Originally written March 19, 2017

Yesterday there was another terrorist incident in Paris. The perpetrator was one Ziyed Ben Belgacem, described by Paris police as a radicalized Muslim, and a man whose apartment was searched after the November 2015 Paris terror attacks. Mr. Belgacem first wounded a police officer in northern Paris by shooting him in the face with birdshot before proceeding on to Orly Airport. There he braced a 3 person squad of French soldiers on anti-terrorism patrol and attempted to disarm a female soldier. He had a pistol to her head and was trying to wrestle her rifle away when the other two soldiers opened fire, killing Belgacem. In interviews after the incident the soldiers quoted Belgacem as having said, “I’m here to die for Allah. In any case people are going to die.” Belgacem’s father denied his son acted out of religious-based malice, saying “My son was not a terrorist. He never prayed and he drank” and “This is what happens under the influence of drink and cannabis.” This will get more interesting after the autopsy.

The incident got me to thinking about effective ways to deal with terrorists. ISIS infiltrators are on my mind, of course, and there has to be an effective means to deter those people. The problems are obvious. We often can’t detect them until they’re either ready to or already striking. It seems to me there must be a way to ward them off. We need an equivalent to a vampire deterrent kit; a sort Islamic version of the old silver crucifix, vial of holy water, and garland of garlic if we want to get close enough to these guys to actually finish them off. My thoughts are we need to use tactics on them similar to those I recommend for doing political battle with progressives – give them a dose of their own medicine. In other words, use what we know about them and their beliefs to our own advantage.

I recall some soldiers in either Iraq or Afghanistan who got into a lot of trouble when it was discovered they were dipping their bullets in pig’s fat. It was a very un-PC thing to do. After all, shooting them with unclean bullets might not only kill them, but doom their souls. So, the order went out to all the troops that shooting the enemy with bullets that were adulterated with anything at all was forbidden. It was not nice, and it wasn’t fair. Killing them was okay, but dooming their souls was just a bit too much.

The thought strikes me that if any Muslim believes their soul cannot enter heaven in an unclean state, and if pig’s fat or pig’s blood in their bodies creates that unclean state, maybe we ought to take a harder look at the idea. After all, if I were a Muslim and I knew all my enemies were using bullets and bombs that could blast me straight to Hell, I might think twice about what I was doing. Now, I’m not necessarily advocating for actually doing it. The belief that we are may be enough. Call it a psy-ops effort. If our military put out propaganda leaflets warning the enemy and everyone else in a potential attack zone that we treat all our munitions with swine products and byproducts, do you think that might make a difference in how readily those actual believing Muslims act? Do you think someone who is willing to be a martyr and die to gain access to those 77 virgins might think twice if they understood they stand a far greater chance of dropping straight into a fiery lake of molten brimstone? I think so. So, I advocate for actually treating our munitions or engaging in a psy-ops campaign to tell everyone we do. I’m easy – either way works for me.

Yes, I know the Geneva Convention bans doing something like this, but if my understanding is correct the Geneva Convention doesn’t endorse beheadings, burning people alive, or many of the other practices of ISIS. If you’re the kind that believes we can win our fights despite having one hand tied behind our backs, maybe you need to think again. I like the rules to be the same for both sides. If they want to play for keeps, we should, too. I don’t advocate their methods, but do advocate for my own suggestion. It doesn’t seem to be anything more than a psychological escalation to me.

Was that un-PC enough for you?

On to another topic. This time I want to do a bit of a follow-up on something I wrote a few weeks ago, “PC and Jews.” In that article I tried to construct a theme that regarded why Jews were historically either tolerated or encouraged to be part of European societies, and how those factors prompted largely Christian nations to do so. Because the article dwelled on the aspect of money there may have been more than one who thought I inferred all Jews have lots of money. I assure you I never bought into that myth. I’ll admit that most of the Jews I’ve known in my life were either wealthy or at least comfortable, but I also know most Jews throughout time were not much different from me, and many more were much worse off. While most of the financial apparatus in most European nations and even here in America was to some greater or lesser extent organized and operated by Jews, the vast majority of Jews were either shopkeepers, tradesman, artisans, artists of one kind or another, or even more likely, farmers. I just want to make sure you understand I wasn’t perpetuating a stereotype. I attempted to explain the larger historical context of Jews as a distinct people among us and why their place in history is so unique. If you need more, just let me know. If you disagree, let me know even faster.

When I watched the news today I was struck once again by the idea of creeping socialism. This health care debate going on in Congress is truly nonsense. I know there are many who believe healthcare in America should be a guaranteed right, but that’s just wrong. To believe it is to believe each of us as individuals owes everyone else and they owe us. It’s to believe it’s our duty as citizens to ensure everyone gets treated for all their ills. While that sounds nice and certainly is politically correct, it’s patently false. Even Franklin Roosevelt understood that when he proposed his “Second Bill of Rights.” If that idea had taken hold there would have been a great expansion of the public’s right to complain to the federal government for redress of personal problems, with the expectation that the federal government would make them whole – and with whose money?

In that Second Bill of Rights proposal Roosevelt addressed health care with these words, “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.” To guarantee that right implies everyone must have the means. The federal government would be the guarantor of the means, which is the same as saying . . . wait for it . . . socialized medicine. Roosevelt’s proposals gained no traction in Congress, and didn’t until President Obama and his Democratic Party-dominated Congress rammed the Affordable Care Act down the throats of the people. And today we see evidence that the new Republican Congress is certifying federally controlled healthcare as a new right and permanent entitlement. We are no longer debating whether or not the Feds should be involved in private business transactions. No, today the argument is over the degree of that involvement. There appears to be no turning back. The only hope is the Freedom Caucus in the Senate. Stay tuned. This is truly a fight for America’s founding principles. It’s a nasty one, too, and bound to get nastier.

All thoughts of government today should have a budgetary consideration. This past week the Trump Administration released their proposal for a new discretionary budget. It contains serious marks against some sacred cows, and cow lovers everywhere are up in arms. They’re willing to burn the house down over 2%, 4%, and 6% of their pet cow’s overall budget. If it was me, I’d be rejoicing because the lack of federal funds means the cessation of federal mandates that intrude into business operations. But too many in the public seem to believe Trump has launched full frontal attacks on their herd of cows and they are willing to listen to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and man the barricades in protest. No one seems willing to pound those same people with questions regarding deficits, debt, and future mandates. No one wants to talk about budget excess, $20T in debt, and the $100T to $220T in future mandates. No one seems willing to talk about the financial cliff we are perched upon. No one wants to look at Greece and see our future. I encourage all of you to do just that. Look at Greece. Read up on what life is like in that country today and understand that we are in line to follow in their footsteps. The people who are willing to battle for their little cow herds need a lesson in economics. They need to understand that until our nation is once again on a sound financial footing, all the nice-to-have projects funded partly by our government need to find other ways to make up that 2%, 4%, or 6%. If their undertakings are truly worthy, it’ll happen.

Meanwhile, I note the deafening silence in our nation’s capital regarding the non-discretionary budget. Even when there’s a mention of it, the commentary is always on two things – Social Security and Medicare. Watch out, folks, they’re coming for us. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But, they will come.