| « | All Politics Is...Federal! |
»
|
|
Friday, November 06, 2009
Where Are The Americans?
Six years ago, I wrote of the critical difference between American society and others, shall we say, less advanced:
Though Washington, Madison, Jefferson and the rest were the titans of their day, behind them stood still others with just as much understanding of the ideas of liberty and justice. They were emigrants from Europe, or the descendants of such emigrants, who had come here seeking freedom and opportunity. They knew what it would require to transform freedom in the New World’s virgin vistas into prosperity and security. They had learned it the hard way.America is what it is because it is a made society, founded on clearly understood principles by a pioneer people. The societies of Africa are legacy societies, weighed down by the tribal traditions, superstitions and animosities of thousands of years, unleavened by the Enlightenment from which our core concepts sprang. Until Africa renounces its past, there will be no room in which to build a new future.
One of the things for which Americans are internationally known is our responsiveness to injustice and tragedy: We rush to help. We don't say "It's someone else's problem." We send our sons, our money, and our fighting men. We usually get results -- and we always dwarf the contributions of non-Americans.
Say what you will about the wisdom of our involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq, or our defense of Bosnian Muslims against Serbian efforts to exterminate them, or our 1990 liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein: We were trying to help. We saw suffering and monstrous injustice. We acted according to our best judgment, we committed ourselves wholly, and we asked nothing in return. In certain cases, it might have been unwise to intervene. But no one can justly fault Americans' intentions, no matter how many have tried.
That's what Americans do. That's the sort of people we are. But in recent years, we've frequently been reviled as self-serving monsters, eager to rape the peoples of other lands for whatever we can get from them. Some of the persons saying such things have good reason to know better.
Yes, this is about Fort Hood.
In case you've spent the last thirty years in a coma, the world has been having a spot of trouble with the totalitarian pseudo-religion called Islam. Some of its adherents think they have a divine warrant to convert, subjugate, or kill anyone who's not a Muslim. Others among them, while not willing to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest, willingly support the violent ones with money and shelter. The rest will brook no criticism of Islam as the source of such violence -- indeed, they'll argue that a mere verbal insult constitutes sufficient justification for Muslims' acts of savagery against us "infidels."
What do Americans say about all this?
Without exception, our major news media are engaged in a conspiracy of silence about the Islamic roots of international terror. The reportage on the Fort Hood atrocity very nearly omitted to mention that the captured killer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, is a Muslim of Palestinian descent. Until very late in the news cycle, none of the media organs mentioned this man's frightening statements in defense of suicide bombers, or that the FBI has been monitoring him for six months. If it were possible for the media to suppress all mention of Hasan's obviously Middle Eastern name, no doubt they would have done so.
Very un-American. Americans speak their minds and damn the consequences. Americans face facts. Most important, Americans confront their enemies and give at least as good as they get.
Clearly, there aren't any Americans left in the major media.
After World War II, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was universally renowned as the foremost organization of its kind. Its counterintelligence and counterespionage record during the war testified to its effectiveness. Axis agents assigned to penetrate the United States lived in as much fear of the FBI as Axis soldiers did of the United States Marines.
J. Edgar Hoover, the legendary chief of the Bureau, was ruthless about pruning out agents who weren't utterly dedicated to the security of the United States and the well-being of its people. For many years he was personally involved in candidate selection, and had the final word on the approval of new hires. In those years the FBI was considered above all suspicion, both for its methods and its motives; anyone who knew an FBI agent knew a living example of patriotism and integrity.
Things are a little different today, of course. We haven't had an FBI director of Hoover's quality since he left the Bureau. His successors have all permitted the politicization of the Bureau to some degree, which several times resulted in its embarrassment or worse. In particular, the indications are that the Bureau's original singleness of purpose has been compromised by political correctness.
Just now, the politically correct position is that Islam is "a religion of peace," that it can't possibly be involved with violence or terrorism in any slightest degree. The FBI has been shackled to that assumption, which has been reinforced by the Bureau's unwise involvement with several Muslim-mouthpiece groups as "sensitivity trainers." No doubt it was in service to political correctness that even before anything substantive was known about Malik Hasad and his collaborators, FBI spokesmen proclaimed with absolute assurance that the Fort Hood mass murder was "not a terrorist act."
Americans don't do that. They don't make absolute proclamations exculpating their open, sworn enemies without some sort of evidence. They don't preemptively kowtow to victimist groups. And when evidence does become available, they follow it to whatever conclusions it dictates.
If there are Americans in the FBI, it wasn't they who made the "not a terrorist act" pronouncement.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) leaped into the matter to caution Americans against concluding that Islam had anything to do with Nidal Malik Hasan's outrage, and to urge Muslims to watch their backs for reprisals from us "infidels." But anyone who pays attention to the news would have expected that; it's what CAIR does after every Muslim atrocity. There aren't any Americans in CAIR. There haven't been for a long time.
Barack Hussein Obama, inflicted on us as president for the sins of the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies, made a brief statement about Fort Hood. Basically, he deplored the violence and expressed his sympathies for the slain and their families. He passed from that as quickly as possible to return to his attempts to socialize American health care. If he was conscious of the Islamic connection to this atrocity, he gave no indication. We need not look for Americans in the Obama White House.
Other federal officeholders have been silent. Perhaps we'll hear from Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D, MN) later today about how Islam couldn't possibly have given rise to such a "tragedy."
My colleagues, friends, and acquaintances are stunned, not so much by the mass killing -- murder is Muslims' sole newsworthy achievement, after all -- but by the rush to deny that Islam was at all relevant to it. The facts are as plain as print. The conclusions they imply seem inescapable. They look at one another as if to say, Where are the Americans? Are we all that's left?
Perhaps.
When I mentioned to the C.S.O. this morning that Nidal Malik Hasan had been under FBI monitoring for his record of pro-jihadist statements, she immediately replied "What could they do about it? Freedom of speech." But this is a misconception. Army officers do not have absolute freedom of speech; they never have. Statements regarded as detrimental to the United States or its armed forces can get an Army officer cashiered. The sorts of statements Hasan made, over a long period of time and in several fora, should have been enough to see to that. It compels me to question whether the overriding desire not to offend a Muslim or Muslims was, to borrow a phrase from our left-liberal friends, the root cause of the murders of ten soldiers and two civilians yesterday afternoon at Fort Hood.
It's not an American practice to spend our soldiers' lives to no constructive purpose. Indeed, it's not an American thing to shed anyone's blood for nothing. We prosecute our men at arms on the slightest suspicion that they've "exceeded the rules of engagement" or have gone "beyond mission parameters" in causing harm to others -- even if scant seconds ago, those others were trying to kill them.
Apparently, Hasan's superiors in the Army were aware of his proclivities. They did nothing about them. He was even promoted recently, despite a record of poor performance assessments that would have justified compelling him to retire as a captain.
There are a lot of Americans in our Army. But not all its officers qualify for that title.
Time was, the slogan: "America: Love It Or Leave It!" was on many lips. Those who used it probably meant it sincerely. Who could use it sincerely today?
Not our president, who thinks abasing our country before foreign tyrants is the right way to conduct American foreign policy.
Not our news media, who routinely slant their offerings, both reportage and commentary, to conduce to the greatest possible harm to the United States.
Not the spokesmen for the FBI, who repeatedly issue proclamations designed to deflect attention from the near-perfect correlation of Islam and terrorism.
Not Nidal Malik Hasan's superiors at Fort Hood, who permitted him to remain there, a place bristling with weapons and men intended to wield them, despite his long-obvious animosity toward the United States.
Not the Quislings and spineless ones of the Left, to whom this is more of an indictment of the United States -- in the person of the Bush Administration, of course -- than a fresh new data point about the dangers of having Muslims among us.
Where are the Americans?
Comments
We are suppressed, and all but silenced.
Foreign ideas have taken hold of our self-anointed elites, any they are now promoting those ideas as the “next natural course” for America, as the fulfillment of our historic ideals, when they are in fact the abandonment of those ideals.
The efficacy of the ballot box is questionable, and long waned at best. The efficacy of the soap box remains, but is under assault.
May God preserve us from the necessity of the ammo box.
Posted by on 11/06/2009 at 10:54 AMI must agree with our esteemed co conspirator Fran as well as Randy with one significant exception. The massacre occurring yesterday at Ft. Hood was NOT an act of “terrorism” in the strict definition of the term: “1 terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.”
This muzzie is guilty of Treason i.e. making war on the United States. His actions were not directed against civilians but members of the military on a military installation. This is merely another episode in the war which has been ongoing since at least the 1979 occupation of the U.S Embassy in Tehran. Sadly our rulers refuse to recognize the nature and determination of the enemy which we dare not name.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 11/06/2009 at 12:57 PMMilitary posts, like schools are “gun free” zones regarding personal defense weapons. When the shooting began a government authorized representative having a gun had to be summoned. Meanwhile the slaughter continued for several minutes.
Molon Labe indeedPosted by Pogo on 11/06/2009 at 02:58 PMPogo brings up a fact that could never happen in your world of Hope, Fran.
It came to my mind when I first heard news of this outrage. If only.
Another thought if I may.
When you hear people refer to this as a tragedy, get a bit angry with them. It’s a tragedy for the victims and their families; it’s an OUTRAGE that our current state of Political Correctness made their tragedy inevitable.Posted by Pascal (the derivative) on 11/06/2009 at 04:37 PMThe Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost.
David Horowitz, with Brain Dead Country, has pretty much written what could easily be a guest segment for your Convergence of the Death Cults series.
Hasan had semi-automatic weapons. But they weren’t nuclear. That possibility is just around the corner unless we undergo a sea change in our attitudes and marshal the intelligence and the courage to recognize the threat.
Posted by Pascal (the derivative) on 11/07/2009 at 12:16 AMWe will either have change (of the right and proper sort)in 12 months from now, or we will have limited ourselves to only one choice left to chose from.
The political correctness virus has infected the Armed Forces since at least the late 60’s (anyone remember the “Z-grams"). And the seeds which were starting to be planted than have brought fourth a bitter harvest in these past few days.
Our esteemed host, and commentators above, are all correct. I can only add, there are still some Americans out there, we will do what needs to be done, but the last chance of the ballot box, must be our course (unless dramatic events precludes this), before we look toward the ammo box.
Posted by Guy S. on 11/07/2009 at 03:04 AMWhen Bob Redford as Jeremiah Johnson in the movie comes upon Delgue (dellg-You) buried up to his neck in sand and asks, “You all right?”
Delgue, “Oh yes. I’ve got a fine horse under me.” Next he asks, “Injuns do this?” Delgue, “T’weren’t Mormons!” Perhaps the contemporary dialogue might be, “Jihadists do this?” “T’weren’t Episcopalians!”Posted by Kerry on 11/07/2009 at 11:21 AMOh yes, it gets worse. Canada Free Press has uncovered documents and video of Major Hasan’s participation in an Obama transition team.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16622
Posted by Ol' Remus on 11/07/2009 at 12:47 PMI despair of the ballot box. Where are the sufficient quantity and quality of candidates to restore limited government, and roll back over a century of government expansion? In which party can such persons, should they allow themselves to be identified, actually achieve viable* candidacy?
It appears to me that it will be necessary to seize control of the apparatus of one of the major parties in order to get such persons into viable* candidacy. The only alternative would be to break the hammerlock that the existing major parties have on the electoral process.
*This requirement precludes the politically ineffectual Libertarian Party, as well as any other so-called third party
Posted by on 11/07/2009 at 01:10 PMMilitary posts are “gun-free” zones ...
Wasn’t that on Monty Python?
Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on 11/07/2009 at 07:44 PMYour query, “Where are the Americans?”, only scratches the surface. For example, the vast majority of Europeans do not understand the political implications of the Cologne Mosque, a mosque with minarets 55 meters high, a mosque that represents the political aspirations of the Ummah to subjugate the ahl al-kitaab. Charles Martel, King Sobieski...these are merely fairie tale characters to the enlightened post-modern intellectuals of modern day Europe.
I’ve never been a nihilist, but I’ve lost hope. The leaders of Free Inquiry are gone. They’ve been replaced by drones who prop the gates open...and here comes the 7th century supremicist cult...with a key to the city.
Posted by on 11/08/2009 at 12:24 AMAbout stateside military bases being gun-free zones: why wouldn’t they be? You don’t walk around your house armed do you?
When we’re on a base in the states, we’re at home with our family. No gang wars, no car-jackings, no burglary, no speeding even. And no mass murders, especially not perpetrated by one of our “brothers.” That’s what made Hasan’s act so galling.
Think about it. A US military base in the states should be one of the safest places on earth. If we have need to walk around armed there then we have bigger problems than one jihadist turncoat shrink and one Marxist C-in-C.
Posted by baldilocks on 11/10/2009 at 10:22 PMExcept that a “gun-free” military base bespeaks of the government mindset toward armed persons - on base, only law enforcement (MPs) are armed; even our soldiers are treated as untrustworthy to bear arms except under the tightest government controls.
If soldiers routinely carried sidearms, on base and off, not only would this atrocity likely not have happened at all, but many other on- and off-base problems wouldn’t happen as well.
Posted by on 11/11/2009 at 09:52 AMMy house is 2000 sq ft and defense weapons are readily at hand. My previous home consisted of 120 acres of woodland with criminal neighbors. You can bet your sweet bippy I was always armed.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 11/11/2009 at 01:22 PMExcept that a “gun-free” military base bespeaks of the government mindset
toward armed persons - on base, only law enforcement (MPs) are armed; even
our soldiers are treated as untrustworthy to bear arms except under the
tightest government controls.Or it speaks of a cost-benefit analysis done at which the likelihood of a Hasan or any other violent crime occurring on a stateside military base was calculated to be very low and military and civilian contracted security forces were trained to handle what did occur. Those chance are higher now, but much lower than outside the gate.
If soldiers routinely carried sidearms, on base and off, not only would
this atrocity likely not have happened at all, but many other on- and
off-base problems wouldn’t happen as well.Perhaps. Other problems would occur, however because—guess what? There is no perfect solution. Hasan would have still been armed and would still done what he did—perhaps at the same place. He *expected* to get taken down. That’s Jihadis “live” for.what
There are several in my smaller house, but I don’t walk around with them on my hip.My house is 2000 sq ft and defense weapons are readily at hand.
My previous home consisted of 120 acres of woodland with criminal neighbors. You can
bet your sweet bippy I was always armed.That’s the point. A stateside military base should be the exact opposite of your old digs; it should not be filled will criminals. It’s presumed to be filled with 99% friendlies. If we change that presumption—that 99% of your brothers/sister in cami could be waiting for the opportunity to mow everyone down—then we might as we hang it up.
We’ve got big problems, folks.Posted by baldilocks on 11/11/2009 at 02:44 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
