"U.S. Homeland Security officials are working with groups around the United States to head off any possible anti-Muslim backlash following the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas."

The Department of Homeland Security is in good company in its confusion. Gen. George Casey, the Army's top general, also worried that "this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." And President Obama cautioned against "jumping to conclusions."

The backlash trope is trotted out after every episode of terrorist violence. But it is as false as it is dangerous. This image of a nation on a hair trigger for violence against Muslims is a calumny. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, though millions were inflamed by grief and outrage, there was no broad-based "backlash" against Muslim Americans. There were a handful of crimes including the murder of a Sikh who may have been mistaken for a Muslim, a few broken windows, some insults, and some hurt feelings. But the overwhelming majority of Americans did not seek out scapegoats, nor engage in vigilantism.

The repeated invocation of this libel has had an effect, though. It has succeeded in intimidating many Americans about the proper bounds of discussion. Gen. Casey reinforces this timidity when he frets that "our diversity" may be a casualty of the attack at Fort Hood. He and the Obama administration are obscuring the real challenge Americans face.

Our challenge is not to transcend the demons of vengeance clawing at our souls. Our challenge is to deal intelligently with a threat that arises from religious convictions. Non-bigoted observers can see that while the vast majority of the world's Muslims are not extremists, a significant minority are. And it matters what people believe.

We don't like to pass judgment on others' religious convictions. That's fine. But when a religious belief spurs violence and mass murder, it becomes political, and it becomes a proper concern of the military and security services.

Worldwide, Muslims believing themselves to be advancing the faith have committed more than 14,000 acts of violence just since 9/11. You know the litany: Madrid, London, Bali, Jerusalem, Mumbai, Amman. The list is long and bloody -- and it includes many innocent Muslims.

Many hit home. In 2003, Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, rolled a grenade into the tent of his fellow soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. In June, Abdulhakim Muhammad, another convert, killed one Army recruiter and wounded another in Little Rock. Naveed Haq shot six women at the Seattle Jewish Federation office in 2006.

Federal agents have thwarted planned terror attacks on Fort Dix, N.J., folded up a terror ring in Lackawanna, N.Y., and uncovered plots against the nation's financial centers, the World Bank, the Sears Tower, the New York subway system, the Los Angeles airport, the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, 10 airliners landing in the U.S. (the liquid bomb plot), JFK airport, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Prudential Building in Newark, N.J., among others.

So shall we arrest all the Muslims in America? That's the caricature that is encouraged by the "backlash" peddlers. Obviously not. But what we must do is to discriminate -- that is, to make distinctions based on what kind of Islam Muslims embrace. We have created a climate in which members of the military were afraid to raise questions about the bald and blatant Islamist comments Major Nidal Hasan expressed over many years. He was overhead saying, "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square." He was caught proselytizing his patients. He argued frequently to colleagues that the U.S. was engaged in a "war against Islam."

Yet no one raised a red flag. Might be interpreted as anti-Muslim bigotry. And so the military took no action against a man who loudly advertised his extremist sympathies. Thirteen Americans paid for that with their lives.

If any good were to come out of the Fort Hood massacre, it would be a new clarity about what we are fighting. Islamism is the enemy. Moderate Muslims are allies in the cause. We should no more shrink from confronting and battling Islamism than we would from any of the "isms" we destroyed in the 20th century.

Muddled thinking and misplaced delicacy have proved deadly. 

 Breaking a blogger rule to get the word out to more people. Blood donors are needed to help Ft. Hood shooting victims, and you can go to the following places in the Austin area if you want to help.

All Austin Area Seton Medical Centers

Click here for a map to find the location nearest you.

University Medical Center Brackenridge
phone: 512.324.7000
601 East 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701

Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas
phone: 512.324.0000
4900 Mueller Blvd
Austin, TX 78723

Seton Medical Center Austin
phone: 512.324.1000
1201 West 38th Street
Austin, TX 78705

Seton Edgar B. Davis Hospital
phone: 830.875.7000
130 Hays Street
Luling, TX 78648

Seton Highland Lakes Hospital
phone: 512.715.3000
3201 S Water St
Burnet, TX 78611

Seton Northwest Hospital
phone: 512.324.6000
11113 Research Boulevard
Austin, TX 78759

Seton Southwest Hospital
phone: 512.324.9000
7900 FM-1826
Austin, TX 78737

Seton Shoal Creek Hospital
phone: 512.324.2000
3501 Mills Avenue
Austin, TX 78731

Seton Medical Center Williamson
phone: 512.324.4000
201 Seton Parkway
Round Rock, TX 78665

Cedar Park Regional Medical Center
phone: 512.528.7000
1490 E Whitestone Blvd
Cedar Park, TX 78613

Seton Medical Center Hays
phone: 512.504.5000
6001 Kyle Parkway
Kyle, TX 78640

Central Texas Rehabilitation Hospital
phone: 512.406.6300
1201 West 38th Street
Austin, TX 78705

The Blood and Tissue Centers in Central Texas

Austin Donor Center 
4300 N Lamar Blvd
Austin, TX 78756

Cedar Park Donor Center
920 N Vista Ridge Blvd, Suite 560 (at FM 1431)
Cedar Park, TX 78613

Georgetown Donor Center
1015 W University Ave, Suite 340 (in Wolf Ranch Town Center)
Georgetown, TX 78628

Round Rock Donor Center
2132 North Mays, Suite 900
Round Rock, TX 78664

South Austin Donor Center
9500 S IH-35, Bldg L, Suite 800
(Southpark Meadows: Right on Slaughter Lane, then left on Cullen, and look behind the Taco Bell.)
Austin, TX 78748

I started seeing this meme hit Twitter and Facebook last night: NY-23 was a referendum on conservatism, and maybe now the Republican Party will learn to run moderates in northern races because we can't win otherwise.

All due respect to the gentlemen (and ladies) who believe that, honestly. But I must disagree.

NY-23 was a referendum on nothing except poorly executed strategy and Republican establishment arrogance. This is a race that wasn't really a race until the NRCC began spending money (over $1 million, according to some estimates) slamming - you guessed it - Doug Hoffman instead of the Democratic candidate Bill Owens. The liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava (and all indications are that she is, in fact, to the left of even Owens!), did not drop out of the race until late last week - absentee ballots had already begun arriving in election offices.

A great combination of factors ensured, ultimately, that Hoffman was going to lose.

Consider this: Hoffman is no one's idea of a politician, except the scrappy grassroots who are determined to grow citizen candidates. He didn't have a lot of money, and he was rejected by the Republican party insiders locally who thought only a liberal-leaning "career" politician could pull off a special election. Given the tremendous force going against him early on, he still got 45% of the vote. Owens only won with 49%. Scozzafava, not surprisingly, managed to scrape 6% of the vote because her name was still on the election day ballot, and up until Friday of last week, she was still running for the office.

Scozzafava did what an unknown third party candidate tends to do in hotly contested races. She made up the margin of victory and swung the race to the Democrat. She was responsible for what we in Travis County Texas might call the "Libertarian" effect on the final vote tally.

Let's face one other hard truth. Scozzafava may have been responsible for what was, in effect, third party shenanigans in the vote tally, but she was a candidate from one of the two major parties. Doug Hoffman was the true third party candidate. There is every chance that there were party-line voters who could not stomach voting for someone perceived as outside the mainstream - there is a reason third parties are more successful in polling than in elections. Despite the occasional wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain grassroots movements about the need for a third party in this country, none has ever been truly successful in doing anything other than taking votes away from a major party.

I know a lot of people won't want to hear that, but take a look at Virginia, where Republican Bob McDonnell ruled the day among independent voters. Despite all the rhetoric about the evil Republican Party, McDonnell won handily as a Republican.

I think there was a lot playing in NY-23 that those of us who weren't there for most of it haven't taken into account. Hoffman's loss is not about conservative versus moderate versus liberal. It is about Republican branding, and to whom Republican leadership lends aid. Had the Republicans backed the conservative from the get-go, like they did in Virginia, victory might have been Hoffman's. History bears this out - when a Republican at least talks like a conservative, he/she wins. Go liberal, and the base will revolt. They did in NY-23. They've done it elsewhere.

Last night's elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York were referenda on three things: Barack Obama's leadership, Congressional folly, and the Republican Party's embrace of individuals who do not represent the majority of Republican values.

 Travis County early voting results, on the 11 state constitutional propositions and local elections:

Prop 1: 49.42% for, 50.58% against, 13,179 votes cast
Prop 2: 60.65% for, 39.35% against, 13,185 votes cast
Prop 3: 65.26% for, 34.74% against, 13,159 votes cast
Prop 4: 55.66% for, 44.34% against, 13,179 votes cast
Prop 5: 70.01% for, 29.99% against, 12,934 votes cast
Prop 6: 67.73% for, 32.27% against, 12,946 votes cast
Prop 7: 73.31% for, 26.69% against, 13,148 votes cast
Prop 8: 76.27% for, 23.73% against, 13,213 votes cast
Prop 9: 81.78% for, 18.22% against, 13,184 votes cast
Prop 10: 75.63% for, 24.37% against, 13,010 votes cast
Prop 11: 77.49% for, 22.51% against, 13,197 votes cast

City of Rollingwood Proposition: 65.13% for, 34.87% against, 152 votes cast

Village of the Hills Prop 1: 91.27% for, 8.73% against, 401 votes cast
Village of the Hills Prop 2: 93.03% for, 6.97% against, 402 votes cast

Lake Travis ISD Proposition: 44.12% for, 55.88% against, 1419 votes cast

Travis County ESD #11 Proposition: 76.00% for, 24.00% against, 75 votes cast

As the nation watches the polls back east for the first indications that the nation is turning against President Obama's regime, there is huge news out of several places throughout Texas today, as local government officials in three counties announce intentions to switch parties.

That's Democrat local officials who are becoming Republicans, folks.

Fed up with the national Democratic Party's leadership and viewpoints, local government officials in Palo Pinto, Hardin, and McCulloch counties are switching parties.  The Texas GOP assured a group of bloggers today that this isn't over, either - rumors abound that over 70 local gov't officials statewide will switch parties in time for the primary election cycle, which kicks off with filing in December.

Full info on what's happening in Palo Pinto, Hardin, and McCulloch can be found here.

I know you all are watching the elections in New Jersey, New York, and Virginia - but in Texas, we have a crucial election of our own happening, even if it isn't as sexy as NY-23 and others.

Kathy Haigler, State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) secretary, has compiled a list of conservative and Republican recommendations and endorsements on the Texas constitutional amendment proposals.

Jason Moore, also on the SREC and head of Citizen Watchdogs out in Odessa, posted the .pdf file here.

Of course, I'm most interested in Prop 4. From Kathy's list, here are the groups and individuals opposing Proposition 4 (something you won't hear about in the mainstream newspapers, which insist that opposition is only coming from a scrappy group of college kids - NOT TRUE!!!):

Kathy Haigler, SREC Secretary
Talmadge Heflin, Former State Rep., HD 149
Kelly Shackelford, Free Market Foundation
Sheryl Berg, SREC Committeewomn for SD 11
Josh Flynn, SREC Committeeman for SD 15
Mark Ramsey, Texans for Better Science Education
Heritage Alliance
Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
Americans for Prosperity
Wallbuilders

This is what one might call overwhelming conservative grassroots opposition to Proposition 4.