That seems to be the "watchword" for Liberals and the justification for much of their "Political Correct" speech. Of course, "PC" speech is their way of controlling what we may say and therefore the very words we use in the debate.

But something new has been added: "Let's Roll."

These were the last known words uttered by Todd Beamer before he went out to kill a planeload of people, including himself--and a bunch of murderous hijackers. He didn't care if he "offended" the hijackers, and I'm sure he did offend them. So much so, in fact, someone made the aircraft crash into an empty countryside, instead of another occupied building somewhere.

By doing what he did, Beamer committed suicide and killed a bunch of people. But the sure knowledge that, if he did not do what he and several others did when they went to overpower their captors, they would die anyway, while killing several hundred or a thousand more, propelled him forward to attack these small-minded, box-cutter armed killers.

For years, people who fly have been told to "cooperate" with hijackers and all that will happen to them will be a little inconvenience, unless they fight back. Therefore, don't fight. The idea being that there isn't much that's worth your life. For years, hijackers cooperated. They only killed or injured people on hijacked planes if they resisted. They've screwed up now, because they'll never be able to hijack an airplane with nothing but a small knife any more. Even guns won't help them if their victims figure that not to resist might mean being the lead in a huge bullet that kills the occupants of another building. They now know that they can overpower such people by sheer numbers and any future hijacker is in danger of losing his life.

For those same years, we've been told not to arm ourselves to defend against armed criminals, that we should just give them what they want. That "no possession is worth your life." I've heard various versions of that until I want to be sick whenever I hear it again. Not resisting criminals will do nothing but encourage them to hurt us some more because it becomes easy. The only effective way of discouraging them is to fight them every time. To arm yourself and kill them when they come at you, as millions of Americans have done in recent years.

Those who defend the killers make much of the fact that they were "brave" enough to fly aircraft into buildings knowing they would die. That's not bravery; that's stupidity. The stupidity that made them believe Osama bin Laden and other perverted leaders when they told them that, to kill Americans, was to go immediately to "Paradise," where they could have sex with virgins for the rest of eternity. That's almost as stupid as some other religious claims I've heard, but they bought it.

But when Todd Beamer and the other men who attacked these murderers went forward to commit suicide, it was bravery because he didn't do it to gain imaginary benefit, but save many lives, losing his own, if necessary. And it was.

One of the things that invited the terrorists to attack us is "political correctness." The idea that certain things should be "verboten" because they might make one group or individual "uncomfortable" or "offend them." An illustration is in Boulder, Colorado, where a library allows a display of pottery penises, claiming it is "Art," while refusing to allow a large American flag to be displayed because it "might offend or make uncomfortable" some of the Muslim people who come to the library.

But what about the parents who are offended and made uncomfortable by coming to the library with their small children and having to explain to them why a bunch of penises are hanging on a clothesline in the library? Shouldn't their "sensibilities" be considered? After all, they not only live there; they support the library.

For my part, if any Muslim living here cannot understand and sympathize with people who are proud to be American and who fly their flag to demonstrate that, that's just too bad. If we move to a Muslim country, there is no way they would refuse to fly their flag to keep from "offending" us, and I respect that. But why should it be any different here?

Liberals seem to think that the way to defend ourselves is to disarm ourselves and to avoid "offending" people as much as possible. It doesn't work. If you disarm yourself, you're leaving yourself open to attack by criminals who have no such "sensibilities." When they go out to do evil, it only helps them when they can be pretty sure their victim is disarmed. The same is true when a criminal regime wants to attack a country. If that country can be conned into disarming itself, so much the better for the attacker. This is what we've been doing for the last few years, mostly during the Clinton years.

Moreover, the rhetoric the people who would attack us have been been hearing tells them (falsely) that we are a country of whimps, easily beaten, for all our might. Communist China is even now trying to convince their people that's what we are. Example: from a propaganda video we weren't supposed to see: "The Americans are a cowering little people crawling around in the dust and debris (of the World Trade Center). Never again will we fear them." I don't know if they really believe that or not. But that's what they want their people to believe.

The Taliban want their people to believe that the only reason we're able to decimate Afghanistan is because of our superior might, and that they will win in the end because there is no courage behind it. If the liberals are allowed to continue to set the agenda, they might be right. If the liberals can continue to con us into disarming ourselves and to stop doing anything that might "offend" others, we will fit their description of us.

But if we wish to prevail in this world, we need to act as did Todd Beamer and the others who went forward with him. Just "nut up and do it."

Let's roll.

This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics, civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.

POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS

POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE

Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs, International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests, Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy

INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

---

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA

An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic, Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues

Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity