Mr. Hannity: "The Bush administration's assessment of the challenges we face from terrorists, and their state sponsors, is serious, thoughtful, and realistic. The antiwar activists of the Democratic left, on the other hand, have expressed a vision that is naïve at best, dangerously out of touch at worst." (p. 177)

My response: Serious and thoughtful the president's picture may be, but to call it realistic is utterly absurd. President Bush claims that terrorists are consumed with unconditional hatred for America and everything good it stands for, and that thus we have no choice but to wipe them off the face of the earth. In the president's mind, Islamic terrorists are portrayed as sub-human agents of the devil, and given up for hopeless because we cannot do anything to change their evil plans. This is not just unrealistic, it is defeatist.

Mr. Hannity: Although Shah Pahlavi "led an often oppressive regime...our alliance [with him was]...strategically crucial". (p. 89)

My response: Here we observe two related ideas: the law of the balance of power and the principle of the lesser of two evils. Thruout history, nations have tended to collect into various loose federations in order to increase their security against an aggressive nation or to balance out one another's power. Through such politics, nations strove to preserve international harmony and to correct disharmonies and divisions. The principle of the lesser of two evils holds that a state party can side with a second state party which is generating or promoting certain evils for the purpose of mutually counteracting a third state party which is generating or promoting even worse evils.

With the shattering of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, a titanic earthquake ripped through the United States and quickly swept across the world. Two shock waves of anger and patriotism predictably met at a point on the globe opposite the United States: the Middle East. Osama bin Laden and his evil cohorts were identified as the enemies, and they were in for a shakedown by the glorious US military. The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on the US, and war is what they got. In this cosmic battle against religiously inspired terrorists, America wages war on the side of good and the terrorists fight on the side of evil. Americans have been wakened from their postmodern, anything-goes slumber to the reality that, like it or not, the United States has a mission to save the world from evil. How much clearer could it get?

Mr. Hannity: "There is no appeasing this enemy." (p. 6)

My response: By its very nature, terrorism is a drastic form of negotiation. It is defined as the threat or use of wanton violence to frighten governments in order to achieve a political goal. Just as a baby kicks and screams in an attempt to force his parents to give him what he wants, terrorists use violence hoping to leverage the US into complying with their demands. However, there are two noteworthy differences between the baby and the grownup terrorist. One is that the terrorists' ultimate objectives are usually just and legitimate. Second, "Islamic" terrorists are prepared to go to great lengths for their cause, even to die for it--precisely because it is just. To summarize, terrorists attempt to achieve a good end through bad means.

Mr. Hannity: "You cannot negotiate with evil...sweet-talk...compromise...give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you." (p. 6)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with this principle. In the great cosmic struggle between good and evil in which we are all participants, vigilance and unwavering determination are crucial for those fighting evil. Wishy-washiness in confronting evil allows the devil to take a person over. But Mr. Hannity's book fails to take into account the difference between the unchanging moral law and the application of that law to the political sphere.

Mr. Hannity: "The primary evil we face today is terrorism." (p. 3)

My response: With the traumatic images of September 11 burned into our consciousness, it can be tempting to look on international "Islamic" terrorism as the greatest evil inflicted by human beings upon our civilization. However, this view is erroneous, pathetically myopic, unconsciously self-pitying, encourages unlawful revenge, and is hypocritical.

Mr. Hannity: We cannot excuse terrorists as "...men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western society". (p. 3)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree that there is no excuse for deliberate evil. If a person commits a bad act with full knowledge of what he is doing and full consent of the will, he is guilty of mortal sin, as the Catholic Church teaches and as I presume Hannity believes. Ultimately, that person can only blame himself for committing the act.

The demonic appears most terrible when it assumes dominance in some one person. They are not always the most admirable persons, either in mind or in gifts. But a tremendous force goes out from them, and they exercise an unbelievable power over all creatures. It is in vain that the brighter part of mankind tries to throw suspicion on them as betrayers or betrayed; the masses are attracted by them." ~~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

America has lost its way. We are a confused nation, beset on all sides by fear and paranoia. After the orchestrated 9-11 attack on New York City and Washington D.C., and its follow-up anthrax attack on Democratic legislators, Americans of all stripes rushed en masse to George Bush's Fools' Gate to trade their morality and compassion for empty promises of security.

Today, I heard author and blogger Andrew Bard Schmookler speak about the problems in our society. The reason he says that liberalism frequently doesn't have spine is because it has difficulty recognizing the concept of good and evil. I think that this concept can very easily be applied to our Democratic leaders frequently. Although they have done better this time around, especially in their questioning of Chertoff, they still have a long ways to go before developing the kind of spine that we would like to see here in this community.

Schmookler discusses spirituality in applying his concepts. He says that spiritual well-being and goodness involves wholeness, while evil involves brokenness. Before the 1960's, there were very clear institutions that defined right and wrong. They were the school, parents, churches, and society. All our movies had black and white endings in which the good guys had a clear point of reference to look forward to.

Ann Coulter isn't a happy camper these days. Her President is an unpopular liar, Michelle Malkin is stealing her "Crazy Conservative She-Devil" shtick, and all her idols/Sith Lords are being brought up on one charge or another.

So what does she want? Why, to join them, of course:

I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?

I never thought she'd admit that conservatives were dangerous. But wait, there's more!

I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?

Can't we help her out?