In today’s column, I have to make a pretty embarrassing confession. It seems I may have told a little white lie to one of my liberal hate mailers – one that may have put him in a very difficult position. But, hopefully, the lie will be justified by the lesson it teaches Israel about the need for a disproportionate response to Hezbollah.
I first came into contact with the aforementioned hate mailer after he saw one of my speeches on national television. The man – I use that term loosely – was so upset that he threatened to drive all the way down from New York to “set me straight” for some of the perceived anti-liberal remarks I made during that speech.
After calling me a word that is quite derogatory towards women – and most often used by feminist professors – he decided to challenge me to a fistfight. Rather than waiting to hear my answer to the challenge, he went ahead and announced the date and time he would arrive at my office at UNC-Wilmington to “kick my (expletive).”
So, naturally, I wrote back to beg and plead with the man so he wouldn’t actually come to my office to fight me. Instead, I gave him directions to my house so I could fight him there.
And here’s where the little lie comes into play. Rather than giving the man my real home address, I gave him the address of a crack house I helped bust – it was about nine years ago - together with a friend in the vice and narcotics unit. I knew that the homeowner began dealing crack again – years after eighteen people were busted smoking it there - because I still have sources in the neighborhood.
I also know that the guys who live there hate white people like the guy who wanted to fight me. What I don’t know is exactly what went down when the poor white bastard knocked on the door of that crack house wanting to fight someone. I only know I never heard from him again.
The little lie I told that liberal honky was an illustration of my philosophy regarding self-defense. Whenever you are uncertain whether you are entering a conflict with the ability to offer a disproportionate response, do everything you can reduce that uncertainty. Sometimes, that may involve telling a little white lie – or a big black lie in this case.
My philosophy came in handy again after another liberal – this time from California - got mad at another of my speeches broadcast on national television. She then called to tell me she was angry because of my opposition to overly broad and vague “harassment” codes that restrict (usually selectively) free speech on college campuses. So she told me she was going to find my home phone number and residential address to harass me constantly until I stopped challenging the harassment codes.
That’s when I got the www.DrAdams.org private investigators involved (several of them are former military intelligence officers). We traced the phone call, found her name, hometown, residential address, home phone number, work address, work phone number, supervisor’s work phone number, office fax number, husband’s work phone number, and, finally, the residential addresses and home phone numbers of all her living relatives. And it really didn’t take very long, either.
After laying the groundwork, I called the angry liberal and explained (to her voice mail) that she had made a very serious mistake by choosing the wrong cowboy to (expletive) with. I didn’t tell her that all her personal information was about to go out on the internet - starting with my next DrAdams.org newsletter. But I did let her know she was about to face a wildly disproportionate response to the petty harassment she had promised me.
So before I had to unleash the fury of my internet militia group I got a nice letter from that woman in the great State of California. After saying that she and her husband were now fearful for their safety - and “should have expected (my) angry outburst” – she offered an apology. And, then, she said she wished to have “no further communication” with me in the future.
And, so, a peace settlement was established within 48 hours. But it was not established through a process of negotiation. It was established through fear, military readiness, and an uncompromising desire to offer the most disproportionate response possible under the circumstances.
This whole discussion reminds me of a leftist student who once asked me whether it was “fair” that we should stockpile nuclear weapons and demand that Iran stop seeking even a single short-range nuclear missile. “The answer is no,” I told him. “I don’t care about fairness. I care about killing Muslim terrorists.”
Indeed, the whole point of war is to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible while losing as few of your own soldiers as possible – in other words, to be as “disproportionate” as you can. It is better to live with that understanding than to die without it.