The Defense of Self and Nations

The Defense of Self and Nations
Mike Adams
Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Whom would you rather have protecting your family and nation? Rambo? Or Bambi? – Jason Mattera, author of Obama Zombies.

With each passing day it's become easier and easier to doubt the depth of Barack Obama's Christian faith. If we put aside his outright hostility towards Israel there is another glaring clue that reveals his personal worldview as one fundamentally at odds with the Judeo-Christian worldview. Obama revealed that clue with an announcement regarding a new defensive strategy for dealing with non-nuclear nations.

The notion of stating up front that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack at the hands of a non-nuclear nation is predicated upon the liberal assumption that making nice promises assures that others will reciprocate by behaving nicely. But those with a realistic view of human nature realize such a strategy makes about as much sense as promising to levy a petty fine in response to grand larceny. It also makes as much sense as reserving the punishment of death for the taking of a life and withdrawing it for “lesser” crimes like rape.

Of course, it isn’t enough to criticize the president for his naiveté without offering clear instructions on how to deal with dangerous enemies. So I would like to offer some advice based on my experiences in dealing with unhinged liberals who read my columns and mistakenly assume that threats of violence will deter me from exercising my constitutional rights.

1. A man must always make his enemies aware of his defensive capabilities.

Several months ago, a man whom we will call Steve – because that is, in fact, his name – emailed me in response to one of my columns, which dealt with bi-polar disorder. I argued that a lot of people who claim to be bi-polar use the illness to excuse behaviors that arise from a simple lack of self-control. Steve, who suffers from bi-polar disorder, responded by saying “I will kill you.” I responded by listing the full range of guns in my arsenal and then asking him which gun he would like me to point at him when he attempted to kill me.

2. A man must always make his enemies aware of his willingness to use his defensive capabilities.

After I emailed Steve – a 41-year old who resides in Topeka, Kansas – with a detailed list of my defensive capabilities I asked him a very polite question. Specifically, I asked him how he would prefer to be incapacitated in the event that he made an attempt on my life. I politely offered him the choice between a quick shot to the cranium or a shot to the midsection, which might prove to be a slower and more painful way of incapacitating him. I noted, of course, that the latter option would reduce the chances of collateral damage. That’s an important liberal consideration I wished to accommodate fully.

3. A man must always communicate to his enemy the course of action required to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation.

After Steve was given the choice of a head shot and a body shot (in defensive response to an attempt on my life) he wisely responded with the following: “I let my anger get the best of me. I am sorry.”

That really proved my point about people with bi-polar disorder. There is no excuse for making threats on people’s lives – even if you suffer from such an illness. And medication is not the only thing that can be used to check the behavior of someone suffering from mental illness. That should provide “hope” for a president wishing to “change” the behavior of the presidents of Iran and North Korea.

I concluded my discussion with Steve by telling him, not asking him, that he would never under any circumstances communicate with me again – now that I had employed the services of an internet security expert to identify his name, date of birth, and the precise location from which he issued his threat of violence.

For nearly six months, Steve and I have been at peace. I predict the peace will be long-lasting.

Barack Obama’s father did not stay around to raise him. Instead, the president was raised by a woman who taught him that misunderstandings, being the root of all conflict, can be cured by mere negotiation. The president needs the advice of men with experience in conflict resolution – men who recognize that the world is full of those not interested in peaceful negotiation. I offer this column in the hopes of fulfilling that need.

Let us hope the president takes my advice, which is guaranteed to preserve the peace. Jesus would not have it any other way. He was the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Appeasement. The two are not the same and should never be confused.