WHY THEY HATE US 

For the dullards who blame Muslim hatred of America on U.S. mid-east policies, may I refer you to the 1300 years of ACTUAL history before our country even existed. It is mostly a history of aggressive military expansion.

I know, I know. I've heard the mantras. Crusades blah blah blah. Muslim tolerance of other religions yada yada yada. If you care to honestly study and confront your history, you'll find that the Crusades began only after three hundred years of aggressive and hostile expansions by Theocracy-powered Islamic forces. They were bent then, as they are today, on world conquest in the name of Allah.

Our infant nation had run-ins with the Muslims long before she could be accused of having ANY mid-east aspirations, presence, or policies. Take a few minutes to read the Tripoli Treaties. It's almost eerily prophetic if you can mentally separate it from a context of 1600 plus years of pre-existing Muslim history.

No reasonable person can deny that many modern troubles stemmed from rather hamfisted treatment of the region after WWI, and there have been a number of blunders since. But you make a major error by continuing to insist that the Jihadists have targeted us because of our policies. They are bent on global conquest, and we are a chief obstacle to that goal. To deny this fact is foolish and blind.

With regard to the claims of Pat's anti-Semitism: can anyone provide one shred of evidence for this ugly claim? For years I've asked for evidence. It never comes. The closest these race baiters ever get is to cite PJB's stance against a conflation of U.S.-Isreli interests.

He does not see the modern nation of Israel as identical with Judaism or Jewishness, and he certainly does not see it as coterminous with American ends. But he rails against U.S. involvement anywhere that does not directly impinge upon American interests. This position is uniform, with no special dislike of Hebrew things. Hey, even the Bible, written mostly by Jews, calls Jerusalem a perpetual burdensome stone and a cup of trembling. Is Pat anti-Semitic for observing the same truth.

Pat is mistaken in this regard. We are in a war driven by Jihad, and the Israel issue is nothing but a shell account opened by Jihadists to give their actual cause an ethical currency to spend among their prospective base. Unfortunately, many far left and far right Westerners have started accepting that fraudulent tender.

 Dubai and Doubts about Dubya

 This President seems to have largely abdicated leadership. As I’ve written elsewhere, leadership requires the leader to show himself to the people, to be seen even more than heard. A poor leader ensconces himself in the edifices of power, hiding from the people like a frightened pariah. This is what Bush has done.

For me, it really began with the Ports of Dubai debacle. After 9-11, the President moved us all by enlisting our willing aid in the "War on Terror" by telling us that we were the nations eyes, ears, noses, and feelers. We were to sound the alert if we sensed anything suspicious. The President called, and his people answered.

So, when the Dubai Ports deal became public knowledge, the American people sounded the alarm. We said this smelled, felt, sounded, and looked wrong. What was the President’s response? The gist of it was: "Shut up, sit down, and if you try to block me, I’ll cram it down your throats anyway."

The President lost that round. But he lost much more. He lost much of the credibility he had gained since 9-11. He became just another politician, angling for the interests of cronies who, it appears, may have played a behind-the-scenes role in terrorism and even 9-11. Those of us who had offered Dubya the benefit of the doubt found that the benefit had fled. All that was left were doubts.

Since that time, he has faltered on immigration, spending, and trade issues, among others. Even in the War in Iraq, the one remaining pillar of his tenure, he has chosen to run silent, run deep. Instead of bringing the case to the American people in formal, weekly messages (ala Churchill), he retreated to Crawford, letting his remaining spokespeople in the media and on Capitol Hill try to make the case for him.

His Library chat, meant to explain his planned surge in Iraq, might have been a worthwhile effort, if it had been one in an ongoing series of such case-building messages to edify and stoke America’s confidence. In that address, the President appeared diffident and tenuous, as though he lacked the courage of his convictions.

This is not the picture of leadership. To see a picture of leadership, you look at Washington crossing the Delaware. You look at Jesus on the Cross. You look at Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. This is leadership: one man, an icon of confidence, a beacon of bravery, a symbol of strength.

Bush once presented such a picture. But that man - a man standing amidst ash, smoke, rubble, and dust - has fled. He seems to have wearied of the fight, crawled off to Crawford. He has retreated into himself. But we need him now more than ever, that man from 9-12.

While he continues to fulfill certain obligatory official functions, like the State of the Union Address, he has mostly stolen from the scene and become a mere inhabitant of the White House instead of its head. A man has lost his will, and a nation has lost its leader.

The Obama phenomenon currently gripping our nation is not really all that new. It is just the most recent manifestation of an already-abominable reality of American politics. It is the abomination of style over substance.

As of this writing, the U.S.A. is still the world’s foremost superpower. And, paraphrasing Stan "The Man" Lee in the pages of Spider-Man: with super-power comes super-responsibility. And yet, we still seem to favor style over substance in choosing our leaders and representatives.

Obama is not the first or last to benefit from this rather childish political habit of ours. We have long ago decided that image is more important than meaning. When was the last time a presidential candidate with glasses was a serious contender? When was the last time we had a real contender who was shorter than average height? Dukakis was short, and he paid HE!! for it. So did Carter (never mind the fact that they were ineffectual dweebs, head to toe). And we don’t even want to consider the possibility of a bald nominee for one of the major parties. Can’t happen. It will never happen. It hasn’t happened since the 1950's, so why should we expect it now?

Perhaps I’m alone in thinking that we may rob ourselves of troves of experience, talent, and abilities by taking such superficial, shortsighted view of our potential leaders, placing undue emphasis on physical attributes? Does a man’s imperfect eyesight hinder his ability to lead? Does his paucity of follicles render him inept? Does the distance between his feet and his forehead make a man a mouse?

In such a culture as this, is it surprising that an insubstantial hack like Barrack Obama would be considered a big time player? He has all the bona fides that matter. He’s youngish, a stylish dresser, ethnic, and (in the words of Joe Biden) clean and articulate. Obama is the real deal in our Paris Hilton-obsessed, American Idol-watching, Oprah-worshiping culture.

All Barrack needs now is a catchy compound name (ala Tom-Kat or Brangelina) to link him to some other beloved media icon. I have it! I have it! OPRAHMA!!! To heck with the election. Let’s just crown him right now.