“Defeat Radical Islam. Defeat Liberalism.”
Or
“Die.”
Liberals cannot be trusted with American national security. Liberalism must be defeated.
In dealing with the global War on Islamic Terror, Western liberals have not only consistently proven their fecklessness, but have also validated conservatives’ claims that they are the absolute wrong choice to lead the nation in such times of peril.
America is at war.
Liberals’ once benign naivety has festered and reached the point of fatal delusion. That being the case, the future of America relies squarely on conservatives to confidently take the reigns of government and lead with purpose and conviction.
Westerners, particularly Americans, are ironically blessed with affluence never before seen in human history. This very affluence, however, enslaves us. We are asleep: Consumed with media gossip, material desires, and selfish pursuits that distract us from the looming evil embodied by the 9/11 attacks. We are ignorant, happy, vulnerable and so very mortal.
At least a third of Americans are unwilling to combat the real challenges to our liberty and our precious way of life. In a time of political deadlock, that which characterizes America today, it is important for those of us who value our freedom to work incessantly to arouse our sleeping countrymen to the threat that is engulfing our cousins in Europe, and aims to subjugate us as well.
This threat is radical Islam.
The only way to defeat it, is to acknowledge it as our enemy and slaughter it. Leftists, unwilling to address this reality, have served as an impediment to this end, and cannot be allowed to continue doing so.
Radical Islam must be defeated. Liberalism must be defeated.
The Left has successfully detached itself from reality:
Currently, the greatest threat to the free world is manifested by murderous, barbaric, Bedouins who come from unenlightened, stagnant, primitive, cultures. Conservatives call them “Islamofascists.” Liberals, however, charge that the term is “divisive” because it characterizes all Muslims as fascists. Dennis Prager, David Horowitz, and others have addressed this ridiculous charge by pointing out that the term does not implicate all Muslims, but rather, describes the specific sect of Islam that wants to conquer the world via force. The very fact that this point must be made, that semantics means more than substance to the Left, illustrates the facile, childlike, thinking that pervades on that end of the ideological spectrum!
These people—Islamic fundamentalists—hang gays; subjugate, and mutilate women; perform genocide against Black Africans; and teach their children that Jews should be exterminated. American liberals however; the so-called defenders of Blacks, gays, women, and Jews; blame global warming for these atrocities. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, said, “The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change”. Ban relies on a UN report that states a decline in rainfall in Sudan to claim that, “…the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives…from man-made global warming…It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought”.
This ridiculous notion is in line with liberal ideology which demands that moral admonition be reserved for White, heterosexual, Christian, men. To call backwards Muslim cultures into question requires the observation skills of a child, yet, the bravery of a “security mom.” So, let it be known—if Muslims act immorally, as they are in Sudan, liberals implicate bovine flatulence.
Liberalism must be defeated.
Leftists insist on befriending Islamic terrorists and tyrants:
Liberals pride themselves in negotiating with America’s enemies. Under normal, peacetime, circumstances, this tactic’s efficacy can be debated. However, during war time, and considering the nature of our enemy today, there is little hope that diplomacy without the threat of force can be an effective tool in the War on Terror.
Three facts highlight that point:
First, diplomacy relies on a quid pro quo—America and the terrorists must make some sort of an exchange in order to develop a diplomatic relationship. Terrorist groups, though, have nothing to offer the U.S. With nothing to gain, and everything to lose, America’s diplomatic engagement would simply amount to facilitating combatants who are hostile to our interests.
Second, Middle Eastern cultures view diplomacy in response to threats as weakness. Capitulating to dialogue with rogue entities will engender a perpetual relationship in which America will bend to terrorists’ strong-armed demands out of fear and precedence. Such a move would validate terror groups, and encourage them to threaten democracies as a mode of operation.
Third
, and perhaps most important, Islamists’ aims are uncompromising. Terror groups seek world domination, worldwide conversion to radical Islam, and elimination of all Jews, gays, and Blacks. There is no middle ground with these people. 55% of all Arabs believe that offensive words warrant violence. Within that 55% are Arabs who are not extremists! How, then, can America dialogue with the more hardened sect of such an irrational group?
These are some of the facts that liberals fail to address. Their idealistic notion is that Islamic radicals and reasonable Americans are more similar than they are different. Liberals believe that the distinctions between Americans and Jihadists are exaggerated for political gain. This belief is what spawns leftist arguments meant to draw parallels between American troops, and jihadists; Christian fundamentalists who work to influence policy, and Islamic fundamentalists who detonate innocents in public squares; and our Founding Fathers to suicide bombers. When presented with copious amounts of evidence to the contrary, though, liberals simply disregard the proof, or label it as “fear-mongering.”
Armed with their complete misunderstanding of the enemy we face, a number of high-ranking Democratic officials have undermined American foreign policy in order to embark on fruitless “peace talks” with the Islamofascist barbarians.
One year ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, against the will of the President, visited Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to bring such a “message of peace.” Syria, along with Iran, are notorious for fueling the insurgency in Iraq that is responsible for killing thousands of U.S. troops, and even more innocent Iraqi civilians. Although President Bush noted that, “[s]ending delegations doesn’t work”, and in the case of Syria [has] been “counterproductive”, Pelosi decided to undermine U.S. foreign policy and Bush instead. Her unilateral “peace visit” broke with U.S. policy meant to dissuade Syria, through diplomatic isolation, from funding suicide bombers both in Iraq and in Palestine, and sent mixed messages at a time when America needs desperately to appear firm, resolute, and consistent. Syria, a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, is blamed for assassinating Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005; and it is this event that began the downward spiral of our relationship with them. Nevertheless, Pelosi put liberal ideology above national interest, and met with al-Assad, and even Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas.
Abbas, serving a dual role as President of the Palestinian Authority, and head of the Fatah terror group is quoted as saying, “We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation … Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation”, and “Allah loves the martyr.” He made these comments some time after writing his Ph.D. thesis, and a book, both denying the Holocaust.
Next Friday, April 18th, ex-President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to meet with the head of the terror group Hamas, Khaled Meshal. Meshal is wanted in Israel for kidnapping an Israeli soldier. This trip, as well, contradicts American foreign policy. Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, calls Carter’s visit “ill-timed” and “ill-advised.” The United States is working with Europe to isolate Hamas, in order to deter the terror group from supplying and funding suicide bombers in Palestine. “I think this [visit] undermines the U.S. policy of isolating Hamas,” said Emerson. “I think this encourages Europeans to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.”
Nevertheless, Carter, a man who as President couldn’t negotiate peace with anyone, will attempt a diplomatic visit as a feeble, irrelevant, ex-President.
The man Carter supports to be the next President of the United States, Barack Obama, has vowed on several occasions to meet with any one of America’s nemeses.
Liberalism must be defeated.
Liberals abandon proven successes for political gain:
56 days, 10 hours, 55 minutes, and 30 seconds ago; Democrats in Congress forced the Protect America Act (PAA) to expire. The PAA was an addendum to the 1978 FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that allowed the American government to listen in on known terrorists calling to the U. S. FISA was outdated, and only allowed landline wiretaps and mail interceptions. This piece of legislation updated the bill so that it law enforcement could intercept emails, cell phone calls, and other modern forms of communication.
After the House Democrats insisted on revisiting George Bush’s legal firing of U.S. Attorneys instead of renewing the PAA, Republican Congressman Ted Poe, from Texas, said, “I think there is probably joy throughout the terrorist cells throughout the world that the United States Congress did not do its duty today.”
Writing for Salon.com, Glen Greenwald called Poe’s statement, “the kind of pure, unadulterated idiocy — childish, cartoonish and creepy — that Democrats for years have been allowing to bully them into submission, govern our country, and dismantle our Constitution.”
Greenwald went on to say that Mark Steyn, and a roving band of paranoid right wing bloggers, “think (and hope) that there are dark, primitive “jihadi” super-villains hiding under their beds.”
“In the real world,” Greenwald surmises, “it [PAA] doesn’t work, and it hasn’t worked for some time.”
The British government and citizens, however, thankfully disagree:
Last weekend, six members of a British Islamic terrorist group were thwarted from detonating at least seven transatlantic jetliners and incinerating over 2,000 people. The ringleader, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, attempted to bring his baby son and young wife along on the suicide mission. Each of the six men made suicide videos meant to haunt the West from beyond the grave.
British wiretaps of their cell phone calls, however, stopped them cold in their tracks.
Democrats insist that America remove this weapon from our counterterrorism arsenal.
Radical Islam must be defeated. Liberalism must be defeated.
Radical Islam must be defeated because it has trained men and boys to kill innocents so that they may fornicate in the afterlife. It must be crushed unquestionably because if it is not, we will perish. Our enemy will not have a change of heart. Our enemy will not tire. Our enemy must be decimated.
Liberalism must be defeated because it’s increasingly evident that they are not interested in further executing this War on Terrorists. John Edwards refers to it as a “bumper sticker war,” a conservative boogeyman. The Left is not serious in these gravely serious times, yet their desire for power makes them a danger to the American public. No matter how often I try to give liberals the benefit of the doubt, they make a fool of me and of themselves.
No more.
America must defeat radical Islam. America must defeat liberalism. Or we will die.
Article Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=556996&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490; http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/15/poe/; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html; http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56229; http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29494&only&rss; http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/04/04/despite_bush_rebuke_pelosi_visits_syria/; http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017010.php; http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm1810.cfm;
Photo Sources: “Code Pink” from http://www.theodoresworld.net/; “Muslim threat to Europe” from http://www.jihadwatcher.com/; “Cow vs. SUV” from http://www.theartofdylan.com/; “Behead those who insult Islam” from http://www.hyscience.com/; “Nancy Pelosi in Syria” from http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/; “Jimmy Carter” from http://www.salon.com/; “Six British Terrorists” from www.reuters.com
