Neal Boortz
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001

Look -- THEY attacked US, not the other way around. Now we're agonizing over whether or not we want to continue with the retaliation over their precious monthlong religious celebration?

First, what are the practical results of some sort of a cessation of hostilities for the month of Ramadan? That's not hard to figure out.

The Taliban and bin Laden forces would use that time to regroup, re-recruit, retrench and solidify their position in dozens of ways. Trust me, the Islamic fanatics wouldn't spend the time beating themselves with tree branches or banging their heads on the ground as they kneel and face Mecca.

Second, to ease off during Ramadan would be some sort of a tacit admission that it is Islam we are fighting, not terrorist fanatics. These maniacs do not represent true Islam, and continuing to find them and kill them does not any more constitute an assault on Islam than pursuing KKK members constituted an assault on Christianity.

Granted, the U.S. needs to do something to show its respect for nonviolent Muslims during Ramadan … but allowing the nutsos to regroup and strengthen their position might well be going too far.

America's War on the People of the World

I was watching "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel last night. The subject, of course, was the war on terrorism. O'Reilly had to sit across the desk from some clown who obviously didn't think much of America. I can't remember his name, so Clown will do.

Clown works with some outfit that promotes reconciliation. Toward the end of the interview I thought O'Reilly was going to blow a gasket when Clown said that "America has been waging war on the people of the world for years."

OK … how in the world can anyone with one ounce of common sense say such a thing? America waging war on the people of the world? Well, once again it's all in the definitions.

The Soviet Communists used to blather on and on about their desire for world peace. To them, though, peace was defined as "an absence of opposition to communism." Any opposition to their goal of world communist domination came under the definition of war.

So, what is Clown's definition of "waging war"?

Actually, he didn't say and O'Reilly didn't ask him. It should be noted that Clown isn't the first leftist to come up with this "America against the world" scenario. I've been hearing it so long I think I've noodled it out. Here are just some of the things that are defined by leftists as "waging war."

First we have America's failure to divest itself of its wealth.

To the left it is just unconscionable that Americans have been able to take advantage of our economic freedom to develop individual wealth.

This wealth should be taken from the people of America and redistributed to the poor people of the world. The failure of America to give away almost all of its resources and wealth constitutes a declaration of war on the people of the world.

America is also waging war on the people of the world by exploiting their labor and their resources.

When an American company creates jobs in some Third World country, the left would have us believe that the people who are hired should earn wages comparable to those earned by workers in the U.S.

The logical-thinking person will recognize that wages are relative. Wages should be gauged against that area's cost of living. You don't pay someone living in Bangladesh a living wage for Orlando.

As for the resources … these countries don't have the means to utilize their own resources. If it weren't for investments from industrialized nations, their people would be even poorer.

America also "wages war" against the people of the world by filing to provide jobs and employment for virtually all of them.

Now, you would recognize this as a "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" situation. That's because you're thinking logically. Leftists don't think logically.

The United States also has a policy of opposing leftist (communist and socialist) regimes around the world. In the minds of the left these totalitarian regimes are "people's movements." Therefore, any opposition to world socialism or communism constitutes a war on the people of the world.

There. Glad I could help you understand this more clearly.

Once Again, It's That Damned Old Right-wing Conspiracy

Going back to that Paul McCartney special at Madison Square Garden on Saturday night. You know, the one where Hillary was so roundly booed? I really got a kick out of The Hildebeast's handlers blaming it on "right-wing talk radio." Yeah, that's it. All those cops and firemen in the audience listen to "right-wing talk radio" and that's why Hillary was booed.

Well, what would you know about Hillary if you added talk radio to your sources of information about Hillary?

• You would constantly be reminded that Hillary is a liar. You would know that Hillary lied under oath when she denied knowledge of the whereabouts of those Rose Law Firm billing records, when they were sitting there in her private White House living quarters with her fingerprints and her handwriting on them all the time.

• You would remember that those billing records showed that Hillary did the legal paperwork for a fraudulent investment scheme that cost the taxpayers of America tens of millions of dollars.

• You would remember that Hillary's husband issued pardons to various groups of people, including terrorists convicted of bombing buildings in New York, just to get votes for Hitlary in the Senate race.

• You would remember that Hillary went through the entire New York Senate race without ever once appearing before a crowd that wasn't hand-picked to put Hillary in the best possible light.

• You would remember that Hillary has a history of expressing and showing disdain for public safety employees -- including her own Secret Service protection.

• You would remember that Hillary blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for all of those stories about her so-called husband's fling with an intern.

• You would remember that Hillary was the likely force behind the illegal collection of confidential FBI files on certain people that the Clintons might consider to be political enemies.

In other words, if you listened to evil talk radio you would know just exactly what type of person you were looking at when Hillary walked out on that Madison Square Garden stage … and you would react accordingly.

How I Got Into Trouble 25 Years Ago

Twenty-five years ago communism was a big topic on talk radio. The Soviet Union was still a threat to world peace and we were just out of a battle against communist imperialism in Southeast Asia.

Religion was a hot topic, too. We had the constant battle in Georgia over "Blue Laws," laws designed to force people to alter their behavior on Sunday to suit the Baptists.

One day I made the statement on the air that I would rather live in a communist dictatorship than a Baptist theocracy. I reasoned that no matter which system I lived in, I would try to overthrow it -- and it would be much easier to work against a system whose leaders didn't claim some sort of a divine authority to engage in their dictatorial efforts.

It's as true today as it was then. This war against Islamic terrorism is going to be more difficult than previous wars -- mainly because the enemy thinks that it is pursuing the will of God. There is nothing out there quite so dangerous as a demented fanatic who thinks he's fighting for God.

More Anti-gun Propaganda from the Washington Post

Americans have been buying guns in droves since Sept. 11 -- and the leftist media just can't stand it. As more and more Americans own guns, and more and more Americans obtain permits to carry those guns with them, the murder rate gets lower and lower. Go figure.

For a sickening example of anti-gun bias just look at an article that appeared in Sunday's edition of the Washington Post. It's about the Tulsa Gun Show, which has been around since 1955. This year, there's a new angle: Frightened Americans are arming themselves!

The writer, Lois Romano, says people came to the Tulsa Gun Show "to buy security and safety because today, more than ever, they believe there is a need -- and an absolute right -- to do so. ... Visitors to the gun show couldn't articulate precisely how personal firearms might protect them from a major terrorist attack. But the general sentiment was that, however illogical, it gave them a sense of security."

Illogical?

Has the writer seen the statistical evidence of the beneficial aspects of widespread gun ownership?

Is she aware that the crime rate plunged by more than 80 percent after Kennesaw, Ga., required a gun in every home?

Does she know that mass shootings drop like a rock after states enact laws allowing residents to carry concealed weapons? Or that rapes drop by 9 percent in states where women can carry concealed weapons?

Does Lois Romano know that Americans use guns for lawful self-defense about 2 million times a year?

If all of this factual evidence adds up to a bunch of illogic, then I'm the king of Spain!

Look closer in the article and you'll see where Lois Romano gets a lot of her quotes. They're coming from Michael D. Barnes, president of the (ultra-illogical) Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Barnes told Romano that Americans who buy guns in response to terrorism are putting their families at risk by having a gun in the home. And he even suggested that terrorists get their guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows.

We've seen this tactic before. A few weeks ago, Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center tried to tie Barrett Firearms, maker of the .50-caliber sniper rifle, to Osama bin Laden. Barrett didn't actually sell to bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. It sold 25 rifles to the freedom fighters who, at the time, were trying to rid their country of Soviet invaders -- and the sale was made with the approval of the federal government.

Lois Romano doesn't just end her article there -- she even takes the time to demonize gun owners. She writes about the Tulsa Gun Show's "display of Nazi memorabilia, from a mammoth swastika flag that could be seen from all over the hall, to silver and coins and jewelry that purportedly had belonged to the Nazis."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that she's trying to paint gun owners as a bunch of white racists who sympathize with the Nazis.

Let's also remind Lois Romano that the term "Nazi" is an abbreviation for the National Socialist Party of Germany. Socialists aren't the usual patrons of gun shows. They're the ones calling for everyone else to disarm before the children get hurt.

Oh, and by the way, the Nazis disarmed the German population. You see what happened then.

It's just another piece of fabulously biased journalism from the Washington Post. And just more evidence that leftist groups like the Brady Campaign are using Sept. 11 to promote their own anti-freedom agendas.

Neal Boortz is the hugely popular nationally syndicated radio host.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Guns/Gun Control

Sen. Hillary Clinton

War on Terrorism