sic semper tyrannis

Although many on the left and some on the right would have us believe that we are at fault for riling the otherwise peace-loving jihadists against us, the truth is that we are at war. We have been at war with elements of Islam virtually since its founding in the seventh century. Who are “we?” Christendom, or, more generally, the West. That some, or even many of us in the West no longer identify themselves as Christian, is a distinction that does not matter to our enemies.

On this we should be clear: we may, at this junction in history, mean no harm to the world’s Muslims, but a goodly number of them do not return the favor. To those who believe that it will help if a Democrat is in the White House, guess again. The jihadis gathered up steam during the “end of history” era of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. 9/11 may have happened on George W. Bush’s watch, but he’d been in office a scant eight months.

The point is not to blame anyone for 9/11 except the perpetrators: Muslim terrorists. And there’s zero doubt that they will try to strike again. No matter who is in the White House, no matter how many Islamic conferences a President Obama attends. Talking to them; listening to them will not change their mindset.

Offense, and defense, against terrorists and the countries that give aid and comfort to them is the only safe path. Which brings us to what should be the singular quality we seek in our president: who is best able to assume the mantle of commander-in-chief.

Given his character and lifetime of service, service made at great personal cost, there’s really only one: John McCain. His campaign’s near-death experience this past summer was, in large part, because of his unwavering support for the war in Iraq. Now that the surge is paying dividends, Stainless John is looking much, much better. For example, from today’s Wall Street Journal:

Three out of four New Hampshire Republicans yesterday said they support the Iraq War, and Mr. McCain got the bulk of them. On the question of who would be the better Commander in Chief, the exit polls showed that Mr. McCain beat Mitt Romney decisively. The Senator’s performance suggests that, at least among Republicans and independents, the war was unpopular mainly because the U.S. seemed to be losing it. General David Petraeus’s “surge” has not only saved Iraq from defeat, it has also helped to rescue the McCain candidacy.

Voters should not tie John McCain’s future to how well, or poorly, it goes in Iraq. He’s not in charge, but early on supported what has become the correct counter-insurgency strategy. Another view? Consider Byron York’s (NRO) take on the fundamental difference between the erstwhile front runner Mitt Romney and John McCain:

You want to see the fundamental differences between John McCain and Mitt Romney? Look at how they chose to end their campaigns here in New Hampshire. Crafting his final argument, Romney, the technocrat, came up with an itemized to-do list for his administration. McCain, the warrior, promised never to surrender in the war on terror and to pursue America’s enemies to the gates of hell.

What John McCain stands for is freedom, backed by a will of steel and armed force when necessary. And a demonstrated willingness to, as our founders declared in the Declaration of Independence, to “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

No one else in the field, in either party, comes remotely close to having fulfilled this pledge as has Captain John McCain, USN (ret).

New Hampshire is now behind us; on to Nevada, South Carolina, and wherever else we can achieve a fever pitch about one candidate or another. I’d like to think that the Huckaboom-HypnoObama fenzy has passed, and that both parties will now settle down under adult supervision. But that’s just wishful dreaming, it seems.

First, we people of pallor are never going to be let off that old racism hook. Courtland Milloy, a reliable peddler of racist nostrums at the WaPo, has a gaseous essay today about the imponderable whiteness of whitey’s mind.

In Milloy’s universe, whites are still not to be trusted, even as they’ve been the wind in Obama’s sails up until now. His evidence? Why there’s some KKKers who might be exercising their right to free speech, and, oh my, there was a racist killing of a black by whites in 1998. For racialists like Milloy, the glass isn’t even half-empty — it’s bone dry:

Even as Obama makes great strides in his 21st-century run for president, a group of white supremacists is planning a 19th-century-style Ku Klux Klan march on Jena, La. Gleaning which white people would vote for a black man and which would just as soon string him up is part of a survival instinct that black people have honed over centuries.

This is the liberal Democratic universe, or, as they prefer to call themselves, “progressives.” A universe in which whitey would “just as soon string him up” as vote for him.

The Obama phenomenon seems to have little to do with skin color or race. It has a lot to do with the fact that soothing words about change and hope, without specifics to trouble your mind, sound so much better than that horrid talk about terrorism, war, taxes, immigration, and a host of other issues that the next president must deal with.

Contra racialists like Milloy and Jesse Shakedown Jackson and Al Pimp Sharpton, people, white or black, will vote for a black man (or woman) for president. Just not, perhaps, this man Obama.