Sharp Knife

MY GUY QUIT

and that makes this a race between Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Bottom line: I'd rather support the guy who has changed in my direction than the guy who has continually kicked conservatives in the teeth, told them to like it, and promises to keep doing it.

I'll be supporting Gov. Romney.

Go, Mitt!

AND I ANSWER

Rush can't understand why Democrat John McCain is so squishy on waterboarding and Terrorists' Rights. It is because McCain hates the Commie bastards who tortured him and, psychologically, he cannot bear to think of himself as a fellow torturer. It's completely understandable.

Unfortunately however, that means McCain would allow another 9/11 before he would waterboard a Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Indeed, the Brooklyn Bridge would be in the East River right now if we had listened to McCain and his Democrat pals.

It brings me no joy to say this. John McCain was fighting for my freedom when I was but a child. That goes a long way with me. But I've got children today and they need John McCain's service today, not just yesterday--and when it comes to terrorists and their alleged "rights", John McCain today is AWOL.

McCain has said he would allow waterboarding (i.e., "torture") in a ticking time-bomb scenario. But it would be illegal and unless everything went perfectly, the interrogators would be prosecuted.

This is incoherent. It would violate the president's oath to faithfully execute the laws, and yet, at the same time, who would stick their neck out to prevent another attack knowing that the president himself was out gunning for them?

It is simply not true. McCain wouldn't support interrogators who prevented an attack. Our interrogators prevented New York City commuters from being blown into the East River and McCain still disapproves.

Rush Limbaugh:

When it comes to the question on torture, you know what McCain could have said is, "Look, I know what torture is, and turning down the air-conditioning a little bit or playing rock 'n' roll music, and even putting underwear on the top of these guys' heads is not torture. And it's offensive that anybody would say it is." McCain knows what torture is, and he knows that what we were doing is not torture. But he was obsessed with sounding like libs at this point... it puzzles me as to why this happens. But he chose liberal praise here over the option of protecting the country in the ticking time bomb situation. This from Court TV: "Following his arrest, authorities searched Moussaoui's home and found two knives, a manual for a Boeing 747; fighting gloves and shin guards and the name 'Ahad Sabet' -- one of the many aliases Bin al-Shibh goes by -- written in a notebook. But while they seized his laptop, they needed a warrant to view the information stored on the computer's hard drive. The warrant was denied based on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a civil liberties statute."

Not only did we not torture Moussaoui for information, WE WOULDN'T EVEN TORTURE MOUSSAOUI'S COMPUTER! For you "Civil Rights" fetishists who think your Magnificent Obsession is cost-free, consider this; had we looked in his computer, we might well have broken up the 9/11 plot--AND WE WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE INTO AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ!

You still think its "cost-free"?

McCain has pledged to close Gitmo and bring all terrorist prisoners to Kansas, knowing full well that the second they step foot on American soil, liberal judges will grant them more rights than Americans have (with none of the duties). These include full Constitutional rights, full Geneva Convention Rights, welfare checks, farm subsidy payments, railroad pensions, midnight basketball, NEA chocolate-smearing performance-artist grants and gay marriage rights. Also sister-marryin' rights. And Marian Wright-Edelman, too. Hell, they'll probably be named as at-large delegates to the national political conventions. Maybe we can even get American Idol to send them to Hollywood, baby!

You know how right McCain was about the Surge? Well, that's how wrong he is on Terrorists' Rights. It is reckless, it is dangerous, it is the kind of psychological blind spot that gets people killed.

And worse, he can't help it.

Update: Maybe when you get a minute, Senator, you could help out Rep. Fossella:

I treasure our civil liberties, but I also value the lives of the American people - and the terrorists' war against us sometimes requires gathering intelligence quickly to stop a new attack from occurring.

For instance, when seven US solders were kidnapped by al Qaeda gunmen in Iraq in May 2007, the intelligence community was ready to spring into action to begin surveillance in hopes of finding them . . . until lawyers in Washington stopped them cold.

They were hamstrung by the outdated FISA law, which prevented them from conducting surveillance without first obtaining a warrant. As the kidnappers planned, plotted and acted, lawyers sat around a conference room table for nearly 10 hours drafting legal briefs to show probable cause to conduct the surveillance.

Those seven soldiers never returned home. One of them was Spec. Alex Jimenez of Queens, whose mother, Maria Duran, said it best: "If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son. . . . They should change the law, because God only knows what type of information they could have found during that time period."

If Congress fails to act over the next eight days, it would reopen a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck with explosives through it - and don't think al Qaeda won't take advantage of it.

"GREAT" BRITAIN? I'D SAY MEDIOCRE, AT BEST

It seems that hardly a week goes by around here that we don't mention those wacky public master-debaters at England's Oxford University.

Historically, they are of course famous for their 1933 Resolution: "Resolved; This House will not fight for King and Country”. By swearing not to stand up to Hitler & Company in 1933, they merely ensured that they would be forced to do so five years later, and on much less favorable terms.

Well, they're at it again:

Mona Charen asks:

“Resolved: This House Believes that Israel has a Right to Exist.” So Israel’s presence in the world, the right of seven million people to a sovereign existence, is a fit topic for debate? Is there any other country in the world whose right to exist the privileged young men and women of Oxford would think open to question? Jordan? Her sovereignty dates to 1946, just two years before Israel. Is that up for grabs? How about Great Britain? Bangladesh? Cuba? In fact, there is no other country whose very existence is considered debatable. Now what does that say?

Mark Steyn answers:

It reminds us that it's not a border dispute or a territorial dispute but, for one party, an existence dispute. It's a telling comment on the state of affairs that more and more Europeans are growing more and more comfortable with more and more open support for the absolutist position of Hamas and the PLO charter. I'd disagree with you only on one point, when you write that "anti-Semitism has made a roaring comeback in Great Britain". As these things go, and by the standards of the Continent, Britain has a more or less honorable record. That's what makes the current virulence - from the BBC's institutional anti-Israelism to the increasing number of cemetery desecrations to the security guards required by more and more synagogues - a mark of shame in a traditionally tolerant society. The British dishonor themselves and their history in adopting the grubbiest of Continental pathologies.

It also says that Euro-elites have not really divested themselves of the Hitler Project; when you tell Jews they can't be here and then tell them they can't be there, either, you are really just telling them they can't be, period.

I guess the Oxford Union is still smarter than God. Must be nice.

Now, I don't want to go all anti-intellectual on you. Even though I'm a member in good standing of the Stupid Party, I admire the great conservative thinkers; Locke, Burke, Adam Smith, Russell Kirk, Foghorn Leghorn. But intellectuals can get so over-educated that they think up is down, right is wrong and Ben Afleck is a deep-thinker.

In fact, the Oxford Union isn't even as smart as a 5th-grader. Why? Because even a 5th-grader knows that "debate" means opposing points of view--and Oxford Union has loaded both debate teams with supporters of Palestinian terrorism.

"Resolved: A debating society with no real debate is as useless as tits on a boar hog."

As Al Gore says, "The debate is over!"

Pre-Update!: Speaking of Foghorn, here's more cartoon musings from the noted cartoon-speech criminal Steyn:

Here’s another news item out of Britain this week: A new version of The Three Little Pigs was turned down for some “excellence in education” award on the grounds that “the use of pigs raises cultural issues” and, as a result, the judges “had concerns for the Asian community” — i.e., Muslims. Non-Muslim Asians — Hindus and Buddhists – have no “concerns” about anthropomorphized pigs.

This is now a recurring theme in British life. A while back, it was a local government council telling workers not to have knick-knacks on their desks representing Winnie-the-Pooh’s porcine sidekick, Piglet. As Martin Niemöller famously said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I’m more of an Eeyore. So then they came for the Three Little Pigs, and Babe, and by the time I realized my country had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer “Th-th-th-that’s all, folks!” and bring the nightmare to an end.

Semi-Related Pre-Update!: P.J. O'Rourke explains our presidential primary election to Europeans:

Let us not forget Ron Paul who is very popular--with people who stay up all night in Ayn Rand chatrooms, bury Krugerrands in the yard, and think the Trilateral Commission causes sub-prime mortgage foreclosures.

Now if someone would just explain it to me.

"Well, it may be early to declare victory.

We will always be bound by a close bond. We have traveled a special road together for a very special purpose.

You know it’s never been about me. It’s never even been about you. It’s been about our country, and the future of our country, and about our party’s role in that future. And because of your efforts and because of our working together, our party is being required to look itself in the mirror; decide where it’s going; decide who it is.

Our country needs strong leadership. It needs our party to step up; assume the mantle of leadership again. But, we need to remember that we need to deserve to lead, and that’s what all this is about, is deserving to lead.

We understand, as they (the Founders) understood, the danger of too much power in too few hands, and this is the foundation on which we’re built; this is the reason we’re here tonight.

What a country. This is what its all about; keeping it that way; doing our part; stepping up to the plate; stepping up for service; stepping up to try to do the right thing. Even when the right thing is not easy.

These are the tenets on which the Reagan coalition was built, and they’re just as alive and strong today as they’ve ever been, and they’re alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. Those are the principles that have made us a successful party over the years… and when we’ve stood for those principles; when we’ve stood strong… welfare reform… tax cuts...balance the budget...Stand tall for the Second Amendment, stand tall for the rights of the unborn; people haven’t changed their minds about those things. We need to convince them we haven’t changed our minds about them either.

Most Americans are not called upon to share their blood. But we’re called upon from time to time to make our own sacrifices. We’re called upon from time to time to make our own contribution. And my friends, that’s what you’ve done. That’s what you’re doing. And I’m so proud to stand with you in that regard, and we’ll always stand strong together in that regard, we’ll always stand strong together. And I can’t thank you enough for that.

Thank you, and good night. Stand strong. Stand strong.”

That doesn't necessarily sound like a throw-in-the-towel speech. I guess we'll know soon enough.

My hope is that Fred comes out with a barn-burner of a speech tomorrow or the next day and vows to go all the way to the convention.

Everybody keeps telling us we can't have a second Reagan, yet it seems like we're on our tenth or twelfth Nixon. There won't be another Reagan any more than there will be another Washington or Lincoln, but it sure would be great to have somebody to vote for, not just against.

C'mon, Fred! Stand strong!

"Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says."--Ben Stein

We're funny people. We'll believe the most fantastic, incredible things if we see it printed in the newspapers or spoken by a newsweaver. We'll believe in Global Warming. That "One Size Fits All". That Yassir Arafat was a statesman. That Sean Penn is one of the finest actors of his generation.

But we find reason after reason to explain away the Bible.

From the Jerusalem Post:

A stone seal bearing the name of one of the families who acted as servants in the First Temple and then returned to Jerusalem after being exiled to Babylonia has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said Wednesday.

The 2,500-year-old black stone seal, which has the name "Temech" engraved on it, was found earlier this week amid stratified debris in the excavation under way just outside the Old City walls near the Dung Gate, said archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, who is leading the dig.

According to the Book of Nehemiah, the Temech family were servants of the First Temple and were sent into exile to Babylon following its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.

The family was among those who later returned to Jerusalem, the Bible recounts.
...

The Bible refers to the Temech family:

"These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city." [Nehemiah 7:6]... "The Nethinim [7:46]"... The children of Temech." [7:55]. [...]

"The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archeology and the biblical sources and serves as actual evidence of a family mentioned in the Bible," she said. "One cannot help being astonished by the credibility of the Biblical source as seen by the archaeological find."

It would only astonish if it were untrue.

NYET, NYET, WANKETTES!

Mark Steyn:

As usual, the Times stories are written in the fey, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone that's a shoo-in come Pulitzer time:

"Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak."

"Patchwork picture," "quiet phenomenon."… Yes, yes, but exactly how quiet is the phenomenon? How patchy is the picture? The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan either "committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one." The "committed a killing" formulation includes car accidents.

Go, Blogosphere!:

It was the work of minutes for the Powerline Web site's John Hinderaker to discover that the "quiet phenomenon" is entirely unphenomenal: It didn't seem to occur to the Times to check whether the murder rate among recent veterans is higher than that of the general population of young men. It's not.

Au contraire, the columnist Ralph Peters calculated that Iraq and Afghanistan vets are about one-fifth as likely to murder you as the average 18-to-34-year-old American male. Better yet, the blogger Iowahawk meticulously drew his own "patchwork picture" of another "quiet phenomenon": the Denver newspaper columnist arrested for stalking, the Cincinnati TV reporter facing child-molestation charges, the Philadelphia anchorwoman who went on a violent drunken rampage. As Iowahawk's one-man investigative unit wondered:

"Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence that America's newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters?"

Steyn offers some historical context--you remember 'context', don't you?:

Seventy-five years ago, in February 1933, the Oxford Union passed a famous resolution, by an overwhelming margin, that "this House would under no circumstances fight for its King and country." [...]

So the debate and its resolution sent a message to Britain's enemies: As Churchill saw it, the vote was a "disgusting symptom" of the enervation of the ruling elites. Clifford May sees that same syndrome today around the Western world, but, in fact, it's worse than that.

It is amazing how soon after they swore not to fight for their country they found themselves fighting for their very lives. Amazing--but axiomatic.

Nor would Barack Obama's pledge to prostrate himself before Iran's dictators and beg them not to kick America anymore yeild any better results than Neville Chamberlain obtained in Berlin.

I'm going to let some of you in on an open secret. After Vietnam, some of us said "Never Again".

Never again would we fight a war in "Don't Win--But Don't Lose!"-style.

Never again would we dishonorably sell-out an ally who had depended on our word.

Never again would we let the Legacy Liars Club control the narrative.

Never again would we let an isolated abuse be used to tar the entire military.

Never again would we let returning soldiers be spit upon.

Never again would we let millions of veterans be portrayed as dangerous psychopaths in order to further an anti-war, anti-America agenda.

And, above all, never again would we let Democrats, leftists and liberals lose a war in Washington and on television that our troops had already taken the trouble to win on the ground.

And by 'never', I mean never.

Never.

NEVER.

ZIP-A-DEE-DOO-DAH, ZIP-A-DEE-DAY!

I've got a good feeling about today. I think Our Guy is going to do well.

In "It's Fred's Turn", Quin Hillyer lists many reasons why South Carolinians should vote for Fred Thompson, including:

"...if I were a Rudy Giuliani man on Saturday, I would cast a tactical vote for Thompson, thus giving the former New York mayor a clear shot at Florida without a clear front-runner to overcome. I might even do the same if I were a Romney man seeing a Thompson surge in the state, figuring that one more loss by a suddenly shaky McCain or Huckabee in a state in which each was supposed to be strong might knock at least one of them out of the race and out of Romney's hair. Tactically, it also makes sense for any mainstream conservative to want to give a boost to the most consistent conservative in the race, just to send a message to those who say the old Reagan coalition no longer has relevance. A win for Thompson on Saturday would tell the world that consistency across the full gamut of conservative issues still carries weight at the ballot box. [...]

Next, and most importantly, we move to purely philosophical considerations. It is here that Fred Thompson shines. His voting record in eight years in the Senate was sterling. He often stood alone for the principle of federalism -- "states' rights, correctly understood -- a principle particularly appreciated by South Carolinians who want Washington to leave them alone on matters of economics and regulation. He had a 100 percent pro-life record. He stood tall against wasteful spending and high taxes. He pushed hard for high ethical standards and for efficient government reform. He's the only candidate thoroughly trustworthy on judicial nominations. And he never wavered from a Reaganite position in favor of a strong defense and foreign policy."

Now, let me share with you a personal letter I just received from Fred:

"Dear Noel,

How are the wife and kids? And your pet llama, "Begala"? Anyway, thanks for the trenchant foreign policy advice--I'll take it under advisement."

Okay, okay--I made that part up. Here it is:

"Thank you for your generous contribution. We’re in this race to win and your support is helping us bring to our fellow Americans the message of change and a call to return to the principles of our founding heritage. It’s critical that we address our nation’s challenges through the core ideals of self-governance, free markets, and the rule of law.

I believe there is a real sense across our country that we’re tired of the same old petty politics. Our fellow Americans want to see some real change. They want it in Washington, and they want it closer to home. They want a better future for themselves and for their families.

We can do it.

Thank you again for your encouragement and support.

Fred Thompson"

Yes, it's just a form letter--but we can still learn some things from it.

First, Fred is in this to win...and we're in it with him.

Second, Americans do want a change.

And third, that change should be a return to the principles of our Constitution and our Founders. For many candidates, that is just lip service, a mere afterthought. But for Fred Thompson, it is the first order of business.

Why the Founders? Because they got it right. And what they didn't get right, they left us a way to get it right. Returning to the first principles of our Constitution would be the largest and best change of all--that's why the Washington Establishment fears it so deeply.

Whatever happens today, this thing is not going to be over any time soon. So get off of that dime--support your candidate. And if you live in South Carolina, get out and vote--and take your neighbor. We only have one chance every four years--sometimes eight--to choose the direction of our presidential wing. We should choose the best.

And this year, in this election, that means Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson.

Say Hello To my Leetle Freen!

Senator Thompson evidently got the memo, turning in by all accounts an impressive performance at last night's debate. On top of taking the Silver Medal in the Wyoming caucuses.

HUCKABEE: And there was one particular statement that he made that I found especially troubling. He said, "We don't go to war with the army that we want; we go to war with the army that we have."

I felt that the proper way for us to approach this is we don't go to war with the army we have, we go to war with the army that we need, and we make sure that we have what we need before we go to war, including a clear definition of what we're going to do, irresistible force when we do it, and once we do it, we don't let the politicians interfere or interrupt the battlefield decisions of the commanders with blood on their boots and medals on their chest.

GIBSON: Senator Thompson?

THOMPSON: Well, I think that maybe the governor has rethought his comments that he made about an arrogant foreign policy, because it seems now what he's saying is that we were arrogant because we didn't go in with enough troops. I think that's kind of a different impression than the one that he originally sought to leave.

I don't think our foreign policy has been arrogant. Presidents are not perfect; policies are not perfect.

But the bottom line is, we are in a global war with radical Islam. They declared on us -- war on us a long, long time ago. We took note, really, for the first time on September 11 of 2001. We must do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves.

We weren't considered to be arrogant in Afghanistan when we went in there and won that conflict.

I agree that we made a mistake in terms of going into Iraq as far as the number of troops are concerned. And I think a flawed strategy also. I think that's been rectified now. And I think we're on the -- on the way to prevailing there.

And because we are prevailing there, I think it's going to be for a safer United States of America.

Our guy just keeps getting better. Go, Fred!

ALWAYS UP

"I don't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents. It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating? Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"--Ronald Reagan, 'Let Them Go Their Way', 1975

When Mike Huckabee went on Jay Leno the other night, he spoke of "horizontal politics", as opposed to the usual left/right dichotomy. I realized I'd heard the formulation somewhere before, yet I couldn't quite put my finger on it. But something about it just wasn't right. And then I remembered.

But first, Governor Huckabee:

"I have a great respect for Barack Obama. I think he's a person who is trying to do in many ways what I hope I'm trying to do and that is to say let's quit what I call "horizontal politics." Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, "Let's take America up and not down," and people will forgive you for being left or right if you go up."

But here is what I'd only half-remembered, yet couldn't forget:

"I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."

This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."

Ain't that the truth. In fact, every word of that is still as true today as when it was first spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1964, speaking on behalf of Barry Goldwater's candidacy.

At first glance, there is a superficial resemblance between the two statements; Huckabee says "Everything in this country is not left, right," and Ronald Reagan says "...there is no such thing as a left or right."

But notice this; Reagan does not begin by suggesting that Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson are trying to accomplish the same objective, perhaps by different means, as Huckabee suggests of Obama.

And where Huckabee is worried if "people will forgive" him, Reagan "make[s] no apology." This is the man who said "And I hope that when you're my age, you'll be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom, we lived lives that were a statement, not an apology!"

But here is the real difference: Ronald Reagan uses the phrase to advance conservatism and limited government...while Huckabee is using the phrase to fuzz up and blur the differences between liberalism and conservatism in order to advance an agenda that will grow government!

Trans-fats may be bad--but a porked-up, paternalistic, poly-unsaturated Trans-Fattened Government is even worse.

Reagan re-defines "up" as conservatism.

Huckabee posits "up" as a split-the-difference place between liberalism and conservatism.

A kind of middle-of-the-road "Why-can't-we-all-get-along" Third Way, somewhere between full-sized government and morbidly obese government. A chunky, clunky, overweight--but not fat!--government with a nice personality, who you would send out on a blind date with your room-mate.

Reagan was proud of being an American. But he was also proud of being a Republican, proud of being on the Right and proud of being a conservative and never felt the need to run away from the "horizontal"--after all, horizontal is where the new horizons live.

You want to lift me up, Governor? Then talk to me like this:

"The best view of big government is in the rearview mirror as we leave it behind."

"I've not taken your time this evening merely to ask you to trust me. Instead, I ask you to trust yourselves. That's what America is all about. Our struggle for nationhood, our unrelenting fight for freedom, our very existence- these have all rested on the assurance that you must be free to shape your life as you are best able to, that no one can stop you from reaching higher or take from you the creativity that has made America the envy of mankind."

To the 101st Airborne families: "...Love is never wasted; love is never lost. Love lives on and sees us through sorrow. From the moment love is born, it is always with us, keeping us aloft in the time of flooding and strong in the time of trial."

"Some may try and tell us that this is the end of an era. But what they overlook is that in America every day is a new beginning, and every sunset is merely the latest milestone on a voyage that never ends. For this is the land that has never become, but is always in the act of becoming."

"...they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'"

"Presidents come and go. History comes and goes, but principles endure and insure future generations to defend liberty- not a gift from government, but a blessing from our Creator. Here, the lamp of individual conscience burns bright. By that I know we will all be guided to that dreamed-of day when no one wields a sword and no one drags a chain."

"While I take inspiration from the past, like most Americans, I live for the future."

President Reagan loved the movie 'Back to the Future', and especially the scene where Christopher Lloyd (from 1955) asks Michael J. Fox (from the future, 1985) who the President was in 1985.

Fox: "Ronald Reagan."
Lloyd: "Ronald Reagan? The actor? Hah! Then who's the Vice President...Jerry Lewis?"

President Reagan characteristically refused to see it as a cut, instead making the White House projectionist rewind the scene again and again, to peals of joyous laughter. He liked it so much, he quoted the movie in the 1986 State of the Union Address:

"Never has there been a more exciting time to be alive, a time of rousing wonder and heroic achievement. As they said in the film Back to the Future, 'Where we're going, we don't need roads.'"

Up, always up.

From Heaven above, Ronald Reagan now stands watch over America.

We'll lift America up ourselves, Governor Huckabee--if you'll just keep big government out of our way.

Where we're going, we don't need it.

MAJOR OLMSTED

He "went down surrounded by hundreds of insurgents defending a village composed solely of innocent women and children."

May he rest in that Greater Peace, even greater than the one he sought to provide to others in this world.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' 'BOUT

From a column that should certainly be banned in Canada because it's almost too good to excerpt:

...the subtext of both Democrat and Republican messages is essentially that this country is so rich it can afford to be stupid – it can afford to pork up the federal budget; it can afford to put middle-class families on government health care; it can afford to surrender its borders.

There is a potentially huge segment of the population that thinks homo economicusis missing the point. They're tired of the artificial and, indeed, creepily coercive secular multiculti pseudo-religion imposed on American grade schools. I'm sympathetic to this pitch myself. Unlike Miss Noonan, I think it's actually connected to the jihad, in the sense that radical Islamism is an opportunist enemy that has arisen in the wake of the Western world's one-way multiculturalism.

In the long run, the relativist mush peddled in our grade schools is a national security threat. But, even in the short term, it's a form of child abuse that cuts off America's next generation from the glories of their inheritance.

Where I part company with Huck's supporters is in believing he's any kind of solution. He's friendlier to the teachers' unions than any other so-called "cultural conservative" – which is why in New Hampshire he's the first Republican to be endorsed by the NEA. His health care pitch is Attack Of The Fifty Foot Nanny, beginning with his nationwide smoking ban. This is, as Jonah Goldberg put it, compassionate conservatism on steroids – big paternalistic government that can only enervate even further "our culture."

Mark Steyn says of Gov. Huckabee: "The problems begin when he stops campaigning and starts governing." Some have said that is the Fred Problem in reverse.

In any event, I hope somebody e-mails this to the Thompson campaign, 'cos this is what needs to get said, loudly, clearly, unfailingly and daily.

TO FLOPPING ACES

for including Sharp Knife on the list of blogs supporting Fred Thompson.

Fred loves the Constitution and we love Fred. Count us in.

NOT BAD

All things considered, Fred Thompson's third place showing in Iowa, beating McCain, Guiliani and others, was pretty good.

Especially in light of the dirty trick by the Lying Hacks at Politico.com, who claimed on election morning that Fred was quitting. Even today they are still trying to spin Fred's victory as a loss. Guess what; Fred is still a candidate, even stronger...and the Politico.com Toady Losers are still Unprincipled Frauds and Hack News Manufacturers.

A few things:

1.) Fred is going to have to step up it up--and so are we. I'm looking at how I might volunteer. After all, that's what self-government means. Think about it, too.

2.) I agree with the gal who said "I already have a Savior. What I need is a president." I always think of 1980, when a evangelical Baptist deacon and former southern governor ran against a divorced Hollywood conservative--which one was better for Christians and for America? Instead of bashing Christians for voting Huckishly, perhaps we should explain how Fred's ideas are better... and that Huck is a liberal. I don't think that case has really been made by Fred or by us yet, at least to everyday voters.

3.) For example; Huck tried to give illegals driver's licenses before Hillary even thought of it. Bill Clinton turned Arkansas into a Republican state--Mike Huckabee turned it back. And Huckabee is getting credit for a Fair Tax that will not pass without 100 or so Republican senators. Not to mention that his Fair Tax specifically promises not to lower tax burdens, only to re-shuffle them.

4.) Time may be short. This thing could go all the way to the convention...or it could be over in a month, with Florida voting followed by a dozen or so more on Feb. 5th. So get involved...or else!

5.) Iowahawk kills me. heh.

So good work, '57 Phred-sters--but fasten those seat-belts. It's a Bumpy Life!

HE WOULD RATHER WRITE

product reviews of new colostomy bags than write about politics.

But when Steve gets going, he's still the best:

"And now that I've lost my taste for politics, I think I'm going to hate campaign season, too. I am so sick of spin. I am so sick of professionally groomed candidates smiling insincerely at 85-IQ talking heads while they ask questions, and I'm sick of the responses, which invariably avoid the issue and turn into free commercials. "Did I screw around on my wife? Well, back when I was tramping through the jungles of Vietnam, with a Bible in one hand and an M16 in the other, thinking about Jesus and how all Americans, including what I like to call 'pre-legal-Americans'--HOLA, MIS AMIGOS!--would one day need reasonably priced, top-quality health care..."

Puke.

[...]

Basically, I want two things this time around. I want a decent, capable President who will appoint a responsible judiciary, and I want Hillary to eat it. Royally. Decisively. I want the Democrats to let her know that they paid their debt to her, and that they're washing their hands of the Clintons, and that she is never going to be The World's Mommy. And then I want her to spend her declining years growing even bigger thighs and watching Bill pork stewardesses. Assuming he still can."

Followed by this:

"Last night as the Iowa results came in, I kept refreshing the page over and over. I didn't really care what happened on the GOP side, but I was fixated on the Democrat results. And when I realized the fat, smug, lying, weaseling, thieving, Secret-Service-humiliating Queen Bee was face-planting beautifully, it made me happier than seeing my candidate win in 2004. I would get out of bed with a 103-degree fever to vote AGAINST this thing, and I think I'm far from alone. I think a good percentage of the people who agree with me are Democrats.

I've never understood why Democrats won't give up the Clintons. It would be like throwing a safe out of a light plane during takeoff. Bill Clinton is the Democrats' Nixon, but they have turned defending him into an industry.

Hillary is trash, and she ought to be working her hostility toward her father out in therapy instead of punishing him by destroying the republic."

Steve goes on to say unflattering things about Ron Paul, which I don't understand because Herr Doktor is a great, great American.

Seig!

TO

Rush the other day, and he's shooting down Huck's claim to be the new Reagan.

Rush said 'There is no Reagan in the race.' Which is correct--but there is one Reagan conservative.

He went on to read approvingly from Fred's address to Iowans, the part about reaching out to Democrats.

And then let go this lil' gem:

"But here's one thing that I know for sure. Even the most overpaid CEO in this country can do nothing to me. The most overpaid CEO cannot take my freedom away. The most overpaid CEO cannot raise my taxes. The most overpaid CEO cannot tell me where I can and cannot smoke my cigars. The most overpaid CEO in the world cannot tell me what I can and cannot drive. The most overpaid CEO in the world cannot tell me what kind of stupid damn bags I have to use in a grocery store. But politicians and lawyers can take away all of those liberties and freedoms and property, and they do it on too regular a basis. So any time a politician comes up and says, "Mr. Limbaugh, your enemy is Big Media, your enemy is Big Food, your enemy is Big Oil, your enemy is big this or big that, and I'm going to protect you from them." I say, "You don't need protect me from them. They're not harming me at all. They're not hurting me at all. They're making my life better. You're the one standing in my way, Mr. Politician."

SIR. YES, SIR.

Thank you, sir;

"[...] At a time when most successful doctors his age are settling into retirement, the fit surgeon is making one of the most monumental decisions of his life and heading to war.

In his sixth decade, Krissoff, who could pass for 41, squares his chin and with large eyes looking at a point in the distance, proudly speaks of his son.

Fathers usually inspire sons into action, to achieve life goals. But in this family that relationship was turned upside down when Dr. Krissoff received news of his older son's death.

Nathan Krissoff died on Dec. 9, 2006, in Al Anbar province. He was 25.

Now the fallen Marine's father is committed to a mission, one that carries even more than the memory of Nathan. Krissoff's youngest son, Austin, is also an officer in the Corps.

"Both my sons were hugely affected by the events of 9/11, and Nate was proud to serve in the Marines, as Austin is," Krissoff says. "I share their views." [...]

Krissoff met Bush in August at an American Legion convention in Reno. The doctor described the personal meeting he had with the president immediately following the convention as a solemn experience with a small group of families grappling with the loss of loved ones in war.

Krissoff says Bush asked each family what he could do for them.

Krissoff told the president he wanted to serve.

After a brief moment, Bush deferred to Krissoff's wife, Christine, who has consistently supported her husband's decision. Krissoff says he pressed Bush about the matter with humor.

"'Sir, I'd like to serve but they told me I'm too old, but I'm younger than you, sir,'" Krissoff says, telling the story with a rare grin. [...]"

To which I will add not one word.

“You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.”--Ronald Reagan

More from Peter Robinson:

"Iowa Republicans, in other words, have wanted Thompson to do them the courtesy of actually campaigning—and now they’re beginning to realize that he has. First Thompson conducted a two-week bus tour of Iowa at which he campaigned in more than 50 towns and cities. Then he taped a 17-minute video in which he makes his case more calmly, deliberately, and and with incomparably greater respect for the issues than has any of his opponents. And? For a lot of Iowa Republicans, that’s all they needed.

The Thompson campaign may be shaping up as something like the precise reverse of the Clinton campaign. Presenting herself as the candidate of inevitability, Hillary dare not slip in the polls for fear of suffering a rapid and irretrievable collapse. Fred is by contrast the candidate who just can’t get elected—solid, likeable, and best on the issues—but, well, a man for whom it just isn’t going to happen. But as modest as it so far remains, his sudden rise in the polls—this “late-breaking surge,” to quote Zogby again—could persuade whole slews of Republicans that Fred could indeed win after all, leading to a definitive breakout.

From an unexpectedly strong third place in Iowa…to first place in South Carolina?"

Few things would tickle me more than if the voters chose to reward not the candidates who began salivating for the job three seconds after George Bush's hand came off the Bible at the last inaugural, but the guy who, like Reagan, wants to serve as, not "be" president.

A tale of two e-mails:

"Mr. Robinson,

In your opinion, is Fred Thompson a Reagan conservative? I ask because you actually had a chance to work with the man and would know better than most. Rush said maybe only one candidate was a Reagan conservative, but he wouldn't name him. My measly two cents says he was talking about Fred, but he didn't want to endorse him. Thanks in advance."


The second email, from my old boss in the Reagan White House—the man who hired me into the speechwriting shop—Ben Elliott. Ben himself worked closely with the Gipper, in particular drafting some of Reagan’s most memorable economic addresses. Ben writes:


"Only Thompson has a true conservative platform to defend life, liberty and American sovereignty. Only Thompson is advancing a compelling program for economic growth by controlling entitlement spending, unleashing innovation and making the American Dream real for every taxpayer. Only Thompson is committed to strengthening both our military and our intelligence and rallying the country for what must be a protracted struggle against jihadism."


Is Thompson a Reagan conservative? He is indeed.

Fred is. The question becomes...are we?

GROUND CONTROL TO MAJOR BONG

Remember when Dennis Kucinich and his friends saw a UFO in the skies above Shirley MacLaines' house?

They reported

..."a connection in his heart and hear[ing] directions in his mind."
"There was a sense that something extraordinary was happening all day,"
"There was a feeling of wanting to communicate something..."
"It was proof to me that we're obviously not alone,"
"He said it was beautiful, serene, and it moved him,"
"He was not afraid of it, let's put it that way. Seeing something that close and sophisticated and gentle."

Well, I know just what you mean, Shirl--it gives me the exact same fuzzy "one-with-the-universe"-feeling, too. Because that UFO was...a United States Air Force Stealth Fighter!

Yes, Dennis, we conservatives feel exactly the same as you and Shirley--connected, moved and unafraid--every time we see our military aviators flying this nation's aircraft in the service of freedom.

Your newfound and unqualified support for our military is duiy noted and greatly appreciated. On behalf of Cmdr. Darth Cheney, I'd like to welcome Shirley and Dennis over to the Dark Side!

Welcome aboard, pilgrims!

And please extinguish all smoking materials now. Thank you.

AND TWO FOR TEA

Earl Grey with grilled wildebeest--yum!

Kathleen Parker:

"It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassador's house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa," said Obama.

Poor grandma. Here she gave Obama good enough genes to get him through Harvard and a seat in the U.S. Senate, and still she's grilling wildebeest over a dung fire in the proverbial tiny hut? Tch, these kids today.

Speaking of beasties:

Clinton: "You know, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac when that was happening."

Then, probably quoting the aforementioned Newsday article, the FNC host brought up Clinton's autobiography Living History, which reported that Clinton's daughter Chelsea, comedian Sinbad, and singer Sheryl Crowe were also aboard the plane, which has prompted accusations that Clinton may have exaggerated how dangerous her life as First Lady really was.

One lump...or ten?

* “While the NATO leaders met in the Mellon Auditorium Saturday afternoon, their spouses were hustled about Washington for luncheons and teas. First lady Hillary Clinton had all the other NATO wives to the Yellow Oval Room in the White House for lunch...” – Washington Post, April 26, 1999

* "While Havel met Clinton, the First Ladies got together over a cup of tea.” – BBC, September 17, 1998.

* “Mrs. Hillary Clinton shared tea and sympathy with Russian businesswomen yesterday, making her first public appearance since her husband admitted to an affair with Miss Monica Lewinsky.” – Birmingham Post, September 2, 1998.

* "As the President toured an industrial park in protestant East Belfast, Mrs Clinton took tea at a women’s community centre in the city’s south.” – Herald Sun, December 2, 1995

* “In her first White House reception for the Russian first lady, Mrs. Clinton showed no tension. The women’s smiles seemed relaxed and they nodded agreement as they chatted at a table in the Diplomatic Reception Room, sipping from a historic tea service.” – Washington Times, September 29, 1994.

* “After the speeches, Mr Clinton escorted the two Middle East leaders into the White House for a first round of talks. As they met, Queen Noor of Jordan and Mrs Leah Rabin, wife of the Prime Minister, joined Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton for tea in the White House family quarters.” – The Age (Australia), July 26, 1994.

Tea-hee-hee.

IT'S AN ITCHY, BURNING RASH IN THE VERY SOUL

Remember when Fred talked about people who have plotted every day for the last forty years to be president, living and breathing for nothing else except their mad, unquenchable, personal ambition?

Bryan Preston does:

The New York senator also highlighted a chapter in her book, “It Takes a Village,” that talks about every child needing a champion. She said most children have someone in that role and she’d like to fulfill it for the whole country.

“I think the American people need a president who is their champion. And I’ve been running to be that champion — to get up every single day and do all that I can to make sure I provide the tools that every single American is entitled to receive and make the most out of their own lives,” Clinton said. [...]

[T]he adults of this country do not need a “champion” who sees herself as “providing the tools” for us to live our lives. We’ve taken to calling this kind of thinking “nanny state,” but it’s more than that. It’s authoritarian, whether it comes from Hillary Clinton or Michael Bloomberg or whoever espouses it. And it’s also, in this case, disturbingly narcissistic. It’s not really about the people of the country, it’s about Hillary being adored by the people of the country. That’s why she puts herself at the center of her little dream. It’s about setting herself up as our beneficent master giving you what you’re “entitled to receive,” not what you’ve earned. Which means she’ll be taking from some according to their means and giving to others according to their needs.

Not only did Clinton dangerously come within an inch of calling Musharraf an assassin, she couldn't even bother to get one single fact about Pakistan right. Not one.

"And then it hit me:

Sen. Clinton really didn't know that the upcoming elections were for individual seats in Pakistan's parliament. She actually believed that Bhutto, Nawaz and Musharraf would be facing off as individual candidates for leadership of the country in the upcoming elections.

Sen. Clinton didn't know that Nawaz Sharif isn't allowed to run for office in Pakistan because of a felony conviction. She didn't know that President Musharraf won't be on the ballot because he's already been elected.

Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn't know the first thing about the country referred to by some as "the most dangerous place on earth.""

Why? Because it's not about Pakistan, or even keeping nukes away from madmen--it's all about HER.

By contrast, here's the guy who asked Fred Thompson that question:

I wanted to know does this man want to be my President? I got the last question in.

The answer was exactly what I hope it would. It was a great answer. At points during the answer I was ashamed I had asked the question. I knew the answer. Do I really want to support a candidate who lives to be President? Is that type of candidate really interested in serving the nation or serving his own self-interest? Sen. Thompson positioned himself as willing to serve, not for an enlarged ego, but out of a deep desire to serve his nation. He has desire to make our nation better for his children and grandchildren. Far from a slick Branson like presentation, he presented himself as a dedicated patriot willing to serve if we, the American people, were willing to have him do so. [...]

After listening to Sen. Thompson and thinking about what he said, I can only conclude he is the best candidate for the job.

Conclusion noted and seconded.

Midwesterner at Samizdata explains why Fred is the successful small-government and national security candidate:

"Fred does satisfy voters concerned about our safety and about his understanding and capacity to protect it. And he has an almost Churchill like deliberate and imposing persona. Fred is the only Republican candidate that has a serious chance of winning the national election.

Fred will be the first time since Reagan that I actually vote for a presidential candidate instead of against their opponent.

Here is the real shocker. Cynical me, this is also the only time ever that I have donated to a political campaign except for one time I was a candidate for local office. That was a case of putting my money where my mouth is. I guess this is too."

Now that's the right kind of fire in the belly.

UPDATE: More data from Samizdata:

What the media...are saying is that Fred Thompson is too sane to be President. It is not enough to produce detailed policies for dealing with the entitlement program Welfare State (a cancer that is destroying the United States and the rest of the Western World), or producing a new optional flat tax (individuals could continue to use the existing system if they wished to) to deal with the nightmare of complexity that the income tax has become.

It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970's. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate - before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.

No - someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics - i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it - i.e. be a liar.

And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.

The shoo doesn't fit, Iowans--Vote Fred Instead!

WHEN WE WE'RE KIDZ(TM),

back in the 60's, Marvel Comics were cool.

Oh, sure; we'd read DC Comics sometimes, but Superman and Wonder Woman always seemed kinda corporate, our parents' superheroes.

While Marvel still had Capt. America and the Sub-Mariner from the 40's, their heroes felt modern and hip. Looking back, Marvel was always liberal--but in the joie de vivre-spirit of the times, not in some deadening Left-wing sense. To us kids out in the provinces, they made New York City seem like a happenin' place. Marvel Comics were, in short, fun.

I guess illustrator Jack Kirby is gone and Stan Lee lost control of his creations long ago, and you can't go home again. And it was bad enough when recently, thanks to snot-nosed Lefty cartoonists, Dick Cheney water-boarded Capt. America to death under a secret provision of the Patriot Act or some such nonsense.

But now Marvel superheroes are going to fight under the control of the UN.

Excuse me, but that's gay. "Captain Planet"-gay. Teaming up with the UN is something those losers over at the Justice League would do, not the Marvel superheroes I knew.

In the old days, Spiderman used to swing by the UN building and crack a few parking-ticket jokes. Now he's going to help fix them?


Tigerhawk gets it right: "With the possible exception of the Fantastic Four (who have always worked with the Man), there are no important superheroes in the Marvel Universe who would work for the United Nations. Certainly not Spider-Man. Unless, of course, the story requires them to beat up on United Nations soldiers for raping girls and trading sex for favors. But somehow I don't think that's the point."

Worse, these "free" comic books will be distributed to American school-kids, meaning we'll have to pay to propagandize our own children.

I can't wait 'til they tell the Human Torch he's in violation of UN Global Warming standards, and they force Thor to renounce Odin-ism, and they tell the Incredible Hulk that he can't "SMASH!" and tell the Thing that it's not "Clobberin' Time!"...until such time as 15 different resolutions have been passed, a process that takes, oh, about 15 years.

Doug Ross got his hands on the first issue of Kofi Comix.

Meanwhile, my Spidey-sense is tingling. Oh, wait--it was just natural gas royalties from Saddam.

Flame On!

Former Reagan Speechwriter Peter Robinson:

In the passage I found the most striking, Thompson does something no other Republican contender has attempted: appeal to Democrats.

"You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them."


This is reminiscent of Reagan’s talk to the people of North Carolina in 1976. Simple, straightforward, modest production values—just the candidate in front of an American flag and an Iowa flag—but (to use the word again) compelling. Reagan’s 1976 talk enabled him to recover after a string of primary defeats, winning in North Carolina, then going on to come within a handful of delegates of wresting the nomination from Ford. Will Thompson’s talk move voters in Iowa? Does his campaign have the money to get it on the air? Throughout the state? Or even in a few of the most important markets? Beats me. But we have here a serious man, making a serious case—and doing so in the context of a campaign that has otherwise descended into mere caterwauling.

Even at this late hour, I wouldn’t count Fred out.

Me either.

(Video here.)

UPDATE: More from Peter Robinson:

"While the other contenders are frantically saturating the Iowa airwaves with 30- and 60-second attack ads—Romney is guiltiest, if only because he’s richest—Thompson has sat himself down, looked into a camera, and spoken for a quarter of an hour, calmly and straightforwardly making his case. I myself find this impressive—in a way, moving. Thompson seems to have stepped out of the eighteenth century. He trusts voters to think. And if the comments on YouTube are at all representative, plenty of people agree. [...]

Politics as, from time to time at least, they really ought to be."

Mr. Robinson is, of course, a man who knows something about both principled conservatism and turning a phrase. From 'Tearing Down That Wall':

"There is a school of thought that Ronald Reagan managed to look good only because he had clever writers putting words into his mouth. [...] There is a basic problem with this view. Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, George Bush, and Bob Dole all had clever writers. Why wasn't one of them the Great Communicator?

Because we, his speechwriters, were not creating Reagan; we were stealing from him."

ANOTHER FINE MESS

Mark Steyn:

Just as the Taliban eventually seized control of Afghanistan, so they believe they’ll one day control Pakistan. Stan-wise, the principal difference is that control of the latter will bring them a big bunch of nukes. Meanwhile, life goes on. Just as the tribal lands seem to be swallowing Pakistan, so Pakistan is swallowing much of the world. It exports its manpower and its customs around the globe, and Pakistani communities in the heart of west have provided the London School of Economics student who masterminded the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the Torontonians who plotted to do the same to the Canadian Prime Minister, and the Yorkshiremen who pulled off the London Tube bombing. Saudi men pay lip service to Wahhabist ideology but it rouses very few of them from their customary torpor. In Pakistan, Islamism spurs a lot more action.

No people are immutable. It’s worth noting that Muslims next door in India are antipathetic to jihad. Yet they are ethnically and religiously indistinguishable from the fellows in Islamabad wiring up one-year old babies as unwitting suicide bombers. The only reason one’s an Indian and the other’s a Pakistani is because of where some British cartographer decided to draw the line in 1947. Since then, Indian Muslims have been functioning members of a modern pluralist democracy, while Pakistani Muslims have been mired in incompetence, backwardness and dictatorship, and embraced jihadism as the most viable escape route.

Mr. Steyn's observations seem relevant and thoughtful to me. But at least I get to decide. If the "Human Rights"-crowd gets their way, those two paragraphs you just read would have been banned.

How do we defend ourselves if we can't even talk about it?

Or is that the plan?