America will be safe once we conquer Afghanistan Iraq Afghanistan again Yemen!

The Lefty Lizard King posts this CNN report of yet another clash of Western and Muslim civilizations:

A Somali man was shot as he allegedly tried to enter the home of Danish political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard — known for his controversial depictions of the Muslim prophet Mohammad — on Saturday, police said.

The 27-year-old man, who was not identified, wielded an ax and a knife and cracked a window at Westergaard’s home in Aarhus, said police spokesman Morten Jensen. A home alarm alerted police to the scene at 10 p.m., and they were attacked by the man, he said.

The comments CJ has allowed to stand firmly denounce this latest incident of Islamic violence -- the usual list of terms, such as "Islamofascist" and "religion of peace," pop up as much as you'd see at immigration restriction sites such as FAIR or even VDare.

And yet, CJ is even more vehement in condemning political movements to stop the Islamization of America and Europe -- they're all "fascist," you see.

I hereby propose we refer to the blogczar of Little Green Footballs as Charles "Cognitive Dissonance" Johnson.

This is up there with the old joke about the campus atheist club meeting next Tuesday night at 9:00, God willing -- except this joke's for real:

"Not many people showed up because of the blizzard conditions," said organizer Clea Major, an international studies student at the University of Utah.

It didn't take long for the six friends to pack up a bullhorn and posters they'd planned to use for their "scream-in," an outlet for their frustration about the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks earlier this month to curb the pollution blamed for climate change.

Still, they chatted with a few passers-by during the commuter-hour protest near the Gateway, and explained that, blizzard aside, climate change is expected to bring chaos to the global climate, said Major.

She called Wednesday evening's effort a success and possibly the first in a series. As for the snow, it's not entirely new; a protest she attended last year in Washington, D.C., suffered a similar fate.

"There is always the irony element," Major said.

Yes. And there's the suspension of common sense element, too.

Obama now admits a "systemic failure" in security is to blame for the Christmas Day attack on a Northwest Airlines jet.

Eight CIA agents were killed by an Afghan officer wearing a suicide belt.

And on the domestic front, 93 percent of all financial wealth is controlled by the top 10 percent of the country.

What can people do when they're confronted with undeniable systemic failure at home and abroad?

Change systems.

It was SOOO simple back in the 60s -- Republicans backed Big Business, and Democrats backed labor unions.

It's all so messy now. These days, big, politically connected corporations are the left's most potent weapons. Where would Jesse Jackson, La Raza, and ACORN be without corporate funding?

So it only figures that Barney Frank wants to give the banksters trillions of taxpayer dollars to provide more loans to the left's natural constituents. After all, that's what got us into the Diversity Recession to begin with.

Brace yourselves for Round II.

The Council on Foreign Relations is one of the chief cheerleaders for endless, pointless war. Its primary communication medium, Foreign Affairs, features an article with the clever title, "Mind over Martyr: How to Deradicalize Islamist Extremists." Yes, I know it's just another agitprop piece designed to make the world safe for armament profits, but it lays bare the War Party's mindset: The problem is not US military intervention, the problem is with people who resent it.

See for yourself:

Is it possible to deradicalize terrorists and their potential recruits? Saudi Arabia, a pioneer in rehabilitation efforts, claims that it is. Since 2004, more than 4,000 militants have gone through Saudi Arabia's programs, and the graduates have been reintegrated into mainstream society much more successfully than ordinary criminals. Governments elsewhere in the Middle East and throughout Europe and Southeast Asia have launched similar programs for neo-Nazis, far-right militants, narcoterrorists, and Islamist terrorists, encouraging them to abandon their radical ideology or renounce their violent means or both.

That last paragraph listing the types of miscreants and no-accounts who oppose the projection of DC's power is especially revealing about how the ruling elite views those who resist big government and militarism.

It's that mindset that classified Ron Paul supporters and homeschoolers as domestic terror threats. The oh-so-subtle metamessage here is that if you're shaken by the near-disaster of the Detroit underwear bomber, you should view all of the government's enemies with the same disgust and fear with which government views them.

So how do we stop Islamist extremists? It's simple: We can deradicalize Islamist extremists by de-Neoconizing American foreign policy.

That means: Stop intervening in other people's affairs. Stop propping up dictators. And at home, we must reclaim control of our borders.

They're coming over here because we're over there bombing their people and occupying their countries. Pretty simple, really.

Maureen Dowd asks a simple question:

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

via The Other McCain

Jacob Hornberger writes powerful and highly readable denunciations of DC's murderous and counter-productive policy of interventionism. Yesterday, I dissented from his libertarian view that DC's de facto Open Borders policy is compatible with a free and peaceful society. He sent a gracious and thoughtful response to my earlier post on his original article. His comments are italicized, and my responses follow:

"Actually, they [demographic revolution and empire] aren't really two sides of the same coin. One, open borders, is a principle of liberty--i.e., the right of people to travel, move, associate with others, and do what they want with their own money. The other--empire and interventionism--is a violation of the principles of the liberty and a limited-government republic."

Any genuine principle has to derive from reality, from historical experience. Western ideals of liberty evolved within the Western tradition, just as other ideals of liberty arose from the experience of other traditional cultures. Throughout history, we see peoples fighting and dying to resist foreign domination. They do so because they are determined to preserve their unique culture, their way of life. Look, for example, at the Jews and Celts who chose death to subjugation by the "englightened" Romans.

Every free society -- every one -- emerged from distinct historical cultures. Representative government can only arise from a shared cultural foundation, from the shared values, common history, and common language that naturally bind people together. Nowhere in the history of the world have disconnected peoples spontaneously joined together to form a limited government -- such governments are only possible within a common culture. On the other hand, empires, and their 20th-century equivalent, ideological megastates, rely on a powerful central government to hold them together -- and the record of human rights abuse of both are dismal.

The centralizers and warmongers have understood this very well. Joseph Stalin, for example, grasped that historical cultures were obstacles to his authority since they provided the peoples of those cultures with an ingrained sense of internal regulation. Robert Conquest, in "Stalin: Breaker of Nations," wrote this of Stalin's proactive multiculturalism:

Early in 1943 Stalin had taken a decision on an operation against a section of those he had been fighting much longer than he had been fighting the Germans - his own citizens. In this case it was the smaller nationalities of the Caucasus and the Crimea who had, in Stalin's view, either welcomed or not opposed the Germans. They were now to be deported en masse.

Stalin had already, in 1941, deported the Soviet Germans, and suppressed the Volga-German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic which was their largest centre. It was now to be the Kalmyks, the Chechens, the Ingushi, the Karachai, the Balkans and the Crimean Tatars. After careful planning over late 1943 and 1944 these people were rounded up, packed into Lend-Lease Studebakers, and then sent crammed into trains to various areas of Central Asia and Siberia. Their autonomous republics and provinces were abolished.

As for his attitude to nationalities, Stalin could find in the Marxist texts a number of references to some nations being 'reactionary', and of the necessity of opposing their 'national movements'. But this deportation en bloc, and their disappearance from the list of Soviet nations, was taking this logic further than had previously been envisaged. pp. 258-9.

In fact, a centralized, interventionist government must of necessity "be aggressive abroad and despotic at home," as Robert E. Lee confided to Lord Acton.

And the US government has been exactly what Lee predicted, whether a conservative or liberal was the Commander-in-Chief. After Obama's Nobel acceptance speech, Glenn Greenwald puzzled over why Neocons and leftists praised Obama's argument for an aggressive foreign policy. I sent him this answer:

Both Neocons and liberals aim to destroy tradition and replace it with their own values and blueprints. Leftists call it “revolution,” Neocons call it “creative destruction.” The goal of each is the same. Both want to reconstruct society according to abstract, universal principles of their own making. Both believe in government interventionism as a weapon to advance their agenda. They only fuss about the target. Neocons see backward Muslim nations as the more urgent threat, while liberals focus on the American Heartland.

I also question these assertions Hornberger made:

"In fact, throughout the 19th century our American ancestors maintained a system of a constitutional republic and open immigration. That is, they didn't permit the U.S. government to go abroad, either in Europe or Asia, in search of monsters to destroy and they kept the borders open."

The United States was founded by Northern Europeans. The Founders didn't dream up the rights they fought to defend; it was for the traditional rights of British citizens that they fought and died to preserve. And the new nation sought to preserve its national character by controlling its borders. You can read the actual opinions of George Washington, John Jay, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson on the subject of immigration control here.

The Founders' views on immigration were reflected in immigration legislation. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalized citizenship to "free white persons" of "good moral character." The Chinese Exclusion Acts, passed between 1880 and 1904, denied US citizenship to Chinese.

And this is just silly:

"Also, don't forget that we don't have uncontrolled immigration here and haven't for several decades. If you don't believe me, just go down the southern border and you will see long lines of cars waiting to get abused and harrassed and searched by Border Patrol, Customs, and DEA officials."

First of all, the illegal immigrants who are pouring in don't bother with the official, for-show entry points, they're crossing at all the unguarded points in between -- that's why we have upwards of 20 million illegal immigrants in this country -- so many, in fact, that whites are predicted to be a minority in their own country by 2042.

Do you really believe Western standards of individual liberty and rights to property will survive in a country dominated by people from the Third World who violently reject those standards?

It's no coincidence that warmonger Bush was determined to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's all part of the plan.

Need a shot of good news? The rising discontent against the incompetence and corruption of the central government is finding leaders ready to explore a new direction, toward self-determination and local self-government. Read this report on Ray McBerry's gubernatorial challenge in Georgia:

Having won several polls in the Governor’s race across the state in the past month, Ray McBerry’s campaign continues to pick up steam across the state.

In the past month, McBerry won first place in the governor’s race straw poll conducted in Tifton the week following two candidate forums in south Georgia, one in Tifton and another in Valdosta. Even Austin Scott, a native of Tifton, came in second to McBerry among the seven Republicans.

Meanwhile, Ray McBerry scored overwhelming victories in the online polls for the Governor’s race that were conducted by both the Augusta area Young Republicans in east Georgia and the Paulding County GOP in west Georgia.

This race will send even greater shock waves through the marbled hallways of the District of Corruption than Governor Rick Perry's threat of secession. Anything we can do to help Ray McBerry will advance the cause of reclaiming self-government in our own States. Want to join the fight? Roll up your sleeves, click here, and spread the word.

President Obama assured us Abdulmutallab was a "lone wolf" terrorist. But new details suggest that wolf had a little help:

The Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner had his suicide mission personally blessed in Yemen by Anwar al-Awlaki, the same Muslim imam suspected of radicalizing the Fort Hood shooting suspect, a U.S. intelligence source has told The Washington Times.

The intelligence official, who is familiar with the FBI's interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said the bombing suspect has boasted of his jihad training during interrogation by the FBI and has said it included final exhortations by Mr. al-Awlaki.

"It was Awlaki who indoctrinated him," the official said. "He was told, 'You are going to be the tip of the spear of the Muslim nation.'"

Luckily, the Muslim nation picked a blunt tip for its spear. But how long can you count on dumb luck?

As we discussed yesterday, the immediate threat may be radical Islam, but ultimately, our security is undermined by DC's official policies of Open Borders and worldwide empire -- what Steve Sailer so perfectly skewers as "Invite the world/Invade the world." Every day, we see it's a recipe for disaster, a disaster the overgrown DC bureaucracy cannot prevent.

The first step toward dealing with this growing threat is to remove the ideological blinders and see it for what it is: a clash of civilizations, just as Samuel Huntington warned us. Next, we must confront the fact that the 20th century multicultural megastate is part of the problem, not the solution.

More at memeorandum.