Sunday, April 17, 2011

National Security and Partisan Politics

Islam's more consistent followers have declared war on all of American society, and therefore consider all members of our society fair game.  They kill children because children grow up to be soldiers.  They kill young women because young women give birth to more soldiers.  They kill workers because workers pay taxes that feed the military machine that resists the global imposition of sharia.  No one is safe because, to them, no one is innocent.
When I say “Islam's more consistent followers,” and not “Islamic extremists” attack us, I am saying, contrary to former President Bush, that Islam is not a religion of peace, either in its sacred texts or in its history.  It is a religion at war, and continually so, for centuries upon centuries. Violence is not an aberration. Violence is the modus operandi.  If Islam were a religion of peace, you’d hear those that now pose as Islamic moderates denouncing violence.  You’d hear that outcry arising from Islamic strongholds around the world.
Have I missed it?  
Perhaps it's a defect in me, but my mind runs habitually to the worst case scenario: dirty bombs, deadly chemicals, and poisonous biological agents all smuggled over American borders, both from the north and the south -- coupled with an American regime intent upon not protecting those borders and suing at law any state audacious enough to want to do so.  In other words, the worst case looks very much like today, when about one in ten of the illegal immigrants who invade our nation in that way is of middle-eastern (and presumably Islamic) background.
I read long ago that, given the desperately fallen character of our world, if you are not protected against the worst-case scenario, you are not protected.  The worst case sometimes happens.  If you are not protected against it, then your peace and security depend upon the good will of your enemy.  In that case, you have no peace and security.  The only real peace is a defendable peace, and ours, at the moment, is not properly defended.  To defend it now requires more -- much, much more -- than we have ever done before, both here and around the world.
The Obama administration is not up to the task, and never will be.  Despite this administration's declared aversion to fighting, it has us embroiled in three wars simultaneously.  Nevertheless, in the face of those three wars, and in the face of the global threat to which those three wars testify, our borders remain foolishly and recklessly under-protected.  That colossal stupidity might seem inexplicable, but it is not.
Try this thought experiment:  If ever you want to understand otherwise inexplicable public policy measures, you must ask yourself “Who benefits?”  On that count, if you wonder why the Obama administration does not close the borders, the answer lies in the preservation of partisan power.  In order to keep themselves more readily electable, Democrats maintain a porous border because they know that the great majority of those who cross our borders illegally, if and when they vote (whether in accordance with the law or not) can be expected to vote Democratic.
Just as FDR tried to stack the courts, Obama tries to stack the voter registration rolls.  Perhaps it’s a tactic he learned in Chicago, a city famous for that ploy, a city run now by his old crony Rahm Emanuel.
Naturally, if you call them on it, the Democrats won’t admit to such crass and craven partisan self-interest.  Rather, they transform your concern for the Constitution and for national security into racism.  They twist your commitment to civil defense and the rule of law into xenophobia.
Our deadliest enemies are glad for it.

No comments: