Slippery Stuff

On an unexpectedly sunny day in a faraway place, four fit, skilled and semi-smart young men decided to augment their combat rations with some fat, tasty-lookin’ fishies stranded in the ebbing elbow of a placid stream. The lads had no hooks and lines, but those seemingly indolent sun-stunned swimmers looked easy enough to grab and toss up on the bank. No problem, right?

An hour later, the United States Marine Corps had been soundly defeated by a couple dozen cousins of your basic down-home catfish.

They were just too slippery, like they’d been coated with SuperLube. The harder we grabbed ’em, the slicker they splooped right outta our hands. We agreed a couple of grenades would have solved the problem, but under the circumstances, that approach was manifestly “inappropriate.”

That scene has come to mind many times while reading your e-mails, filled with questions on an array of subjects, and often prefaced with statements like, “I just can’t understand why,” “Their reasoning simply evades me,” and “I just can’t get my head wrapped around … ” fill-in-the-blank. Life is full of slippery fish. Maybe I can answer a bunch of you right now, OK? Here’s a popular one, to kick things off:

Politicians, talking hair-dos on TV, and the gun-grabbers keep screeching about “sporting guns” and “legitimate sporting purposes” like the Second Amendment was written to protect duck hunting, for Pete’s sake! How can they not know the real meaning of it? Are they that stupid?

They Know

But I assure you, at the highest levels, the vast majority of our gun-banning elected officials know clearly and absolutely the primary intent of the Second Amendment was to assure American citizens possessed the arms to resist tyrannical government. Given politicians’ easy access to the well-documented foundations of our Bill of Rights, there are only two possibilities: Either they are unforgivably uninformed, or, they are correctly informed, and they are acting in flagrant opposition to our Constitution.

Tyranny can only succeed against unarmed citizens, simple as that. For that reason, those officials can never be completely secure in their corruption, never feel entirely comfortable in their abuses, never feel unfettered in their freedom to manipulate the mechanisms of government and parcel your monies out to their cronies and supporters, so long as you are armed. I believe they rightfully see us as a minor threat, but still a threat.

What’s with these so-called “religious leaders” in Iraq? Aren’t they supposed to be “men of God”? They seem more like gangsters!

Al-Sadr ain’t Reverend Smith. These guys are not in the same league as your local minister, OK? To help young officers get a mental grasp on these slippery fish, the Marines assigned a bright intelligence officer to analyze not what the top “preachers” said, but what they actually did. His conclusion was they should not be thought of as clerics, but as Mafia dons. He found them to be masters of extortion and conspiracy, organizing kidnappings and highjackings, running their mosques for profit, and administering the shakedown rackets. Their “cut” comes right off the top, and it’s the richest frosting.*

Many of them don’t even have recognized Muslim clerical qualifications. Muqtada al-Sadr, for example, lacks the religious education and degrees required by Shia doctrine for the title “mujtahid,” as his father and grandfather had — but he does have his own army of thugs, and that passes for legitimacy among the clueless. He’s a crook riding on his ancestors’ coattails.*

“A lie can travel halfway round the world while truth is putting on its shoes.” — Mark Twain

Our troops returning from Iraq say they’re winning, and our press says they’re losing. I just don’t get it!

Instances of ignorant, inaccurate and flat-out false “reporting” from Iraq are innumerable.* Some are innocent, and many are purposeful. If you’re taking the “mainstream news” for anything other than ideologically-flavored propaganda, here’s a different look at the malignant heart of “journalism” today:

Author Michael Crichton is renowned for the accuracy of his research. Repeatedly, he found examples of “research” and “reporting” not only blatantly false, but even the footnotes and references cited to support them were false. Delving into this phenomenon further, he determined in recent times, fiction has been knowingly inserted into everything from “scholarly papers” to the “news,” and many academic authorities approve of this — and defend the practice!*

The doctrinal line is if it’s dramatic and colorful — and it supports your ideology — “fiction is as valid as hard research.” This credo is being taught in our universities, so what can you expect?*

Immigration Or Invasion?

We’re constantly told illegal aliens are good for our economy, and “amnesty” programs are only right and fair. All I see are crimes, high costs, and contempt for American values. What’s going on?

In fact, the cheap labor provided by somewhere between 10 and 30 million illegal aliens* (a reasonable count is 20 million) is fabulously profitable for a tiny number of wealthy industrialists, mostly in “agribusiness.” The enormous costs of paying for their social, medical and educational benefits — and their crime — are borne by the rest of us.* Those who profit the most do not pay a proportionate share, only an individual one.

Too, many politicians have “adopted” the illegals as their constituency. It’s a big horse, and they plan to ride it into power. In my opinion, that horse will throw and trample them — and us with ’em.

“Amnesty” for illegal aliens is an interesting proposition. Imagine burglars have broken into your home — an illegal act — and they’re caught inside. Now you owe them a percentage of your possessions, permanent use of your guest room, one meal a day and medical benefits. This is their reward for illegally gaining entry into your house. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Politicians say there are simply too many illegals to throw ’em outta the country, so we should “accommodate.” If 10 burglars broke into your home, would you just sign over the deed?

Connor OUT

References

Muqtada al-Sadr: Go to www.wikipedia.com – specify “English language,” then search Muqtada al-Sadr for a fairly accurate thumbnail sketch of this “religious leader.” At least, it was there as of March 2007. The truth may have been “cleansed” since then.

Ignorant, false and simply inaccurate “reports” from Iraq are innumerable. Some are “innocent.” For example, during the initial invasion, “journalists” saw tremendous damage to infrastructure in the south and reported it as the result of apparently “reckless US air and artillery strikes.” Weeks or months later they learned the destruction was done by Saddam’s Republican Guards years earlier as punishment for anti-Ba’athist uprisings in those towns. There was no interest in printing corrections.