If Liberals admit there is a problem, they could be called upon to act. Liberals are blinded by the fear of action. They rest their hope upon the “reason” and “benevolence” of an enemy, an enemy who would slit their collective throats. Truly if they could understand, this adversary finds their existence useful but abhorrent—useful in that this enemy will support liberals’ quest for power through their propagandist efforts; abhorrent in that liberals only seem weak and cowardly, which is detestable in these parts.
Liberals seek to destroy any institution of intrinsic value: God, country, family, honor, valor, courage, VIRTUE……Why? Because if such things exist, then they must be defended, which brings them back to their fear of action.
It is far easier for Liberals to denounce our Judeo-Christian faith than to confront the truth that faces us all: that Islam is a religion of subjugation, submission and intimidation, whose teachings defend terrorism.
It is far simpler and easier for Liberals to say that Christians are terrorists, President Bush is a Nazi, Jesus Christ does not exist, and the defenders of their rights are “murderers”. That way, they can hide behind free speech, a right provided by those who embody the very character traits and virtues which Liberals seek to destroy.
In the long term, who really has the most to lose in this War on Terror? Liberals do, because we who defend them will never hate them. We will only pity them, while the Islamic fascist, theocrat/autocrat, and terrorist will slaughter them and take away any of the “rights” they have enjoyed.
Here in the 21st century, we risk forgetting that we are Americans. If we have a society we want to keep, we are required to protect and defend it. We are required to act.
Read the whole thing.
Regarding West’s thesis – that liberals are afraid to act in defense of America – I believe that’s true. Not because they completely fail to understand the danger of a rising Islamic scourge – many of them do see the problem for what it is – but because the necessity of opposing conservatives at all times forces them into a contradiction between the reality of the world around them and their need to be perceived as being strong and “for something”, even if that plank in their platform could destroy America.
This dilemna is clearly in evidence with regard to troop withdrawals from Iraq. Democrats cannot responsibly pull our troops out of Iraq, yet their very majority in the legislature is predicated upon that action. They cannot act because of the paradox inherent between their values and what many Dems know must be done.
In a way, being elected to the majority was a bad things for Dems because that forces them to accept responsibility for their rhetoric, something they did not have to do when Republicans were in charge. This is a problem because their words, particularly about Iraq, were and are utterly empty.
Ultra-liberal positions on abortion – “we have the right to kill up to the moment of birth” – and fiscal policy – “we have the right to take wealthy people’s money and use it as we see fit” – are equally irresponsible. Progressive policies cannot be implemented, even by Democrats, because they are bad ideas.
Even the Democratic leadership knows that the progressive element is not fit for leadership. That’s why their policies do not get implemented. For this we should all be thankful.
This is why liberals, and Democrats, by extension, are unable to act, even to defend America: enough of them know, viscerally, that their ideas are not good ones, even as they espouse them.