Mr. Auster said, “I don’t remember German Americans or Italian Americans campaigning to defeat politicians who supported America’s involvement in World War II. No one would have stood for it.”

True. Back then we still interned thousands of German and Italian Americans. Nearly half of those interned during WWII were of European descent, even though none of them had expressed open disloyalty the way thousands of Nisei did — attempting even to disavow their U.S. citizenship.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3570

But back in those days, we were serious about winning wars that we absolutely had to win.

“But back in those days [of World War II], we were serious about winning wars that we absolutely had to win.”

If this left-liberal post-modern post-nation-state business keeps up, with coddling of obvious domestic fifth-column elements in time of war (not to mention admitting more and more of them into the country all the time), pushing women into the roles of combat infantryman and combat jet fighter pilot, etc., there will come a day, perhaps not too far off, when we will end up losing a “war that we absolutely had to win.”

Whom do we go to then, for our last-ditch protection? Do we go to all the left-liberal post-modernists to find safety?

I sorta doubt it …

Unadorned makes a good point that can’t be made too often. Perhaps I can help clarify it for the few that might not have gotten it. It seems there is something seriously wrong with the morale of a country having almost THREE HUNDRED million people that patriotism or at least a vocational spirit cannot attract enough men, young or older, to fill the ranks of a few Roman legions.

It is no wonder the ruling elites pander to legal and illegal immigrants. They are the future, or so the elites trust. The elites see only a few such as those here that are actually fighting to regain a common culture.

Where are the liberals? Putting footprints on everyone else’s backs as they run for the refuge of their white, uncomplicated enclaves.

Bush has to be beaten; his leadership of the Mexican/Hispanic invasion must be stopped. This 2004 election might be similar to the battle of Midway. If the U.S. carriers had been sunk or the Japanese carriers had gotten away, there is no telling how long the Japanese would have ruled the Pacific and eastern Asia. If Bush is not sunk, there is no telling how long the invaders will rule America.

I was on the American side of the first stage of Bush’s Midway attack, and I lost. I have been trying even harder to win the second stage.

The Virginia GOP has a solution. In the middle of a war on (Islamist) terrorism, it is running Kamal Nawash of the Arab Anti-Defamation Commitee for State Senate in Arlington.
http://www.kamalnawash.com/news/article.php?article=7

Nawash served as Husein Ibish’s number two.

http://www.islam-online.net/iol-english/dowalia/news-2000-June-09/topnews1.asp

Nawash is still actively working with communist gorups like ANSWER http://community.webshots.com/photo/74303905/74341116nBhUqp

Grover Norquist, Warner, and Rove are traitors.

The Virginia GOP is just following the lead given by the party’s head: GWB. I’m waiting for Bush to endorse Cruz Bustamante in the California recall race; stranger things have happened! P Murgos is right - for all the reasons given in several recent threads, President Bush and his Svengali, Rove, have got to go. If the price is a term of HILLARY! (to borrow from her Senate campaign posters) in the White House, it is worth paying - and might well be to real conservatism’s benefit in the long run. There won’t be as much of a conservative backlash against Bush/Rove Republicanism as there should be, but I think a HILLARY! presidency might shake them from their torpor. I’m only a cockeyed optimist, though (apologies to Rodgers and Hart). HRS

“If the price is a term of HILLARY … in the White House, it is worth paying.”

I agree. Though let’s not kid ourselves about the horrible costs, for example, an advance of globalist UN treaties, such as the UN global gun control agenda which was heroically stopped by the Bush administration at the UN in the summer of 2001. (See my articles at NewsMax about that.)

Also, “Cockeyed Optimist” is from South Pacific, by Rogers and Hammerstein.

Sorry, I thought it was Hart but didn’t have time to check. I was in a local production of SP last year but didn’t get to sing that song, not surprisingly.

Under today’s Republicans we are constantly ratcheted Leftward all unaware (most “conservatives” are unaware, anyway). It’s that old Hegelian mambo again, or the old saw about how to boil a frog. As long as GWB is stoking the fire, most conservatives won’t notice they are being boiled. If Hillary is the stoker, one can bet they will.

As for the UN, it is likely that a new Clinton administration would try to sign the United States up to its globosocialist agenda through treaties, which would be bad. However, a really conservative administration and Congress, such as we could get in reaction to a President Hillary, would likely repudiate such follies. If a Bush administration (don’t assume a second GW Bush administration - especially with a Vice President Condi - won’t drift much farther Left) were to do the same things, mainstream conservatives would not get mad enough to do anything about it and, in Panglossian fashion, would rationalize the new world order as the temperature rises, as neocons already do.

To break the trance, Bush and his Republican Party must be broken at the polls. The question is what should fill the vacuum. Should it be a reformed Republican Party that shifts Right (supporting it would be a triumph of hope over experience, it seems to me) or a new party that is genuinely of the Right? If the latter, what form should that take? HRS

Terrorism is a symptom of a bigger problem

The world watched in horror as Kim Sun-il cried and begged not to be killed. Nevertheless, he met the same fate as Paul M. Johnson Jr., and Nicholas Berg as his head was cut off in the most brutal and inhumane way. Unfortunately, this will not be the end of the beheadings. The amount of media coverage the beheadings attract guarantees there will be many more.

These days, not a day goes by without news of terrorism in the name of Islam. Islamist terrorism represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. With this in mind, the war against terrorism will not be won unless the world understands that terrorism is a symptom of a bigger problem and not the problem in itself.

The root cause of terrorism is an ideology called “political Islam.” Political Islam is a desire by extremist Muslims to create a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam based on Sharia (Islamic Law) that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance, fear, and a rejection of secularism that inspired the beheading of Kim Sun-il, Paul M. Johnson Jr., and Nicholas Berg.

Political Islam has been growing at turbo speed since the 1980s. Similar to the spread of communism, the call for Islamic states has gained substantial following among the poor, unemployed, disenfranchised and those who are disillusioned in believing that the creation of Islamic states and the implementation of Shraia will solve all their problems. In fact, every modern example of an Islamic state, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, or Nigeria has resulted in war, terrorism, inequality for women and non-Muslims, poverty and a slippery slope into the dark ages.

Terrorism is a natural result of political Islam because those who seek Islamic states believe that they are trying to implement the wishes of God and that no matter how barbaric their tactics are, God will be pleased with them because their goal is “noble.”

Thus, the war on terrorism will not be won unless the world also engages in an ideological battle with Muslim extremists and those who call for the creation of Muslim states. No one is better suited in challenging the use of terror and Muslim extremism than moderate Muslims and Muslim organizations. Unfortunately, there is no unconditional opposition to political Islam or to extremism from Muslim organizations.

Muslim organizations in the United States and elsewhere have refused to take a Zero tolerance approach against terrorism. Although most Muslims organizations claim to be against terrorism, they only do so as long as they don’t have to give details. For example, Most American Muslim organizations refuse to call HAMAS or Hezbollah terrorist organizations. This is because they share their ideology and their call for the creation of “Islamic States.” Until the day comes when Muslim organizations and leaders take a zero tolerance approach toward terrorism, the war against terrorism will not be won and we will continue to hear of more beheadings.

Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
www.Freemuslims.org

“This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam …” Is this a delusion? Modernity has not been too kind to Judaism and Christianity. Why would Islam be any different?