A terrorist attack in Boulder. A man, an illegal immigrant from Egypt, attacked participants of a weekly demonstration held in support of Israeli hostages. The man apparently used what was described as a “makeshift flamethrower” to injure six, two critically. He could be heard yelling “Free Palestine” during the attack.
I wrote two weeks ago about the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers on a DC street. Last month, somebody set fire to the official residence of the Pennsylvania governor, causing the emergency evacuation of Governor Shapiro and his family.
“Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”
As I wrote two weeks ago after the public murder of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in DC:
Rodriguez also struck at the official presence of Israel in the United States, a country founded specifically to protect Jews after millennia of persecution. Israeli embassies have been the targets in other countries for just this reason, they are the global public symbols of a hated state.
Now even in DC, Israeli Embassy staffers will have to live in fear of going out in public.
Because of this attack, the public presence of Jewish life in America will be lessened and what remains will have to be fortified.
The securing of synagogues, facilities, buildings is one thing and is something that has been occurring since 10/7; I have come across various synagogues across the country with a visible police presence in the form of police car parked out front.
You can even fortify events, such as the demonstration yesterday in Boulder, but that is costly. Not just in terms of money but terms of energy. It is psychologically and emotionally draining to participate in an event where there is a real fear of attack. There will be those who will participate no matter the danger, and there can be a high degree of initial participation by many other people as a show of defiance, but the long-term effect will be the same in that participation will be affected.
We are approaching an inflection point, where parts of our world will become one thing or the other, but they cannot remain the same.
On college campuses there are actions directed at Jewish institutions such as Hillel and meetings such as Shabbat dinners. A survey last year found that nearly half of college students rarely felt safe identifying as Jewish on campus and 80% avoid certain situations and events.
Murders on streets. Public events attacked seemingly at random. People afraid to participate in campus life.
As of tonight the Boulder police department is resisting calling the attack a terrorist incident. Of course they are because that is who they are. The thing about terrorism is that it is not about the particular action, but rather the effect the event has going forward which is critical. That effect is going to be the withdrawal of a Jewish presence from public spaces.
Maybe if Elias Rodriguez, this creep in Boulder, and the mob who banged on the windows of a Hillel at Ohio State while people inside were eating Shabbat dinner, were dressed in a certain way, people would get the hint. Maybe if they were dressed in white robes and hoods, like the KKK, the Left would be interested.
These people who kill and intimidate, these thugs, are having the time of their lives right now, and as I said yesterday in a different context, they are enabling a larger, adjacent population. The good news is that Trump has taken the initiative with campuses, and DHS has not been shy about calling out the incident in Boulder as a terrorist incident, but it will take more.
To my Jewish friends out there, a reminder. The social contract theory of government on which the Republic was founded nearly 250 years ago states that government exists only to secure our natural rights. We do not cede them to the government and a government that refuses to protect those rights loses its legitimacy. As the Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
Our public debate regarding the right of the individual citizen to bear arms focuses on the language of the Second Amendment and the militia clause. That is wrong. As Lincoln said, the Constitution is merely the frame of silver for the apple of gold, that being the Declaration. The ability to arm yourself in order to protect your rights, whether from a predatory government or an antisemitic thug, is a natural right.
While I have lived in many states, I remain loyal to my native state of Arizona where they still treat people like Americans in terms of open carry laws. People like Elias Rodriguez and this creep yesterday may be fanatics, but they are cowards and they aren’t going to attack those who are visibly armed.
No matter what the law says, you have the right not only as an American but as a human being to arm yourself in a way that protects those natural rights that exist in the Declaration of Independence. Prudence matters, of course, and Lincoln would agree. But Boulder or Maryland (you hear me, Wes Moore?) or any other blue jurisdiction has no right to deny you.
It appears that Boulder, CO bans open carry. I doubt that this attack would have happened in the presence of visibly armed citizens.
What say you?
“What say you?” I say the natural rights doctrine is rubbish. What Jefferson meant, but obviously couldn’t say, was that he wanted the population to enjoy their traditional British rights, whether those rights were a matter of law or of custom, real or imagined.
Just as I think the US Constitution worthy of the greatest respect I find the Declaration an exercise in preachy hypocrisy, an obvious model for that nice Mr Alinsky. Though I do admit to grinning at the racist/creedist attack on the French Canadians. What about their “natural rights”, eh?
” I doubt that attack would have happened in the presence of visibly armed citizens.”
Possible, but unless those “visibly armed citizens” are very visibly assigned to the task of protecting the group and armed to do so, probably not. Average Joe and Jane with a 38 on their hip won’t do it, because:
1) if they’re involved in the event they’re not focused outward – or trained on – identifying threats;
1b) so their reaction time to threats will be verrrry sloooow. As in “way too late.”
2) they’re very probably short on training (and practice) to be effective – and competent – in armed group defense, because
2b) a Molotov cocktail can be thrown from sufficient distance to be beyond the reliable hit distance of most handgun carriers, so it’s at least possible, more likely probable, that future attacks will not be at “knife fight distance.”
The people committing these terrorist attacks are not “normal” in the sense we regard “normal,” they’re motivated – highly motivated – by the emotionalism of their “cause.” Something that deters “normals” won’t deter them because they’re committed to a holy mission.
Several people carrying AR-15s on Vickers slings, focused outward from the group and visibly “switched on” could be a deterrent. Maybe. So might several “switched on” people focused outward but not displaying arms. I’ll predict that armed security of some sort (to include, maybe, uniformed police, depending on the politics of the jurisdiction) will become the norm for similar group assemblies*, and the average Joe and Jane Citizens who are out in public should give it some hard thought as well, to protect yourselves, not to protect others – Tommy Terrorist won’t care if you and your kids become victims as well (the more the better, actually) and it’s good to have additonal options beyond panicked screaming and confused running away; consider two or three attackers with Molotov cocktails, one of who may block your chosen escape route.
*Which will lead to better planning on the part of the terrorists and more complex attacks. To include participants walking to and from their parked cars. Escalation never stops and any level of injury will be regarded by them as a ‘win.” Groups (and the individuals in them) that are favorite targets of The Committed Crazies wil need to incorporate the full gamut of security – planning, staffing, execution – into their activities; America is entering the “Red Guard” phase of social interaction.
before they scrubbed the suspects profile, a few detaisl did come through, he is al Alzhar graduate, a seat of Salafism going back to the era of Hassan Al Banna, the Times makes him a Colorado man, in a simiilar way to Qutb, the midlevel educator who was reputedly radicalized by his experience in nearby Greeley, he worked in a Health Care company
Any person living in this country in a state which has either a “shall-issue” or Constitutional-carry law should be carrying a firearm wherever it is legal. If you’re not living in such a state, MOVE.
I have been legally carrying for decades, ever since we got the shall-issue law passed (miraculously) back in the Soviet Socialist State of Minnesota. Now living as a retiree in the much more free state of Wyoming I’m not required to have a permit to carry but got one anyway, mostly for travel. Since MN refuses to recognize the WY permit, I’ll never go back to my former home state.
I must disagree with the concept of open-carry, except for designated security guards. It is (in my limited experience with lunatics) much better that they NOT know who is armed and who is not…and if everyone who can carry DOES, then their odds of survival past their first few victims drops to very close to zero.
If you’re a Jew in this country and you’re not armed (or if you vote for the maniacs and Dem-wingers who have openly stated that they want you DEAD) then you’re a frickin’ moron.
The inevitable backlash to the rise of Jew-hatred in this country will probably not come from Jews. In other words, even if Jews arm themselves, any use of force will be defensive (and decried, of course, by the usual suspects).
On the other hand, there is a group who knows who is doing the persecuting of Jews, and is very tired of it being tolerated. It’s everyone else. That group includes quite a few veterans, who spent quite a few years fighting in shitholes around the world with the express purpose of keeping that activity away from America.
That crazy day is coming. You can feel it. There is going to be a parade or demonstration that becomes too much for the cohort of “everyone else” to take. The defense of Jews will be beside the point. Hatred of those who have been persecuting them will be the driver.
When that happens, allies of the victims and the media who have been excusing them will cry out about the injustice committed. They will not find much sympathy.
in the near by burg of orlando coming up on nine years,t here was that terrorist attack, on that nightclub, by an Islamic state ansar, whose father was an FBI asset, he was a known wolf with various and sundry ties, including a guest imam, that recommended the best type of stone to use against infidels, they attribute it to ‘hate’ heaven forbid the theological basis to be raised,
Re: Security of facilities and demonstrations
I will skip a discussion for now of natural rights vs. positive rights re: the possession of firearms for personal use and in order to touch on some excellent points raised in the comments.
First is that there are multiple goals of a security arrangement which is to both secure an event or location and to enable the location and event to functions in terms of its intent. There are elements of a tradeoff between the two; I can provide great security but it doesn’t do a lot of good if that prohibits something close to normal operation.
Second, security operates at several levels. There are both visible and concealed elements. I will take a simple example of the White House. The area around it is visibly fortified with various elements with hydraulic vehicle barricades, closing down surrounding streets to all but official traffic, and with some of the outlying buildings in the area large concrete blocks (usually in the form of planters) that prevent a vehicle from being adjacent to the given structure, and of course uniformed Secret Service personnel.
There is the concealed element. Not only of people within the White House and the immediate security perimeter around the campus of sensors and snipers, but a secondary, larger perimeter of sensors and surveillance over the surrounding urban area.
Third there are different threat profiles and a security plan manages those profiles. Whatever we may think of TSA, certainly the pre-9/11 airport security was inadequate to prevent a determined and creative assault. The visible post-9/11 security arrangement, as many have pointed out, has become a form of theater but it does manage the threat profile by both screening out the less determined/organized and serving as a tripwire.
A few years ago I was down by the White House (as a tourist) and inspected the visible security arrangements. Even the decorative fence surrounding the WH, by which many tourists take selfies, has a purpose by both deterring and then delaying any attempt to enter the grounds. Back in November 2023 during the large pro-Palestinian demonstration in DC, part of the protest involved a large group circling the perimeter and after a short time a small number tried to climb the fence. Anybody who got onto the ground would have tripped the next, more concealed layer but the fence served the purpose of managing the threat profile because I bet a lot more of those protesters would like to have come onto the grounds closer to the WH.
Contrast and compare to 2020 when there was a large demonstration in Lafayette Square immediately to the north of the WH, It had both a relatively large number involved and they had shown a propensity for violence by committing arson, Trump was taken to a secure location in the WH because the threat profile had changed because rather than a few protesters climbing fences you had a large, violent, and possibly very determined mob.
A more determined, professional attack of course touches the far reaches of the security perimeter which involves agencies integrated into the security plan such as the FBI and NSA to detect, observe, and infiltrate nationally and internationally.
I should also note that there are two other factors in play. First is that any WH security plan must ensure a public display of confidence, you could have a more secure perimeter around the campus than that decorative fence but what does turning one of the most recognizable symbols of American power into a visible armed fortress communicate as an image? Second there may be plenty of people of groups who want to take a piece out of the WH, but there are fewer who have the theoretical capabilities to pull it off and even fewer who have the political sophistication to answer the necessary question after an attack (which has to be successful) of “and then what?”
My comments before about securing a Jewish public life in America was in the context of local issues in the aftermath of the street murders in DC and the attack in Boulder. An attempt to attack say the Israeli Embassy or a large demonstration such as the pro-Israel demo in November 2023 are of adifferent category entirely because those would require both a higher degree of professional and political sophistication than what we have seen over the past month.
That in of itself manages the threat profile facing the next street demonstration in a place like Boulder or say the safety of a synagogue. While such efforts are not directly integrated into a larger security arrangement like say the WH is, they don’t have to because they are not the type of targets on which a more professional and sophisticated group would attack. So that lower profile is in fact the first line of defense in our scenario.
The second line of defense is to create a visible deterrent to ward off anything but the most determined attack. A good recent example of this was the case of Nicholas Roske, the prospective assassin of Brett Kavanaugh, who should up at the Justice’s house only to be deterred by armed police present. A deterrent in these case acts much like the rattle on a rattlesnake, it says “go away” not “come and try to take it.” A while back I mentioned here an encounter with someone who provides security for church during Sunday services. Was he visibly armed? Open carrying? Not realistically possible where he lived. However merely showing a visible, determined security presence further manages the threat profile because someone now has the assigned responsibility for providing security. Somebody is in charge.
I haven’t seen an analysis of the march in Boulder but my guess is that the attacker, given the way he was armed, benefited from the confusion stemming from the fact that nobody was assigned to provide security and therefore nobody knew what to do. That has been the case in a number of mass shooting situations, such as in a Buffalo supermarket a few years ago where the attacker benefited from a lack of response plan. Contrast that with the 2023 massacre at the Covenant School in Nashville; while the school did not have a visible security profile, it did have an action plan of securing children and employees and a determined police force that acted quickly (this was after Uvalde) which lessened the loss of life – witness the images of the shooter walking the hallways with no one to shoot with her time running out as the police was on its way
The next level up in security profile would be visibly armed people which both creates a more evident deterrence and complicates the tactical problems facing the attacker. Once again the goal is deterrence not winning a gun battle. The problem with concealed carry is that no one knows (or is quite sure) you are carrying, open carry removes all doubt and multiple people open-carrying creates a very complex tactical problem to an attacker. That doesn’t mean concealed carry isn’t a good idea as it provides an element of uncertainty but it shouldn’t be in the primary operations plan.
There has always been an implicit danger to Jewish life outside of Israel, but until now they have been restricted to either sophisticated operations such as the Hezbollah bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires or lower-level attacks by lone wolves in Europe. The danger from the DC murders and the Boulder attack was that these were attacks by well… random losers… on visible parts of Jewish life and represents a spillover of the hatred that was previously contained to college campuses.
We have seen from Europe what happens when such low-level, persistent antisemitic violence occurs and how it can undermine an entire way of life. We as of yet do not have the same level of Islamist, determined attacks we have in Europe, but rather bunch of amateurish losers who are having the time of their losers. Some properly determined Americans and perhaps as a last resort some resultant dead losers, the proverbial “whiff of the grape,” is what is needed to restore a proper equilibrium
First and foremost, the attacks at both the Holocaust Museum and in Boulder are a clear case of police failure. Both would likely have been either deterred or cut short by even a token police presence at events where some sort of disturbance was very predictable.
I can almost guaranty that both jurisdictions would have used any request for police as a pretext to shut them down, either through exorbitant fees for “service” or “lack of resources”. Putting free speech in the same category as a rock concert.
The deeper disease is the pandemic of lies about Israel. The Moslems are antisemitic.
The leftists hate Israel because they identify it with Evil White Colonialism. The alleged Palestinian victims are equated with American Indians, with blacks, with aboriginal Australians, etc.
The appetite for stories about atrocities by Evil White People is almost bottomless. For instance, in 2021 there was a big fooforaw in Canada about a mass grave for Indian children from a government boarding school in the 1930s to the 1960s. Protests, groveling apologies, and $billions for a “reconciliation commission” followed.
It was all a hoax, as it happens. When the “mass grave” ground signatures were actually excavated, no remains were found, only sewer lines.
The Arabs have been pushing (and the Left echoing) atrocity claims against Israel for decades. In 2002, Israel cleaned out terrorist bases in the Jenin “refugee camp”. There was of course considerable fighting with heavily armed terrorists, which the Arabs claimed was a massacre of civilians. Israel denied this claim which nonetheless was repeated by “respectable” news organizations around the world. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said “I don’t think the whole world, including the friends of Israel, can be wrong.”
But in fact there was no massacre, which was proven later on. The repeaters either ignored that or made perfunctory apologies.
More recently: the MSM reported a claim that 14,000 babies would starve to death within 48 because of Israeli controls on goods entering Gaza. The actual hour statement was that 14,000 babies would be in danger of malnutrition over the next year.
Just two days ago, the MSM reported – big headlines – that 31 Arabs had been killed by Israelis at a food distribution point. There is video showing nothing happened. Some of the MSM published corrections – in the back pages.
This constant barrage of inflammatory propaganda naturally leads to violent responses. Until it’s stopped, the mania will continue, But its roots are very deep.