The Conservative Beacon

Uniting the Conservative Movement

The Conservative Beacon Has Moved

Posted by Joshua Price on May 28, 2008

Yes, it’s true. We’ve finally launched the new site we’ve been promising.

 

The Conservative Beacon

New content is up and we hope that the new site is more visual appealing and offers some things that we couldn’t do on this site. More features will be added in the coming months.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Michael Scheuer on Marching Toward Hell, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Other Topics

Posted by Joshua Price on May 16, 2008

Below is our interview with the former head of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA, Michael Scheuer.

This is Mr. Scheuer’s second visit to The Conservative Beacon. He’s here to discuss his new book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. We also discuss America’s situation with Iran, our so-called ally Saudi Arabia, and other foreign policy issues. Mr. Scheuer also talks in-depth about his take on America’s relationship with Israel.

Finally, we are very excited to announce that Mr.Scheuer has agreed to contribute periodically to The Conservative Beacon. Mr. Scheuer’s knowledge and experience will be an invaluable and educational addition to The Conservative Beacon.

Michael Scheuer on Marching Toward Hell

Posted in Interviews, Iran, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Dangerous Word Games

Posted by Joshua Price on April 25, 2008

Terrorism expert Steve Emerson, who we’ve had on The Conservative Beacon a couple of times, has written about the change in the verbiage used to described the War on Terror that we posted about earlier today.

Here’s the link to Emerson’s Dangerous Word Games.

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in War on Terror | 1 Comment »

U.S. Ship Fires at Iranian Boats

Posted by Joshua Price on April 25, 2008

Well it’s about time we take some aggressive action that sends a message to Iran. Unfortunately it took a civilian ship contracted by the U.S. Navy to send the message.

Here’s an excerpt from Fox News:

A vessel contracted by the Navy in the Persian Gulf fired warning shots Thursday on two fast boats believed to be of Iranian origin.

 

n a story first reported by FOX News, Navy officials said the Westward Venture fired upon two boats about 50 miles off the coast of Iran.

 

U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Cmdr. Lydia Robertson said the boats were of unknown origin, but other Navy officials told FOX News that the markings of the boats and their behavior led them to believe they were Iranian and typical of those used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

As you may recall this isn’t the first time this has happened. A couple of months ago a similar situation occurred where a U.S. Naval Ship was harassed by two Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) boats, but no shots–warning or otherwise–were fired.

What’s interesting in this story to me, other than the fact this shows a pattern of harassment by Iran, is that it took a Navy contracted civilian ship to actually fire warning shots.

Why didn’t the Naval vessel fire shots in the incident a couple of months ago? I don’t blame the men and women aboard the Naval ships. Why? Because they are simply following the policies developed to prevent offending anyone by the top brass.

They men and women aboard our ships are so afraid to fire on a potential enemy because they fear being charged with some sort of offense by our own government!

I applaud the civilian ship for sending a message to the Iranians: if you keep dogging and harassing U.S. Naval or civilian ships, we will fire and eventually destroy the IRG boats.

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Iran, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Orwellian Approach to Terrorism

Posted by Joshua Price on April 25, 2008

It looks like we have an updated version of the terrorism section of our Newspeak, er, political correctness lexicon.

Check these two separate stories out:

From Yahoo!:

Some do’s and don’t’s from the National Counterterrorism Center:

  • Don’t use the term “jihadist,” which has broader religious meanings beyond war, or “mujahedeen,” which refers to holy warriors.
  • Do say “violent extremist” or “terrorist.”
  • Don’t use the term “al-Qaidamovement,” because this makes al-Qaida seem like a legitimate political movement.
  • Don’t use “Islamo-fascism” and other terms that could cause religious offense.
  • Do use the term “totalitarian.”
  • Don’t label groups simply as “Muslim.”
  • Do use descriptive terms to define how a group fits into society. For example: South Asian youth and Arab opinion leaders.
  • Don’t use “caliphate” when explaining al-Qaida’s goals, as this has positive implications.
  • Don’t use “salafi,” “Wahhabist,” “sufi,” “ummah” and other words from Islamic theology unless you are able to discuss their varied meanings. Particularly avoid using “ummah” to mean the Muslim world, as it is a theological term.

So now we’re being told what we can and can’t call the enemy. Did you happen to notice where this directive originated?

The National Counterterrorism Center.

This is why we aren’t winning the War on Terror. We’re afraid to unequivocally define who the enemy is.

It’s Islamofascism. Oh wait, according to the NCC Islamofascism is offensive.

Guess what? I don’t care if I offend the enemy!

That’s the whole problem: the government wants us to be concerned and aware of the sensitivity of our enemy.

This story is bad enough, seeing as how this is coming from the NCC, but it’s not the only story about trying to censor certain language used to describe the enemy.

Michael Savage posted something he received from a journalist friend regarding Orwellian Journalism about a month ago and it really goes with the story above.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

On Oct. 6 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to:
  • Use language that is informative and not inflammatory
  • Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences
  • Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.

What are the “complexities” of the 9/11 attacks? It’s really quite simple: 19 Islamofascists hijacked planes, flew them into targets, and killed thousands of innocent people.

I guess they want us to understand the Islamofascists’ desire to attack innocent people, both Muslims and non-Muslims.

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it, but nobody cares. Nobody cares that they’re are people in the American so-called media trying to veil and sweet-sell the enemy’s message.

Nobody cares that our very own National Counterterrorism Center is seemingly afraid to offend our enemies.

How would this have gone over during World War II? Would FDR and Churchill got together and said, “You know what? We better not call Hitler’s Germany fascist. Fascist just sounds too harsh and unpleasant. It might offend the Nazis. Even though it’s an accurate description, we don’t want to offend anyone.”

If that had been the case, we’d be speaking German right now. Actually, we might not even exist.
But hey, that’s history, and after all, the lessons of history don’t apply to the present or future. Just ask our public education system.

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in War on Terror | Leave a Comment »