Prayers for Boston

I was at work today on a call when someone mentioned that the news said a bomb had gone off in Boston. As soon as I could, I turned on the news. TWO bombs were detonated within seconds of each other near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

Here at gayconservative we are not joining the speculation and we ask that our readers and friends respect that. Nothing is set in stone; there are a lot of rumors swirling about, but we do not really know yet what happened. When something concrete is released, we will comment on it.

Until then we offer prayers, support and love to the families of the three who have died and the 140+ who have been injured. Let our focus remain on them for now.

A Massacre Best Forgotten

This year will mark the 40th anniversary of the massacre of eleven Israeli athletes after a 21-hour standoff in Munich during the XX Olympiad. The International Olympic Committee, however, has steadfastly refused to hold a moment of silence to remember the athletes and coaches who were kidnapped, beaten and then killed.

They’ve held moments of silence before. In 1984, a moment of silence was observed for war-torn Sarajevo. At the close of the 1996 games, they held a moment of silence for the victims of the Centennial Park bombing (which took place during the games). In 2002, less than a year after 9/11, our colors were carried in straight from the ashes of Ground Zero and our tattered flag was raised amid a moment of silence. THIS year, a moment of silence was observed along with a video tribute to Brits who died during the transit bombings the day after London won the 2012 games. Never, not once, in any Olympiad since 1972 has the IOC allowed a moment of silence to remember the innocent sons, husbands, and fathers from Israel who were slaughtered by terrorists. They’ve allowed commemoration for everyone impacted by jihadi terrorism except for Israelis.

It seems to me that the IOC’s message is clear: the Israelis deserved it. We’ll play along just enough to get by, but deep down we believe they deserved it because they’re dirty Jews and we’re hoping that the Palestinians eventually just kill them all.

I might be taking it a bit far there, but how else can I interpret their utter lack of recognition for one of the most brazenly inhumane terrorist attacks in modern history? They’ll hold a moment of silence for everyone BUT the Israelis? Really? What else can we glean from that?

Guri Weinberg, the son of slain wrestling coach Moishe Weinberg, recently wrote a very strong-worded op-ed about his interaction with the IOC. Guri is now an actor; he was only a month old when his father was murdered at the Olympic village. He, along with other widows and children of the slain athletes, has long hoped and argued for a moment of silence to remember their calm bravery before their deaths. It was hoped in 1996 that such recognition would finally come to pass, but when the group met with Alex Gilady – who at the time was a member of the IOC’s Radio & Television Commission and is the Senior VP of NBC Sports today – they were met again with disappointment. He told them his hands were tied, then made an astonishing comment: if they held a moment of silence for the Israelis who had died that day, they would also have to hold a moment of silence for the Palestinians who had died during the botched rescue attempt.

Those Palestinians weren’t athletes. They were terrorists. They were there to use collateral damage to chastise the IOC for not recognizing Palestine as a member and force Israel to release more than 200 other terrorists from jails all over the world (it’s worth noting that among the prisoners were a pair of German Neo Nazis from the group that had helped the terrorists get fake ID’s and detailed info on the Olympic village and where different athletes were being housed). I’m absolutely floored that anyone in the IOC would actually believe that recognizing that event would also require paying homage to the terrorists who carried out the act.

The day after the massacre, all of the flags in the Olympic stadium were lowered to half-mast. Each and every Arab nation represented demanded that their flags not be lowered for dead Jews. Since the massacre, Iranian athletes have become famous for withdrawing from events where they would have to compete against Jews. The IOC claims to want to uphold the “spirit of the Olympic Charter”, yet when extreme unsportsmanlike behavior rears its ugly head, they back down and slink away as if they are completely impotent.

In a telling move, Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Olympic Committee, said, “Sports are meant for peace, not for racism… Sports are a bridge to love, interconnection, and spreading of peace among nations; it must not be a cause of division and spreading of racism between them [nations].” That statement leaves me in a fury. He said that in a letter to IOC president Jacques Rogge, the coward who openly refused (almost mocked) to allow a moment of silence during the 2012 opening ceremony in London. In that same letter, he referred to the massacre as the “Munich Operation” and did not acknowledge the loss of innocent Israeli life with so much as a glimmer of humanity. Such innuendo makes me wish Israel would simply say “to hell with this ridiculous ‘peace’ process” and clear out every Palestinian camp and neighborhood.

Mahmoud Abbas is currently the head of the PLO and the president of the Palestinian National Authority. He didn’t get there by sitting on his laurels. Abu Daoud, now the only surviving planner of the attack, wrote in his autobiography that Abbas funded the operation and knew exactly what they were going to be doing. Abbas’ hands are just as bloody as Yasser Arafat’s were, and our government officials still try to talk to him as if he really wants peace. He, along with every Arab nation that sits on the IOC, is perfectly happy to pretend that it either didn’t happen or was justified – and the IOC is happy to oblige.

Every single delegate to the IOC who does not stand up and scream bloody murder about these injustices is an accomplice to them. I include the US delegate in that.

Supreme Court Backs Ashcroft!

I knew this was going to wind up happening and I also knew liberal heads would explode.  Now, tonight on CNN or MSNBC, I am sure we’ll hear that justice was not done because of Bush’s right-winged Supreme Court and the following will be completely ignored:

But even the justices who disagreed about the constitutional issue agreed that Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his role in al-Kidd’s arrest.


“Life Must Go On As Usual”

It’s hard to admit making a mistake, but I owe the regular visitors of this website; along with my fellow contributors here, an apology.

The same day Congresswoman Giffords was shot, I reacted badly to the first article written by the AP on the story.  The article, which I linked to on my post where I specifically blamed the left, was written about 30 minutes after the tragedy.  This early on they were already linking Sarah Palin and the tea party to it.  In all honesty, my post was a reaction to that. (Along with a Facebook page I had found that has since been deleted portraying Loughner as a liberal).

As much as I disagree with liberals on pretty much everything, it was wrong for me to link the violent behavior of one idiot to an entire political party.  What I did was no better than what liberals (some of them) were doing to Sarah Palin.  As such, I shall remember that not everyone on the left is clinically insane and I apologize to Mel, Mark, Chris, and Philip (along with our regular visitors) who have to “share” this space with me.

That being said, I’d like to move forward with another aspect of how our country is prematurely responding to this tragedy. 

Aside from Sheriff Dumbnik’s running around and blaming everyone on the right; taking the attention away from him and the Police Department there in Tucson who had been getting warnings about Jared Loughner for the past three years, I have a huge problem with shutting down Congress over this.

It sends the wrong message.

On October 12, 1984, Margaret Thatcher was headlining the annual conservative conference in Brighton.  While the workaholic Iron Lady was preparing documents at 2 a.m. for business at the conference the next day, a bomb went off in the hotel.  Luckily, Margaret Thatcher and her husband had been moved to another room earlier in the day.  Nevertheless, many were killed and injured.  Mrs. Thatcher was immediately treated and examined for light injuries sustained and went to the police station. 

Almost immediately, the media and others speculated whether or not the conference would remain scheduled.  Upon exiting the police station, Lady Thatcher made her first statement to the media:

You hear about these atrocities, these bombs, you never expect them to happen to you.  But life must go on, as usual.

She also added that her conference would not be cancelled and would continue to go on “as usual” she said sternly.


The next day with very little sleep, Mrs. Thatcher kept her committment and arrived to the conference.  She not only defied the wishes of the bomber, she also showed up on time and said:

The fact that we are gathered here today, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

Lady Thatcher wasn’t showing cruelty to the victims who lost their lives.  As a leader of a nation, she had to resume business as usual to let the enemies of civilization and freedom know that she and her people in majority were in control and their rights to freedom and political process would not end. 

Similarly, as a political leader, John Boehner made a very decent and honorable statement in honor of Congresswoman Giffords.  Now, members of the media at the Washington Post are questioning his sincerity because he did not cry when he made the statement and also thought it was wrong for him to point out the fact that public servants of all levels were and always will be at some risk, but it was no reason to be deterred from doing their jobs.

Perhaps someone should tell the writer, Courtland Milloy, that we are supposed to learning a lesson about political rhetoric from this.

To reassure you, the shooting made us all sad, Mr. Milloy.  But on Saturday, I had to stay at my office anyway.  I had to get our income tax software ready for our filing season.  I had to make sure my files were cleaned out ready to be filled with new paperwork.  I had to organize my desk and clean out my drawers.  Then on Sunday, I had to go back.  Monday, I had to work and meet with clients.  Today, I had to go to a tax seminar to further prepare for my work that is vastly approaching.

Similarly, Congress should not be shutting down over this.  The best way to let lunatics like Loughner know that the only thing their potential dangerous violence is going to get them is a one-way ticket to the electric chair is to not allow our daily lives to be changed.  The world keeps on turning and “life must go on as usual.”

Joy Behar and other liberals — obviously ignoring Sheriff Dumbnik’s warning of political rhetoric — responded to Boehner by calling him “Boner” (the same party who created the term “teabagger”) — and somehow turning his promise to the people who elected the new Congress that they would indeed proceed with their promise to begin doing what we sent them there to do into an act of hate.  It makes you wonder who decides what political rhetoric is.  It also makes you wonder what “hate” is.

I have faith in the American people that they understand the bigger picture.  Boehner reserves his tears for moments of triumph.  When we overcome obstacles and tragedies and evils and plow through it in a way that only American exceptionalism can guarantee.

It seems to me that the people blaming Sarah Palin, criticizing Boehner, and everyone else on the right are the ones spreading the hate now.  It also seems to me that they reserve their tears in a sad effort to exploit tragedies to argue for bigger government and more infringements on our freedoms and liberties.

Americans are learning and we won’t forget.  But one thing remains true: “life must go on, as usual!”

Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

What Political Correctness Gave Us

As you may or may not have heard, tonight in NYC, yet another failed bomb attempt occurred.  This time, smoke was observed from a vehicle and was followed up on when others reported someone unidentified fleeing the vehicle.  Now the license plate on the Nissan does not match its registration so police are relying on security tapes to get clues.  Of course, we won’t be allowed to judge based on the appearance of the suspect on the videotape for the sake of being politically correct.  And of course, we won’t be hearing about this anymore in the media, nor will we hear about it until the bomber(s) are successful next time.

Political correctness gave this to us.

  • Political correctness resulted in thousands of illegal aliens who feel entitled to sponge off of our resources to demonstrate today.
  • Political correctness resulted in 13 of our men and women in uniform to be slaughtered on our own soil at Ft. Hood because nobody wanted to improperly “profile” Malik Hasan.
  • Political correctness has ruined our educational system.

This country no longer protects its own people. Its first priority has switched to first and foremost giving its benefit of the doubt to our enemies and the illegals who have invaded.

And here we all sit like a bunch of sitting ducks hoping that our pledge to remain politically correct until the very end is what saves us. Either that, or we can hold our government responsible and ask them to put US first for once.


I still remember where I was on February 26, 1993. I was in the 8th grade at Pine Drive Baptist Christian School in Dickinson, a suburb of my hometown of Houston, Texas. My family was talking about moving at the time but had not yet decided. My grandmother, affectionately known as “Nana,” was still with us, though only for another month (she was complaining of headaches at the time and had to cancel an outing to a jazz concert later on). I didn’t know what time it happened because I didn’t find out about it until I got home from school that day. It was the only thing on TV, though, and it was all we watched.

In the following days it was all that was discussed. Six people died and more than a thousand were injured. It wasn’t the first time Muslim terrorists had attacked Americans. The last time had been during the Reagan administration. Reagan, however, refused to tolerate it. After the Beirut barracks bombing in 1984 and the bombing of a Berlin discotheque in 1986, Reagan finally had enough and bombed Moammar Qaddafhi and his support of Hezbollah straight to hell. The US didn’t hear much from Qaddafhi after that.

Clinton never got the memo, I guess. When the World Trade Center was bombed on that chilly February day in 1993, he did nothing. He handed it over to civilian investigators and, once the perpetrators were caught, prosecuted them in civil courts. By this time the Arab Muslims already knew they were at war with America. They had known for some time, and we were still sitting on our duffs when Ramzi Yousef wrote letters to every major New York press agency in the weeks leading up to the bombing. The plan was for the ton-plus urea nitrate truck bomb to send the North Tower toppling into the South Tower. I suppose we should have thanked God in Heaven that Yousef and his handlers didn’t know much about architecture; if they had, they may have parked the bomb closer to the North Tower’s concrete foundation and 9/11 would never have happened. If Yousef had gotten what he’d wanted, the towers would have come down that day and tens of thousands would have died.

The argument among liberals today goes something like this: Osama said that he attacked America all those times because America occupied the Arabian peninsula! That, ladies and gentlemen, is a cop-out, one meant to make the libs feel better about being anti-war. In truth, our issues with the Arab Muslims goes all the way back to the Barbary Wars. Back then, fledgling America was paying a couple million annually (translating to a couple billion in our terms today) to Muslim pirates attacking coastal towns and taking hostages. Finally, Thomas Jefferson wanted to know why they were doing it, so he asked the emissary of the Pasha of Tripoli. That emissary told him the Qur’an gave them the right to do it, and in fact they were mandated by Sharia to take everything from infidels. Jefferson read the Qur’an cover to cover and promptly went to war. During both major engagements, the American military handed the Arabs their backsides. In both instances we fought mercilessly until they begged us to stop. That was the only thing that worked then; it is the only thing that will work now.

Most people don’t remember the first WTC bombing because only six people died. Most news outlets didn’t even give it an inch of print space today. Here, however, are the sobering reminders that whether we like it or not, we’re at war – and failure to react accordingly will only result in further death and destruction:

(Oh, and I have to mention this, too…know how the Democrats have been wailing and gnashing teeth over the USA PATRIOT Act? Well, Democrats voted to extend it this week! And if you’ll notice, it was buried in a mountain of BS news about healthcare reform!)

The Wrong Message

I hope everyone had a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, or Winter Solstice (whichever greeting fits your fancy). My Christmas was wonderful…I got to see family I hadn’t seen in a very, very long time and have the opportunity to rebuild relationships that, a couple of years ago, I thought were gone forever.

On Christmas Day, however–December 25–we escaped tragedy by the skin of our teeth. 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Northwest Flight 253 in Amsterdam with 80 grams of a high-grade explosive called PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, which is also the main ingredient in Semtex) sewn into the crotch of his jockey shorts. When the plane entered the sky over Middlesex County (Ontario), Abdulmutallab used pillows and a blanket to conceal what he was doing: injecting a liquid acid into the packet of PETN in his underwear in an attempt to blow up the plane.

Thankfully, the good Lord had other plans, and they did not include allowing that passenger jet to be blown out of the sky. The Mixture didn’t react properly and instead of exploding, it merely set the would-be terrorist on fire. A Dutch passenger tackled him and dragged him to the front of the plane. All of the witnesses said that Abdulmutallab wore a completely blank, expressionless face, even though he had third-degree burns on his legs. He later crowed to investigators that he had attempted the attack at the behest of his Al Qaeda handlers in Yemen.

It has since come out that we knew who he was; his own father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab–former chairman of First Bank PLC and a prominent member of Nigeria’s high class–had gone to the American embassy in Lagos and shared his concerns that his son had become radicalized in Islam and might be working with Al Qaeda. British MI5 had a dossier on him because of his extremist activities while studying in London. He wasn’t a lone nut, nor was he poor; his last known address was a three-million-pound loft in the UK.

Not only did we know who he was, how he got on the plane should have raised every red flag known to the transportation industry. He had no luggage and was escorted by a “well-dressed man”. He had no passport. Nobody thought to question why he would be getting on this flight to the US. Not since Richard Reid has a Muslim terrorist been so brazen in any attempt to commit terrorist acts on American soil.

Al Qaeda claimed the plot. Then they promised that they had hundreds waiting to commit similar atrocities.

Richard Reid hatched his boneheaded idea just a few months after 9/11. At the time, we were still cleaning up and trying to figure out exactly what to do to keep ourselves safe from this sort of thing. Today it’s been a full eight years since the face of our world changed, and while Bush had already done all he could do by the time Reid was stopped, Obama has done nothing but tear down our defenses–and when his administration’s stupidity was revealed by this latest attempt, he stayed in Hawai’i. Vacation was more important. Seeing Avatar is, too, I guess, because that was on the agenda for today.

I’m not nearly as angry with Obama for staying in Hawai’i as I am angry that something so horrid nearly succeeded because Obama doesn’t want to “rush” any decisions. We can’t racially profile. We have to be careful about offending Muslims by targeting them for searches at airports. We can’t rush to judgement on this the way we are on healthcare and climate change. God forbid we stop the killers; it’s far more important to keep shoveling money into that bottomless pit labeled “hysteria.”

As I sit here at my dad’s place, listening to good music and celebrating the start of a new year, I wonder where we’re going. Did we learn anything from 9/11? Did we learn from the London and Madrid bombings? Did we learn from Richard Reid? Or will the next Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab succeed in killing hundreds of innocent Americans before we wake up? Worse, will the next four or five succeed?

I wonder what kind of world my niece is growing up in. What will we tell her and my soon-to-be nephew when they come of age and ask us about this decade? Will we tell them that the Hollywood elite led us around on a short leash? Or will we be able to tell them with pride that we fought our hardest and won?

Personally, I’d prefer the latter. Israel makes no bones about the fact that they openly profile Muslims in their airports. I think maybe they’re on to something. Who else is trying to blow us all to kingdom come? I hate to tell you this, but white supremacists (while menacing) are not the biggest threat. If we really want to stop the next 9/11 from ever happening, we’re going to have to swallow our pride and start doing things that aren’t politically correct. We can start by knocking off the whining about immigration reform, kicking out the offenders, and not allowing those on extremist watch lists to EVER set foot on American soil.

Thomas Jefferson understood what needed to be done with the Muslim raiders in his day. He read the Qur’an and used their own beliefs against them. To this day, the copy he owned sits under glass in the Library of Congress.

We here at hope you all have a very happy and safe new year. I pray that our eyes will open this year before any more have to die. God’s grace, love and peace to you all.


One of the best nonfiction books I have ever read was written by Marcus Luttrell, a Navy SEAL who was the sole survivor of SEAL team 10 on Operation Redwing in the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan. Luttrell relates his story as his team, sent to put eyeballs on a Taliban bigwig, ends up all but being stepped on in their hiding places by three Afghani goatherds. They knew by the way these guys were looking at them that if they didn’t kill them, within minutes of turning them loose they’d be set upon by all the Taliban soldiers in the village they were watching–and they’d end up dead.

In WWII, this wouldn’t have been an issue. The bad guys would have been killed and we’d have heard nothing about it. Luttrell goes into the realities they faced on the side of that mountain: if they let them go, the Taliban would kill the American SEALs as quickly as they could. But if they killed the goatherds, the SEALs knew that the Taliban would play it up, the US media would eat it up, and to quell the anger at killing unarmed people the military courts would chew them up and spit them out. They knew that their careers would be over if they did what they would have to do to save themselves.

Most of the country knows what happened by now. They let the goatherds go, and in no time the mountainside was swarming with Taliban killers. Luttrell was the only man to survive of the four-man team. The Taliban even managed to shoot down the helicopter sent to rescue them, killing all the souls on board.

We haven’t learned the lessons of that fight. It has just been announced that three Navy SEALs are being court martialed for supposedly abusing a prisoner, one who was a most-wanted terrorist in Iraq. SO-2 Matthew McCabe, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas refused an admiral’s mast (a non-judicial punishment) offered in the wake of accusations that they punched Ahmed Hashim Abed.

The evidence? Abed had a bloody lip.

Cry me a goddamn river.

What’s worse is that the bad guy is claiming he was punched in the gut, but his LIP was bloody! Are we serious? They offered a non-judicial punishment and the SEALs decided to stand up for themselves. My Lord, what are we coming to when the media jumps on something like this and our troops, who are heroes for capturing this flab of human debris, are targeted instead?

I find it completely astounding that the FBI and the military weren’t willing to do a damn thing to stop a known jihadist within their own ranks before he carried out jihad on 14 souls (one of those soldiers was pregnant–the victim count should be FOURTEEN) but when our boys save the day by catching a murdering fiend, we move to protect the murderer. Abed, by the way, led the mob that murdered and burned the bodies of four US Blackwater employees, dragged them through the streets, then hung them from a bridge in Fallujah.

Shame on whoever thought this should be prosecuted. SHAME ON YOU.