Rebranding America as “one of the largest Muslim countries” is not at all what I had in mind when I called for then candidate Obama to confront his Muslim issue head on.

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, President Obama said the United States could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world“:

And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

You can watch the interview here (thanks to Richard Fernandez for the link). There is French dubbing on the video, but you can hear Obama brand America as “one of the largest Muslim countries” at the 2:25 mark of the video.

Obama may be technically correct. If you compare the “number of Muslim Americans” — 1.8 to 3.0 million — to the Muslim population of other countries, 55 of 175 countries have more Muslims than does the United States. Nevertheless, his convoluted argument reminds me of that old adage you can prove anything with statistics.

If you consider the same population numbers and look at them as percentages, the usual and more meaningful way to deal with demographic data, you find that only 53 of 175 countries have a smaller Muslim population than does the United States. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

Now that he is President, Obama is no longer hiding from his Muslim heritage.

Read More →

ISI Books has inaugurated a superb new historical series. Each volume is a slim, elegant, crisply-written study of what we might call the Lesser Founders. These are the men who built America but who, obscured by the towering giants of that age, haven’t been properly given their due. In comparison with Washington or Hamilton, few men measure up. But these Lesser Founders were impressive men in their own right, independent of mind, bold of action, mostly self-made, morally and philosophically serious, and they lived in fascinating times.

So far there have been studies of Luther Martin, “forgotten Founder, drunken prophet” according to Mr. Bill Kauffman’s subtitle; of the “incautious man,” Gouverneur Morris; and of that ablest of Washington’s lieutenants, Nathanael Greene.

These books belong in the library of any student of Amerca.

One thing we know about the last Great Depression is that it unleashed some of the most awful political ideas ever known to man. Economic dislocation and crisis often have that effect: provoking and liberating that which is most base and wicked in the politics of man. Here, for instance, we have a comment on the faithlessness set loose upon the world in the 1930s, from a great scientist of despair and treason whose penance for his own was his long perseverance in a cause he thought doomed, Whittaker Chambers:

When, in 1936, General Emilio Mola announced that he would capture Madrid because he had four columns outside the city and a fifth column of sympathizers within, the world pounced on the phrase with the eagerness of a man who has been groping for an important word. The world might better have been stunned as by a tocsin of calamity. For what Mola had done was to indicate the dimension of treason in our time.

Other ages have had their individual traitors — men who from faint-heartedness or hope of gain sold out their causes. But in the 20th century, for the first time, man banded together by millions, in movements like Fascism and Communism, dedicated to the purpose of betraying the institutions they lived under. In the 20th century, treason became a vocation whose modern form was specifically the treason of ideas.

The horror of treason is its sin against the spirit. And for him who violates this truth there rises inevitably Bukarin’s “absolutely black vacuity,” which is in reality a circle of absolute loneliness into which neither father, wife, child nor friend, however compassionate, can bring the grace of absolution. For this loneliness is a penalty inflicted by a justice that transcends the merely summary justice of men. It is the retributive meaning of treason because it is also one of the meanings of Hell.

Read More →

In one of Redstate’s previous iterations, several years back, some of us maintained a running debate on the meaning of patriotism. The old archive site does not lend itself to facile searching, so I fear that much of what follows will be both repetitive and inadequate; but this was always (for me at least) a fruitful conversation, despite its many difficulties and frustrations, and I see no reason why it should not continue.

The parties to this debate are many, their individual nuances and complexities abundant, but the main lines of argument cluster around a series of questions. (1) How much of the content of patriotism is ideological, that is, how much does the love of one’s patria depend upon the political ideas associated with the patria? (2) What is the role of pre-rational passion or affection or veneration in the formation and maintenance of patriotism? (3) How do the reasoning and feeling aspects of man bear upon his love for his native land?

Each of these questions presents us with some presuppositions and some implications. Question (3), for instance, presupposes that man is a dualistic creature; that reasoning and feeling mean different things, but are each part of what it means to be man. Question (1), meanwhile, implies a disputation not merely over what political ideas should be included in patriotism, but even over whether political ideas, of any kind, should be included at all.

Let us briefly consider a single political idea, or at least a single category of political idea, in its relation to patriotism: democracy. The word means rule by the many, which in practice translates to some kind of majoritarian, plebiscitary, or representative rule. Democracy also strongly implies political equality as a driving principle. This brings it into some tension with another common political idea, namely freedom, because freedom, in order to have any meaning, must allow for possibility of unequal outcomes. Democracy, especially when it is preached as a universal ideal, also comes into tension with particular loyalties. Strictly speaking, the natural family is an offense against equality: its internal arrangements are hierarchical and particular, especially with respect to those outside it. And from the universal perspective, favoring one’s own nation or people is certainly an offensive against equality.

Read More →

I am tired of many things going on today, things that seem designed to undermine and destroy our great country. Certainly, we all have the right to express our opinions and, naturally, every American holding any particular ideology will see things that do not correspond to his idea of the “real America” at any given time. It is right and good that we, as citizens, should seek to make the changes we think necessary to make our country strong. We can all agree that people of intelligence and integrity might agree to disagree, but there are some things about a country that, when abandoned or abruptly changed, creates a place markedly different than what it was previously.

These sorts of seminal changes in the fabric of a nation should only be undertaken when that fabric is rotten even to its core. There have been bad spots of America that had to be surgically removed, we all know. But the core of this nation, despite its blemishes, is not now and never has been rotten.

And so I am tired of the many people who are native to this country that want to destroy what it is to make it into what it isn’t, never was, and cannot be. If we wish this country to be as great into the future as it has been in the past this self-destructive behavior must be stopped.

Read More →

I have heard and read a lot of panic and resignation out there. On the edges of it are despair. Hedge fund operators talk of the new economy of canned food and ammunition, and buying farmland in Canada. Normal family men evidence a peculiar despondency, retreating from the world. What is this?

Today is the last day to capitulate to despair. Today is the last day to retreat from the business of the country — her politics, her traumas, her public disputes. Today is the last day to forget what our ancestors here in America were, and cower in the face of long odds.

Canned food and ammunition are fine, but remember that in most cases your greatest asset is your mind. Even the Capitalism that has largely failed was right about that. The resources of the human mind exceed those of his brute capacity, unless we submit to the crudest tyranny of of philosophical materialism.

So my recommendation to any who may struggle with despair is Remember your wits. Yes, in a sense it is that simple. Your mind is your greatest asset: remember your wits. Despair will take them from you. Despondency is the father of quietism and resignation. Desperation midwifes reckless gambles. Neither condition is one worthy of the people of this Republic. Instead, remember your wits as your fathers remembered theirs in times of trouble.

Let me offer a couple rhetorically-presented examples:

Read More →