Hey, I’m glad he’s dead. I know, I know, we’re not supposed to celebrate anyone’s death. In fact, it wasn’t even a full day after the news of Bin Laden’s death that I had to hear from presumptuous moral-equivalence preaching factions amongst media and social networks about how embarrassed they are to see any fellow Americans show any joy or positive emotion over the death of the murderer of 3,000 Americans (not to mention the the October 12, 2002, Bali bombings, or the March 11, 2004, Madrid bombings, or the July 7, 2005, London bombings, and so on).

The hand-wringer’s code word instead became “relief.” You are only allowed to express “relief” that OBL is dead, not happiness, you see, because in the second-grade logic of the moral equivilist expressing any joy over a terrorist’s death makes us no different than the terrorists, or at least no different than, say, the Palestinians caught on tape celebrating the murder of 3,000 civilians on 9-11. See: “Cycle of violence” and all of that nonsensical garbage, as though defending oneself is the same as trying to push a lawful and recognized nation of peoples into the sea.

Faster than you can say “Bleeding-heart, context-lacking UN lover” a supposed quote from Martin Luther King popped up all over the social media Internet, claiming, “I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.” Just one problem — MLK never said that. Facts? No matter. A five-minute Google search won’t stop the moral equivilist locomotive once it gets going. And the speed at which it propagated — faster than any false narrative that National Security Adviser John Brennen could even muster! — underscored its fabricated intentions.

Sure, maybe the quote captures the spirit of MLK’s thinking, and many are saying it’s not such a stretch or no different than, say, the MLK quote that “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.” Well, there’s a time for MLK’s thinking, and there’s a time for the Navy SEAL instead. You either get that or you don’t. As for me, I like to think that the last light Osama saw was the muzzle flash from a Navy SEAL’s Heckler & Koch MP-5 submachine gun.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying to abandon moderation. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be cases in which an expression could become pornographic, embarrassing or extreme. Albeit, chanting “U-S-A” is more appropriate at an Olympic event than for the death of a murdermarytr-preaching terrorist. Lack of couth aside — and from what I’ve seen such celebrations were mostly from college youths who were 10 years ago too young to understand how our world forever changed — if you take joy in Bin Laden’s death, don’t be cowed into shame. It doesn’t make you a monster, or the same as the terrorist, or someone with blood lust, or even less enlightened than the self-righteously moral equivilists claim themselves to be. And, certainly, OBL’s death may not change much operationally (and yet, never underestimate the loss of a leader — they are not often easily replaced).

Likewise, if you’re sad over his death — because the loss of life and recollections of dark times, etc. — I will respect that too, but don’t hold yourself somehow superior to those feeling in a more elated mood.

And while we’re at it, it’s also perfectly acceptable to be happy for the circumstances of the mission. It’s okay to be okay that Bin Laden may not have had a firearm, and may not have used women as a human shields. Maybe it would have lightened the heavy conscious of the hand-wringer, but it changes nothing.

It’s also perfectly natural to want to see the photographic evidence of Bin Laden. True, a lack thereof does not make a conspiracy — the nuts are nuts and weave their logic accordingly. All the more reason one rationale of the Administration — that they had a DNA match and thus needed no photograph for proof — was truly ridiculous. We’re talking about an Arab street that believes that Jews were told to stay home on 9/11, and a Truther fringe that thinks federal agents somehow secretly and quietly planted explosives in the twin towers. Do you really think they’re going to accept, “Trust us, we have DNA evidence?” No, the reasons for the evidence are many, and include less tangible things as affirming to terrorists how bipartisianly serious and persistent we remain in hunting them and crushing their morale, historical record, and for some, just plain closure.

Indeed, it’s not just the president or liberal Democrats who would have us all take a quaalude. Here’s the epitome of knuckle-headed moral equivalence from Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers: “Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the Internet.” Did Chairman Rogers really compare al Qaeda terrorists and self-ordained Islamic rulers to our professional soldiers and duly-elected representatives? Isn’t it great how Chairman Rogers can see the photos but the constituents paying his salary cannot? Can we get a little less lecture with your hypocrisy, Congressman?

But most of all, one should be overjoyed with U.S. military forces, the guys and gals who keep us safe.

You see, that Navy Seal is the same guy who hasn’t seen his family in 10 months, who routinely humps about a 50-pound rucksack across the mountains of Afghanistan, the deserts of Iraq and other armpits of the planet while our hand-wringing moral equivilists shake fingers and tut-tut with one another in their virtual chat rooms and otherwise second-guess and draw comparisons between our accountable military forces versus unaccountable, non-state sanctioned, illegal-combatant terrorists who highjack passenger planes for guided missiles.

Like I said, you either get the difference, or you don’t.

Pretty funny, Crowder, as these things go.

I promise to be more hopey, changey, and such this year… that’s a peace prize!

CF-18s intercepted Russian plane before Obama visit

CTV.ca News Staff
As security officials worked to secure Ottawa on the eve of U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit, Canadian fighter jets were scrambling to intercept a Russian bomber plane in the Arctic skies.

That’s a huge story! I mean who knew that Canada had an air force! ; )

Letter to Jonah Goldberg:

The problem with Barack: You and I read a Lincoln biography and conclude that Lincoln was great. Obama reads the same book and concludes that he is Lincoln.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone…

[Byron York] One of the things I’ve seen at Republican rallies is that people just don’t believe Barack Obama when he says he’ll raise taxes only on those who make more than $250,000 a year.  It’s not that these people make that much money or even think they’ll make that much money sometime in the next four years.  It’s that they believe Obama, once in office, would lower the threshold and raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000.

Obama’s position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000.  But in his new ad, “Defining Moment,” he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. “Here’s what I’ll do as president,” Obama says in the ad.  “To deal with our current emergency I’ll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you’ll get a tax cut.” That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: “Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut.” Now, the McCain campaign is pointing out something that Joe Biden said in a Pennsylvania TV interview yesterday:

What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”

This morning, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, McCain started pushing hard:

Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than 250,000 dollars would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than 200,000 dollars you’ll benefit — but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to “middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year.” It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase. We can’t let that happen.

People who think Barack Obama is going to be a third term of Bill Clinton are in store for quite a shock I think.