In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon attack, many questions thought to have been answered, remain quite maddening mysteries. From the FBI, the BPD, the ATF, and a plethora of acronymous LEO types have come many conflicting and confusing reports. Was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev armed? Did he shoot himself in the throat? How did he manage to drive through a police blockade and elude the authorities, fleeing on foot and hiding undetected only steps away from the massive manhunt? And what about the Saudi student who was originally a “person of interest” and was reportedly visited in the hospital by Michelle Obama?
Now, those who are fond of conspiracies, and even some who aren’t, figure that all misinformation is disinformation; particularly when it comes from representatives of government agencies. But why would the government, especially this, the “most transparent administration ever,” lie to us? Have they anything to hide? Maybe, as some suspect, they are once again using tragic incidents to advance their agenda.
Every time there is an event involving great loss of life or property, be it a hurricane, fire, or mass murder, equally great forces swing into action. Both government and private funding is mustered, grief counselors are dispatched, concerts are organized and, invariably, media and politicians begin calling for reforms of one kind or another.
Sometimes these calls come from conservatives, but are quickly ignored, since right-wingers are usually supposed to be the cause — either directly or indirectly — of these tragedies to begin with. No, those who usually use these events as platforms from which to launch their crusades are liberals; with the NRA, the wealthy and Christians cast as the usual culprits in need of chastisement. However, since in the case of the Boston bombings none of these reliable scapegoats seem to be suitable for whipping, liberals have been fairly quiet regarding a few salient issues; namely gun ownership and radical Islam.
And so I have a couple questions of my own: addressed not to the quasi-military personnel who are supposed to protect us, not for the media who are supposed to inform us, and certainly not for our politicians who are supposed to represent us. My questions are for the American people; specifically for those who are in denial about self-protection and from whom we need that protection.
If two neighbors lived in similarly-valued houses, one with an NRA sticker on the garage door and one without, which would be a more likely target for home invasion? It’s always heart-warming to hear liberals — many of whom support abortion on demand in all its gruesome forms — speak about “saving the life of one child.” What better way to accomplish this than to own, and be proficient in the use of, firearms? You can argue all you want about whether or not gun-control laws deter crime — hint, they don’t — but no one can deny that criminals are less likely to inflict mayhem at locations where they know that their intended victims will be packing heat. This would be particularly useful when Chechen Islamists come a-knocking at your door. Which leads to my next question.
If you had a choice to board a crowded bus together with a few zealous Christians who follow all the teachings of their religion to the letter, or one with a few zealous Muslims who follow all the teachings of their religion to the letter, which bus would you get on? The point being, that while a Christian is just as likely as anyone else to commit any number of heinous crimes, it would have nothing to do with his religion. There is absolutely nothing in Christianity which encourages violence or crime; quite the opposite.
On the other hand, as has been chronicled everywhere but in the mainstream media, there are many Muslims who interpret all exhortations to violence in the Koran not as historical allegory — as do Christians with the Old Testament — but presently binding, as in “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them.” And so I suspect that all of America would want to ride the Christian bus; with the exception of hard-core leftists, who, with the most cursory of glances at any newspaper, could see that the great majority of global bloodletting is shed in the name of Islamist Jihad, still blame Christianity for all violence in the world.
But this kind of twisted logic is to be expected from folks who seek to create jobs by overtaxing those who would provide them; who talk about “energy independence” while seeking to curb every natural resource we have; who believe that humans are responsible for changes in the weather and who have decided to gut and dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world for reasons known only to them.
So I guess the final question is this: are we ever to return to the application of common sense to solve the problems of our country; can we survive as a prosperous and free republic without it? That’s an easy one.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.