Although Stanley Baldwin is remembered as being one of the “guilty men” for having attempted to appease Hitler prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, his idea of meeting the enemy on their own turf stands forever as a prudent stratagem democracies in this modern age would have done well to adopt. Better to fight a war against the jihadists “over there” than to have their terrorism visited upon us “over here.” But, alas, hindsight, as the saying goes, is always much easier than foresight, and you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
And it’s not like we were never warned: prudent minds have been pointing out the foreboding signs for decades now, but their warnings are continually suffocated in a swirl of the heedless chatter of those fools who, even after the terrorist attack in Ottawa, are more concerned about the rights of sworn enemies of the state than they are with the future and security of the state. Today we read of a McMaster University professor offering Omar Khadr a welcome spot in his class room. In reaction to this totally insouciant and shameless invitation offered a confessed murderer of an American soldier, David Menzies of Sun News remarked, “I am appalled but not surprised. There seems to be this incredible…slobbering love affair—especially for those on the far left—for our home grown convicted Islamist terrorist.” Khadr’s lawyer, probably thinking of the big bucks coming his way in a future lawsuit against the federal government, has graciously volunteered this Islamist murderer his home as shelter from the predictable and stormy Canadian blast. As I’ve pointed out previously, we have no idea of the depths of obsequiousness these sycophants will stoop to simply to prove themselves “liberated” from the cautious asseverations of patriotic Canadians (and Americans). According to their inverse morality, love of one’s country is bad; betrayal of one’s country is good.
In the Book of Proverbs is written, “When the wicked rise up, men go into hiding.” In Hebrew, the word hide in this context means “to hide by covering.” It seems to me, and to a great many others by now, that the Left, with their innumerable obfuscations of the obvious, are hiding from the discomposing issue of jihadist infiltration of what surely appears to these Muslim extremists living in our midst a society and a state easily exploited for those political and religious gains which in lands where Islam maintains preponderance such exploitation is renounced as criminal activity. But we in the West tolerate such subterfuge because we’re inculcated with the bizarre notion that we mustn’t offend the religious—any religious—even when those particular religious are determined to destroy us from within.
Norman Podhoretz warned us against political vacillation and moral ineptitude with his rebuke: “…the great question of whether we of this generation have it in us to beat back the implacable challenge of Islamofascism is still hanging in the air.” To date, there are those naïve pluralists still pushing the line that “it’s the crazies giving Islam a bad name, not hard-working, ordinary Muslims.” Let’s remember that before those “crazies” became crazy, they were first “hard-working, ordinary Muslims”—the inspiration for blowing themselves up in market squares in Iraq, or for shoot-outs with security teams in Garland, Texas was initially plumbed from the Quran and gladly received from the mouths of Islam’s most observant imams. Let’s remember that the jihadist’s hatred of the Western world began within those nations where Islam viciously protects its preponderance. We must “beat back the challenge of Islamofascism” here, but, more importantly, that same challenge must be met militarily over there. Only a fool would believe that the appetites of terrorist entities like ISIS will be satiated with those conquered androcracies of the Middle East, whose boundaries were long ago rendered indefinite by the Quranic revindication of Islamic imperialism. Who but a fool would believe that the religious quacks of Iran have not vigorously entertained the idea of “wiping Israel off the map” with nuclear weapons? And the State of Israel is only their starting point.
Rita Steinhardt Botwinick remarked of Adolf Hitler that “…his powers of persuasion, his ability to appeal to the masses as well as the classes, was unmatched…his first order of business was the destruction of the Republic.” The same type of destruction can be attributed to those who insouciantly accommodate anti-Jewish hatred and continually exculpate Muslims of their violent behaviour over here; and also to those certain Western leaders who never cease from obfuscating the generally vindictive narrative of Islam’s Muslim scholars and/or dictators over there: Such gross negligence and imprudence I can only surmise as serving no other purpose than the extirpation of our fast-diminishing democratic station from an envisioned larger world then dominated by the dictates of the religion of Islam.
Where our frontier lies today, therefore, is both here and abroad. Here, where we must expose and publicly inculpate those who voice support for, or build alliances with (financially and otherwise), our enemies; and abroad, where we must destroy terrorist entities with military might, not only as they remain a threat to the State of Israel and the Jewish people, but also because, as a threat to the State of Israel, they exist also as a threat to the entire Western world and the freedoms we are tardily losing possession of.