The Massacre at Fort Hood

I'm extremely troubled by it. It's one of those news stories that gets you, grabs your attention, and forces you to stay up watching Fox News way past one's bedtime. I admit slubbering at the coverage, how liberal everyone is--And this Fox is supposed to be conservative!--in not "jumping to any conclusions."

Since when did tolerance become the chief of the virtues?

The truth was staring at us all along, right beneath our noses.

In a profound blog entry, which is nearly an oxymoron, Lawrence Auster brings us the disaster that is liberalism:

Would Charles Martel, who drove an invading Muslim army back from France, have commissioned Muslim officers in his army? Would King Jan Sobieski, who defeated the Muslim Turks at Vienna and gave Europe 300 years of safety and freedom from Islam, have allowed Muslim doctors to enter his headquarters and move about at liberty among his men on the eve of deployment for battle against Muslims? Of course not.

Read the rest. Of course, if multiculturalism teaches us that taking a particular interest in the West's history, even though we are part of the West, is to be frowned upon if not actively discouraged, names and incidents such as this are doomed to be meaningless. As John Derbyshire writes in his new book, We Are Doomed.

HT: What's wrong with the world. One of the commentators writes, "If Islam is the religion of peace, then the Ku Klux Klan is a fraternity."

UPDATE: The Left loves to mock World Net Daily, probably because it's one of the few online newspapers that knows how to make a profit. And they break stories, such as this one, that go against what liberalism tries to control. I'm not going to wait with bated breath for co-religionists to condemn this one imam's statement, as did a broad swath of Christians in the wake of the despicable Timothy McVeigh's bombing. Nonetheless, the Left still attempted linkage, even in the absence of evidence.

Lawrence Auster makes another excellent point how liberalism presents a false dichotomy, not realizing how the ideology of jihad--which I have learned from Andrew Bostom is traditionally understood in Islam as attack against nonbelievers, not the struggle within against one's own sinful inclination, the other meaning of the word which in Arabic means "struggle"--may invite actors to act as they do, not in a vacuum:

"Either he's a member of a terrorist group, or he's a lone, troubled man. This is the standard liberal false choice with which we are presented. An act is designated as a terrorist act only if the perpetrator was part of a formal terrorist organization. The idea that a Muslim individual may pursue a jihad operation is precluded."

UPDATE II: Diana West, whom I called on the Granite Grok radio program a couple of weeks ago, is totally brilliant. I can't refrain from linking to her blog on the US Army and political correctness. Where's Douglas MacArthur when we need him?