Banned Speech at the Hyatt: Pamela Geller, "Truth is the New Hate Speech"

That is how the Holocaust really happened.

As the Nazis were gearing up the Final Solution, the Liberals throughout the world denied anything was going on.   The press gave us "nuance."

Media coverage emphasized distinctions between the radical and moderate Nazis. (Hitler was, of course, a moderate.) Nazi grievances were treated as legitimate. Their crimes were lied about and covered up.

In 1933, the Associated Press’ wire report claimed that the persecution of Jews had already ended. Another wire story headlined “Jew Persecution Over Says Envoy” cited Secretary of State Hull’s relief that the Hitler regime was doing its best to curb further persecution of the Jews.

Hull would later apologize when the Republican Mayor of New York City referred to the Fuhrer as a “man without honor”. Mayor LaGuardia might have been suffering from Fuhrerphobia.

Jewish protests were treated as shrill and baseless alarmism.

“U.S. Investigation Shows No Cause for Protest,” the AP headlined its coverage.

“Notwithstanding assurances given by German government leaders and by Hull that the Nazi excesses against the Jewish race had ceased in Germany, Jewish leaders went ahead with plans for mass protest meetings,” another wire story read. “All requests that these meetings be canceled fell on deaf ears.”

A week before the story, the first official Nazi concentration camp of Dachau had opened.

The media coverage should sound familiar. It’s how Iran’s nuclear buildup is being covered. It’s how Muslim violence against Jews is covered. It’s discussed reluctantly and immediately dismissed. Jews are written off as pests who refuse to listen when Kerry, like Hull, tells them there’s nothing to worry about.

That is how the Holocaust really happened.

Auschwitz just shows us the final stage. It doesn’t show us the sympathy for the Nazis, the willingness of some on the left to see them as allies in overturning the existing system and the anger at the selfishness of the Jews in putting their own desire not to be killed ahead of world peace.

Auschwitz requires more context than just Hitler. It requires that we understand why so many countries and so many world leaders enabled him. And it is not a difficult thing to understand. All we need to do is look at the response to Muslim attempts to kill Jews before and after the Holocaust.

It was easier to appease the Nazis. It is easier to appease the Muslim world. The Jews were not seen as a canary in the coalmine; instead, like the Czechs and then the Poles and then everyone else, they were an obstacle to making a deal with the devil. Today it’s the Nigerian Christians, the Burmese Buddhists and a long list of others around the world including the Jews of Israel who stand in the way of peace.

The Holocaust and the entire war happened because everyone wanted peace with Nazi Germany and refused to accept that Nazism was innately aggressive.

Eichmann envisioned Nazis and Muslims as victims.

“Who are the aggressors here? Who are the war criminals? The victims are Egyptians, Arabs, Mohammedans. Amon and Allah,” Eichmann wrote of the 1956 war.

That's exactly what's happening now. The Jews in Israel are being demonized as the "real Nazis" by the campus Left. When they defend themselves against Arab aggression we are being told that their reaction is "disproportionate," as if Israelis should be killed at the same rate as the Hezbollah attackers.  The professors are going along with it.  The press will deny there's anything going on while demonizing Israelis who want to survive.   And if there is another Final Solution, the press will pretend to be shocked, shocked, and blame the Republicans.  Obama wouldn't mind if the Israel disappeared and Hitler's grand vision came true.  It would make his grand rapprochement with Islam so much easier.     

Obama’s Drones Have Killed More Than the Spanish Inquisition

Controversy still swirls around Obama’s comments during the National Prayer Breakfast this week, where he chastised Christians for getting on their “high horse” over the ongoing global jihad, invoking medieval abuses that occurred hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and Inquisition.

But perhaps it is Obama who should avoid getting on his high horse, since according to recently published statistics, Obama’s drone campaign has killed more people during the six years of his presidency than were killed the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

I need a hashtag

Are women without genitalia the result of Republican budget cuts or the Koch brothers?

This is not a hoax.

It appears that Mount Holyoke College - in impeccably Liberal Massachusetts - cancelled a planned performance of “The Vagina Monologues” because the women's college deemed the play “exclusionary” toward the “transgendered community,” possibly offending women without vaginas. 

There are any number of reasons not to stage one of the most over-rated pieces of sexual propaganda foisted on the public in the name of "art." But we are inured to the absurdities of the "art" world since reading Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word," seeing Piss Christ exhibited as art - along with a urinal - and the excretable framed crap collected by Paine Webber's chairman Don Marron.

So it appears that feminism has now progressed to a point that it's now removing it's founders, much as Stalin removed the founding Communists.  Eve Ensler?  Never heard of her.

Nikolai Yezhov, walking with Stalin in the left photo from the 1930s, was killed in 1940.
Following his execution, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet censors/

A mere few weeks ago "The Vagina Monologues" was the high point of feminist art. Today, it's relegated to the dustbin of history, an example of the exclusionary nature of the less enlightened strains of feminism, oppressing women without vaginas.   Next we can expect an investigation to see if the Koch brothers, in league with perfidious Republicans are responsible for this outrage.

A Tedious, Recycled State of the Union

Before the financial crisis, Obama ran on “investing” in education, health care, renewable energy, infrastructure, and so on. After the financial crisis hit, presumably our needs changed, but not Obama’s agenda. Suddenly, what America needed to do to respond to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression was to again “invest” in education, health care, renewable energy, and infrastructure. And now that the “shadow of crisis has passed,” as he announced on Tuesday, the same investments are needed. Why? Because he said it before, of course.

The same holds true with his foreign-policy agenda. As a candidate, Obama vowed that we needed to pull back from the War on Terror. After the rise of the Islamic State and the metastasizing of jihadist terror around the world, we must stay the course. Even when events deviate from the president’s well-worn script, what matters is that the script never change so Obama can keep talking and talking and talking.

"This isn't ISIS"

Tom Brady hit the right note. As the press obsesses over the correct air pressure in a football, ignoring Obama's obvious lies in his just completed - and little watched - State of the Union address.

So little attention has been paid to ISIS lately that President Barack Obama was able to boast in his State of the Union address that an American-led coalition has stopped the terror gang’s advances without drawing a derisive laugh from his audience. That claim is not corroborated by any press reports we’ve been able to hunt down, and will surely come as a surprise to the unfortunate residents of Mosul and Fallujah and numerous other cities that once enjoyed the protection of American troops but are now beleaguered by ISIS’ murderous gangs, and is acknowledged as a falsehood by Pentagon officials, but that’s easily overlooked when there’s a charge afoot that a professional football team might have deflated a ball. The president further claimed that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has been halted, that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program in gratitude for the president’s protection from economic sanctions, and that he somehow deserves credit for America’s recent oil boom, but until some photogenic sports star draws attention to such balderdash it will also go largely unnoticed.

When there are serious issues - like the proper amount of air pumped into a football - the press knows its priorities.  It is on it like white on rice, grateful for being able to ignore the increasingly desperate plight of the middle class and the spread of a deadly virus known as radical Islam. 

The Nazis Were Socialists, Not Right-Wingers

Nothing to Do with Islam. Move Along.

Charlie Hebdo and the aftermath.

What should we say about the Muslim terror attacks in Paris and Charlie Hebdo?  Having waited a decent interval for the dead to be buried and the marchers to go home, for the hot outrage to have cooled, let's have a discussion.

What made Charlie a target?  It dared make fun of Mohammad.  That is not allowed by Muslims.

Few people were aware of this magazine before the assault by Muslim terrorists. It's circulation is modest and it's treatment of its subject matter is tasteless.  Charlie is a virulently anti-religious magazine but it has the distinction of including Islam as a target.  Most other Western publications use a deferential tone when discussing Islam, referring the Mohammad as "The Prophet" and endlessly referring to Islam as the "Religion of Peace."   These same publications are uninhibited in their discussion of Christianity, and evangelical Christianity is mocked mercilessly. The press does not refer to Christ as Messiah Jesus.  Unlike the Koran, the Bible is often referred to, not as Christianity's "Holy Book" but as the object of "Bible Thumpers."

You can be absolutely sure that every Christmas or Easter a newspaper or magazine near you will have an article by a "modern" biblical scholar deconstructing scripture, or one about "finding" Jesus' tomb with the bones still inside.  The Virgin Mary comes in for special treatment;  the BBC aired a program claiming that Jesus' real father was a Roman soldier who raped Mary.  

In a country that is roughly three-quarters Christian, the media feel free to attack Christianity and disparage Christians.  In fact it's admired for its anti-clericalism in the social circles these people inhabit.  But they show respect for Muslims sensibilities because they're cowards.  They know that Muslims will kill you, Methodists don't.

Which brings us to Charlie.  With the exception of the Muslim world, there is universal agreement that the terrorist attack by Islamofascists on Charlie is despicable.  But militant Islamists have been killing people in large numbers for quite while now.  The Middle East and parts of Africa are in flames thanks to violent Islamic movements.  The thing that made Charlie's mass murder shocking was it's location - the center of Paris -  by young French men with a Middle Eastern heritage.  It brought into sharp focus the growth of a violent Islamic community in the center of Europe.   Europe is under attack.  It's people, it's culture and it's very existence as a Western enclave is in question.

In a way, Charlie Hebdo and its attackers have something in common.  Neither one has much use for European culture.   Like Barack Obama, they wish to fundamentally transform it.  Muslims by immigration, non-assimilation, and the threat of violence.  The Left - and make no mistake Charlie is firmly on the Left -  through its dominance of the media and academia.  

But just because both despise the existing culture does not mean that they are not at each others throats. They despise each other and are fighting for dominance.  In Weimar Germany two Leftist movements - Communists and Nazis - battled in the streets and the beer halls for dominance.  It was "Uncle Joe" Stalin who labelled the Nazis's "right wing," and the press has been parroting that lie ever since.  The Nazi's were not calling themselves "National Socialists" with any sense of irony.

Which brings us to the question, should we chant "I am Charlie?"  Should we applaud Charlie?  Should we imitate Charlie?  Is free speech an end in itself or the means to an end?  Is free speech absolute?  Should certain things be off limits, if not legally then morally?  Let's agree that no one should be killed for being offensive.  But a Muslim physician in Baltimore makes some good points about the way the media - supposedly the champion of free speech - doesn't practice what it preaches.

Different patients hurt at different places. Just because my sensitivity is my Prophet, does not mean yours has to be a divine figure as well. For Jews, Moses may be fair game, but mocking the Holocaust is not. For Christians, ridiculing Jesus causes varying levels of angst. For Blacks, the N-word is off-limits. And certain ridicule has left the LGBT community so terrified that it hurts all over.

It's largely our social — not legal — codes that bar us from poking at others' tender spots. 

And when these codes are violated, we rush to amend. When PepsiCo released an ad for Mountain Dew in 2013 that was deemed racist and misogynist, it was axed. When Snickers launched a 2007 Super bowl ad showing two straight men accidentally kissing, it was considered to be homophobic and benched. When a Jewish-owned company created a billboard ad for a budget vodka, boasting "Christmas Quality, Hanukkah Pricing," it was quickly pulled. 

Yet, no one thought it was the end of the First Amendment. Why then, can the American Muslims not ask for the end to hurtful material against Prophet Muhammad without getting a free speech lecture shoved down their throats? 

If "nothing should be off limits," as American Muslims are reminded, then why do we mollify other groups? Why do we lionize free speech only when it ridicules Prophet Muhammad?

Unfortunately for him, his examples refute his conclusion.  The press does not lionize free speech. The media do not practice free speech or we would not have any references to A Word That Must Not Be Uttered By A White Man That Begins With "N." His other examples also refute his point that Muslims are uniquely picked on in the press.  But he does have a larger point, it's simply bad manners, immature, juvenile, stupid, ill bred and generally offensive to make fun of other people's sacred beliefs.   

Charlie was not focused on ridiculing Muslims.  They specialized on ridiculing everyone and everything that represented Western culture and did it in the crudest terms.  They were an equal opportunity insult machine and Christianity was one of their favorite targets.   

....Charb’s wide repertoire of freaks and grotesques, who range from the various popes to Jesus himself, depicted nude and sodomizing his heavenly father 

Become more like Charlie?  No.  Even if we sympathize and grieve for the victims of the terrorist attacks.  Because the Left, the nihilists, the iconoclasts are a dead end, a soulless collective.  The Communist dream mashed together with a "whatever floats your boat" ethical standard.    

There are any number of  reasons to oppose Islamic expansion and violence.  In my opinion, Islam is a violent, oppressive political movement dressed up as a religion.  Kwanzaa with a prophet.  The attack on Charlie did not add or detract from that opinion.  The attack was a wake-up call only to the simple-minded who believed that Islam really is a religion of peace.  It may help the low-information crowd to understand that Islam is on the march and will kill you, even in Paris, unless you submit.  

But the means to resist and roll Islam back are found in our religion, our culture, and our morality.  If we become more like Charlie we disarm ourselves because Charlie believes in nothing more elevated than an accidental universe while followers of Islam believes in something greater.  When it comes to a mortal struggle, people who believe in something greater than themselves have a big advantage over those who only believe in themselves.  When George H.W. Bush was Vice President he attended a series of funerals of Soviet leaders.  After Brezhnev funeral in 1982 he remarked "there was something missing.  There was no mention of God.  There was no hope, no joy, no life ever after .... So discouraging in a sense, so hopeless, so lonely in a way."  It took a while, but those who believed in the Soviet "new man" were vanquished by those who believed in God.

People who are willing to kill themselves via suicide bombings believing that they will go to heaven with 72 virgins of their own are more motivated and infinitely more dangerous than people who believe that this brief life is all there is, so you have to "Go for the gusto" (drinking beer), or by publishing a magazine filled with bad cartoons mocking Christ or Mohammad. 

If the West is successful again, as it once was before the Gates of Vienna, it will succeed for reasons that are the exact opposite of the kind of nihilism that motivates Charlie Hebdo.  Be Breitbart , be courageous for truth.

Trey Gowdy on the role of the House of Representatives

It got him a standing ovation.

About that "warmest year" hoax.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

And here's the kicker:

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

The earth's average temperature has changed very little over the last decade.  When skeptics say this they're compared to Holocaust Deniers.

Native Hawaiians Seek Independence

The DRUDGE report links to an article in Hawaii News Now Native Hawaiians debate best for path to sovereignty

It may surpise people who have never been to Hawaii and think of it as nothing but a tourist paradise,, but the Islands are home to some very unhappy people.  There are some very specific definitions of who is a "native" and who is not, and what it means in legal terms.

I was surprised to find that a lot of "native" Hawaiians don't want to be part of the US.  In fact they are as dissatisfied with America as Al Sharpton or Barack Obama. 

Don't be surprised if this feeling grows and results in political agitation and ends in violence.  

Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

How Islamofascists try to control the narrative.  When you hear someone described as "Islamophobic" it probably started in the Honor Brigade.

It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the “ghairat brigade,” an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.

The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.” The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn’t remove her face veil.

“The OIC invented the anti-‘Islamophobia’ movement,” says Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a frequent target of the honor brigade. “These countries . . . think they own the Muslim community and all interpretations of Islam.”

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as LoonWatch.com and Ikhras.com to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. Their targets are as large as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and as small as me.

four years after the start of the Arab Spring, the new Middle East looks more and more like the old one—only worse.

SMART DIPLOMACY ALERT

From the Wall Street Journal

While U.S. airstrikes have put Islamic State forces on the defensive in Iraq, they haven’t had the same effect in Syria. Our story looks at why military action by the U.S. has not stopped Islamic State militants from expanding their control in Syria and considers the implications of this failure. We note that some administration officials have been pushing America to focus more attention on Syria, but powerful voices oppose any idea that would drag the U.S. military deeper into a country where few see options that will improve the situation. However, the “Iraq-first” strategy is likely to be questioned in the coming weeks when the new Republican-controlled Congress holds hearings on the president’s game plan in the Middle East. Meanwhile, we report that the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State is coming under growing criticism in Iraq, complicating the mission as Washington ramps up its forces in the country. And we look at the wider region, noting that four years after the start of the Arab Spring, the new Middle East looks more and more like the old one—only worse.

Before we deployed Barack Hussein Obama's SMART DIPLOMACY in the Middle East as the Arab Spring unfolded the area was controlled by a few long time dictators and Arab "royalty" who were content to not cause trouble.  Today, after deaths counted in the hundreds of thousands, crazies are roaming the sands forests bringing back the 7th century and importing it into a Western world which though it left that all behind centuries ago.

Well, (as Glenn Reynolds often notes) this is the 21sc Century, you know.

Why I am a Conservative

Stacy McCain has a great essay on the horrors visited on people by "progressives" and Liberal philosophers.

What is remarkable is the extent to which French intellectuals have caused this endless tide of human misery.

“We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity.”

— Edmund Burke, 1790

Burke’s insight into the fundamental error of the French Revolution — its inspiration by such philosophes as Rousseau and Voltaire — could be extended to every “progressive” movement ever since.

The modern Cult of Progress, the characteristic “presumption” of the intelligentsia in their belief in their own superiority, has repeatedly afflicted humanity with enthusiastic schemes for political, social and economic change. Always these innovations require us first to destroy “hitherto existing society” (to quote the Communist Manifesto), and to entrust our future to the control of elites. Always the result is the same. From the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France to the Bolshevik Terror in revolutionary Russia, from Kristallnacht in Germany to the “Great Leap Forward” in China to the “Killing Fields” in Cambodia, the path of “progress” is a trail painted in blood, littered with the corpses of those murdered or starved to death for the sake of political theories.

The French revolution was followed by the Terror, followed by Napoleon Bonaparte who plunged Europe into decades of war which left between 3 and 5 million people dead.  

The "philosophers" who followed the French model managed to kill about 100 times more.  Many in "peacetime."  It's this thing about breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.    

One of the most satisfying things about the French Revolution is the death of Robespierre.  

Grubering Junior College

Kerry Daugherty wrote a fairly sensible column in the Virginian Pilot today. She made the point that Obama’s promise of “free” junior college was a deception. She said that “… he's [Obama’s] treating Americans as people who lack critical-thinking skills.” Because, of course, Junior college will not be free, just like primary schools are not free, roads are not free, garbage collection isn’t free and ObamaPhones are not free. But she pulled her punch. Perhaps because she wanted to get her column printed.

She should have said that we’re being “Grubered,” a verb that came into vogue following the now-infamous series of outbursts by MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber about how the Obama administration depended on the stupidity of the American people to pass ObamaCare.

You can be sure that the Gruber-aping editorial board of the Virginian Pilot was be in full throated support of “free” junior college and spend tons of ink condemning the knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying, anti-science Republicans for their war on education.

Islam's youth movement

Am I the first to notice that the Muslims beheading, shooting, bombing, kidnapping, raping and enslaving people are the youth movement of Islam?   These are the true progressives.

The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

Finding our Churchill

Roger Simon doesn't mince words.  We are at war, whether we want to be or not.  And we're losing.  The leaders we have are ignoring it or desperate to change the subject.  Obama did that yesterday, like a magician creating a distraction.  while people were dying in Paris, his focus was on pandering to people who want free junior college.

Meanwhile, under the watch of the man who masquerades under the moniker of president of the United States, someone who can barely muster a dopey three-minute speech filled with banalities about the killings in France, radical Islam has metastasized across the world in a manner only dreamed of on 9/11. A map on Gretawire shows terror networks cutting a wide swathe across the planet, from South America through North Africa on to the Indian subcontinent and then into South-East Asia. In a sense the map should already include Western Europe, the way things are going.

And most likely things are going to get worse. Al Qaeda (operating with impunity in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere) and ISIS (with a state of its own the size of Indiana) are in a pissing contest for terrorist maniacs of the year while Boko Haram is doing its best to exterminate everyone in Nigeria, andapparently succeeding – all in the name of Allah. And our president never uses the word “Islamic” or acknowledges that we are at war — even though, quite obviously, the Islamists are at war with us and with Western civilization. And they seem just to be getting started. Only the morally narcissistic buffoons at the New York Times would think otherwise.

Which brings us to the 2016 presidential election. I have written before, “We need a wartime consigliere.” (Yes, yes, I know the consigliere isn’t the boss — but you get the reference.) We need a wartime president. Hillary Clinton, obviously, is as far from that as you could get, except for Barack Obama. So we have to look on the Republican side.

I’m not prepared to comment on any of the candidates now. I don’t know enough. But I will say this: In this time of war, I will be looking, far above all things, for the best possible commander-in-chief, man or woman. Put another way, how much does the person resemble Winston Churchill, the ultimate wartime leader, in my view? That’s not an easy thing. Churchill had a great verbal skill and certain unique charm that could inspire people. I can’t immediately think of anyone who has that. But Churchill was a figure of legend, someone even the oldest of us see from afar or on old news clips. In his day, we know he was reviled by many.

So maybe someone will emerge. We are in desperate need of that person after the last six, soon to be eight, years. What has been lost domestically is certainly significant, but pales in comparison to the global situation and the religious war that we are in. If America continues to lead from behind after 2016, it will cease to be America. The world will shortly be in chaos and we will all be back in the Middle Ages. Sound excessive? I wish it did.

So I implore those of you reading to put aside your special interests for the moment, or at least soft-pedal them. Most of them can wait and if we lose the war against Islamic terrorism, which, believe it or not, we are currently losing, they will all be irrelevant, the unread text of Obamacare buried in the sand like Shelley’s statue of Ozymandias. Civilizations have died before. Let’s not let it be ours. Let’s overcome the reactionary leaders in our own country and in Europe, who suffer from such extreme cognitive disorders that even after #CharlieHebdo they insist on delinking Islam from terrorism. Let’s find our Churchill — and now.