How to Respond to Muslim Blackmail and Threats

In 1983 President Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando Florida. This is the speech in which he first called Russia an “evil empire”. According to Wikipedia, Reagan also made a case in this speech for deploying NATO nuclear armed missiles in Western Europe in response to the Soviet Union installing new nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. Liberals had a cow. They were terrified that Russia would retaliate somehow. They thought that Reagan was rash to provoke the communists not only with words but then with the actual placement of nuclear missiles. Liberals moved the hand of the doomsday clock a bit closer to 12 as they anxiously worried that the USSR would retaliate against what Reagan said in that speech.

Luckily the Democrats weren’t running the country and instead we had President Reagan. This great leader presented a determined front and not once back downed when confronted with Russia’s blackmail threats to harm us if we didn’t remove our missiles or abandon the idea of a Star Wars defense or even arrogantly used terms like the evil empire. There was also a huge uprising from the UN and other countries but our leader, unlike the clamoring liberals, was not afraid of what anyone else might think of us; Reagan basically could care less and kept to his path of standing up for America. Of course we all know now that it was Russia who blinked in this cold war and the course of history changed dramatically including the fall of the Berlin Wall pictured left. But what would have happened if Reagan was fearful of Russian retaliation and, like the Democrats, worried that Americans might be killed and therefore gave in to Russia’s threats? How different might history be if Reagan didn’t have the fortitude to identify Russia for what it was – an evil empire that needed to be destroyed.

If this country had the guts to go toe-to-toe against a large country with nuclear weapons then why can’t we stand up to a bunch of street rabble with stones, homemade explosives and a few guns? Please understand that I don’t agree with Rev. Terry Jones who plans to burn the Quran in retaliation of 9-11. But this is America where he has the right to do this just as liberals and anarchists have the right to burn the flag. I hope the Reverend will decide that it is wrong but it would be more harmful in the long run if he backed down because of threats from Muslims worldwide.

I am deeply disappointed in General Petraeus for passing on the Muslims threats of harming our soldiers if Rev. Jones goes forward with his book burning. This is blackmail, pure and simple and the US should never back down to it. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that the threats were issued by street rabble rousers, probably the same Arabs who were cheering in the street after 9-11. We must not empower this group which is exactly what would happen if Rev. Jones backs down because of their threats. So shame on the General for even giving voice to their blackmail threats.

If we back down to their threats then we have established a very harmful pattern. For what will we back down to next? There is a lot of passion and anger over the building of the mosque in NY City. What would happen if General Petraeus gets on TV to tell us that Muslims are threatening to kill soldiers if we don’t let them build the mosque? Do we back down then?

Actually, the two events are very similar. Muslims can build the mosque in NYC but it would be wrong and insensitive to Americans while on the other hand Rev. Jones can burn the Quran but that also would be wrong and insensitive to the Muslims. The difference, however, is that Americans might protest in the streets about the mosque but it never would even occur to us to take to the streets threatening to kill Muslims if they don’t move the proposed mosques. Yet no one thinks twice about Arabs taking to the street in protest with burning effigies and threatening to kill us, this time because of the book burning. Why are they held to a lesser standard than we are?

Reverend Jones is wrong to want to burn the Quran but he is right when he asks when do we stop backing down to them. I also think that once again the mainstream media is slanting the news. I was listening to a local radio talk show and to my surprise all the callers were backing the Reverend. Like me, they didn’t agree with what he planned to do but believed he had the right to do it. And yet the MSM portrays only those protesting against the book burning. In fact the MSM is guilty of escalating the fear of retaliation if the minister burns Qurans on Saturday with the slanted stories they broadcast on their news programs. (It is also interesting to note that the Arab world didn't threaten us like this when Bush was president as I think they feared Bush who they saw as some cowboy who they didn't know what he would do next. Only now when Barrack Hussein Obama is president do they feel free to blackmail us...)

In the light of this standoff – the Rev. threatening to burn the Quran vs. Muslims threatening to kill our soldiers in retaliation if the Quarn is burned – I can’t help but wonder what would Reagan do? Just as Reagan believed the USSR was the evil empire, Rev. Jones believes that Islam and the Quran are evil. Perhaps I am wrong but if Reagan were our president today I can almost hear him state that America has freedom of speech which protects Rev. Jones. Though Reagan may disagree with burning the Quran, if the Middle East street Arabs actually harm one hair on a US soldier in retaliation then Reagan will bomb them back because nobody threatens our soldiers or tries to blackmail us. And if they do then they will regret it. {sigh} I do miss Reagan for instead of a staunch patriot who would stand up for America we have a conciliator and appeasement seeking President and General who apologize for this country and worry about what some thugs might do.. God help us if they manage to force Rev. Jones to back down to the street Arabs threats.

Postscript. Sometimes I amaze myself. I wrote this Weds. afternoon and set it aside as I became busy with other things. Then last night while I watched tennis the Imam in charge of the NY City mosque got on Larry King’s show and sure enough he threatened an explosion of anger and violence if America doesn’t let them build the mosque at that location by Ground Zero. I wish I had gotten this one wrong but here it is, the next threat. Forget the Rev. in Florida with burning the Quran. America is faced with these new threats of violence – now what? General what is your response – do we back down on this, too? And if so, what will come next? Or do we act like proud Americans and tell that Imam and the Arab street rabble that America does not and will never respond to blackmail and threats. Mainly I just wish somebody, anybody in Washington has the nerve, as Reagan did, to basically tell them to go to hell!

Tenaciously Optimistic

I heard a phrase the other day which immediately resonated in me. I don’t remember where I heard it but the phrase was “tenaciously optimistic”. Isn’t that great? We all know people who never seem happy; who complain about every little thing that happens to them. On the other hand, there are those few people who truly have had terrible adversities in their life and yet they still seem happy. They are tenaciously optimistic. They know that when life throws you a curve ball it would be easy to feel sorry for yourself or become bitter but instead they work to remain hopeful and cling to their belief that life is to be enjoyed. I should know. I also think that this phrase describes the attitudes of our best politicians and leaders, not just here but world wide.

Think of Winston Churchill who never gave up during WWII. One of his many quotes that he is famous for is: ... we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Wow. Now that is the epitome of being tenaciously optimistic! Churchill had faith that they would win but he knew they would have to work hard to achieve that win; in other words they needed to be tenaciously optimistic.

Our most revered Presidents are also those who were tenaciously optimistic. Roosevelt inspired Americans with his upbeat view during the Great Depression and then WWII. In fact, Roosevelt applied this sentiment in his personal life. He could have been bitter after being struck by polio and losing the ability to walk. Instead he fought to be happy. So did Kennedy who also had serious illnesses and a debilitating back problem. Like Roosevelt, he overcame his personal problems with humor and confidence that he could do anything.

Perhaps the President who most exemplified tenacious optimism was President Reagan. He was elected during a terrible recession, interest rates greater than 20%, unemployment well over 10% and an energy crisis. Yet during his campaign he exuded optimism and hope that things would be better. And the American people responded and swept him into office twice. How could you not admire a man who as he was being wheeled into surgery after being shot during an assassination attempt quipped to his wife “Honey, I forgot to duck.” Reagan knew that humor is frequently used as a means to deflect adversities.

Obama was also tenaciously optimistic. He would have to be as he was the first African American to be on the Democratic ticket for President. Few African Americans ever thought there would be a black president in their lifetime but not Obama. He even turned his tenacious optimism into his campaign slogan “Yes We Can”. And he did.

I mention this because I heard someone, I think it was the Republican House Minority Whip, say that the two Republicans who just became governors of Virginia and NJ were “sunny Republicans”. The pundits discussed how these two Republicans each ran a campaign of hope and ideas of how to improve life for the citizens of their state. On the other hand, the Democratic candidates ran angrier campaigns attacking their opponent and playing the blame game. Voters have shown over and over that they don’t respond to those kinds of campaigns. We don’t want leaders to blame other people, we want them to explain how they will improve the situation. And once again voters responded to the tenacious optimism of the Republican candidates of Virginia and New Jersey.

Something else has occurred to me. As previously mentioned, when running for President, Obama was enthusiastically hopeful with his “Yes We Can” motto. But since becoming President he seems to have lost that ebullience and hopefulness. Instead every time he gives a speech it is about doom and gloom, how bad things are and continuously blaming President Bush for all the problems. In looking back, Clinton had a lot of problems but if not exactly cheerful, he did have this cocky self assurance. Carter, however, was like an old time Southern Baptist pastor preaching of fire and brimstone unless people changed. He lasted one painful term and yet never learned for he is still preaching doom and gloom.

All the pundits are analyzing the election results from last night. What does it portend for Obama and his agenda? How will it affect the health care bill? What does it mean for the Republican party? Personally, I think the message is an old one. That voters are tired of being told how awful life is, they know that things are tough all over. They don’t need politicians telling them how bad it is or blaming the other party and voters definitely don’t want politicians telling them that they need to sacrifice (ie. pay higher taxes) in order to help others. And they also respond badly to threats – that if they don’t do something then life will be horrible in the future (think climate change).

Voters want those “sunny Republicans”. They want to hear that life is good and is only going to get better. They want solutions but not solutions that makes life tougher for themselves. They want leaders who are confident and hopeful in a better future. Leaders who won’t promise easy fixes since most of the time the voters end up paying for that. Instead these leaders will tell you how they will work to improve your family’s life. These leaders are tenaciously optimistic; finding joy and pride in America even during the darkest hours and exuding hopefulness that we can work together to create a shining future.

Doomed Iranian Students

In 1989 there were two revolutions – one in Tianamen Square which failed miserably and one in Eastern Europe that resulted in the demise of the Berlin Wall and the Communist regime in Russia. Why did one work and one failed? I have two theories about that. Based on my theories I predict that the newest Iranian revolution will be crushed perhaps even brutally with extreme force and imprisonment of the most radical revolutionaries.

History tells us that almost every revolution begins with the students. Young people who rebel against almost anything anyway band together to revolt against society, against the harsh rules, against the tyrannical regime ruling their country. But this revolt is almost always doomed if it remains a student rebellion, if no one else joins in to help them. So my first theory is that successful revolutions are dependent upon the involvement of the older generations. If the fathers of these students stand on the side lines, worrying about their sons and daughters, but not participating, then there is little hope for the success of the chanting students. On the other hand, if men and women of all ages participate, as they did in the American Revolution than it has a greater chance of success.

I was glued to the TV watching the Tianamen Square revolt. I had never seen anything like this and was thrilled that these students would rise up against the crushing Communist government ruled by ancient old men. I thought of course this would make a difference. This rebellion just had to initiate needed changes in China. But then the soldiers and tanks moved in. I had cried when these students built their own Statue of Liberty, a touching heartfelt salute to my country. Days later, I cried again when I watched the military destroy this symbol of their hope for democracy. This was as upsetting to me as when I watched that lone student standing against those tanks. As quickly as the students had assembled and built their tent city it was demolished and the students imprisoned or in hiding. I finally realized that real life is not like the political thrillers I read. The world could be hard and cruel and the good guy doesn’t necessarily win.

Shortly after this happened, we witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall and later, Communist reign in Russia. So why did this work whereas the Tianamen Square revolt didn’t? I know that history books are filled with the facts and figures regarding both rebellions. But in a nut shell my first theory is that the Chinese rebellion was primarily led by students. On the other hand, one of the key figures in the downfall of Russia was a Polish union leader, Lech Walesa. Walesa was no starry eyed student but an experienced determined man who led his union and then his country into a coupe against the Russian leaders. Middle class men and women worked hand in hand with the students to revolt against the Communist regime.

Perhaps this is giving too much credit to my country, yet I can’t help but believe that America’s reaction was also a determining factor in another country’s successful rebellion. President Reagan stood firm against communism, going so far as to call Russia, the “evil empire” and loudly proclaiming that “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. Wow. Between Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher and the Pope there was constant pressure against Russia.

Compare Reagan’s emphatic statements and support of Walesa and all the rebels to the statements of President George H.W. Bush in 1989 about the China rebellion. In a memo declassified ten years later we read that Bush 41 said while he deplored the violence in China he “believes deeply that a solid relationship” between the countries was in the interest of world peace. Oh yeah, that is telling them.

Unlike his father, Bush 43 followed in the footsteps of Reagan by stating which countries were enemies to the US. He was never shy about using strong language when discussing Iran or North Korea. In return he was despised by these countries and I also believe he was actually feared. They saw him as a loose cannon, a wild cowboy who might shoot first and ask questions later. Yet I doubt if North Korea would have threatened to bomb Hawaii if Bush were still president. But more on this in a later blog.

OK, here we are today with a new revolution in Iran. Students are outraged at the recent election believing that it was rigged. They are probably correct but unfortunately based on my two theories this rebellion doesn’t stand a chance. As far as I can tell the revolt is still primarily driven by students. You simply don’t hear about older men participating in it. And now, the Guardian Council, Iran’s top electoral council, announced today that there was no fraud in the election. Yeah right. For those who disagree, the feared Revolutionary Guard is threatening to use violence to quash the rebellion.

As for American involvement, Obama’s tepid response is right up there with Bush 41’s lack of support. I sure miss Reagan who had no qualms about supporting groups that tried to replace despotic regimes with freedom and democracy. But Obama isn’t able to do that. Then again it is probably ludicrous to hope that Obama would support fledgling democracy abroad when our president isn’t able to support democracy in our own country.

So I believe that those Iranian students are doomed. Sooner or later the soldiers will silence this rebellion and the old leaders will continue to rule. I bet that Obama will then be one of the first to call and to set up a face to face meeting with the “re-elected” Iranian president Ahmadinejad before the blood of the students have even been scrubbed away from the streets.

A Better Not Bitter America

As I sit here watching the Pope and listening to his preaching I can’t help but think back to the “preaching’s” of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Add in the repugnant statement last week by Barack Obama and I have come to some interesting conclusions.

The Pope in his very first speech at the White House concluded with “God Bless America”. I don’t know if it was intentional but I bet a lot of folks were comparing that to Wright’s “God Damn America”. So far the Pope has been preaching a sermon of forgiveness, encouragement and love. Wright, on the other hand, seems to spend a lot of time preaching about blame and anger and even hatred.

Ironically, Pope Benedict XVI has more reason to hate a group of people than Wright ever will. This German Pope lived through Hitler’s regime and had to deal with the terror and ugliness of Nazism. Now Jeremiah Wright may talk of slavery but he was never shackled in chains, nor his father or probably even his grandfather.

Anyway, in addition to comparing the Pope’s message of love and forgiveness to that of Wright’s hate and anger filled sermons throw in Barack Obama’s message last week. If Barack does attend a church that preaches hatred then you can almost understand why he might think that bitter people turn to religion when they are frustrated.

If your church reflects your frustration and anger with the world then I suppose it would be appealing to a frustrated bitter person. But most people who go to church go to one that preaches a message of love and forgiveness similar to the Pope’s sermons.

Mixing all of these thoughts together and I am arriving at two interesting conclusions. First, it isn’t small town folks who are bitter but the Democrats. Liberals, like Obama, seem to be very frustrated and bitter and angry at the USA. These liberals have yet to forgive anyone; not the people, the Supreme Court, Republicans, Southerners, Floridians nor anyone else who they think helped to elect President Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.

On the other hand, the most successful Republicans, like Reagan, campaign on the promises of hope and a better tomorrow. Their positive messages reflect that of main stream churches. History has shown that most people want leaders who are positive, who offer the masses hope and encouragement to be a better person, a better country. Actully it isn't only Republicans who are elected if they have a message of hope. Think of Roosevelt, Kennedy even Bill Clinton. All of them encourgaed the population that there would be a new tomorrow filled with hope and the good life.

Obama had initially started off campaigning on hope and the offer to bring Americans together again. But after the divisiveness of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s proclaimed spiritual advisor, then Obama himself began to be tainted with the brush of liberal anger and hatred. Obama then compounded the problem with his bitter statement. He probably will still be the Democratic nominee for President. But if McCain can emulate the Pope by giving Americans a message of hope and prosperity he just might win over an opponent who is portrayed as seeing a bitter not better people and country.