Hugh Hewitt, to whom I have linked in my blog, and who has often done yeoman's duty for the conservative movement and the military -- all the while managing to avoid the label of "right wing," has -- in my view -- today "come out" as NON-conservative with his blog post "nuking" Tom Tancredo for the C
olorado Congressman's 24Jul Denver Post piece defending his position that the "nuking-Mecca-option" be "kept on the table."
First, I must give credit to Hugh Hewitt for a resume that is virtually second-to-none: Harvard (undergrad) and UMich (law) educated; superb legal credentials; work experience in the Reagan White House; prolifically published; well-known TV and radio personality; Consitutional Law professor; devout man of faith; and so on.
That said, I take Hugh's senseless savaging of Tancredo as a point of departure -- a crossing of the Rubicon, of sorts for Hugh. With this article, Hugh places a stake in the ground: He is telling us that he is an inside-the-beltway critter; he is a respecter of persons (who are "somebody"); he is NOT one of US (if you -- like me -- believe that (and here I admit that I largely follow Michael Savage): 1) Our country is under attack from within and from without; (2) the problem of illegal immigration is more than an "academic matter" about which we can afford to endlessly debate (a la Hugh Hewitt) on talk radio without reaching any conclusions; (3) The War on Terror for crying out loud, is not against "Terror" nor against "evil doers" -- it is against Islamofascism; (4) Our internal enemies (e.g., the ACLU, the MSM, the Democratic Party, much of the Republican Party, liberal academics, CAIR, illegal aliens, etc) need to be called what they are, confronted, and -- in some cases -- rounded up and detained or deported.
Hewitt inveigles against Tancredo thus, "No serious politician in the country has come to Tancredo's defense, and indeed I have not seen any credible authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness." Ohhh-kayyy, Hugh! The average man in the street, the Minute Men, the Michael Savages, obviously have nothing to say to you: You only heed -- and, obviously, curry favor with -- only the powerful, the Washington insiders, etc.
Now, Hugh's mantra on illegal immigration is "who will pick the lettuce?" -- a really deep thought. And, on the War on Terror, his mantra is "We are not at war with Islam." (Question for you Hugh: But is Islam at war with us? Hint: We (i.e., all non-Muslim countries) are called the Dar al-Harb -- look that phrase up, please).
Furthermore, if Hewitt can separate the Islamic terrorists from Islam as a whole, then please let him give the FBI his secret (fast)! Until he does, however, I am -- like millions of other non-Muslims -- willing to call a spade a spade and say that: yes, two civilizations are at war: Islam and the West. Perhaps I should say: Two civilizations are STILL at war. (The Crusades were never officially called off, were they?)
Maybe one day, if -- God-forbid -- a female known or related to Hugh is ravished by a Muslim who deems her his "Dhimmi slave by right," Hugh may have his eyes opened, as many others in such wide-ranging countries as
Australia(Hat Tip: lgf),
Sweden, and Norway (Hat Tip: fjordman) already have.
Hugh pooh-poohs Tancredo's assertion that his unrehearsed, live, on-the-air, off-the-cuff, yes-perhaps-we-should-consider-threatening-to-nuke-Mecca remarks "served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists."
Well, Hugh, your very post -- to my thinking -- proves Tancredo's point and refutes yours: Your well-read post is being used as a repeater (however negative) for Tancredo's point of view. If his remark hadn't stimulated any debate, maybe you would have posted on the Cleveland Browns yesterday instead of flaying Tancredo.
I am afraid that, to be somewhat stark, with this post, Hugh is angling for the Michael Savage epithet -- if not of "quisling", then, surely -- of "empty suit." Of course, Michael Savage is doubtless a "nobody" to Hugh. (LOL.)
Hugh, sadly, is not bigger as a result of his anti-Tancredo tirade: He is simply exposed for the mushy-thinker he is once he steps outside the Con-Law classroom.
For some examples of clearer thinking on the real situation of the war of the Islam is waging against the West, here are some links: Try
this; this (Hat Tip: lgf);
this(Hat Tip: lgf); this; and this.
One last thing: Hugh went anti-hominem against Tancredo with this line:
Tancredo's ego is really astonishing, attributing the widespread comment on and embarassment at his remarks to the veiw[sic] that they: . . . .
.
Attacking a man's views is one thing: Attacking his ego is another. You know what they say: The one who goes ad hominem first is signalling that he has lost the argument (Harvard degree or no Harvard degree).
Aaron's cc: adds more!See more
here and
here.
