Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush recently proclaimed that we are at war with “radical Islam,” but Hillary Clinton assures us that “Islam is not our adversary.” She goes so far as to refuse to use the very words, “radical Islam,” because that “… sounds like a declaration of war.” Labeling people now equates to a declaration of war? That’s crazy.

In light of the media’s response to the recent San Bernardino attack, the president’s corresponding reluctance to call it terror, and his attorney general Loretta Lynch’s strange pledge to take aggressive action against anyone who uses “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence,” (where is that happening?), this is a war we are determined to lose, and at great cost, apparently. Even at the cost of our first amendment, and perhaps the second one also. That’s, well, crazy.

Loretta Lynch declares action against something that doesn’t exist, while France just closed three mosques, citing their close ties to radical language and jihadist propaganda, with plans to close up to 160 more. Vienna, Austria is moving to close 75% of Muslim kindergartens, because they are fomenting racial hatred and radicalizing children. Those countries are taking concrete steps to combat terrorism, in stark contrast to the vague, insincere, defensive blathering our feeble leader just made last night. Even his advisors admit there is no new strategy to replace his previous lack of strategy.

The president’s address was blessedly short, which emphasized his particular lack of interest for the subject of terrorism in general and the safety of Americans in particular.

He said we would overcome the terrorism threat “… by being strong and smart…” Such comforting words, though lacking in both specificity and authenticity. He told us the Islamic State does not speak for Islam, and lamented the existence of an “interpretation of Islam that calls for war against the US,” leaving a thinking person to question the source of his proficiency in and knowledge of Islam. He is a constitutional expert, granted, but from where does he gleam his incredible mastery of Islam? And regardless of his own feelings about it, we are clearly under attack, while his answer is platitudes and overall inaction. Following are his four disappointingly hollow strategy points and promises concerning addressing the threat of terrorism:

  1. We will hunt them down. (How’s that working so far?)
  2. We will provide training to localized forces on the ground. ($500 million spent in Syria and a handful of trainees to show for it.)
  3. We will work with friends and allies, including Muslim communities in the US, to prevent current plots and disrupt worldwide efforts. (uh… it’s about time?)
  4. We will establish processes to pursue an end to the Syrian war in order to focus on the common goal to destroy ISIL. (Still trying that old line.)

Obviously, this is all just smoke and mirrors that the American public might just be crazy or traumatized enough to choose to believe. Not only was there nothing new in this, but there was no real identification of the threat, no clear understanding of jihad or the enemy’s tactics, nothing related to the ideology that encourages killing. Obama assured us that there was no evidence of a connection between the San Bernardino terrorists and IS. What’s he need, membership cards on the dead bodies? These two terrorists had both professed their allegiance to the Islamic State. If that doesn’t count as affiliation to IS, we are left to surmise they are simply taking their cues from the book, general Islam, and not the ‘radical version of Islam.’ Which is the more frightening proposition?

In an appeasement play, Obama also mentioned Ft. Hood (still classified as ‘workplace violence’), and the shooting in Chattanooga as examples of this type of ‘general’ radicalization (i.e. not Islamic State). For heavenly days, there he goes again, impugning all Muslims, while imploring the citizens of this great nation not to turn against one another, that there is no war between America and Islam.

The messaging has gotten so convoluted, mainly because of the incredible lies that permeate main stream media and so much of what emerges from  the White House (and elsewhere in politics, today.) “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is replaced by “If you see something, say something.” Yet, Clock Boy is suing the city and schoolfor fifteen million dollars, simply because a teacher saw something, namely a clock that was made to look like a bomb, and said something.

The outcome is guilt, no matter what the truth. The person who reports is guilty of profiling, the person who doesn’t is now an accomplice. It used to be, in saner days, that profiling was simply good law enforcement practice. Now, the message is profile, but don’t profile, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

The double-standard is enough to drive a country crazy, and perhaps that’s the point. The left’s tactics are to divide and conquer: pit people against each other. The poor versus the wealthy, the legal versus the illegal, one color against another. Sanity against insanity. But the brilliance here is to subsequently blame people for turning on one another. It is a strategy as clever and diabolical as the Soviets’, who, while depriving Ukrainians of food, posting signs imploring the starving populous not to eat their own children (while secretly hoping they would?)

Why did it take so long for the media and the president to identify what nearly everyone else knew immediately about the attack, namely that it was terrorism? Because of political correctness, and the president pulling ‘facts’ out of thin air, and the politeness of society not to call him on his falsehoods: “you can keep your doctor” and twenty-five hundred dollars in savings, per family; ISIL was contained, until it wasn’t; we were completely safe from terrorists, except we weren’t. Oh, and the vetting process of refugees will be fool-proof, meaning, unfortunately, that we are the fools for permitting it to proceed.

After all, Malik, the San Bernardino terrorist, was thoroughly vetted for her visa. It simply depends on Obama’s definition of “vetting.”

This shell game with the truth is enough to drive us all crazy. Straight jackets for everyone!



Read Full Post »

Piers Morgan called a guest on his national TV show “unbelievably stupid,” without apology. NBC, however, immediately apologized for Brent Musburger’s gentlemanly praise of gorgeous, beauty-pageant winner Katherine Webb (Miss Alabama). CNN remains mute about Kathy Griffin repeatedly trying to kiss Anderson Cooper’s crotch on air after threatening to “tickle his sack.” Words have lost their meaning. Compliments are assumed to be insults, and absolute depravity is met with winks and chuckles.

This cultural degradation is fostered by our scruples-bereft media, morality-deprived entertainment, and even revered leaders, who play with words until they are simply meaningless sounds.

Consider the recent campaign slogan “The War on Women.” People who used that phrase in reference to the US should be ashamed. There is a true war on women that is happening in China, with forced abortions, and Afghanistan, where Malala Yousafzai, 15, was shot in the head for advocating education. Currently, an estimated 140 Million women and girls are living with the life-long, often debilitating, effects of female genital mutilation, and more join their ranks each year. But in the US, women scream hysterically for protection of their “reproductive rights,” referring to the right to stop or prevent reproduction, (something currently not even under threat).

“Gun Control” is equally meaningless; it’s really “law-abiding citizen control.” Criminals snicker while taking advantage of “Gun Free Zones,” a poor euphemism for “Easy Victim Area.” Let’s have a debate about “Criminal Control” instead.

Recently, the president of the United States called Republicans “irresponsible” for their reluctance to raise the debt ceiling. During his 2008 campaign, he chastised then president Bush’s outrageous spending as “irresponsible and unpatriotic.” Obama has outpaced Bush’s “irresponsible” spending four-fold, thus redefining that word to mean simply “in disagreement with me.”

Now, the word “terrorism” is up for grabs. While the military labels Tea Party activists potential terrorists, absent any substantive evidence, the rampage of Major Nidal Hasan killing 13 at Ft. Hood, while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” is considered simply “workplace violence.” Similarly, the attack at our Benghazi embassy defied definition for weeks. If they dilute the meaning of the word “terrorist” enough, it will apply to the barrista who looks askance at you for requesting whipped cream.

Good, tolerant people have allowed the cultural elite to redefine, even un-define, our language and to invent new phrases, euphemisms for dangerous or derisible ideas. “Climate Change” has replaced “Global Warming,” which had replaced “Global Cooling.” Few truly understand what it postulates, as yet unproven, (the “scientific data” is easily as corrupt as our language), but too many nod along and devote their efforts to its tenets: limiting and crippling industry and inducing guilt. It should be renamed “Regression Policy.” Funny; its staunchest supporters consider themselves “Progressives.”

Paralleling our society’s moral decay, the US economy is, unsurprisingly, in deep trouble. We have no more meaningful words to describe our fiscal policies. The “fiscal cliff” itself was an illusion – we jumped a long time ago, and now must contend with “suicide debt.”

Money is the language of any economy, and we are on the brink of monetary inflation comparable to our inflated language. Unfortunately, when it comes to economics, no apologies, meaningless or otherwise, will suffice. But a grass-roots effort on the part of the citizens to combat the devaluation of language, to speak out against depravity, to make words meaningful again, and to hold people, the media, and even politicians accountable for both words and actions could go a long way toward a real “recovery” – of the United States we love.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: