Barack Obama, 6/14/2016:
That’s the key, they tell us, ‘We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamist.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above,” Obama said at the Treasury Department. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.
This is Obama straw man number 6,827. Just who is it that said we can’t beat them unless we call them radical Islamist? The answer of course is absolutely no one. No one. The objection to not naming the enemy correctly is a lack of clarity regarding who the enemy is. Over and over and over, “violent extremists” or some other euphemism is used in place of what is plainly more accurate. Sure, let’s lump violent radical environmentalists into the same category. No difference at all. Ideology has nothing to do with anything. Good thing it doesn’t obscure what’s going on.
Since not one person in the media did, I ask the King, er, president this: Did changing the name “War on Terror” to “Overseas Contingency Operation” make the radical Islamic terrorists less committed to trying to kill Americans? Bring in more allies? Make the threat go away? What the hell does Overseas Contingency Operation even mean? It’s Orwellian! The same question goes for the decision to re-name the Islamic terrorist attack at Fort Hood “workplace violence”. Aside from preventing the survivors of the Fort Hood attack from receiving benefits for 5 years, both are an obfuscation of the truth designed to…
I guess we need to ask the straw man. And maybe he knows why no one in the media asked him these questions….
Yesterday James O’Keefe published video of Hillary Clinton staff , volunteers, and a local Democrat lawyer essentially mocking election laws and laughing about it. See it here.
Predictably, all three of the major news networks did big stories on it and pointed out that this was true election fraud and that the Democratic operatives were clearly trying to disenfranchise new voters with biased and one-sided information. They also delved into the legal ramifications for the lawyer who certainly seemed to be advocating breaking the law. The media also descended on the Clinton camp for comment, demanding to know if the candidate approved this behavior and whether or not it would continue.
Of course, none of the previous paragraph happened. Between the big three networks there was no mention of any of this. Flat didn’t happen, apparently. So I went to their websites and searched for it: nothing.
I found they had stories on Bruce/Cait, Pink working out while on tour, a big story about a college girl who managed to ask “environmental” questions of 6 GOP candidates at the Iowa state fair and was disappointed. They lacked “passion”, she said.
Well, I’ll point out that the media seem to lack “passion” for reporting certain things and great “passion” for reporting certain other things. If the story was the same and the only difference was the removal of Clinton and the insertion of Trump, I’m pretty sure you’d see the fake paragraph above become true. I’ll also point out that “passion” should have nothing to do with news reporting.
I wish journalism schools and the American people were more passionate about that.
What if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wakes up and, when questioned, smiles and says: “You have seen nothing yet, infidel pigs! The great catastrophe you have feared is upon you! Within days you will know the wrath of Allah on a scale you can’t comprehend. Praise be to Allah! I will say no more!”
What if American authorities find many troubling threads and connections between the two bombers and Chechnya, but for security reasons have not revealed to the public that there is also an Iranian/Hezbollah connection, and they have reason to believe that a nuclear device has been slipped into Boston. What if they are almost certain that the two brothers are part of a larger terrorist cell and that the captured murderer knows the other members, and may even know the location of the nuclear device, or where and when it is to be detonated.
So what does America do? After asking nicely for information, are we then obligated to let the bomb go off in order not to subject the terrorist to “torture”? Or are we to waterboard him until he literally coughs up the information we need in order to save the city and its inhabitants?
To those who say we should never “torture” anyone under any circumstances the clock is ticking. Let us know as soon as you reach a decision.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
–James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
–British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Some responses from Democrats when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare:
“[T]he federal government can do most anything in this country.”
–Rep. Pete Stark (CA)
“Are you serious? Are you serious?”
–former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA)
“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. … It doesn’t matter to me.”
–Rep. Phil Hare (IL)
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
–Rep. James Clyburn (SC)
“Well, basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution on that aspect of it.”
–Congresswoman Kathy Hochul (D-NY26)
“It’s not a privilege, it’s a right”
–Congressman John Lewis (D-GA)
“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”
–Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
“These [Republicans] don’t have a sense of the average folks out there. They don’t know what it means to be middle class.”
–Joe Biden addressing 87 wealthy Democrats at a $10,000-per-plate fundraiser
“Wow, Jesus just f***ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere … Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them”
–tweet by Bill Maher
“So what happens in Crackerland [the South] this week, as we like to say? We have, what, Alabama and Mississippi coming up [Tuesday].”
–progressive radio talk-show host Stephanie Miller
“You know, these [conservative] women, somebody really needs to go repossess their ovaries. Really, truly, they have no right to them. They are fabulous, little organs and they have absolutely no right to be estrogen-bearing beings. Okay? Just cut ’em off, let ’em go through the hot flashes, let ’em just sit there and complain about hormone therapy, okay? Just take the ovaries and get it over with. Because they don’t deserve to have estrogen. They really don’t. It’s a privilege.”
–radio talk-show host Randi Rhodes
“Listen carefully when you hear screeching accusations about fairness. Just below the surface, you’ll hear an appeal to greed and envy totally inconsistent with the American spirit.”