The American Spectator

p> DUTCH FRENCH br> Re: Jed Babbin’s Profiling and Fascism : /p>

In his article “Profiling and Fascism,” Jed Babbin stated that “[a]nyone familiar with the least important member of the Axis of Cheese will tell you that French is easier to learn than Dutch…”; this is most decidedly not true. I am fluent in the Dutch language and as Germanic language it is linguistically much closer to English than French. This is especially so grammatically. French on the other hand is like a violent perversion of Latin, another language with which I am conversant, and is far more different than English. English has borrowed a great many words from French, but they normally only complement pre-existing “Saxon” words. In fact, were we to strip away all of the “French” words from the English language, we would lose richness and variety in our vocabulary, but the basic language would remain intact.

However, I do agree with the assertion you make in your article and concur that Belgium is an accident of history, coincidentally for religious reasons, and should never have existed in the first place. Undoing this error now, however, would be pointless. Most Western European countries have, in my estimation, two generations of “freedom” left to them. This is partially our fault, they didn’t (for the most part) have to pay for that freedom (WWII liberation) in their own blood, so they do not value it. Furthermore, they were allowed to “eat their cake and have it too” during the Cold War by being allowed to ride our protective coattails and shelter under our umbrella without paying full fare.

p>So that you do not think, I ‘m merely some opinionated Yank living in Hicksville, USA, who has never ventured from these shores, I lived 19 years and eight months in Germany and the Netherlands. I speak Dutch and German and understand the peoples of both countries. br> — Frank White br> Albuquerque, New Mexico /p>

Thanks to Jed Babbin for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone concerned about national security during these perilous times. Protecting innocent people from radical jihadists is a daunting and thankless task because it is clear that no one has resources sufficient enough to check everyone boarding an airplane. Does that mean no one should be scrutinized or that every ethnic group be searched in exact proportion to their percentage of the population? That is a position supported only by the terrorists and those who view everything through the filter of race. Logic dictates that attempts to minimize the danger posed by extremists should center on those most likely to carry out the attacks. Overwhelming evidence supports the idea that Muslim males between 17 and 45 years of age represent the vast majority of individuals engaging in these actions. To ignore this in an effort to not offend anyone is incredibly stupid and dangerous. If that means that some Middle Eastern tourists experience an inconvenient search or are eyed suspiciously by airport security officers, so be it.

p>I agree with Mr. Babbin’s and the President’s description of these murderous thugs as “Islamic fascists.” As for the comments of Ibrahim Hooper, it seems like the tactic of choice for anyone losing a debate these days is to deploy the race card. Calling your opponent a racist is often nothing more than an acknowledgement that you cannot make your case by citing credible evidence or win over those with differing views because your position is bereft of persuasive arguments. I hope Jed never stops reminding us of the difference between real fascism and the “fuzzy-brained” sensibilities of those whose ideology won’t support the reality that we live in dangerous world and that there are people out there who aim to destroy us and our way of life.