WHY CHINA WANTS WAR WITH AMERICA

The news is grim. Yet another deathly scandal involving poisonous imports from China. Thanks to the vain-glorious global capitalists who shipped the bulk of American industry overseas, much of it to China, we have been poisoned by plastics, paints, food, and now medical supplies coming from the world's most populated nation. And then there is the enormous trade imbalance the US suffers at the hands of the Chinese.

The United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit.

China's quest for superpower status can turn trade partnership into nothing less than World War III.

Ed Timperlake and Jed Babbin think this is a recipe for war. In their book—Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States—these two former defense experts lay it out for us. They detail China's aggressive military buildup, revealing how it has been even more rapid than that of Nazi Germany before World War II. They also expose China's military and commercial maneuvering to outflank the United States—much as the Soviet Union tried to do at the height of the Cold War.

But Babbin and Timperlake, both of whom are military veterans, do much more than just offer expert analysis. In a dramatic style worthy of Tom Clancy, they take you into the field with Navy SEALs and Air Force bomber pilots, invite you inside the war councils at the White House and the Pentagon, and peer within China's own Politburo in an exciting—and all too likely— series of war scenarios stretching from a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2008 to its extension of total control over the Pacific region within a few years. This is by no means an exercise in fiction: these disturbing, gripping scenarios are based on the latest and most reliable intelligence—and they make clear that China is an immense and immediate threat to America's national security.

If we don't stop China now, the coming war could engulf the entire world (particularly since the Chinese post-Communist regime is happy to make common cause with the forces of the worldwide Islamic jihad). Provocative, thrilling, exhaustively documented and sobering, Showdown is a wake-up call for our elected officials—and for everyone who loves America.

Details of the run-up to war with China:

How China is already working to increase the number of America's enemies and decrease the number of America's friends

The growing social problem in China that could weaken the regime's grip on power—or could lead straight to World War III

The unholy alliance between Communist China and the warriors of the global Islamic jihad—and how it could result in a war with the United States over Middle Eastern oil

A little-noted front of the global conflict between China and the United States: Latin America (especially oil-rich Venezuela)

Why a Chinese attack on Taiwan would spark a conflagration in the Pacific larger than anything since World War II

How the Communist Chinese have carefully gauged how to liberalize the Chinese economy while maintaining Communist control of the government

An anti-Communist revolution in China? Why this is extremely unlikely, even though the internal threat to the Beijing regime is substantial

Cyber-warfare: its many forms, and why Japan and the United States are so vulnerable to cyber attacks from China

How China spends billions a year on the most modern aircraft, missiles, submarines, and electronics that it can obtain—and steals what it can't buy, through its enormous espionage campaign against the United States, a story Fox News only broke today

A second Korean War? Why it's likely—only this time, the madmen in North Korea have nukes

Disquieting similarities between the rhetoric of the Chinese regime today and that of the Japanese in the run-up to World War II

A RECURRING TALE OF POLITICAL HORROR

Writer Dan Simmons has penned a chilling piece of sci-fi worth any pair of eyes you've got. Read it here.

After reading the Dan Simmons tale, return to this page to the menace of demographic conquest outined in the following, originally posted here by Rebecca Bynum:

As George Santayana wrote: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Regarding Islam, we don’t have to look back hundreds of years to learn from history. All we need do is look at what has happened in Great Britain over the past three decades.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book, 2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States—Muslim 1.0%
Australia—Muslim 1.5%
Canada—Muslim 1.9%
China—Muslim 1%-2%
Italy—Muslim 1.5%
Norway—Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark—Muslim 2%
Germany—Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom—Muslim 2. 7%
Spain—Muslim 4%
Thailand—Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France—Muslim 8%
Philippines—Muslim 5%
Sweden—Muslim 5%
Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris—car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam—Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana—Muslim 10%
India—Muslim 13.4%
Israel—Muslim 16%
Kenya—Muslim 10%
Russia—Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia—Muslim 40%
Chad—Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon—Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania—Muslim 70%
Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%
Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
Sudan—Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh—Muslim 83%
Egypt—Muslim 90%
Gaza—Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%
Iran—Muslim 98%
Iraq—Muslim 97%
Jordan—Muslim 92%
Morocco—Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan—Muslim 97%
Palestine—Muslim 99%
Syria—Muslim 90%
Tajikistan—Muslim 90%
Turkey—Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam"—the Islamic House of Peace—there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan—Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%
Somalia—Muslim 100%
Yemen—Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel."
—Leon Uris, "The Haj"

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"

STRATEGEMS OF WAR, NOT EMPATHY

An interesting point made by JSLA at Jihad Watch:

I reiterate a point I've made recently which touch on this subject of "womens' rights" within Islam:

Focusing on the way Islam victimizes women (or anyone else) is a slippery slope. Yes—speak out on it—the vileness of Islam in all its dimensions needs revealing badly—but buying into the victimology cult of Islam, and especially pitying or crying over the way Muslims victimizes themselves will accomplish nothing. Not only does this play into their Islamic victim-pimping culture, but tacit within this approach is an expectation that Muslims ever will rectify or reform these heinous abusive aspects of Islam if only we point them out...

It will never happen.

I believe we should stress the sinister aspects of such stories as " forced marriages" mainly with a focus on how it harms us and our society - not how it harms the Muslims. The damage Islam wreaks on Muslims is their affair, and their fault, and as it is not our job, as it must NEVER become our impossible job to be the reformers of Islam—it is also not our part to be the mourners for the myriad ways Muslims foul the world and themselves by perpetuating the barbarity of Islam.

Our moral suasion has proven completely inneffective with them. Muslim "morality", such as it is, is immune to our sensibilites. Muslims can and should be shamed for the horribleness of Islam. But Muslims never will be shamed into changing their vile beliefs. Islam seems singularly designed to strengthen in proportion to the suffering and horribleness it inflicts. S

haming Islam and Muslims should have one purpose, and one purpose only: to subvert their arrogant adherence to Islam, and to shatter Muslim confidence in Islam. The nasty inumerable failures of Islam must be shoved relentlessly down their Muslim throats until they absolutely choke on it. That, or the Muslims will triumph in the end by shoving their Islam down our throats until we are the ones left choking and gasping for air. That is the way Islam has come to shackle over a billion slaves so far.

In this specific case, is the suffering of these women sad and deplorable? Of course. But it is of far more import to us that Muslims are furiously and concertedly working across the spectrum to swell their numbers in our land as quickly and ruthlessly as possible. THAT is the portentious critical kernel, the 'takeaway', of this plot. The incidental suffering of a single Muslim woman here or there is immaterial to our fate, if we don't focus on what is important.

Who is encouraging this concerted frenzy to import more and more Muslim men into Dar-al-Harb? Who is coordinating this exploding trend? What is the explanation given, the exhortation made to act thus? Muslims are doing this whether they hail from Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or "Palestine".

And they are doing it in Brooklyn, London, Paris, Lackawanna and Lodi. Why?

Learn the answers to these questions, and you'll be closer to understanding the true nature and scope behind their Islamic war against us. This isn't just some quaint barbaric custom from some random primitive culture. It is a broad multi-pronged vanguard war maneuver to swell Islam's ranks behind enemy lines while the infidel enemy remains asleep and confused. JihadWatch should not be fueling that confusion by missing the larger and deadly purport of such stories, or conflating trivial tragedy with sinister widespread Islamic enemy tactics.

ISLAM WILL LOSE, BUT WHAT OF THE WEST

In a recent article published online at Islam Watch by Mumin Salih, an Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern ex-Muslim, the case once again is made plain that the wretched claims of Islam are not to be trusted. Read and be warned.

Islam is currently passing through one of its most dynamic times since its rise fourteen hundreds years ago. This dynamic period started long before 9/11 as a fierce struggle, mainly against the west, but also against any nation or group that dares to stand in its way. Most Muslims take this resurgence phase very seriously and consider it as a decisive battle between Islam and the non-Islam, or the kufr, which Mohammed told them they would win. Even though the west, currently, is largely in denial about this makes no difference to the significance of this conflict to the whole world.

Islam will lose
Virtually unchallenged, Islam has survived and expanded during the last fourteen centuries. The only time Islam had ever faced any challenges was in the first few years, when Mohammed’s claims of being a prophet, were questioned by the Meccan Arabs and then by the Jews of Yathrib. During that period, which spanned over thirteen years, Mohammed failed to win any intellectual debate to prove his claims. That reflected on Mohammed’s failure to attract genuine followers. The few dozens who joined him were mainly friends and beneficiaries. Once Mohammed established his stronghold in Yathrib, which he renamed as Medina, intellectual debates, which had flourished until few years before his arrival, became meaningless and virtually non-existent. Since then, the only challenges Islam ever had were military ones; the opposing forces were more interested in military conquests than in exposing Islam’s ideology.

Knowing the Muslims’ mindset, we can safely say that Muslims may not even bother to consider any critical analysis of Islam that comes from non-Muslims, no matter how genuine and legitimate it may be. If Muslims ever mention such painstaking and authentic works, it is only to dismiss them as the works of the enemy of Islam. On the other hand, the critical analysis of Islam that comes from Muslims is often taken more seriously, although those Muslim critics of Islam will be branded as infidels.

Islam has guarded its ideology by employing a thorough indoctrination program and systematic and extensive brainwashing process of its adherents. The process is so incapacitating that it is incomprehensible to Muslims to contemplate their existence outside their religion.

Over the past fourteen centuries, Islam was never openly challenged or critiqued, because those who knew about its myths, also knew what it meant to disclose them. Those Muslims who did their own critical appraisal of their religion kept their results to themselves since they knew if they didn’t they risk loosing their heads by the authorities, or even by family members or friends who would be happy to do it for the sake of Allah.

Even during the last few centuries, when the whole world started to open up to a new age of enlightenment, Islamic authorities managed to seal the minds of Muslims towards any outside views bout Islam. The tight seal on the Muslims’ minds continues even during our time. Unwanted materials, whether printed or televised, is simply filtered out. For fourteen centuries, Muslims never had a chance to see their religion from any perspective other than their own. Islam survived because it always had a suitable environment of darkness and one-way coaching with no tolerance to different views.

Since the introduction of the Internet all that has changed. Thanks to the power of the Internet, the world is now open to almost everyone, and Muslims can have access to the alternative views about Islam, something considered impossible in the past. The Internet is the first true challenge to Islam because it breaks through all the Islamic security systems. The Internet doesn’t recognize Islam’s demands of submission and total surrender of the mind. Everything about Islam is now subjected to critical scrutiny, people now ask logical questions and demand logical answers. Everyday, the Internet sheds more light on the cult of darkness to expose its myths. This shakes the very foundation of the Islamic ideology. Muslims are slow to come out from the darkness, which is understandable, considering their programmed state of mind. They behave like the battery chickens that are so conditioned to the darkness that when they see the light they feel scared to come out. We are only in the beginning of the Internet age, the process may appear to be slow, but the ball started rolling and more Muslims will wake up to the light of truth and come out to the world of enlightenment and join the other ex Muslims in exposing the myths of Islam.

The West will lose, too
I sincerely hope that time will prove me wrong on this gloomy prediction, but the signs are that the west is already loosing. It did not take more than one generation for the western nations, which emerged victorious after WWII, to lose their momentum and give up any hope of staying in the lead. I write this part of the article with Britain in mind because it seems to be leading the way, but other countries are not far behind.

The decline of the west is mainly an endogenous problem that neither Islam nor any other external factors can be blamed for. But it is a disturbing observation that the west appears to be doomed with or without Islam, although Islam is taking advantage of the process and is working hard to speed it up. The Islamic predators look at the west as a helpless prey and are closing in waiting for the right moment to make a kill. They are hopeful to inherit the west without even having to fight for it, and they do not make a secret of it. A few years ago, colonel Ghaddafi said that Muslims couldn’t take Europe by force in the past, but now they will take it without force. If you don’t believe the Libyan leader’s remarks, you only need to visit a classroom in a British primary school to see how Britain will look like in the future.

Nations behave like individuals because they are made of individuals. An individual’s performance is at its best in times of stress like preparing for exams or entering competitions. Nations too perform best in times of stress like wars or other national struggles. During the last war, the western nations performance was at its peak. People took no chances; they went through some rough time, suffered of hardship, fought wars and lost lives to secure a good future for their children and grand children. Those children and grand children are today’s westerners who have reaped the fruits of their grandfathers’ hard work. Today’s westerners enjoy a freedom and democracy that they never earned and seem to be reluctant to defend.

The west had some very painful experiences because of Islam, like the attacks of 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London to mention only few. We all hate painful experiences, but it seems that pain is essential to the survival of individuals as well as nations. It is the uncomfortable sensation of pain that makes a man move away when he sits on a sharp object, otherwise he would bleed to death. It is the uncomfortable sensation of pain that alarms the sufferer to go and seek treatment for its cause. Pain is a warning system that alarms people about the more serious underlying problems that need attention. However, there are people who are careless enough, or stupid enough, not to take action other than swallowing painkillers until they succumb to their ailment.

The bombing of western targets all over the world during the last few decades should have been enough to motivate the west to take action about the roots of the problem, which we all know to be Islam. Instead, the west has opted to taking painkillers in the form of politically correct justifications prescribed to them by the politically correct groups. I am afraid that is a recipe for disaster.

The western societies seem to have an inherent serious problem that makes the westerners turn against their own history, heritage, culture and all their past achievements. They happily declare their cultural surrender as they see everything coming from the outside as genuine and honest, and look down at their own as false and corrupt. They are so consumed with post imperial guilt that they are blinded to their countries’ virtues.

The weakness in the west plays well in the hands of the Islamists and hinders our campaign to enlighten Muslims and defeat their cult. Western converts to Islam are used by the Islamists’ propaganda machine to boost the Muslims’ confidence in their religion. It is a common observation that when Muslims run out of answers to defend the Islamic myths, they produce the most bizarre reason for staying with Islam, they say: “but all those westerners wouldn’t convert unless Islam is right”.

The west has been a safe haven to the radical Islamic organizations that are banned in their own Islamic countries. The western social and political system facilitated some of the most notorious Islamic organizations, to survive, thrive and terrorize the innocents around the world. The remarks made by the head of the Anglican Church about introducing sharia law to Britain are just another reminder that the British problem is largely a self-inflicted one. The response of the British people to their problems is disappointing to say the least. Those who recognize the problem leave everything and emigrate, while the rest turn a blind eye and live in denial. I am afraid that when the nation’s feelings are so numbed, it is unlikely that it will sense any threat or react decisively to any danger.

SADDAM GONE, NOW WHAT?

So another vicious dictator bites the dust. Few people realize that the Baath Party headed up by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was actually formed upon the principles and organizational structure of the Nazi party. Iraq, because of its oil and hatred of Jews, was an important battleground between the Axis and Allied powers in World War II.

Nazi propaganda was broadcast throughout Baghdad, and Iraqis often went on rampages against Jews throughout the war. One of the most ardent Nazi supporters during WWII was named Khairallah Talfah. Talfah was Saddam's uncle. After the war, many of the key Iraqi Nazi supporters, all of whom evaded prosecution, wound up involved in Saddam's rise to power. This special examines the key individuals of the Iraqi-Nazi connection, the little-known battle for Iraq in WWII, and the strange link to Saddam Hussein.

Let me state again for those who haven't followed my foreign policy murmurings with keen attention to detail—I was vigorously against both the original invasion of Iraq by American forces in 1990, and even more adamantly so, again in 2003. But eventually, I too, reluctantly acquiesced to the idea that after getting ourselves into this mess, as honorable stewards of the peace, we should be equally committed to rectifying the situation as opposed to abandoning Iraq to its own devices.

My patriotic duty as a free-thinking citizen has never been easy, cut and dried, or rubber stamped by any political prize fight or dog tag. I am a self-confessed news junkie. I soak up every break neck opinion I can find, and of course, this approach not only makes my task of informed patriotism more difficult, it makes my task nearly impossible. In these particular times when the country is nearly evenly divided, yes, polarized, listening to partial truths tortured and hair-split bu so-called pundits who usually are no more than well-paid shamans spinning spells that everyone can detect as ridiculous but few will ever reject as the norm.

The history of politics shows us all too often how the politics of history is nothing short of a shameful game sold to the public as the reality of inclusiveness.

So during this phase of inner struggle in trying to nail down my own position on Iraq, what I required was my own sense of clarity, separate from any preconceived notions of who deserved to declare what brand of victory in an overwrought war where democracy as we know it will not be shown to grow on the sandy soils and rock cliffs of hardened tribal and religious differences just because a few dancing neo-cons happen to think Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson were decent fellows with a right good idea, and wouldn't it be great if we could invent a little friend, a sidekick really, in the Greater Middle East to help bring financial stability, fledgling peace, and of course, let's not forget to keep that black gold flowing at a fair price too, without all this other unimportant religious nonsense getting in the way...

Which distilled as usual to my biggest complaint. My biggest complaint this time is that as usual (since WWII), the American invaders—let's not be coy—were not truly fighting to win, but were instead warring by ridiculous rules of engagement that left our troops with a distinct disadvantage. It seemed as if we were merely babysitting the Iraqi commoner, bribing the Iraqi elite with promises and booty, hpoing to win, show or place in some unfounded popularity contest to win "hearts and minds" while losing many or as few lives and much treasure as the American taxpayer can squeeze out of a consumer economy for the pleasure of doing so.

Bottom line. Why START a war if you're not PREPARED to FIGHT? And this lapse in strategy wasn't all Rumsfeld's fault. The West clearly has no stomach for war. And the enemy is observing this and preparing for their strategies to meet THEIR needs until it is their time to strike. The enemy is learning that we just don't like to fight back. And we call them cowards.

Yes, the Bush objectives shifted with the sand dunes. No weapons of mass destruction found. So America gritted its teeth while the President squinted and declared that it was a good thing to hunt for and knock off this vicious dictator and murderer of his own people, Saddam Hussein. Even though I never muttered the thought publically, I must admit that it had crossed my mind that this man of affectations and airs many despots tend to adopt, might have been just the iron rod Iraq needed to keep the peace there. After all, hadn't we all seen photos of a shorter toothed Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with this same dictator. Didn't the US sell Hussein arms, even the chemicals he used to make his chemical weapons he fired on Iran in his war with them, a war that cost millions of lives and ended in a stalemate after ten years?



What is American friendship worth these days? Of course, now that the Iraqi despot has finally smoked his last cigar, Saddam apologists are crawling out of the woodwork.

But after watching the History Channel's program last night on Hussein and his Ba'ath party's connection to Hitler and the Nazis in WWII, I was completely transformed in my opinion. Assessing the Kurd situation properly, it is clear that there was no reason on earth to spare Hussein. Would I, as an American, have initiated a war with Iraq to simply depose the ruthless Saddam Hussein—no! Once in a war I can not escape, having captured him, would I have convicted him for crimes against humanity and sentenced him to death—absolutely.

Is America safer without Hussein? Probably not. Is Israel safer without Hussein? Probably. Hussein was a cold, reckoning, secular fascist with nationalist and regionalist aspirations, who sometimes it is said fancied himself as the second coming of ancient Babylonian King Nebucannezar. He wanted to control ALL of the Middle East in building the new Arab man. If that was all he wanted to do, we might could have lived with him, just as we have lived with and even supported many other cruel regimes. Saddam had several consolidating wars yet to fight to strengthen and lengthen his powers but Israel, and America's defense of her, would have become factors soon enough. While many may believe that Hussein might have achieved his Arab objectives without bothering the West or Israel, I suspect that inciting global anxiety and puppeteering the destabilization of world markets, particularly oil, would have been a weapon in his arsenal he would have certainly threatened and eventually used to thwart interceders like American or Great Britain, if he'd been given the chance. He more than likely would have taken out Israel first as a short-cut to fighting those other wars with the Saudis, or Iranians, depending on the anti-Israel sentiment to annoint his consolidated new role as kingpin of the entire New Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Saudis, continue to be the covert threat they've always been in funding Wahhabi mosques and university halls for Muslim studies all over American and the West, while maintaining a ruthless culture of religious intolerance on their own soil, also buy up politicians on both sides of the aisle and media outlets of every stripe to further their stealth invasion of the West. Wahhabism is a particularly militant form of Sunnism, and is being taught to Muslim children across the globe.

Yet American leaders still insist in calling the Saudis, friends of America.

As hardcore Sunnis the Saudis fear the hardcore Iranian Shi'ites, who as we all know are probably closer to nuclearization than any of us would hope. As greedy overlords the Saudis are in danger of overthrow from within their own sect, as Osama bin Laden has been quite critical of Saudi royals in the past. Saudi Arabia when not raiding Africa for slaves, imports most of its workers from around the Muslim region and elsewhere while the bulk of its own citizens live a life of gaudy elitism, and thus they would prefer to toss back a handful of their billions of petrodollars to have American troops face down Iran, to have America do the Saudi's own dirty work.

So as my president makes plands to announce his own new approach to the Iraq crisis, here is my updated position on Iraq. We should seriously consider leaving Iraq. We have failed in our objectives. The exploratory police action is finished. No weapons of mass destruction found. No democracy to be had, despite any number of purple fingers waved back at us. America must either fight like soldiers and not peacekeepers and American forces must leave this land to its own civil strife. No real news there, right? Leftists have been shouting this from day one. However, I now believe that the war is coming here to American shores. Bush and company even stated something along these lines years ago, so let's get prepared here, street by street. We as a nation are not in fighting form. We are in breach. This is an outrage to our heritage and our future.

As our leadership continues to waffle on security, shuffling its feet while ignoring the American people's sustained call for a revamped immigration policy, more and more of us are becoming painfully aware of what the US, Europe, India, and scattered other global fronts are facing with this "moderate" Muslim menace, which when observed with an informed clear mind unclouded by misplaced empathy and grotesque paternalism is nothing less than watching the relentless passive-aggressive trojan horse that will one day shriek out its war cry sealing its name—Islam—which of course does not mean peace, but is translated, submission, like the bloody beast it is.

I am not alone in fearing that America will wait until we lose a city or two on our own shores before we muster up the courage to wage all out war against this most vicious and untraditional enemy.

MEANINGFUL WAR

Now, this is what I am talking about. Ever since Bob Dylan turned the Beatles onto marijuana, America and the West has conveniently forgotten the true meaning of war. Okay, there was that unpleasant Korean police action thingie back in the early Fifties but you know, peace and love and understanding are all very nice concepts and even nicer realities where they truly exist, unencumbered by the heavy aroma of bullshit, but thought control fantasy doublespeak serves no one a warm fuzzy feeling without awful side effects. Unfortunately, even for doglovers "imagining" peace on earth doesn't quite cut it when a vicious dog is snapping at your heels.

It's time to get educated. Re-educated, actually. About the ugly truths of warfare, about victory and loss in warfare, about the fist and fife of warfare that makes the future at least possible and the past none the more honorable than living in the present. Someone named John Lewis over at the Objective Standard knows why the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraqi Wars have hardly produced victory on either side in any dignified sense of the word, but instead have doled out misery on both sides of the great divide.

We all have heard Abraham Lincoln's remark that a house divided against itself cannot stand. As far as I can tell, in terms of conducting America's business, the only genuine consensus offered by the radical left and Islami-fascism dynamic duo is to smash capitalism and common decency at all costs by ripping apart the very house that nourishes and enriches them. Totalitarianism is kicking at the door again, my friends...

Don't get me wrong. America has many faults, and could do better, should do better in living up to its amazing potential as promised in the early frontier years when Americans were inspirational dreamers but also a very practical citizenry, so don't go mistaking my longsleeved patriotism for "my country right or wrong" jingoism. But American failures do not mean I am willing to destroy that potential by selling out to a sworn enemy, whether that enemy be an invader from a foreign land or one standing on my own street corner wearing clothing of friendship propaganda so vile, it must be named and defeated as an enemy of not the state but of my own country, my own family, my own liberty.

Please read this comprehensive article for an excellent bone-chilling rebuttal to the "fighting with one hand tied behind one's back" crowd. As for the childish peaceniks—in a time of war such as the one the (dis)United States is fighting now, a war unequivocally declared by the Islamofascists—they are easily dismissed. The ones I speak of are always up to mischief, and yet, find no contradiction in their own behaviors when they support other violent regimes inside and outside their own nation while screaming bloody murder about police state tactics in the relatively benign US justice system, while always a work in progress and susceptible to its own corruptibility, is the fairest and finest for ALL people on the history of the planet, bar none. Sharia law? Separate but equal, hmmm, where have I heard THAT before? Oh wait, it's separate but unequal that's really eating the cheese. God forbid! Defeat the damn bastards!

My neighbor Leslie from down the hall calls me a free spirit. I'm sure she meant it as a compliment, and I know she meant me no harm, but it's amzing how many people presume I'm a card-carrying liberal, while others in the heat of bias have called me a conservative, if not a straight out redneck.

I am not at war with anyone. But Al-Qaida is at war with me. It's time I and people like me (whatever that means in this wicked and perverse PC generation) woke up to the realities of our own American nightmare, and quit dreaming of peace signs and flowers petals. The enemy is not only us, the enemy is those who have announced their plans to conquer the West, inch by inch, infidel by infidel, city by city. They have a plan. It's rather obvious that any and all the plans our president's men have come up with are flawed. As they say down at my local diner, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I admit that I am still unsure about the competing ideals of the nation state versus the globalist model, but my gut tells me that a destroyed America is a destroyed world and new dark ages, not a "picking up the pieces" Marxist nirvana so loved by Leftist intellectuals. Interpret that any way you please.

I've read the books. I've also observed the world at play, at work, and at war. Sit two nominally considerate toddlers in a sandbox assuring them that playing nicely together is just an all-around good thing to do, and watch them innocently play with each other for a short spell before boredom strikes like lightening and the petty power games begin. Throw a single toy into the mix, and watch all hell break loose. Add a second identical toy. Relative calm may return until the creative juices start flowing and one of our bundles of joy soon discovers the concept of concentration of power. A second different toy that is not identical of course conjures up similar if not precisely the reactions. Go figure.

I highly recommend reading the whole John Lewis piece titled "No Substitute For Victory", and then try to tell me Thucydides was wrong.

BY DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT

In the West, there are no organized groups that will side with Muslims or organized groups that will oppose Islam. No such groups exist at the moment. The only organised group at the moment are Muslims, organised around the mosques. It was instructional to see Muslim gangs from London driving the distance to Windsor to help their brothers.

Leaving America aside for the moment, consider what will happen if right wing parties like the BNP and UKIP in Great Britain or the DVU and NPD in Germany take power and start getting really tough with Muslims. Muslims will not sit back and take it. What if Denmark and other tough-minded European nationals finally rise up and take a stand against the destruction of their cultural heritage by the steady invasion of outsiders who appear to be on the move not just in the West, but globally, just as their mullahs have instructed them to do?

In all likelihood, mimicking the civil unrest in France last year, these already radicalized agitators will quickly resort to bombings and shootings to register their demands for more cultural appeasements—they are preparing for this type of warfare, for they know that it is how the Jihad is carried into susceptible foreign lands where they are easily outnumbered. Westerners will continue to act surprised, confused, accommodating and fearing confrontation, will choose to leave the matter to the authorities. The left-wing media will muddy the situation with its blind allegience to the foreign and ever slowly will the population decide on a tactic and which side to support.

Some will decide that fighting against these Muslim insurgencies is the best way to defend freedom, tolerance and democracy, and others will decide those same virtues are best defended by supporting the underdogs—Muslims, who invariably will be stressing that they are being victimized.

Note how quickly the West acquiesced to the lies of Izetbegovic and the KLA. The West, a slow learner with a genuine drive for cultural inclusion, is now dealing with the result a thirty year flood of Muslim immigration. The Muslim agenda will be less easier to dodge, as many Muslims are now born and brought up in Western cultures, speak the language fluently and have learned how to exploit the local mores.

That is why none should wish a civil war. The thing when it comes will be messy. Predicting the outcome of war is difficult, particularly if it is a civil war—there are far too many variables.

Here's a report from a young soldier who served in Ireland with the Queen's Lancs. Having once patrolled UK streets with an SA80, he had this to say:

"It's not too far-fetched to imagine a future Tory government that would not rule out putting troops on the streets of London or Bradford, if the Muslims are allowed to plunge the country into ghettos of violent insurgency. It was not long ago that the SAS was heavily involved in Ireland. If a Prime Minister as recent as Thatcher was able to deploy the SAS on UK streets then why would a future center right leader feel unable to deploy the same force in defense of the homeland?

"There does seem to be an assumption that the left wing lunacy will continue unabated unless it is replaced by a far right monster that will tear up the country in a frenzy of foreigner hate. But I don't think that as to be the case. The Tories are in limbo at the moment. They pledged to give soldiers tax relief and Labour stole their idea. I am sure that they meant for Labour to steal that idea but it does illustrate the futility of making firm policies for labour to attack for another two years. But the Tories are in a good position. They are ahead in the polls and the press has stopped ignoring them and are now lambasting them for not giving enough policy meat for the papers to chew on."

And while apologists from the Left and Muslims themselves plead innocense, news stories are beginning to surface that paint todays's Muslims as pre-WWI Jews, suggesting that any protectionism by Westerners is simply a reflection of 20th century fascism except that the Jews have been replaced by the Muslims and that eventually the Muslims of Europe need to organise and fight back before they land up in the twenty-first century equivalent of concentration camps and a new holocaust begins.

Others take exception to the characterization of their honest desires to protect their homelands from hateful invasion, claiming, "Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And the how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that. Wasn't a crowd of Muslims protesting in downtown London just the other day at Westminster Cathedral clamouring, "Rome Will Fall! Rome Will Fall!"

Face it. Conservative DNA is patriotic and when the thief is at the door, most Westerners become conservatives.