In the aftermath of 9/11, the US faced a perplexing problem:
- Is the US expansionism to blame for 9/11 or is Islamic terror the culprit? Ron Paul and the Democrats lead the blame the US first policy. Although with less gusto, this mantel was again taken up by Ron's son, Rand.
- Then, there was the conspiracy theory question: Did Bush or the US government plan 9/11? Alex Jones types voice this, but not many high-level political candidates follow suit.
- Then, there was the regime change idea. Do we clean up the Middle East and hope that the populace resembles the yearning to be a free culture of America during 1774? Republicans and Democrats liked this idea.
Then there were the side show stunts:
- Barack Hussein Obama wisely criticized the Bush administration for the label "War on Terror." But in saying, "our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us," Obama replaces the tactic of "terror" with the tactic of "killing." So whereas Bush led the Quixotic "War on Terror," Obama leads the Quixotic "War on Killing," "War on Workplace Violence" and, of course, the "War on carbon emissions and climate change [which is the official Democrat cause of global terrorism]."
- Carly Fiorina gives prominence to denying ISIS "territory" by using "technology." Technology is great, but in the hands of fools or Orwellian government, technology can create more problems. Carly is incapable of defining America's greatest foreign threat.
- Hillary Clinton then disparages Trump for Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entry into the US. Hill said that Trump's rhetoric has led to ISIS "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists." But if Trump, dear Hillary, could effectively disparage Islam, then ISIS would have more difficulty recruiting jihadists.
- Barack Hussein, who incessantly chants the treason, "The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam," compares Americans—who are skeptical of Obama's wisdom in granting the world's greatest state sponsor of terror upwards of $100 billion in funds that had been frozen—to Iranian state-terror hardliners.
What America lacked in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, as she lacks now, is a political leader who knows when it is necessary to offend, disrespect and to disparage. Like Hillary and the Democrats, Republicans too cannot imagine that Islam could be effectively disrespected.
When a nation goes to war, said nation needs to disrespect something. That something is an ideology. It is not mere terrorism, which is a tactic of war. People just don't gravitate to terrorism like they gravitate to ice cream. There must be a reason why people would violate their God-given consciences and commit terrorism. It is this reasoning from an ideology that must be the focus of our war. Further, we must call that ideology "evil." We must call the progenitor of that ideology "an evil man."
In the new multicultural America, the only people who are allowed to be deemed "bad" are dead white Nazis, white racists, homophobes, smokers and "people who are against [the compulsory funding of] a women's reproductive choice [to murder her unborn child after having consensual sex]." But in America, calling someone a "racist," is the worst insult one can hurl. Curiously, the people whom multiculturalists most ruthlessly mock are those people who affirm the "self-eviden[ce]… that all men are created equal."
Indeed, we Americans are taught not only not to be racist, but not to question the moral nature of ideologies. Even though homosexual behavior removes up to two decades from the average sodomite's lifespan, we are told that the only way one can love "gays" is to celebrate their deathstyle. This is, of course, a perverse understanding of love.
Hating is so verboten in America that, after Nazism, the only ideas that liberals hate are good American ideas like offensive speech, the right to bear arms, the right to liberty (e.g., the right to not be subject to legal plunder, the right to not pay for a mother to abort her child, not to pay for another's bills, the right to sound gold-based money….), American exceptionalism, the policemen who bring order to our country and income inequality. Rudy Giuliani had the quote of the year when he claimed that Obama does not love America. The left does not forgive America for her mistake of slavery, but turns a blind eye to Islamic slavery. A conservative does forgive America for this sin. A conservative is one who is free to hate what is truly wrong about America (e.g., fiat currency, out of control federal government, violations of liberty, denial of the self-evidence that all men are created equal) and who is psychologically able to hate ideologies, like Islam, that are un-American.
America needs to learn to hate well again. Well directed hate is necessary for war. The liberal America–directed hate is good for civil war.
So when a man exclaimed that "All Muslims are terrorists" at a town meeting, he was derided, by the news agencies, for being "racist," a "bigot" and "profoundly dangerous." Never mind that Islam is not a race, but an ideology. Such details do not encumber the morally superior multiculturalists. They just pull out their .45 racist eliminator, shout "racist!" and squeeze the trigger. Bang! It does not matter that this widely media–disparaged American patriot was logically correct.
In uncovering multiculturalism's aversion to logic and patriotism, one finds a path to victory at the ballot box. If instead of an emotional barrel-chested simpleton patriot, an erudite and articulate patriot presses his logical case, we have a political takedown! The strictures of multiculturalism have created a path to civilizational victory that the multiculties can neither see nor imagine. To the multiculties, it is an ugly scandal that the townsfolk applauded the courage of this barrel-chested patriot. But the Patriots of America outnumber the multiculti numbnuts and we think the man's remarks has, at least, some truth to them.
The people of America yearn still for freedom. That is why—like our barrel–chested patriot—Donald "Freedom and America are good, Islam is so-so" Trump polls so well.
Analogous to the homosexual illogic, for someone to leave the deathstyle of Islam, and become a Jew, their chances for a Nobel Prize instantly increases by orders of magnitude. But this thought experiment is a little more complicated than that. All four historical schools of Sunni Islam prohibit the punishment of a vigilante murdering an apostate. So the second-guessing Muslim may wish to balance his Nobel Prize aspirations with his aspirations to avoid beheading.
Regime change does not work in the Middle East because Islam dominates the Middle East. And where there is Islam, there is Mohammad. All Middle Eastern despots are preferable to this monster Mohammad ruling in his place. So when the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi are removed by America, Mohammad tends to surface in the form of ISIS, al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Muslim Brotherhood…. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the superior indigenous replacement for interventionist–Obama's Muslim Brotherhood disaster, Morsi, is the exception rather than the rule. The problem, Dr. Rand Paul, is not "chaos" or "Arabs," per se, the problem is "Mohammad." Mohammad was a terrorist. And if Mohammad was a terrorist Dr. Paul, then Mohammad—and not chaos or Arabs—is the problem.
Regime change can only work in places where Mohammad is not dominant. Fortunately, Egyptians saw that Morsi was
- creating more violence toward the Copts and the less faithful Muslims,
- reducing internal freedoms,
- exacerbating an already bad economy and
- creating international hostilities
- making Egypt more into the image of bin Laden (or Mohammad)
- a puppet of Obama
The Copts help the non-operational terrorist Egyptians to be more humanized than they would otherwise be. In Egypt, the Copts and Muslim apostates have thus helped to keep Mohammad at bay. If Obama is not impeached by the Boehner-Ryan-McConnell-Pelosi-Reed cartel, then by God's grace, a regime improvement will come to America in 2017.
The GOP candidate who can best define the enemy—and defend his definition as he humiliates the multiculties—will win the presidency.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.