Naturally the ignorance inculcated in public school is staggering but that is all the more reason to combat it with a sound history that does not depict the West as an avatar of evil. That would at least obstruct the aims of liberals who insist that reckless spending is the only atonement for aggrieved minorities when it is shown that they were less than innocent. This–or any other–initial step in espousing responsible domestic spending is not insufficient or “horribly misguided”, as you say, and it is a worthy undertaking to untangle this debt-ridden complication of ours. The root lies in education.

You say, “An inquiry into the nature of jihad and the situations under which it arises is of pressing necessity if conservatives are to reconcile responsible domestic spending with the genuine threats that are independent of American culpability.”

We are so far past any notion of responsible domestic spending that, in my opinion, any attempt to justify it is horribly misguided. We should be unraveling domestic welfare programs rapidly, slashing the size of our non-military bureaucracies, and, perhaps most importantly, maintaining a stable legal environment for business! How any of this is controversial is only explainable when you grasp the enormous ignorance that our public schools have left us with, which you probably do.

The British and French occupation of Middle Eastern lands was consequent to the allied victory in the First World War and hardly justification for Islamic animus against the West. The Ottoman empire combined with the Central Powers and, following their defeat, were therefore occupied as supine, spent nations always had been. A solid historical foundation is what is sorely lacking in contemporary discourse and, indeed, William is correct in maintaining that Islamic history (especially as it concerns the West) must be brought to the fore. If such facts are given circulation, then conservatives can countervail against liberals who insist on materialist amenities as a nostrum to quell the ills of the region. An inquiry into the nature of jihad and the situations under which it arises is of pressing necessity if conservatives are to reconcile responsible domestic spending with the genuine threats that are independent of American culpability.

I think I’d label either of those two “Anybody but Obama” candidates. I’m only willing to play nice to a point; the points you raise about the mainstream’s treatment of Messrs Buchanan and Paul are spot-on, and that sort of thing makes me uncomfortable, but I’m not opposed to working to find common ground if it can lead to a decent candidate (e.g. maybe Mark Sanford, before his downfall, or perhaps Gary Johnson). If Dr. Paul runs, regardless of the ticket, or if one of the minor parties nominates someone who better deserves my vote (even if he hasn’t much of a chance), I’ll go that way, but I’m not going to discount playing nice until I see that there’s point to it.

I guess I’m the most enterally optimistic pessimist this side of the mainstream/alternative moat. Though it’s less likely than in the 1990s, maybe, just maybe, a Paul- or Buchanan-like figure can do something similar to Buchanan early in the 1992 race within the GOP. And, again, if not, third party, here I come.

Or I just say to hell with ‘em all and worry about local elections.

Islam has a history of aggression against Christians and Jews. It is imperial in a way that Judaism and Christianity are not. The Prophet himself was a warlord. The religion is not peace loving, at least in the way I understand peace! It is extremely degrading to women, who it makes approximately on the same level as chattel. I realize not every Muslim thinks and acts like this, but the textual support is there with very little counterbalance.

When you have a very large region of the world, largely illiterate, economically deprived, living for centuries under despotism, Koranic demagogues can easily rouse anti-Western sentiments. For that matter, they can and do raise anti-Christian sentiments regularly against their fellow compatriots, and anti-Jewish sentiments at their neighbors. Islamic terrorism is not a result of American interventionism; if any country has its fingerprints all over the region, it is first England. Yet ultimately we are dealing with a clash of incompatible civilizations: Western civilization, with roots in Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christian ethics, and Roman law, and Islamic civilization, which has changed little since the Middle Ages. One embraces tolerance, liberty, science, and progress; the other a return to what is termed “fundamental Islam,” but in reality that phrase has no meaning, as there has never been one interpretive body for the Koran comparable to the Roman Catholic Church. Digression!

To top it off, the Nazis were very active in Palestine, coordinating with local leaders who hated Jews equally as much as they. The Nazi roots are evident across the various kingdoms, from Iraq to Iran to the terrorists that occupy Gaza. Throw in some Soviet meddling and corruption, and you’ve created man’s most difficult modern problem: how to deal with an anti-modernist region of the world with approximately one billion sympathizers that has aims for world domination and no fear of death. I personally prefer sorting the situation out before Iran is the hegemonic power in control of the whole region.

This conversation is impossible to continue unless you understand Islam and some Islamic history. If you do, I’m happy to discuss.

What good could come of trying to get along and put Palin or Cantor or someone in the white house in 2012?

The only answer I see to that question is another (maybe a fifth?) vote to overturn Roe. But neither Reagan nor Bush 41 delivered on that score, and the jury is out on Bush 43, so why believe that the next mainstreamer will?

The upside of sitting on the sidelines flinging dung is obvious. Maybe conservatives can be demotivated enough to get Republicans to pay heed. Plus, it’s fun. The upside of playing nice? We know that does not get the alternative right a seat at the table because, well, they haven’t had much of a seat at the table.

I am one of those RP supporters who could not, in good conscience, vote for McCain. While I recognize the many shortcomings of Obama (and certainly never seriosuly considered voting for him either), your statement is an interesting one: “How bad would John McCain have been?-not this bad, not to this extent, and I think it’s stupid to say otherwise.”

Really? Would he have not bailed out Citi? I believe he voted for it in October as a Senator. Would he have voted against Cap-and-Trade? He was one of its initial supporters! Avoid any tax increases? Really? Health Care? His tax credit plan was nominal at best, and DOA in Congress. Put simply, I don’t think McCain is intelligent enough to understand why/how the market works, so he has no philosphical underpinnings to stop him from making some of the same poltically expedient choices Obama has made thus far.

Obama’s only possible positives come from his foreign policy, while four more years of the Dubya/McCain approach would have been a dismal failure.

So, granting you that Obama is no icon of fee enterprise, why do you reflexively say McCain would have been soooo much better?

Peace be with you.

With respect to your thoughts on Rep. Paul:”He is a libertarian who is very weak on national security.”

Forgive me, for I do not know you, or the context from which this opinion springs, but I am curious what you include under your umbrella of ‘national security.’ Do you perceive Dubya as ‘strong’ on national security? Are you of the “fight ‘em over there instead of fightin’ ‘em over here” crowd? Is a regime incapable of locating/killing OBL after almost 8 years a symbol of strong national security? Or is there more nuance implied in your statement?

Peace be with you,
crf