Saturday, March 26, 2016


     It is tempting to interpret the execrable insouciance of Barack Hussein Obama upon hearing the news of the Brussels bombing as a lack of concern about Islam-powered terrorism. It becomes almost irresistible when one hears about his flip comparison of death rates from terrorism to death rates from bathroom falls. Yet the conclusion is not inevitable. It might be critical that we resist it.

     All the evidence from his seven-plus years in the White House points in the same direction: Obama’s loyalties are indissolubly glued to Islam and Muslims. He will never say a word against them. Note in contrast how often this supposed Christian has lambasted Christians and Christianity. Note how callously he and his spokesmen have treated Israel and the Jews. Note how unwilling he is to escalate American operations against ISIS and al Qaeda, despite their well publicized atrocities.

     Some have theorized that this malignant narcissist has no theology whatsoever – that his overweening ego would never permit him to acknowledge any moral authority above himself. I incline toward that view myself, though I’ll allow that it’s open to debate. Postulate it for the sake of speculation. What would it imply about Obama’s flaccidity in the face of the worldwide low-intensity warfare we call jihad?

     Remember that a head of state is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the State meets its responsibilities, such as they are. First Worlders would generally agree that foremost among those responsibilities is the maintenance of public safety:

  • Preservation of the integrity of the borders;
  • Maintaining peace and order in public places;
  • The just and evenhanded enforcement of the laws.

     Obama has shown no interest in any of those things. He’s occasionally rendered lip service to border control. He’s disregarded the penal laws when they would contravene the interests of some group with which he feels an affinity. His administration’s exacerbation of the racial troubles in Ferguson and Baltimore suggests that public peace is of less importance to him than the opportunity to stoke a crisis from which he might derive some political advantage.

     If we judge by his actions, Obama regards his “legacy” as the supreme consideration:

  • Retracting America’s military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq;
  • Preserving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
  • Ramming through the “nuclear deal” with Iran;
  • Making nice with Cuba.

     Such a “legacy” must efface the consequences of those actions. Yet they will surely be remembered. However, the solution to official limp-wristedness in the face of serious threats isn’t to “turn the rascals out” and empower a new set; it’s for Americans to retrieve their responsibilities as free men whose defense lies properly in their own hands.

     “If the police don't defend us, maybe we ought to do it ourselves.” – Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey in Death Wish

     Americans have been on a gun-buying spree for some years now. There have been many articles about it in the mainstream media, most of them in a puzzled, somewhat disapproving tone. The correlation with falling homicide rates has been noted on both sides of the argument over the right to keep and bear arms: on the Right, as a major reason for the decline of those rates; on the Left, as “proof” that we don’t “need” all those guns. One must go to less popular, less esteemed sources of analysis and opinion for a deeper look.

     If we omit shooting-sports enthusiasts and collectors, of which there have been reliably steady numbers for many decades, who remains that would be buying all these guns? Ordinary Americans, many of whom would not have made such purchases ten or twenty years ago. What’s their motivation? Bear in mind that firearms are rather expensive, require their owners to practice with them and maintain them, and routinely draw the disapproval of others not so inclined. What motives can overcome those disincentives?

     The principal motives strong enough for the job are fear and general insecurity. But fear will have a focus; insecurity foresees a destabilization of the conditions around one. Who is there to fear? What elements of our surroundings are likely to bring the roof down upon our heads?

     Islam, especially given the accelerating influx of Muslims to our shores and the rising political activism among Muslims in the U.S., is prominent here. It might not be the only influence involved. Certainly our worsening racial tensions should be considered as well. But Americans have lived with racial tension and sporadic outbreaks of black-on-white violence for fifty years. Islam-powered threats, from the milder sorts visible in places like Brooklyn and Michigan to world-shaking events such as the destruction of the Twin Towers, provide a sharper prod.

     While the Obama Administration is demonstrably uninterested in protecting Americans from Islamic savagery, American politicians generally aren’t much more engaged with the threat. Given the dynamics of popular democracy, they fear to alienate any community of interest, however defined. Thus, the State cannot be expected to defend us. Who remains?

     Paul Kersey knew it quite well. You know it too, don’t you, Gentle Reader?

     The authorities in Death Wish were far more concerned with “stopping the vigilante” than with the rash of crimes from which he and the rest of New York City were suffering. This strikes me as the consequence of municipalized police as opposed to private police. Municipal employees will get paid regardless of whether they “do the job.” Private companies must please their customers; in a competitive environment, they must do it at least as well as their competition. Note that a municipal organization of any sort will have among its motivations the suppression of any competitors. A competitor, after all, might outperform it and make it look bad, just as Paul Kersey did.

     While the aggregate population of Muslims in America is relatively small and concentrated in particular districts, a private response to the Islamic threat, from agitation to open violence, remains practicable. Those in or near such districts can arm themselves – preferably quite visibly – form community watches and patrols, and generally let it be known that they’re “ready.” Muslims’ knowledge of such developments provides a powerful disincentive to any visible disruptions of public peace and order – disruptions that have been all too visible in the no-right-to-bear-arms countries of Europe. It might also help to reduce the incentives propelling Muslim immigration to the United States.

     I believe this influence accounts for a substantial part of the increase in the rate of firearms acquisitions. Should the Muslim fraction of the U.S. continue to increase, the importance of private action to control its tendency to act up at the expense of other Americans will increase as well. No other solution to the threat of Islam is available at this time...nor, given the dynamics of popular democracy and the calculations of the power-hungry, should we expect one any time soon.


Anonymous said...

While I agree that the 2nd amendment may be dissuading third world Muslims from immigrating to the US, THE main problem is our own government bringing these "refugees" in via the Office of Refugee Resettlement and their 9 subordinate "volunteer agencies", who are masquerading as Christian or Jewish relief organizations!
In the last 5 years alone, this administration has issued over 680,000 green cards to these migrants.
Citizens of the US need to WAKE UP and realize what the federal government is doing in this regard and DEMAND that this program be stopped.
This is not an endorsement of any political party or candidate for president. As has been said many times, "All politics is local". As such, people need to elect LOCAL polticos who will tell the fed, "ENOUGH!".
Many counties in this country have already issued resolutions saying that the citizens of that county will not support these "refugees" in any way, shape, or form, and will backcharge the ORR for any expenses incurred. The ORR has said that it only places "refugees in welcoming communities."
I could go on but I will suggest that any readers interested in knowing more about this "scam" go to the blog Refugee Resettlement; Ann Corcoran has been doing yeoman's work there on this issue for years.
Have a blessed Easter

Avraham said...

I think that the fact of Americans being armed and ready is very important. This is a good thing that Muslims and criminals are aware they they might face armed resistance.

Tim Turner said...

Fran knows - as other readers here may know - that I'm pretty much a wuss.

I have a liberal wife, don't own a weapon and I worry more than suggest positive stuff.

But, as much as I want to be a nice guy, this post gets to the heart of it. I think we - whoever "we" are - have to make Muslims feel they are not welcome in the United States. Sharia is antithetical to almost everything we hold dear about law. Jihad is something we disclaimed centuries ago. It's okay to mention that to any Muslim you casually meet.

I don't know why it was in my bookmark list, but I had a novella called "Odd John" there, which, among other things, dissed the idea of nationalism. It posited a "next generation" of human that would be as evolved above Sapiens as we were above Neanderthals.

I do not believe that Muslims, MSNBC analysts, Hillary, Sanders, ANY black or white or Hispanic commentator I've ever heard, or anyone involved in the U.N. is more evolved than I am. They may be smarter, but they sure as heck haven't earned the right to tell me that history is wrong.

So it seems right for me to suggest that any time you meet a Muslim to point out to them the over 2,000 terrorist attacks and wars that Musslims have infllicted on innocents.

It seems right to me to just casually say, "I wish you weren't here." After all, isn't that what the Qu'ran or Koran or whatever they insist MUST be referred to in Arabic says about everyone who is not them?

I applaud those of you who arm yourselves against the coming "bad times." In fact, I hope you'll accept me and mine when I come limping into your camp. But I think, at the very least, the rest of us could and should say something in passing to every Muslim we meet until then.

"I don't agree with your world-view and I think it's dangerous," seems like a wussy enough place to start, even for me.

I could imagine myself saying that to any Muslim I might meet casually. If I had the guts, a better phrase might be: "The thing you call a religion tells you to lie to those of us you beieve to be in the 'house of war.' I won't lie to you. You are not welcome here and I don't ever want to be like you or live the way your pedophilic, robbing, lying, blood-thirsty 'prophet' told you to live. You may call yourself peaceful and be as innocent as anyone, but if you can't denounce sharia, jihad and your 'prophet' for the hurtful things they are then you are a coward or a liar or an enemy."

"In fact, for you to even be in this country and subscribe to a philosophy that considers this country to be 'the house of war' is treasonous, in my opinion. If this is the house of war, then you are the enemy, and if I had a weapon, I should just shoot you and be done with it."

"Now, why don't you just leave?"

Avraham said...

That last comment [Tim Turner]is a gem.

Anonymous said...

Pray for peace but prepare (to defend you and yours) for war. In additon to the islamic threat is the increasingly obvious lack of rule of law.. well, at least for us plebs.

Tim Turner said...

Thank you, Avraham.