Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

Imagine a world where the word “fire” was never a word, and no other word had ever been invented to describe the concept of a fire – in fact, inventing that word was somehow abhorrent, even criminal. How would you even begin to rescue people from a burning building? How would you alert them to the danger? Could you even direct rescue workers to extinguish it, if you can’t say what it is they need to look for?

The first task taken to eliminate a threat is to define the threat. This is an impossible task if you are restricted, due to a flawed political-correctness taboo, from using factual and clear language in your definition. Our country is becoming more and more restricted in this way, for either fear or fairness, and the resulting inaction against such an obvious threat is causing many of us to become very alarmed. The Fight of Our Lives, the new book written by Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn, tackles both the taboo and the threat that the taboo obscures.

The Fight of Our Lives is no-punches-pulled look at the war against Islamic terrorism. It has a lot of frightening statistics, quotes and information (and proofs against an immense amount of disinformation), all of it publicly available but almost never compiled into one package. By amassing this information and condensing it into this small book, these authors have tried to alert their readers to the patterns, the outline and the sheer size of the threat of terrorism we still face. The most striking indictments are the words of the Muslim leaders themselves.

It reads very much unlike Bill Bennett’s history primers and almanacs, and anyone who has heard Seth Leibsohn speak will recognize his voice throughout. But that could be because this is not a history text, although there is a ton of well-footnoted history. This is analysis, commentary, opinion and debate. They’ve taken the rubber tip of political correctness off the research scalpel to effectively analyze the subject of radical Islamic terrorism. But even as uncomfortable as it might be to speak plainly on this topic, this is not an indictment of a people of faith; it is a clear and unambiguous analysis of the many facets within modern Islam.

What to do with that info? Those who most need to learn this are unwilling to do so. Those who most need to know this are actively trying to prevent such discussions from taking place. They are leveling the charge of bigotry on anyone undertaking a fair examination of the subject, they are automatically asserting that the victims are the aggressors and the aggressors are the victims, they are ignoring the inflammatory words of the Muslim community and they are presuming that the targets of terrorism asked for it and deserve it. The rest of us are weary trying to get them to see reason.

So perhaps this book was written so that we who understand that we are at war will have the words to explain our concerns, our intentions and ultimately our votes. It’s encouraging when someone tells you that when you see a fire you can yell, “Fire!” The good news is that, in this analysis, our country has not yet passed the point of no return.


You know, sometimes it’s the only way I can watch the man speak.

Take a drink whenever Obama says, word for word:
Let me be clear OR Let me make this clear
Put[ting] insurance companies back in charge
Millionaires and billionaires
Reach[ing] across the aisle
Era of bipartisanship
Eight years of failed policies
Tragedy in Arizona
Second amendment
Bring civility
Heated rhetoric
Jobs created or saved
Worst recession since the Great Depression

Drink an entire beer whenever Obama makes one of these claims:
Claim: Limiting availability of weapons makes people safer
Claim: Porkulus pulled our economy “back from the brink”
Claim: GOP has not presented any ideas
Claim: Economic recovery depends on green energy and/or education
Claim: The wealthiest Americans have more than they need
Claim: The repeal of Obamacare will cost $[any] dollars more than leaving it intact

Orwellian Doublespeak: Whenever one of the following terms is used, the last person to cross their arms and make quacking motions with both hands must drink.
Term: Any use of Investment OR Reinvestment that does not involve the stock market
Term: Any use of the term Progressive that actually means Democrat
Term: Any use of the term Terrorist that actually means Radical Islamic Terrorist
Term: Any derogatory use of the term Wall Street that actually means Successful US Businesses

Soaring Rhetoric: Any player can yell out, “Rhetoric!” The last person in the group to hold their arms out like a bird must drink, but only if at least half of the group agrees that Obama’s statement was, actually, soaring rhetoric.


Have fun, and always make use of your designated driver. Unless it’s a par three hole.

Some quick hits, from a couple of very good political columnists – not because I have any poignant observation that will illuminate their meaning, but because I admire the way these short paragraphs sum up a complex or controversial point and I didn’t want to forget how they said it.

 “Dismantling America – Part II”, Thomas Sowell, 8/18/10:

Not since the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French, for an English-speaking nation, centuries ago, has there been such contempt for the people’s right to know what laws were being imposed on them.

Dismantling America – Part III”, Thomas Sowell, 8/19/10:

Threatening to launch nuclear retaliation against the people of Iran will not deter them. They have already shown how little they care about the people of Iran and how much they care about their fanatical beliefs and hate-filled agendas.


Sometimes small things can give you a better clue than large things. A recent editorial in Investor’s Business Daily pointed out that hundreds of captured illegal aliens from terrorist-sponsoring nations were released on their own recognizance within the United States. Are these the actions of an administration that is serious about the national security of the American people?

Dismantling America – Part IV“, Thomas Sowell, 8/20/10:

President Barack Obama said that the Court’s decision [on the first amendment rights of corporations] “will open the floodgates for special interests”– as if all you have to do to take away people’s free speech rights is call them a special interest.

… The history of this country is taught in many schools and colleges as the history of grievances and victimhood, often with the mantra of “race, class and gender.” Television and the movies often do the same.

When there are not enough current grievances for them, they mine the past for grievances and call it history. Sins and shortcomings common to the human race around the world are spoken of as failures of “our society.” But American achievements get far less attention– and sometimes none at all.

…Why? Partly, if not mostly, it is because that is the vogue. It shows you are “with it” when you reject your own country and exalt other countries.

Islamophobia? Not Really”, Jonah Goldberg, 8/25/10:

In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1. Why aren’t we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

Because there isn’t one. And there isn’t an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there’s a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don’t like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies, or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you’ll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party”) than you will toward Muslims.


And when Muslim fanatics kill Americans — after, say, the Fort Hood slaughter — a reflexive response from the Obama administration is to fret over an anti-Islamic backlash.

Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are “isolated” events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, ObamaCare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there’s no generalization too broad or too insulting for the left.

It’s fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims, but why the rush to embrace them when it comes to Americans?

Nicely said, fellas.