanity has ever experienced true freedom?"

Yes and no. There's nothing uniquely American about denial. But there are uniqueties about the American character, however it might currently be alloyed.

"The United States is unique among nations because of its founding principles, geography and mix of cultures and races. Those factors enabled the country to overcome a myriad of tribulations in its early years and develop an atmosphere conducive to an overwhelming barrage of creativity, ingenuity and individual advancement."

The "mix of cultures and races" part actually something of a recent development. For most of the four centuries of America's modern history, America's non-indigenous cultures and races were a fairly homogenous blend of Western Europeans; Indians and Blacks were outsiders to it.

"The American populace is no longer taught the basics of the the founding the United States and how it was able to achieve the peace and prosperity that is the hallmark of the present day. Nor are they aware that the annals of history are littered with the refuse of once invincible cultures whose citizenry never thought the worst would ever happen to them. All succumbed to greed, complacency and hubris; traits which have also begun to dominate American society.

While some Americans are waking up to the potential economic and security disasters that loom over the horizon, the vast majority are not. There still exists, deep in the recesses of the American mindset, the entrenched thought that none of this will really happen. That somehow, because this is the United States, there will be an easy and painless way to offset the potential problems -- that is if these dilemmas really are genuine.

Those of us who have first-hand experience from other nations of what the worst can be, say with great assurance that it can happen in the United States and it will unless Americans, and in particular the governing class, awaken from their self-induced stupor and honestly face that reality."

Words of warning indeed.

_____

Hat tip to Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road.

re: "National Security Part 5: The Power Elite"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road takes a dim view of where we're headed.

Money quote(s):

"(C)itizen morale is an important -- nay, indispensable -- component of the national security. It determines how many of us will answer a "call to the colors," and how ardently we'll undertake the tasks it demands.

For most of its history, the United States was a high-morale society. Indeed, Albert Jay Nock, one of the premier cynics of his time, described our morale as like unto "an army on the march." It was so high that it sent millions of men into combat to protect and liberate faceless others, not once but twice."

"From the standpoint of the private individual, convinced by the words and deeds of the power elite that he is merely fodder for the State's schemes, disaffiliating from the nation and concentrating on personal security and gain is both reflexive and purely rational. Why should he take up arms to defend something that ceaselessly strives to shackle and mulct him? Why should he accept a politician's plea that he sacrifice for the greater good? He's been persuaded that a sacrifice is all he'll ever be. There's no future in it."

"Matters become particularly grave when the power elite acquires a general reputation for considering itself above the law. Law in a Western nation is nominally superior to any individual; that's the basis of republican governance. Lawbreakers are supposedly conceded no immunities because of their station in life. But in recent years, the practice has diverged greatly from the theory.

Should the power elite manifest a disdain for the requirements of the law through its actions, it will be exceedingly difficult to conceal that attitude from the citizenry. As no one ever thinks of himself as "below" anyone else, the inevitable consequence is the evaporation of respect for the law as such. Citizens will ignore, evade, and outrightly break the law whenever it's possible, safe, and to their advantage. Even the most popular laws will be indifferently enforced, as the enforcers will progressively more often "sell exemptions" -- i.e., look the other way for a consideration -- than act according to the black-letter law and their public responsibilities. They, too, have their individual interests to serve.

Domestic law and the prevailing level of respect for it might not seem relevant to national security. Yet there are forces, some overtly hostile, that exploit our willingness to break our own laws. The general incoherence of our attitude toward illegal immigration provides an excellent case study: it's not just job-hungry Mexicans that flow across our borders. The ongoing traffic in illegal drugs, and the intentions of those whom it funds, provide another." (Bold typeface added for emphasis.)

&

"(A) set of dynamics have operated, since the end of World War II at least, to reduce American national security. In part, it's because we've accepted more external commitments than we can honor, whether because of the finity of our forces or the strains on our pocketbooks. But in greater part, it's because of the social, economic, and political deterioration we've allowed here at home.

Your Curmudgeon must reluctantly assess America's national security as low, perhaps dangerously low. The extreme risk-aversion of our major foreign enemies is our main protection at this time. Even a small chance that the awesome military power we command might be deployed against them is enough to deter them...for now. But individuals and groups already within our borders that have acted to undermine our law, our economy, and our morale from within are exposed to no such risk -- and their successes to date have emboldened still other persons and groups, including some that are nominally, but in no other way, American."

re: "National Security Part 2: The Armed Forces"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road takes a look at "military" missions.

Money quote(s):

"(I)n the event of an invasion of the land territory of the United States, America's armed forces should reply with their full speed and power. That's what armed forces are for. If we're not going to use them for that, we needn't have spent all that money on guns, ships, tanks, planes, and various sort of ammunition for them. Despite that self-evident fact, the existence of our armed forces is itself an element of ongoing controversy, mainly arising from two questions:

How large a military do we need?

What should it do when it's not fighting in the field?

It is here, rather than in the use of whatever military we have at the moment to respond to an attack on America or her vital interests, that questions of national security arise."

IIRC (from my long-ago days as an AROTC cadet), the Army's mission is to defend the nation and carry out the national mission.

Defending the nation sounds simple enough, but is actually extraordinarily complicated.

Carrying out the national mission is whatever the commander-in-chief or the Congress says it is, pretty much.

"Only after World War II did our peacetime military grow to "superpower size." In large measure, that growth was elicited by the alliances the U.S. entered in the years after the war, most particularly NATO.

The NATO alliance occupied about half of America's combat power for forty-five years. The great size of the putative opponent -- the USSR -- seemed to demand a large military presence in Europe, if the Old World was to avert yet another continent-shattering war."

Mission accomplished. Second- and third-order consequences which nobody predicted (no one ever does) shouldn't obscure that basic fact.

"After the World Wars, it became America's job to secure the world's oceans, those indispensable conduits for travel and trade. Thus, the Navy could not be permitted to shrink to its pre-war size (even though it has). The emergence of the intercontinental bomber and the nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile as strategic threats made it necessary to erect the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), best known for its redoubt in Cheyenne Mountain. The swelling of those two services required the support of vast defense-contracting and defense-procurement apparatuses; modern wars must be fought with modern weapons, wielded according to the best available strategic and tactical thinking available." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"This was inevitable; technological advance, plus the emergence of a new, aggressive ideology and its dominance of two enormous nations, demanded it. Those who objected to the large military, saying that that nuclear weapons made it unnecessary, completely missed the critical point: You cannot respond to small, confined incursions with large, indiscriminate weapons. Indeed, large nukes cannot deter a similarly armed opponent willing to use lesser forces and military proxies to advance its interests. To meet the threat of such an opponent, a military capable of responding with calibrated force, from the smallest engagements all the way up to global nuclear war, is required.

Yes, even in "peacetime." " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"The current crisis along our borders, particularly our southern border, screams for a military response. Surely, an invasion need not be composed of uniformed men to be a danger to the nation. Indeed, it's arguable whether the armed drug gangs or the (generally unarmed) hordes of illegal aliens constitute the greater threat to our national security. "

This same argument has been posed, from a legal standpoint, to justify the exclusion of children born to illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

re: "The Final Assault: Foreseeable Mopping-Up Operations"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road extrapolates along similar lines as my yesterday's post.

Money quote(s):

"Since the enactment of same-sex marriage legislation by the State of New York, certain questions have been on the minds of those opposed to the idea:

What else will this change?
Will churches, synagogues, etc. be compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages?
What about businesses run by religious proprietors?"

&

"Given that New York, despite the cosmopolitan-secular veneer afforded it by New York City, is as religious as any other part of the country, the bill could not have passed the Senate without such provisions. However, given the activism of American judges, there is no guarantee that an appellate court will swallow either the exemptions or the inseverability provision. A court decision mandating same-sex marriage without any exemptions is quite possible, just as same-sex marriage was foisted upon Massachusetts by a judicial decree.

Finally, given the documented history of homosexuals' pressure upon the churches, particularly the Catholic Church, to accept them and their ways despite longstanding doctrine, it's easy to foresee additional rounds in this battle." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

re: "An Overfilled Heart: Usages And Abusages"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road is laudatory towards Mark Steyn and assesses politicians and policies.

Money quote(s):

"They who go into politics are generally persons of weak conscience. Two centuries of the demotic incentive -- the need to please 50%-plus-one to gain or retain power -- have produced a sub-race of Mankind almost completely free of moral qualms. All that matters to them in any situation that requires a decision is the utterly pragmatic determination of the currently relevant constituency: just who those 50%-plus-one are to be "this time." " (Emphasis in original. - CAA)

"It has been clear since 732 Anno Domini that the Western world, once better described as Christendom, is at war with Islam. Clear, that is, to anyone with adequate knowledge of the dictates of Islam whose intellect isn't fettered to an irrational desire to appear "tolerant" and "inclusive." "

Mr. Porretto has this precisely reversed. Islam has been at war with Christendom, indeed with all its neighbors, since its inception. (It's hardwired into the programming, after all.)

"Denunciations of the assertion that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim have been widespread. Suffice it to say that we'd rather not believe that 53% of American voters did such a stupid thing. And perhaps, in the sense of having disclaimed the Shahada and accepted Christian baptism, Obama is at least formally not a Muslim. However, his behavior since his inauguration to the presidency speaks otherwise. At the very least, in any clash between Muslim and non-Muslim interests or sensibilities, he prefers to take their side against ours. He's even said so, publicly."

If you're of the opinion that having a Muslim father suffices to make one a Muslim (as many do believe), then that's going to be your opinion. If you're of a more Christian mindset, you believe (as I do) that an individual's professions of faith are what matters.

(Think of it as an extension of our Constitutional principle forbidding "corruption of blood.")

He concludes:

"Ugly language can be abused -- and abusive. However, as I've written before, there are times when nothing else will suffice. If we're not at such a point today, we're awfully damned close to one.

But at the ultimate cusp, the "WTF macro" will not suffice. Present trends in mealy-mouthed, insincere international diplomacy continuing, we'll soon reach a nexus at which the options will be two: to surrender to Islam, root and branch; or to "cowboy the fuck up!" and acknowledge the true dimensions of this war. At that point, no amount of profanity, however employed, will adequately describe the horrors before us. More, the longer we take to get to that nexus, the worse the sequel will be, no matter which course we choose to follow." (Emphasis in original. - CAA)

This is indeed the quandary. Was Pres. Bush (#43) correct in directing us to painstakingly avoid the very Clash of Civilizations that UBL wished to incite? Or is such a global conflagration inevitable, with delay only increasing the bloodshed, body count, and likelihood of victory.

These are the sorts of questions that serious people should be thinking and talking about, not this ridiculous "Wiener-gate" nonsense.

re: "The Strange Case Of Pastor Terry Jones: A Sunday Screed"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road rejects the "Religion of Peace" construct. Emphatically.

Money quote(s):

"Were we ever to rid ourselves of the notion that Islam is "a religion of peace," we'd fall upon the Middle East, North Africa, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Muslim enclaves in Europe, and every other Islamic hellhole in a body. We'd purge that noxious creed from the world out of righteous wrath and humanitarian concern for all decent persons who want only to live in peace. Anyone who would dare to suggest that we'd be wrong to do so would earn our undying contempt."

I've got to say, as un-fond as I am of, the counterfactual ROP mantra, it's always seemed to me that Prof. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory was as much a warning as a paradigm. And that Pres. Bush (43) was correct in not making the GWOT into an intercivilizational war.

"There is absolutely no possibility of "reforming" Islam. Islam is founded on violence. It's made all its gains in the world through violence and intimidation."

And behavior which is rewarded will be repeated. Got that part.

re: "Libya, Libya, Libya"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road opines on strategy and national interests.

Money quote(s):

"The most consequential error a commander can make is erroneously assuming that he knows his enemy's objective. Indeed, the bulk of analysis during a ground engagement goes into deducing the enemy's objective from his tactics. The underlying principle is so fundamental that it's almost invisible: You're fighting specifically to deny the enemy his objective, and to misconceive it all but guarantees that he'll reach it despite you.

On the other side of the ledger is your objective: the specific goal you're trying to reach in the circumstances before you. Oftentimes, it's merely the negation of your enemy's objective. In simple, two-contestant actions, that's almost always the case. That implies that at the end, either one of you will win and the other will lose, or both of you will retreat from your campaigns, having thwarted one another."

A commander on the ground has to worry about both tactics and operational art. Americans are spectacularly good at this stuff, btw. However, those are just the first two rungs of the ladder; there's strategy and grand strategy. But knowing your own objectives is essential and figuring out your adversary's is nearly as important.

"There are many players in this game. They're not limited to the Qaddafist forces and the rebels opposing them. The situation entangles many of the nations of Europe and the Middle East, plus supra-national forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood. America's own objectives are highly muddled, as it's unclear what outcome would benefit us at all, much less more than all other possible outcomes."

I like the way he thinks. Nice and convoluted-y.

"(A) good guideline for messes such as Libya is to defer making any irrevocable decisions until clarity should arrive. That guideline will sometimes leave us sitting on our hands while a golden opportunity passes by...but it will always prevent us from expending American blood and treasure to no gain, or to our ultimate rue."

&

"For the present, it's best to watch and wait. Given our military power and the relative weakness of all the other participants, no configuration of circumstances is likely to arise that couldn't possibly be undone in the future. Let's have a little clarity before exposing more of our bravest citizens to flying lead and anti-aircraft fire."

re: "Ho hum."

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road is asking a couple of excellent questions.

Money quote(s):

"Are there any elected officials within 100 miles of Washington, D.C. with a sense of urgency about national security? I’d settle for Congressional majorities composed of people who’ve simply seen “The Longest Day” and “Saving Private Ryan.” Forget profound strategic insight."

It's increasingly unclear to me whether there are any officials, in or out of uniform, at the policy making level who can conceptualize the military art at above the Operational level.

America does quite well at the Operational level.

American troops are actually positive geniuses at the Tactical level.

But when you start to talk Strategy or, heavens forfend, Grand Strategy, it becomes apparent that nobody's reading their Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, or even their Mao.

re: "Islam’s sterilizing homogeneity."

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road examines history and culture.

Money quote(s):

"The Golden Age of Islam. Puhleez. More like the Gold Age of Plunder plus living off the doomed remnants of local Persian and Egyptian scholars and artists who had a chance at independent thinking before the Islamic Curtain of Intellectual Darkness descended."

Yeah, that's kind of the under-mentioned part of the PC "cultural and scientific contributions of Islam" riff. And they're off to a great start doing it to Europe, btw.

"As we all know by now, outright rejection of Muslim doctrine is apostasy and it and its country cousins are a green light to the murder of the apostate by the do-it-yourselfers perpetually on duty in Muslim lands for housecleaning of this type. A fatwa by some imamical jackass in the Hindu Kush seems to be sufficient authorization for DIY teams (aka mobs) in Morocco to dispatch too-independent thinkers, though I get the impression that a “boys will be boys” approach will be taken in the case of too much local initiative, too much zeal in the service of Allah. There’s no shortage of Islamic zeal anywhere in the world and what’s one more dead infidel in a crowded world anyway?"

This is one of those under-mentioned downsides to Sharia. Next slide please.

"Also good for anyone in Muslim lands to avoid is blasphemy, an exceedingly elastic concept, that encompasses, for example, Christians who get into neighborhood, land, water, or business disputes with Muslims. After reading about several cases, I gather that it is a common practice for Christians in disputes with Muslims to try to gain a psychological advantage over their Muslim opponents by insulting to Mohammed or Islam. An example of this might be, “Sir, kindly permit me to say that I think your idea of the boundary line between our two properties is in error. Let us obtain an actual plat of the properties and see where the line lies.” Naturally, blasphemy charges (with death penalty) are brought when Christians insist on such reckless and insulting ways of settling disputes."

In a seminar-type setting today, a colleague made an ignorant comment about how the U.S. tries to implement U.S.-style democracy in other countries. She was referring, I believe, to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Hello? In neither case have we done anything like establishing a U.S.-style representative democracy. In both cases we've helped establish European-style parliamentary democracies, which are not the same things at all.

(Don't believe me? Tell me who America's prime minister is?)

re: "Magical thinking."

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road remarks on the Army's failure regarding MAJ Hasan.

Money quote(s):

"Consider, too, the exquisite irony of Hasan’s performance rating officers being psychiatrists with, supposedly, the professional skills to detect all manner of mental aberration and dissembling. The cowardice, blindness, or dissembling was their own.

The military promotes an internal culture that betrayed our troops by failing to protect them from clear, observable threats. The federal government itself fails in its elemental duty to protect the nation and, in fact, actively undermines its security.

And still the American electorate could not rouse itself to vote in a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. And still the southern border is unsecured. And still there is immigration from Muslim and other third-world countries."

re: ""The Perfect Day" and Our Terrorist Opponent's Possible Plans For Future Attacks"

LTC (RET) Dave Grossman (author of On Combat) at Guns & Patriots puts some history into useful context for today.

Money quote(s):

"I have been told (by those conducting interviews with captured enemy combatants) that when we ask them "What is coming next?" they sometimes refer to the "Perfect Day." You cannot understand what they are talking about if you do not understand the historical reference.

The Sepoy Mutiny in India, in 1857, is an example of a "Perfect Day." This was a spontaneous uprising by Muslims (and Hindus), with everyone giving the British their "best shot." Nannies killed the kids, cooks poisoned the food, and shop owners murdered the British ladies as they came into the shop. And soldiers (sometimes complete units) killed their British officers and then used their weapons to attack the British.

The current politically correct term for the Sepoy Mutiny is "The First Indian rebellion." "

""The First Indian rebellion" is, to them, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and the Alamo all rolled into one. And 99% of Westerners have never heard about it.

In their dreams and fond imaginations, this is what will happen across all of the "Crusader nations" who are in Afghanistan. Pick a day, and everyone gives it their best shot. If just one-in-a-thousand of the Islamic people in our nations answer the call to Jihad, it will still be thousands of attackers ... Some will opt for a "John Mohamed/Malvo" whacking people from the trunks of cars. Others for a Virginia Tech lone gunman in the school. Others will attack school busses, nannies will kill the kids, clerks will kill customers, cooks (in the elementary school?) will poison the cool-aid. Etc, etc.

The enemy thinks big, and we (with wishful thinking compounded by ignorance of their history) keep thinking small. The goal of this Perfect Day (in addition to terror) is to make us imprison (intern) our Islamic populations (as we did to the Japanese in WWII), thus making this a 'war against Islam' instead of the current war against terrorist groups and Islamist fundamentalists."

"This is their dream. Our goal is to prevent it through thru: careful study and understanding of their history and culture; assimilation (the French are an excellent example if what not to do in this area); and – most importantly – deterrence and detection, which is what I teach in my classes.

The enemy can be deterred! They fear one thing. They fear failure! They are not afraid to die: some of them want to die. But they desperately do not want to die for nothing! And our goal is to win a battle in the minds of millions of Islamic people in our nation, who are asking the key question: Can I succeed? Can I get a body count?"

&

"(S)tates like Illinois, and Wisconsin (the only two states with absolutely no concealed carry for anyone, anyhow, ever), or California, Massachusetts, and others (with very stringent and limited concealed carry laws) are the most likely targets for this kind of attack.

The time may come when (like Israel) we need armed riders on every school bus and armed guards in every school and ever daycare center. And the only way that we can do so is (like Israel) to depend on armed citizens and armed teachers to protect their children.

The millions of Americans who are buying guns are not foolish. I would submit that they are doing the one thing that individual citizens can do, and that is to arm themselves. This is America. When faced with a threat we don't take away rights, we give you more rights!"


-----

Hat tip to Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road.

re: "The party's over"

Aaron at Eternity Road didn't exactly cheer me up.

Not that cheering me up is in his job description.

Money quote(s):

"Part of my message is driven by fear, for I know it is the young men my age that pay when the world begins to unravel. My voluntary attempt at military service a couple of years ago ended before it really took off, but I may be getting another crack at it, this time by draft, in a few short years. I don’t mean to scaremonger, but the nice, globalized world of the late 20th century will be giving way to something else entirely in the 21st.

America, protected by two oceans, always has the benefit of being able to choose its wars. The rest of the world is not so lucky."

"This time it will emanate from Europe, although it will also involve our financial system in a secondary role. The massive doses of fiscal stimulus applied to economies the world over managed to delay the inevitable by a year or two and even produced a nice little ramp job in the stock market, but the hour of reckoning is upon us."

"Even if the Eurozone manages to come to a consensus on the Greek bailout (still not a certain deal), I would set the odds at even that the Greek government will fall regardless and the new masters will repudiate Greece’s debt anyway."

"The EU bailout is also predicated on forcing non-Euro EU members like Great Britain and Sweden to pony up. Do you think they’re salivating at the possibility of shoveling money into the Greek tar pit to save a currency they don’t use?"

It's also predicated on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loaning an unspeakable amount of money to the EU, at least a quarter of that money from the U.S. This is known in economic circles as "throwing good money after bad." We learned about this in my accounting classes, the term was "sunken costs."

The unspoken side of that is the calculus of how exactly you can put a price tag on measures to avert, or even delay, this sort of catastrophe. I'm sure some bright post-grad students (assuming either catastrophe is averted or that graduate schools survive it) will be able to attach dollar figures to just that, in the far by and by. But that means the time being bought has to be used for preparations to make national survival more likely should the coming disaster not be avoided.

"All of this means war in Europe, and soon. Maybe it will be contained to civil unrest/war within the worst-off countries like Portugal and Italy. Maybe it will be bigger than that. It is hard to say, but the crack up of the EU won’t be pretty."

&

"The truth is that our economic policy since the crash has been to cover up, lie about, and fraudulently trade based on worthless assets like underwater mortgages, just as we did during the housing bubble. Rather than break up the large banks, reinstate Glass-Steagall, and re-balance the economy by letting those who made bad bets fail, we have been playing make believe on everything from stock prices to consumer spending (read: handouts).

Europe’s troubles may let us get away with it awhile longer, or it may force recognition of enough bad assets on the nation’s collective balance sheet that we will get to replay 2008."

This is another reason to help the EU out of its present difficulties, if we can. After all, the house of cards falling over will be our own as well.

""

re: "Criminal ideologies"

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road ("Freedom Commandos -- and there is no finer species") discussed some of America's existential threats.

Money quote(s):

"We didn’t ban the Communist party, but we should have. Freedom of Religion is absolute, but it does exist on the assumption that the religion in question is not a criminal ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. And that is exactly what Islam, like Nazism or Communism is.

Freedom of Religion was meant to protect religious freedom, not protect religious terrorism."

"The solicitude of the Soviet Union for greater voter registration and equality of educational opportunity here apparently motivated it to expend large sums of money inside our borders. To downplay their altruism, those crazy guys used Armand “the Bag Man” Hammer to transfer those sums secretly to the Communist Party of the US.A. (Note that this is a fact one mentioned publicly at great personal peril when Mr. Hammer was still alive.) Too, that they were a bunch of murderous thugs hostile to all that America stands for was something that they thought Americans in their parochial view of things would not appreciate."

"The idea that domestic communists weren’t committed to the overthrow of the U.S. is ridiculous now and was then. To call yourself a communist at any time is to associate yourself with an ideology of dictatorship, subjugation, summary execution, and judicial murder—the reality of every communist regime that ever was. No amount of naivete or willful blindness can excuse that association. To pretend that communism was something benign and “progressive” was an exercise in protective coloration."

&

"Think death for apostasy, shariah supplanting the Constitution, rule by ignorant priests, male supremacy, subjugation of women, implacable hostility to rational thought, war against and subjugation of infidels everywhere, destruction of Christian churches and the Christian religion itself, and execution of infidels unwilling to live as dhimmis in their own land, just to name a few things off the top of my head.

So, yes. Criminal ideologies.

Best obliterated, expelled, or quarantined."

re: "Leftist cognitive virulence."

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road does not think it's cognitive dissonance.

Money quote(s):

"In the 20th century, the world stood knee deep in a lake of blood filled by every manner of leftist policy and inherent excess—revenge; torture; exploitation; starvation; the elevation of psychopaths (Che), drunks, and peasants; subversion (Armand Hammer); assassination; execution; organ harvesting; concentration camps; aggressive war; arbitrary justice; subservient courts; sponsorship of terrorism; diplomatic support for cretins and monsters; and pursuit of ideas of human nature and economics that would have been laughable if they hadn’t been pathetic and murderous.

But this was, from the beginning, invisible to leftists. They were convinced that the highest human good was (a) to support any unanchored freaks who could fit the words “brotherhood,” “justice,” or “capitalist pig” into every second sentence and (b) to pull down any structure erected by our ancestors to encourage the triumph of reason, to transmit knowledge, to encourage free inquiry, to restrain arbitrary government, and to liberate women and the poor from bonds both legal, customary, and economic. "

re: "Double plus good interacting, reaching out and engaging to set the stage for progress."

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road has an odd sense of humor.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ne thing worries me. Isn’t someone missing from the Obama/Clinton Interagency Iran Threat Team, and isn’t her absence evidence that Barack and Hillary still aren’t serious about Iranian nukes?

Yes! Janet Reno!"

&

"When she was Attorney General, Janet knew how to “reach out” to grave threats to the Nation such as the Branch Davidian fortress outside Waco. She knew how to deal with real fanatics."