You are a target in the worldwide jihad’s total war.  They make no distinction between uniforms and blue jeans; between Outback Steakhouse and Combat Outpost Margah, attacked today, September 2, 2010 as you and I sit comfortably at home or work.  This post is about who comprise “they.”  Who are the enemy?

This post is not about Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban.  This post is not about the Iranian government. or the Muslim Brotherhood.  They are obvious bitter enemies of all things western, and America in particular.  Nor is it about the less readily identified enemy, radicalized, individual terrorists inspired by the greater global jihad’s speakers. This post explores why Americans undermine their own country, lending moral support to an enemy sworn to their destruction.

This post explores a facet of Paragraph One of a military Operations Order for the defense of the United States of America against the worldwide Islamic conquest now successfully underway.  Paragraph One (1.A.) is the Enemy Situation.  The Enemy Situation includes not only the overt, recognized enemy units, but also all forms of support and advantage the enemy might take advantage of.  These include spies, traitors, factions, fellow-travelers, weaknesses among the target’s population, and those undermine the target’s defenses.

The Enemy Situation is defined first, even before the mission.  There is a reason for that.

We had better comprehend the “incomprehensible.”  If we do not identify and understand our enemy, then we have lost.  Unless you comprehend the enemy situation, how can you mount the missions specifically crafted to meet that enemy on the field of battle and kill him?  As Sun Tzu put it, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you must fear the result of every battle.”  That is why I ask this title question.

Why is the Left Hostile to America?

I chose the title of this blog to parody, parry, and counter-punch against the dangerous–even traitorous–nonsense found in the McClatchy Newspapers article by Margaret Talev, already reviewed here.  In that article, Talev expresses a worldview so anti-American that its appearance as mainstream news opinion should shock the American reader.  How could any American so easily adopt and promote the propaganda of our determined enemy? Her PSYOP on jihad’s behalf, landing in my newspaper box, caused me to accuse her of being a jihad agent-of-influence.  I do not believe this to be hyperbole.  Whether on the payroll or not, Margaret Talev, liberal, American, member of the mainstream media, carried the water for AQ.

Heed the words of Osama bin Laden, broadcast over Aljazeera March 2003: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of socialists coincide in the war against the Crusaders.”

What?  How?  What would western, secular socialists and Middle Eastern jihadists find in common?  What could possibly bind them to a common cause?

There is a reason Bin Laden said this, and we had better comprehend what he already understands and uses.  If we Americans on a mission to preserve limited self-government of, by, and for the people, do not understand the congruence between the socialist western Left and Islam’s combat vanguard, then we have failed to fully identify and elaborate on the enemy situation–his support from within.

“Why Is the Left Hostile to America?”

This is no academic question.  Nor is it personal against that writer; she is one of numerous.  Here is what patriotic Americans–who want their country to survive–must come to grips with.  Call the parable I use to illustrate our danger “Animal Fortress.”  This is no short post, but I hope you will read further.

You are standing on the parapets, shoulder to shoulder with your unit inside a stone fortress, prepared to do battle against the attacking horde.  You know that they are bent on ripping the head off of every man, woman, and child in the fortress because they have said so.  You see the dust cloud as they assault, crazed in their lust for your blood.  You turn to encourage your fellow soldiers but you are aghast when you see a number of your own comrades drop their weapons.  You sound the alarm to them, calling them to hear the howling and pointing to the explosions already shattering your fortress walls, but they mock you.  Some mob together and press forward to threaten you.  Some seize your hands and spit in your face, impeding you from rallying your forces.

The siege has interrupted a retirement ceremony among those who administer the fortress–the garrison troops.  Instead of stopping the ceremony, taking up their weapons, and joining you, they check with their union and stage a protest march, demanding guarantees that the conquest outside will not interrupt their pensions and benefits.

While you see some of your fellow Americans digging, sweating in the heat, filling sandbags to repair the wall, and bringing up crates of ammo, others lounge on the steps of their barracks, jeering you and, ordering, “Hey, you, get over here and fix my air conditioning!”

You look on in disbelief as others of your own unit unbar the back gate and stand aside as the enemy strides into the fortress.  You move to stop them but are mobbed by other Americans, advocating on their behalf, beating you with their “Stop the violence!” signs.

You run to your commander, and point to the infiltration but he is oblivious–or willfully ignorant.  Either way, he refuses to mobilize his garrison troops to seal the ever-growing breaches.  He murmurs something about “Give me your tired, your poor,….”

With the enemy now standing smugly, arms folded on chests, smirking among you, and defended by members of your own unit, the enemy spokesman steps forward, calls a press conference, and complains to all over a loudspeaker operated by eager American newscasters that you must be punished for your “intolerance.”  Even as loyal troops die at the wall, their lawyers rush into the fortress and team up with lawyers from among your fellow-Americans–to sue you and enjoin further “hate crimes.”  A noisy, ratty-looking rabble in the corner carry signs protesting “War” but not lifting a finger to stop it.  The invaders now within the fortress walls leave them alone–for now.

You and your fellow patriots consolidate and face off against the traitors as, behind them, more enemy pour unchecked through the gates, filling the fortress.  Now that the attackers outnumber the defenders, sharp knives come out.  One enemy beheads the woman carrying a “Keep Your Religion Off My Body” sign.  Two enemy fire an RPG into the garrison troops.  Bleeding survivors are shot one by one.  The other collaborators turn, frozen in disbelief.  An enemy propaganda team beheads the reporter, seizes the camera, and uses it to record the great victory.

You check chamber, redistribute ammo, and prepare for the final combat.

You, patriotic American, do not stand fortified by a unified groundswell of Americanist fervor from within.  You stand with a relatively small number of patriots, undermined by many of your own citizens.

Why?  Because strengthening America is not on their agenda.

You are fighting for America’s very survival and the rest of the West is little help.  Some of their best marched to join you but, other western nations are already enveloped their own fog of war, confused, unable to rally enough who believe that their nations merit preservation.  At the Battle of Vienna (which began not coincidentally September 11, 1683) Europeans stopped Mohammedan armies from taking over Europe.  Now, only this last June 4th, 2010, that same great barrier city openly hosted Muslim hate protesters, egged on by a Socialist Austrian government official, clamoring for death to Israel.

Why?

Answer: There is a natural, unstated, spontaneous alliance between the western Left and Islamic jihad, against America.

Why?  The answer is below.  Some of you won’t like it.  I welcome anyone’s effort to offer another sufficient explanation, but explain and understand we must.

So, please hold your breath, open your mind, put aside any preconceptions, and examine the full scope of the enemy situation, including those forces among us who–for a reason we have a hard time understanding–do not see the constitutional, free, 1776 and 1789 United States of America as worthy of preserving.

Question: What possible coincidence of interests could join the western Left and the Islamic world conquest, one violent, and the other seditious,  in action against the United States ?

Answer: While Communist parties are barely observable, western civilization has been infiltrated, permeated, and subverted by the ideas of the communist narrative. Few hold party cards and claim the label, but Marx’s concepts motivate much of the modern western worldview manifested and given life in government.  Like Europe, the United States has internalized the agnostic socialist design for the western world; a mass of the electorate has accepted Marx’s platform; the Left claims the elite right to rule and enforce world socialism.  Constitutional phrasing is mere anachronistic verbiage, a nuisance, but a malleable impediment.

What has been known as the United States of America stands in the way.  The Declaration of Independence, expressing distinctly anti-socialist ideas, and 1776 stand in the way.

Islamic jihad agrees: the United States of America of 1776 stands in the way of Islam’s domination, too.  Indeed, more than the Jews, more than Middle Eastern governments they view as apostate, they see the United States as the chief enemy.

Contrast Islam. We in the west reject theocracy, insisting on no official state religion.  That determination is based on history, on experience, observing what happens when state and organized religious powers unite against the individual claiming the right to seek God apart from official favor.  To Islam’s leaders, such a separation of religious law and state law is sacrilege, a westernized apostasy.  We in the modern west reject theocracy.  Islam is theocracy.

If you do not understand the worldview of the enemy, you do not know the enemy, and we have lost.

The Judeo-Christian worldview is necessary to constitutional America. Not just an interesting historical fact: necessary.   The fundamental principle of our form of government is that “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Quoted from the New Testament book of Romans, Chapter 3, Verse 23.  A similar verse is found in the Old Testament, expressing the same fundamental understanding of man before God.  Again, you do not have to identify yourself as Christian or Jew to operate from the principle.  It suffices that you begin evaluating man’s ability to govern himself from the premise that no man can be trusted with the power to rule over others.  To this writer, history proves the Biblical premise.)

Understanding man in this way warns you not to expect that Camelot, or the “best and the brightest,” or the New Deal, or the War on Poverty, will ever correct man’s deficiencies because these deficiencies are man’s nature.  Indeed, empowering sinful men by granting them a quantum leap in authority guarantees authoritarian rule.  The Judeo-Christian response is to hobble government and liberate each citizen.  This response is written into our Constitution: limited self-government, divided into branches, with checks and balances among the branches of government, and granting only specific, limited authority to government.  Fearing the prescription insufficient, the amendments further limit the authority of government–recognizing the enlarged authority of each state, and each citizen.  That is why the Constitution is not a tedious manual of government orders, such as you would find in Brazil; instead, the United States Constitution is a chain around the necks and ankles of our would-be-masters.  The founders, comprehending the nature of man, feared the nature of man.  They studied and observed the nature of man played out in monarchy, and they wrote a remedy for man’s condition.

Regardless of your own worldview or religious faith, you may accept that the founders tried to confine government for a reason: they understood the nature of man to be that of a howling, carnivorous beast.  Chain the beast.

Islam’s worldview. Islam understands the sin nature, but prescribes behavioral obedience to God (Allah) expressed in detailed, all-encompassing rules, enforced by earthly government, all aimed to control the beast.  Control sin by controlling people.  Completely. Enforce theocracy by conquest if necessary.  This is why Islam is more than a faith, more than a religion; Islam includes a complete system not only of personal worship, but also of exterior control: of rule-making, codified into law and enforced by armed men, at every level from family, to community, to nation–to the world.  Islam must include a system of conquest because nothing is more hideous than disobedience to Islamic law.  Thus, while western governments pride themselves on liberality, under Islam, freedom is a seditious even satanic influence.

Contrast the Christian worldview. Man is separated from God by sin, but instead of stating volumes of standards to which people must adhere before they merit God’s approval, God recognized man’s lost cause and provided that restoration Himself–through the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.  (This is what Christians mean by “salvation.”)  Whether you believe that or not, the resulting Judeo-Christian worldview does not depend on a government keeping people under control through layers of micro-regulation and torture chambers of punishment. Indeed, those who would set themselves up as rule-makers, judges, juries, and executioners (note the branches of government here) are seen as no better than the rest of us.  Therefore, Christianity warns us all that those who rise to govern us must, too, must be checked at every turn or else they by their nature impose a tyranny that God Himself shuns.

Contrast the Marxist worldview, restated by B.F. Skinner in his plan for elite domination entitled “Beyond Freedom and Dignity.”  People are rife with problems, but people evolve, and intellect evolves.  That implies that some evolve beyond others.  These are the key.  The way to a better world is through the psychological model, learned by these elites, enforced by them through a government with the power to implement that model.  The way to better government is to empower the smartest, the best educated–the intellectual elite.  Those are entitled by their greater learning to wield the brute force of the military, and to “farm” the wealth of businesses to reap the taxes required, but the intellectual elite must reign because only they are smart enough to govern.  This worldview is Marxist because it incorporates the Marxian dialectic’s unshakable belief in “change” through upheaval and evolution, ever reaching toward the communist utopia.  The worldview is humanist because it denies the relevance (or existence) of any god and exalts human beings as–well–good as it gets.  The modern expression of Marxism found in today’s American, humanist government means you should select the choice human beings and let them run things.  This excludes reactionary, 1776, largely Christian or Christian influenced red-state America, Bush, the Tea Party, right wing fundamentalist evangelicals, wing-nuts, and bitter clingers to guns and religion.  Modern Marxist, humanist, western government knows no limits to its authority.  Period.

Why would the western Left not suspend its hostility to American liberty, given the bloody renewal of the Islamic world-wide jihad?  I have the answer but will lose many of you right here.  The Left can recognize no greater enemy than a god greater than elite man.  Anything in America that even sniffs of such a god must be reviled and rejected.

In modern America, this means Christ.  The public hint of anything you do or say they even remotely associate with sin, repentance, and personal salvation is like throwing a living human among the zombies.  You may not associate your political position on some issue with the Christian church in any way, but if they do, they will adopt the opposite position.

These associations are often subtle undercurrents.  For example, personal economic responsibility hints of personal spiritual responsibility.  Any claim to personal liberty expressed as the right to own your property and use your own money as your conscience guides you flies in the face of their presumption of power and ability to administer all cures, if only unfettered by The Right and given enough money.

Personal liberty exercised in good conscience is how God leaves you standing before Him.  Unlike feudal lords, Kings and emperors, authoritarian or Islamic dictator committees, the Judeo-Christian God declines to enslave you or to turn you into a mechanical obedience machine.  You are instructed about God, drawn to God, informed about God, but you are not compelled to bow your knee even to Him.  In America, you could enjoy the blessing of this God-inspired liberty, even without believing in Him.

But, to say or do anything that hints of reducing the man-state-god to its appropriate, small place assaults the Left’s presumption of authority.  To cling to the “self-evident truths” introducing the Declaration of Independence marks you as a dangerous reactionary who might recognize a god greater than the state.  You think “The Lord your God is a jealous God?” (Quoted from the Ten Commandments)  You should take a look at Washington D.C. whose satraps, sycophants and minions now claim unfettered authority, even to rule on questions of right and wrong.  There sit thousands of little jealous gods, all eager to squash you like a bug, chafing under any check and balance measure that holds them at bay.

The gun stands as a repugnant symbol of man’s stubborn insistence that he is equal with other men (because all are sinful in the sight of God).  The gun in the hands of the citizen is a bold statement that the citizen rejects state monopoly on power.  The gun in the hands of the citizen is a statement that you reject false offers of political salvation from other men viewed as no better than the rest of us–rejecting the false gods of monarchy, theocracy, and all other forms of authoritarian rule.  To the modern, Marx-influenced, worshiper of The State, the gun in the hands of individual citizen is the anti-state.

Undermining. What you and I think of as the United States of America stands as an affront to both Islam and Marxist-influenced, socialist western democracies.  Consider the origin of the word, “undermine.”  Let’s apply this to the theme of this post, undermining.  “Undermining” literally refers to attacking armies’ skill at removing foundations beneath fortress walls to make them collapse.  Later, engineered tunnels were dug under the massive city walls to blow them up with explosives, using sapping mines.  Undermining.

I see Margaret Talev and others undermining our walls.  I see them blindly allied with our invaders, seemingly paradoxically, but in actuality quite congruently.

That is, allied until the invaders overwhelm the fortress and cut all of our heads off.