Home Mission About Us Links Activism

9/11 Special

by The Patriot Post


11 September 2006    |    PatriotPost.US    |    Patriot Vol. 06 No. 37


“Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their arts may be more dangerous then their arms. Let us then renounce all treaty with them upon any score but that of total separation, and under God trust our cause to our swords.” —Samuel Adams


Today we mark the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001, when 2,996 innocents, mostly American citizens, lost their lives in the murderous attacks of Islamic fascists against our country. In keeping with the presidential proclamation designating September 11, 2006, as Patriot Day, all flags should be flown at half staff in memory of those who lost their lives five years ago. We invite you to join us as we offer our prayers for the families of those lost and for our Armed Forces now serving on the front lines of the war that began that day.

As you remember September 11th, we invite you to visit The Patriot’s new resource to commemorate the attacks on our countrymen, “Day of Terror: A September 11 Retrospective”. Now, as we move forward and continue to engage our jihadist foe in battle fronts around the globe, let us never forget why we fight.


“Rome fell September 4, 476AD. It was overrun with illegal immigrants: Visigoths, Franks, Anglos, Saxons, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Lombards, Jutes and Vandals, who at first assimilated and worked as servants, but then came so fast they did not learn the Latin Language or the Roman form of government. Highly trained Roman Legions moving rapidly on their advanced road system, were strained fighting conflicts worldwide. Rome had a trade deficit, having outsourced most of its grain production to North Africa, and when Vandals captured that area, Rome did not have the resources to retaliate. Attila the Hun was committing terrorist attacks. The city of Rome was on welfare with citizens being given free bread. One Roman commented: ‘Those who live at the expense of the public funds are more numerous than those who provide them.’ Tax collectors were ‘more terrible than the enemy.’ Gladiators provided violent entertainment in the Coliseum. There was injustice in courts, exposure of unwanted infants, infidelity, immorality and perverted bathhouses. 5th-Century historian Salvian wrote: ‘O Roman people be ashamed... Let nobody think otherwise, the vices of our bad lives have alone conquered us’.” —William Federer


“Consider and hear me, O LORD my God; Enlighten my eyes, Lest I sleep the sleep of death; Lest my enemy say, ‘I have prevailed against him’; Lest those who trouble me rejoice when I am moved. But I have trusted in Your mercy; My heart shall rejoice in Your salvation.” —King David


“The five-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has produced a peculiar concern—whether rescuers used proper language in the midst of mind-numbing horror and chaos. Apparently, firefighters were prompted to use profanity, a fact that some Americans now find too offensive for prime time... Usually, I’m in favor of strict enforcement of decency standards... However, there’s a clear difference between gratuitous profanity contrived by unimaginative writers and the spontaneous language of real-life horror... Can anyone really imagine seeing what those firefighters saw—first one plane, then another—and saying, ‘Goodness gracious, what rare deed is this?’ When ‘What the—-’ more accurately captures the moment? Here’s a new word to teach the kiddies: verisimilitude. That is, depicting realism, or having the appearance of truth. In real life, people seeing others plunge 100 stories are going to say things they wouldn’t customarily say... [In] Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3... the Bible instructs that to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose. ‘A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.’ Had the chapter been written in today’s post-9/11 world, its author might have considered an amendment: ‘a time to watch one’s words, and a time to cuss like a first responder at Ground Zero, Sept. 11, 2001, New York, New York.” —Kathleen Parker


“[B]eing vague about the enemy and non-judgmental about evil is not what we should be five years after Sept. 11. This brings us to the one small bright spot to mark off the anniversary week of Sept. 11—an anniversary blackened by the decision to allow Mohammed Khatami, former president of Iran, the pre-eminent state sponsor of terrorism, into the United States. Khatami, who supports Hezbollah and the destruction of Israel, will be speaking on the eve of Sept. 11 at Harvard on—get this—’Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence.’ Bring your own airsickness bag. But here’s that bright spot: Denouncing the Khatami visit, GOP Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts ordered state agencies to refuse to provide assistance during the Khatami visit—which means no pomp and motorcade for the Iranian stooge. As Romney put it, ‘State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel.’ How simple, how true. Five years later, somebody gets it.” —Diana West


“We’re engaged in a global struggle against the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom and crushes all dissent, and has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims... And against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory... We will defeat the terrorists and their hateful ideology by spreading the hope of freedom across the world... The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations.” —President George W. Bush


“For too long, the world was paralyzed by the argument that terrorism could not be stopped until the grievances of terrorists were addressed. The complicated and heartrending issues that perplex mankind are no excuse for violent, inhumane attacks, nor do they excuse not taking aggressive action against those who deliberately slaughter innocent people... Effective antiterrorist action has also been thwarted by the claim that... ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ That’s a catchy phrase, but also misleading. Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people... [O]ne has to be blind, ignorant, or simply unwilling to see the truth if he or she is unable to distinguish between those I just described and terrorists. Terrorists intentionally kill or maim unarmed civilians, often women and children, often third parties who are not in any way part of a dictatorial regime. Terrorists are always the enemies of democracy.” —Ronald Reagan


“All those critics who say we should change our foreign policies because we are causing the Islamists to attack us are—whether they use the term or not—arguing to appease aggressors by changing ourselves in conformity with the aggressor’s desires. The politically correct crowd who say we should change the way we talk, think and behave, change our surveillance of Muslims, even here in America, because it offends Islamist sensibilities—wish to gain safety by appeasing the violent and offended Islamists. These arguments are not immoral or cowardly. If we could vouchsafe America from the danger of nuclear, biological and other mass slaughters of millions of our citizens, it would be reckless not to carefully consider such appeasements. This is an issue of threat assessment. The appeasers don’t see the threat as so great. Thus they think we are overreacting and even adding to the problem... A maximum effort to extirpate the malignancy is the only and best defense for our way of life. I’m not against the appeasers because they are immoral or cowardly. I merely disagree with them because I believe that, like Neville Chamberlain, they underestimate the threat, and are thus dangerously wrong.” —Tony Blankley


“Noting that ‘for the sake of our security, Congress needs to act,’ [President] Bush proffered legislation to protect CIA and U.S. military interrogators from legal retribution and provide for congressionally approved military tribunals to try terror suspects. And therein is the answer to the question ‘will we ever be safe again?’ It all depends. It depends on whether this Congress votes to allow some of the most vicious people on the planet to be tried by military tribunals. It depends on whether the Congress we elect in November is willing to finish what was started in Iraq. It depends on NATO’s resolve in Afghanistan. It depends on whether we stand up to Iranian nuclear blackmail. It depends on whether reasonable Muslims are willing to face down the Islamo-fascists. Is all that too much to expect? It all depends.” —Oliver North


“[L]iberals can never abandon the idea that we must soothe savage beasts with appeasement—whether they’re dealing with murderers like Willie Horton or Islamic terrorists. Then the beast eats you. There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like ‘diplomacy,’ ‘detente,’ ‘engagement,’ ‘multilateral engagement,’ ‘multilateral diplomacy,’ ‘containment’ and ‘going to the U.N.’ I guess they figure, ‘Hey, appeasement worked pretty well with... uh... wait, I know this one... ummm... tip of my tongue...’ Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance—but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can’t imagine what that war would be.” —Ann Coulter


“On Monday, congressional Democrats and Republicans will stand together on the front steps of the United States Capitol to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the September 11th attacks on America. As they did five years ago, lawmakers will temporarily set aside partisanship to collectively acknowledge the gravity of the day. Unlike five years ago, though, the bipartisanship of the moment will be short lived. The solemn occasion has the unfortunate distinction of falling smack in the middle of the run up to this fall’s congressional elections—when Democrats hope to win back at least one, if not both, Houses of Congress. With poll after poll buttressing their hopes for victory, Democrats want to keep the pressure on. As a result, every Democratic action taken in Congress over the remaining legislative days will be carefully crafted to ensure maximum political advantage. Bipartisanship, solemnity, resolve, steadfastness and a commitment to defeat an enemy bent on our destruction—the same enemy who attacked us five years ago—are tired notions that seemingly have no place in the liberal campaign to retake Congress.” —Tim Chapman


“And now, let us say a few good words for warfare and violence. Those whose mantra is violence-never-solved-anything, are dogma-blinded, historical illiterates who would lead us down the soft path to national suicide. Without warfare and violence, we would have no country. America was born on the battlefield. (George III would never have let us go without a fight.) The Declaration of Independence was noble words penned on paper. It was the sword that gave them a reality. In this instance, the perpetrators of revolutionary violence included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington—men of learning and ability all... Without warfare and violence in 1939-1945, today, half the world would be singing ‘Deutschland uber Alles,’ while the other half bowed to the honorable emperor of Japan. And without warfare and violence during the Cold War, the world would have been swallowed up by a monstrous ideology responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th century... [M]en with guns suffered and died to preserve and protect a republic where human rights are enshrined. Today, the choice is warfare and violence or total submission to Islamofascism—the annihilation of the Jewish people, the subjugation of women, dhimmi status for those infidels still alive and a world governed by a barbaric desert ethos.” —Don Feder


(Our servers automatically delete “Reply” messages to this e-mail. To submit comments for publication or to view reader comments, link to http://PatriotPost.US/comments.asp Join the debate at the Patriot Blog.)

“I’ve just finished reviewing your Commemoration of 9/11. Looking at the photographs was heart-wrenching and they brought me to tears but as you stated in your 6-36 Digest, it is important to remember that day and why we fight.” —Clifton, Colorado

“In 1956, I joined the U.S. Navy, and in the course of things, had an opportunity to visit the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor in 1972 (on my way to two combat tours in Vietnam), where oil still seeps from the sunken battleship. I was overwhelmed, and wept as I stood there, realizing that almost 1500 fellow sailors died on this single ship in that terrible sneak attack on a balmy Sunday morning in 1941. In the totality of the then-current situation, I wondered if I would ever live long enough to see the end of the Cold War—I thought mushroom clouds were possible anytime. Fast forward: 9/11/01... Again, I weep, and now, in WWIII, five years hence...I feel no patience for the appeasers and the ignorant. I cannot comprehend what prevents so many from realizing the enormity of our position, and the necessity for complete unanimity of purpose...” —Sioux Falls, South Dakota

“During the Brooklyn Dodger games whenever Jackie Robinson was on third base they would show a split screen of the pitcher on the right and Robinson on the left. There was a good chance Robinson would try to steal home. How about for Sept. 11 having a split screen of the people jumping out of the towers on one side and the prisoners with panties on their heads on the other side.” —Cheyenne, Wyoming

“Friday’s Patriot Post essay Why we fight noted that the 9/11 attack occurred only eight months into the Bush administration’s first term, after eight years of Clinton’s appeasement. Most newly elected administration’s have between election day and swearing in to establish their footing in order to ‘hit the ground running’ on January 20. Due to Albert Gore’s ‘stolen election’ histrionics, even the incoming Bush administration’s preparation time was hamstrung. Thank you for The Patriot’s clear vision and steadfast commitment to the truth.” —Los Angeles, California

“Isn’t it ludicrous that a person who had so little respect for the truth when he was in office, is now protesting to have ABC edit its [‘Path to 9/11’] documentary because he says it contains some inaccuracies?” —Montoursville, Pennsylvania

“Thank you for using the totally correct label ’traitors’ when referring to the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al. Until we get our collective rhetoric properly focused—as you have done—we’ll continue to minimize the barbarity of the threat facing us. Keep on calling a spade a spade. The best reason of all for the US to complete its mission in Iraq is to establish a ‘nuclear DMZ’ between Iran and its allies in the Muslim jihad.”—New York, New York  


“By now, you’ve no doubt read all about the ABC Mini-Series ‘The Path to 9/11’... This no holds barred look at mistakes that were made in both the Clinton and Bush administrations will criticize decisions made and the decision makers in the run up to September 11... Every insider that I spoke to who has seen it has referenced it, ‘amazing, historical, and important.’ Others have called it an ‘even-handed critique.’... But then came word that Bill Clinton, and four of his top staffers, objected to the way they were portrayed. But they didn’t just object. They belly-ached, they threatened, and in the end they were able to force ABC television to cave on some material that took a critical look at their role in the years between 1993-2000... The Clinton staffers who squealed like pigs over the ABC series do so for the same reason they did most things when they were in power. The central focus of the Clinton years was not, ‘what is best for the nation.’ It was always, ‘what is best for the Clintons and the people they liked.’... But in reigniting this debate over the image of liberals in America, they have exposed themselves as something worse. Not only are they unable to deal with criticism—something that all leaders must do in order to be effective leaders—but they are a true danger to America.”—Kevin McCullough

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.)

click here for printer friendly version email this page