WIKILEAKS - A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FOUNDER

1. Where the hell does anyone, much less some Australian brain-dead convicted hacker and college dropout dweeb named Julian Assange - whose picture is in every newspaper - get 400,000 classified documents?

2. Why is he still alive? Same question for those who leaked the documents to him.

Oh, don't act so shocked. The same questions have already occurred to you. And think a little deeper than the surface, obvious implications of those questions. Yeah, those two questions raise a whole lot of other questions. And, for you conspiracy theorists, intriguing possibilities.

And now a question for our Pentagon and our government in general: how in hell do you expect to get ANY informant help in any future conflict? There is going to be a blood bath of dead informants in both Iraq and Afghanistan from these leaked documents. Future candidate informants are going to ask us why should he / she risk his / her life when we have shown time and again that we are impotent to protect them or even our own classified documents. Would you trust us?

THE CASE AGAINST COMPROMISE

There are many reasons, in our daily lives, to make compromises. You can think of dozens for yourself, so your ostrich killer will skip pointing out the obvious. Instead, let's move to the political arena.

In the United States, we have a two-party system. This isn't by law, it's by default. The two parties differ widely in their views and principles. Your ostrich killer is about to make an argument that one party has a winning strategy in getting their agenda emplaced. That strategy is sometimes called 'incrementalism.'

Here's how it works: Party A wants radical legislation to, say, raise taxes dramatically. This is just an example, so please don't think I'm being specific here. Party B, though, wants no new taxes. Rancorous debate, name calling, and political extortion follow. Members of Party B, not wanting to be called names, and wishing to be reasonable, offers a counter proposal that raises taxes, but not as much. More name calling, more race or religion or class baiting goes on while Party A sticks to their original demands. Party B decides to offer a slightly better tax hike, but still far short of what Party A wants. Party A generously agrees, in the name of 'bipartisanship.' Taxes are raised an increment of what Party A originally called for.

Fast forward to a future legislative session. Party A renews its original demands. Party B goes through the same 'be reasonable and bipartisan and willing to compromise' hand-wringing soul searching, and finally agrees to raise taxes another increment.

Fast forward . . . Eventually Party A gets what it wanted in the first place, because Party B compromised enough times that they finally had nothing left to compromise about. So, in effect, Party A never actually compromised, they just stretched out their timeline to allow for incrementalism to work. And it always will, if one party sticks to its principles and the other is willing to compromise theirs.

Message to conservatives: If you recognize the above situation, you understand why we now have an entitlement mentality society, and a regime running the country the way Marx would if he were alive. So you (we) have a duty: reverse this incrementalism. Be the party of no compromise. That could cause legislative paralysis, which is something conservatives and most people prefer.

JetBlue AIRWAYS - A HAZARD TO YOUR HEALTH

Your Ostrich Killer will now ask the question you haven't seen asked by the mainstream media: How is it that JetBlue, the employer of that flight attendant Steven Slater who quit his job by sliding down the emergency slide off an airliner, let a bleeding and unbandaged HIV- positive person work the cabin as a flight attendant?

This individual came in contact w/ hundreds of people daily. Did any of those people know he was both homosexual and HIV-positive? Would they have flown on that flight if they knew?

It takes less than a drop of HIV-infected blood to transfer AIDS to another, through any break in their skin or even any moist membranes, such as the eye. That flight attendant was bleeding before he ever got onto the aircraft, and did not bandage his wound. Surely Jet Blue wouldn't let such a person work in close contact w/ hundreds of unknowing innocents every day, would they? - - Uh, wait. They did. Not even the flight crew or cabin attendants insisted he bandage the wound. Had they been informed that he was HIV positive?

One wonders how far over we must bend for the PC crowd to put it to us. Must we even grab our ankles? Unknowingly risk our own health in order not to offend HIV carriers? It might be different if we knew the risks we were taking. But Jet Blue didn't tell anyone that I know about. I guess they feel that such risks are acceptable. Of course, if they believed that strongly, wouldn't they let us know ahead of time? And isn't it our decision to make as to what risks we're willing to take? Maybe we're just too stupid to make a rational decision about the risks. That must be it.

You can be sure that your Ostrich Killer will NOT be flying Jet Blue. I wonder how they will spin this. On second thought, they won't have to. The mainstream media isn't even raising the question.

SIGNS I'D LOVE TO SEE (Pt. 1)

Outside a Mexican restaurant: "Food: 100% Mexican Style. Staff: 100% American Citizen."

Outside a Mexican restaurant, 2: "English spoken here. Only."

Panhandler at busy intersection: "Victim of the Obamanomics. Looking for honest work. Please take a copy of my resume and references."

Outside Congress: "Restricted membership. License to steal required."

Have some ideas of signs you'd like to see? Send them along.

DREAM POLITICAL CANDIDATE INTERVIEW QUESTION AND ANSWERS

"Mister Candidate, you've repeatedly spoken about your conservative values. You are in a tight race. What special measures are you planning to take to garner more of the traditional liberal voting population, such as blacks and latinos?"

"None. Blacks typically vote over ninety percent for democrats, no matter who they are or what they stand for or what experience they may have or the quality of the conservative opposition. So a dollar of my campaign money spent trying to attract their vote is a dollar wasted. I take a similar position with regard to the latino vote."

"You will make no special effort at all? Isn't that conceding all those votes to your opposition?"

"Look, there is no color or ethnic or religious description of an American, and for good reason: that category includes everyone who is a citizen of this country. To make a special effort to romance votes from this or that sub-group of Americans would be racist, or otherwise discriminatory in that one group or another is receiving special consideration or promises of special favors. My appeal is to all Americans capable of casting a vote. I don't give a damn about skin color or what their ancestors ate. If they are American citizens, my positions on the issues will appeal to them - irrespective of any other factors. Let my opponent make special promises. His party is good at that. Unfortunately, they aren't so good at keeping them. Even the most simple research will bear this out; however, it seems my opponent's constituency is either unwilling or incapable of dispassionate research, or even objective rational thought."

"The latino vote is a little more complicated, sir -"

"Not really. In the latino heritage community in this country, there are either Americans or non-Americans. I don't give a damn about the opinions of non-Americans, those here on legitimate visas or illegally. They cannot legally vote. Of course, my opponent's party will spend vast sums doing what it can to find ways for people in this country illegally to vote for them illegally. We all know this. But I reject that I, or my party, should in some sly way court the illegal vote. My position on illegals is that they are criminals and should be captured, punished, and then deported on tramp steamers, penniless, to the southernmost tip of whatever country they came from. So a message to illegals, latino or any other - I'm not your friend."

THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO

In the name of islam, the world trade center was destroyed and three thousand people killed.

To the glorification of mohammed and in the name of islam, a mosque will be erected in its place.

A symbol of victory, a symbol of dominance, a symbol of the superiority of islam.

You citizens of Manhattan - you've got work to do. Start with your city leadership.

Remember: if your attackers kill your people in the name of their religion, you are in a religious war whether you want to be or not.

SURPRISE JUDICIAL RULING ROCKS CALIFORNIA

Dateline, California: In a surprise ruling that rocked California, a homosexual federal judge ruled that California's Prop 8, which states that California will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. "Prop 8 violates the equal treatment under the law provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution," he wrote, without explaining how Prop 8 treats homosexual men and women differently from heterosexual men and women.

"It seems to me," said Mr. Harry Stingle of Malin, Oregon, "that the judge got it wrong. In California just like in pretty much any other country on the planet, a man has a right to marry a woman and a woman has a right to marry a man. Queers get the same rights. So maybe someone can explain how Prop 8 treats homosexuals any different, 'cause I don't get it."

Henrietta Polger of Buena Vista, California, wonders how it came to pass that a homosexual judge got assigned to rule on that particular proposition. As she puts it, "I'd love to see the audit trail on that judicial assignment."

Indeed.

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAW? A PROPOSAL TO THE FEDS

In one of your Ostrich Killer's better moments, an idea flashed through his barnacle-encrusted brain cells: if the Feds can choose not to enforce certain laws (such as immigration law), then why can't I choose not to obey certain laws?

Here's the deal: In exchange for the citizenship not requiring the Feds to enforce, say, the general class of immigration laws, we get to not obey one class of laws. My choice: tax law. I don't want to pay taxes. How about you? Let the wetbacks come. As long as that's the policy, I don't want to pay taxes. Quid pro quo, right? Feds don't enforce one, I don't obey one. Seems fair.

A word about wetbacks: I don't use that pejoratively. In my lexicon, a wetback is a mexican who arrives in this country illegally. Legal immigrants are decidedly NOT wetbacks, they are welcome. So don't accuse me of using ethnic slurs. Thank you.

REALITY TRUMPS FICTION

A couple days ago, when news broke that both Charlie Shumer and Maxine Waters (Democrats in your congress) were being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, your Ostrich Killer thought "Hey, wouldn't it be clever to ask my readers how long they think it would take for someone to squeal that those two were being investigated because they were black?"

Your Ostrich Killer laughed at his own silliness. No one could possibly raise such a stupid objection, he thought. What does skin color have to do with whether or not someone might be guilty of ethical violations? Nothing, that's what. Either they did something questionable, or they didn't. Either way, the investigations would follow the smoking guns to the proper conclusions.

Your Ostrich Killer thought no one would be stupid enough to play the race card.

He was wrong. Read about it at Politico. At least one member of the Congressional Black Caucus has said there's a dual standard being used, one for 'African-Americans' and another for everyone else. I guess he / she means that until they run out of ethics investigations of congressmen of other races, they should leave blacks alone - - oh, wait. No, he / she couldn't possibly mean that, because that would mean using a double standard. He / she wouldn't be for that, would he / she?

The Congressional Black Caucus is by its very nature a racist organization. Its name alone tells us that. Do you see a Congressional White Caucus? Latino Caucus? Irish-American Caucus? Or any other such group? Can you imagine what the race-baiters would make of such organizations?

Once again, the ballet of the absurd is danced by this Congress. Your Ostrich Killer has grave misgivings about the intelligence of an American electorate that could elect so many clowns and functional enemies of our country to high office.

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AND TREASON - - AND PENALTIES FOR LEAKS

A collection of treasonous scumbags have conspired to leak tens of thousands of classified documents. That act gives aid and comfort to our enemies. It endangers the lives of American service men and women, diplomats, and intelligence resource - some of whom may not be American, but may be citizens of other countries. Some of those people will end up dead.

It is a felony.

Punishable by death in the time of war.

Are we at war?

Your ostrich killer wants the leakers and the publishers brought up on the strongest charges, including treason, and punished according to the law. If that means death, that's okay with me and a whole bunch of fellow Americans.

My country's security is at stake. Those individuals are enemies of my country. I choose death for them. I don't want to 'reform' or 'rehabilitate' them. I want them gone, if that's legal.

GULF OIL SPILL - THE PERSPECTIVE OF NUMBERS

"Unparalleled disaster" "Environmental catastrophe" "Massive pollution"

You've seen these and other End of Times headlines everywhere in the news covering the gulf oil spill.

Your favorite Ostrich Killer will now, without any comment whatsoever, give you the numbers that pertain. You may draw your own conclusions, as thoughtful people do.

Spill: 200,000,000 gallons (max. Probably less, but let's use the worst case quoted.)

Gulf: 700,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, rounded off.

Doing long division, we get 1 gallon of oil for every 3,500,000,000 gallons of water.

Doing a little more long division, we get 1 drop of oil for every 55,000 GALLONS of water. To do your own long division, assume 16 drops in a cc of oil.

But wait! It gets better! Turns out, about forty percent of that leaked oil was collected on ships. Of the remaining sixty percent, a substantial amount - maybe a third - has evaporated. Much more - another third? - has filled the bellies of oil-eating microbes, untold quadrillions of which roam the Gulf of Mexico feasting on the crude that has seeped naturally from the bottom every day since before the first well was ever dreamt of. Doing a little more math with the above numbers, we come up with only twenty percent of the oil still available to pollute in one way or another. 40,000,000 gallons of the original 200,000,000 gallons. That's a lot, but . . . well, you know.

Doubt this? Do your own research and your own math. I rounded off; you may not wish to. Have fun.

NEWS FLASH: Drudge story headline - "Disappearing Oil: Cleanup crews can't find crude in gulf."

Let's see . . . I have 55,000 gallons of water, in which I'm trying to find twenty percent of 1 DROP of oil . . . I wonder why it's so hard to do?

Duh. And no, that is not an editorial comment.

MEL GIBSON RANTS - SO?

A guy and a gal have a big, name-calling argument over the phone. Unbenownst to the guy, the gal is taping him.

First, that's a felony in most states. But leaving that aside, let's look at the obvious. And the obvious is - drum roll, please - that the conversation was private. There was a hundred percent expectation of privacy by the guy. People say things in private, especially when angry and maybe even a little buzzed, that they would never say in front of a television camera or at a press conference.

So what Mel said was ugly. Who among us has not said an ugly thing in private? Had he said that stuff in public, then there's a story. But in private? C'mon. Get over it, stupid mainstream media. Is there really such a shortage of actual news that this can get your attention?

TEA PARTY DECLARED A RACIST ORGANIZATION BY NAACP

News Flash, Dateline somewhere in America: Today the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - an organization whose sole purpose for existence is to promote and benefit the fortunes of people with black skin at the expense of people of any other skin color -denounced the Tea Party as a racist organization. While offering no objective proof, they point to the predominantly white membership of the Tea Party as a smoking gun. They offered no explanation for why that membership population should differ from the general population.

In unrelated news, in the home of Mrs. Silas Jones in Peoria, her teapot reportedly called the soup kettle 'black.' Investigation is continuing.

GEN. PETRAEUS HAS ARRIVED - EVERYONE ELSE CAN GO HOME

For those of you who haven't read my blog of December 3, 2009, or if you've forgotten it, take a moment to look at it. Especially the part about 'What the Taliban Heard.'

My hat is off to Gen. Petraeus for seeing his duty and stepping up. Gen. McChrystal was rightly relieved of command - he probably saluted and said "You don't know how relieved I am, Sir" when departing the Oval Office - and both poser-in-chief Obama and his lapdog congress rushed to thrust Gen Petraeus into his now empty traces.

But what is Gen Petraeus's actual duty? Is it victory? Is it pacification? Is it casualty minimization? Road and school building? No, it is none of those things. And he knows it. He knows that he has been sent over to Afghanistan so that, eventually, Mr. Impeachable can point a finger at him and say "We sent our finest officer to command our forces, and still we couldn't succeed. That proves the battle is futile and it's time to pull our sons and daughters out of there." Yes, Gen. Petraeus failure will be the proverbial final straw. He knows he is to be thrown under the bus.

Never mind that he will be deprived of the resources he needs. Never mind that he is hamstrung with a time certain withdrawal scheme, developed without regard to military or political objectives by a party wholly invested in defeat. Never mind that he and his forces are emasculated with rules of engagement (You did read my December 3 column, right?) so stringent that scarcely a trigger can be pulled without landing an American in jail.

But Gen. Petraeus will do his best. That's his nature, and he'll do it. A pity that his best needs ammo and equipment and troops and intelligence. He won't be getting those things, because if he did he might actually pull off a victory of sorts. But our leadership on the left side of the aisle and in the Oval Office yearn for defeat, are clamoring for defeat, are universally predicting defeat, so they will carry out any unworthy deception - including lying to the American electorate - to bring about our defeat.

Makes one wonder how they can even lay claim to the title "American." I salute the General, I flip off the poser-in-chief and the sorry leadership of the left in congress and say to them that they are not fooling everyone.

ARIZONA'S LAW AND WHAT WE CAN DO

Whoa, there. Your Ostrich Killer SUPPORTS Arizona's law concerning allowing police officials to question someone's immigration status. So if you're looking for a blog about how to help get rid of that law, you're at the wrong place.

I want to suggest ways that we can encourage and enrich Arizona for having the stones to do what is right. Here are a few possibilities:

1. Vacation in Arizona instead of, say, Los Angeles or Sacramento. This is called a 'buycott.'

2. Buy products made in Arizona when that's a choice. Another buycott.

3. Write blogs like this one.

4. Encourage Arizona to deport illegals to cities and states that have enacted sanctions against Arizona. Just put those illegals on buses or trains and send them to Los Angeles, or Sacramento, or Seattle, or a number of other places. If the actions of the leaders of those localities match their words, those illegals will be quite welcome there.

5. Write your congressmen and women and tell them to support Arizona's law. Make sure they understand that their jobs could be impacted by their rhetoric and actions concerning this issue.

It's a crying shame that a state has to take this sort of action to pick up the slack caused by federal inaction. If only the feds would enforce the laws already on the books . . .

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

or

"I have several friends who are muslims."

That's true, if you're a muslim. If you're islamic. But if you're anything else, you are either an infidel or a non-believer.

Unless you're a muslim, you can be lied to, cheated, imprisoned or killed. Any follower of islam may do any of those things to you and suffer no consequences under islamic law, so long as they are satisfied in their own minds that what they do furthers the aims of islam.

If you're an infidel, you must be killed. If you are a non-believer, you must be converted - but if you refuse to convert, you must be either put to work for the benefit of islam, or killed.

You decidedly do NOT have any friends who are muslims. You only know people who are islamic, who seem to be friendly. But you cannot trust them. So take off the blinders.

AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO . . .

Today's blog post is for the entertainment of Americans citizens only. Anyone else may find a certain entertainment value in trying to come up with correct answers as well, and may in fact score better than most Americans. Sadly.

Okay, let's talk about American 'rights.' You know what a right is, right? You hear the word dozens of times every day, until some of us want to throw up at its very mention. But try to hold your lunch.

The United States Constitution provides Americans their rights. They're written down, clear and obvious. But they're in there in two ways: those rights reserved for Government, and those reserved for the citizens. We're going to concern ourselves, in this blog, with those rights that belong to the citizen.

So here's the quiz: which of the below 'rights', semi-colon separated, are rights according to the US Constitution? Pick all that apply.

You have the right to:

A lawyer; a speedy trial; privacy; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; separation of church and State; vote; own property; offensive speech; health care; a job; associate with whomever you choose to associate; shelter; free exercise of your religion; own and carry firearms; food; not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure; special treatment if you are of a specified race or gender; money and other necessary resources; health care; transportation; your safety; not associate with whomever you do not want to associate; a cell phone; an abortion; freedom of movement; television; an education.

Good luck. Let your friendly Ostrich Killer know how you do. You can score yourself by consulting your research assistant, Mr. Google, about the US Constitution.

While you're browsing the Constitution, take a look at the Tenth Amendment. Then think about it.

AMERICAN ANTI-SEMITISM

The other day I had lunch with a close friend, one who served in the armed services of the United States with distinction. The subject of Israel's blockade of Gaza came up.

I was astounded at my friend's ignorance of history. He said words to the effect that if Britain and the United States hadn't divided up the middle east and helped Jews steal the land that is now Israel from the Palestinians, none of the trouble we see today would be occurring. Then he echoed the MSM (Main Stream Media) line that Israel's enforcement of the blockade had been 'botched' and probably criminal.

He is a frequent listener to PBS, the government-owned and run propaganda radio network.

In thinking about this later, I came to the conclusion that he lacks knowledge, and isn't truly an anti-Semite. I know him to be a man of good will and soft-hearted. He's just ignorant and too lazy to do a little research on the actual history of the situation there. Then I went on to extrapolate that his functional anti-Semitism mirrors much of American thinking, or rather lack of it. Much of what passes for thinking and knowledge in the United States is little more than spouting the latest buzz phrases delivered by the MSM.

So yes, I place a lot of blame on the MSM for the message: Jews are wrong. Never mind that they're trying to prevent re-arming of Hamas, the elected government of Gaza and officially a terrorist organization. Never mind that any time Gaza gets an uninspected shipment of 'humanitarian relief' supplies, a barrage of rocket attacks on Israel ensue.

The MSM is the collective lapdog of the Obama regime. Barack Hussein Obama is an anti-semite, both in words and in actions. Other than Jimmy Carter, he is the only president in recent history to be so obviously an enemy of the Jewish State. So it's no surprise that the MSM, lapdog that it is, spouts Obama anti-semitic propaganda and simply refuses to provide their listeners with the truth about the blockade. So it's no wonder that their historically illiterate and intellectually lazy American audience thinks poorly of Israel for the 'botched' blockade enforcement.

What should Israel have done? Their 'botched' enforcement wound up costing the blockade runners nine lives and deportation. The blockade held. Very humanitarian, among the annals of historical blockade enforcements. And it accomplished its mission.

Your Ostrich Killer, being simpler-minded and less interested in keeping my enemies alive, would have simply sunk the ships who refused to comply with their order to either go into port for the usual (yes, usual) cargo inspections prior to transshipment to Gaza, or to leave those waters. A blockade is a systematic act of war, legitimate and time-honored, but is only useful if the imposing country is willing to enforce it. In short, a blockade is not a blockade if it isn't enforced. Gaza has fired over 4,000 rockets into Israel. I'd say that constitutes a state of war, wouldn't you? Plenty of reason to blockade them.

So I am with the Israelis on this matter. They have the absolute right to self-defense. And I'm talking about forward, active, pre-emptive defense of the sort we, as Americans, would use in their place if we received a constant rain of rockets from across any of our borders. However, apparently the rest of the world thinks their mere existence is an affront to peace and thus should suffer this endless barrage in silence and passively. I am ashamed of my current government's position on this and other matters concerning the state of Israel. And I shake in my boots at the awful prospects for that region as long as Barack Hussein Obama is in power. How long can it be before the states hostile to Israel detect - or think they detect - a Barack Hussein Obama green light to attack Israel? If they do, this time it's likely millions will die. And those deaths will be directly attributable to Barack Hussein Obama.

He needs to go. Thank God he appears to have committed an impeachable offense in trying to bribe people with white house jobs.

My hat is off to Benjamin Netanyahu for his standing up for his country, against pretty much the rest of the world. I'm with you, buddy. And I'm not alone. God be with you and your countrymen.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR CIVIC DUTY - A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Let's begin this by presuming that the drafters of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution to make sure that the citizenry would have the means to keep the federal government honest and defend our national security. Here's what they said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Put another way, our Founding Fathers intended that our citizens be able to defend our freedom by force of arms, if necessary. We can reasonably presume this was their intent by simply looking at the history of the times leading up to that Constitution - they'd just been through a terrible shooting war to overthrow a tyrannical government. That war is called the Revolutionary War, and it resulted in the founding of a new country, the United States of America. Without an armed citizenry at that time, that war could not have been fought. There would be no United States of America. So, extrapolating, it's perfectly logical to conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to preserve that same capability for the citizenry of the new country. They meant to preserve an armed citizenry.

But back to our thought experiment: when does it become a civic duty to pick up that musket?

Our Founding Fathers gave us the legal, Constitutional means to do that if necessary, to preserve our freedoms. Freedoms won with blood, sustained with more blood, and promising to cost yet more blood. Does that imply an ugly duty, if necessary? After all, it is the right to keep and bear - emphasis on 'bear' - arms that makes all other rights possible.

Some would tell us that under no circumstances should anyone pick up a musket and join like-thinkers to protect our freedoms from the enemy, be they from abroad or from within. To them your Ostrich Killer says that a citizenry that under no circumstances will pick up their muskets to protect our national sovereignty or our Constitution is one that has already agreed to be ruled, that is tamed and subdued. They would be right at home in North Korea.

Your Ostrich Killer is not sure we're at that point yet, as a citizenry, but wonders what catalyst - or final straw, if you will - would trigger a little house cleaning? It would have to be something massive, obviously, but the possibility has to exist if our employees in Washington are to be kept honest. So is it a civic duty to actually bear those arms, then? That's the question that this thought experiment raises.

Or is your Ostrich Killer missing something here? If you think so, drop me a note and let me know the error of my thinking.

Now, another cup of coffee . . .

A NUCLEAR HOMICIDE BOMBING SCENARIO

We're all far too familiar with the near daily reports of homicide bombings, those murderous attacks on non-military and non-political people and targets. In those attacks the murderer commits his / her heinous crime with the full knowledge that they will be instantly destroyed.

People like that are either captured or killed before they carry out their planned crimes, or they succeed. If the 'civilized' world knows of such an impending event, they arrest or kill the perps. Either is an appropriate action.

But what happens when an entire nation develops that homicide bomber mentality? A nation that so hates another nation or group that they are perfectly willing to be destroyed just so the history of the world will note that they struck a blow for their cause?

You're the leader of the free world. You know of such countries. You, my faithful readers, can all name more than one like that. So what do you do? You can't arrest them. Will you legitimately kill them by striking pre-emptively? Or will you wait for them to strike their blow first, suffer untold millions of deaths, before you do the 'civilized' thing - retaliate?

But wait! Don't call yet! There is a complication! Our current poser, Barack Hussein Obama, has all but announced to the world that he will not use nukes. I guess, should we be attacked, our retaliation will be his superior intellect, good intentions and vast hordes of briefcase-wielding lawyers - assuming he survives. But what message do you think those homicidal nations will take from his 'no nukes' position? Remember, these are nations whose leadership cares nothing for who might be in charge of 'civilized' nations. It is enough that 'civilized' nations exist, for them to be the targets of their hatred.

Your ostrich killer has the answer, as do many millions like myself. It isn't a pretty one, since deterrence of the classical sort (big stick) won't work. But sometimes survival depends on beheading the snake before it bites.

National security, then, would seem to have at least two distinct components: deterrence of rational nations via 'big stick,' and neutralization of nations that can't be deterred by any way other than depriving them of means to carry out such an attack. Neutralization means simply making them harmless. There are obviously many ways to do that, all of them difficult and distasteful. But make no mistake - failure to do so will result in millions of American deaths, because we are the Great Satan, or whatever odious name other irrational countries call us.

I don't see any tangible proof that 'civilized' attempts at neutralization anywhere in the world are paying off. Do you? Doesn't that beg the question 'Okay, so what else can we do?'