Tuesday, February 17, 2015

In Their Own Words, Part II

During that same Vox interview referred to in Part I, Obama was asked if the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism? Said Obama: "Absolutely." Incredibly, Obama equated the fight with ISIS to "a big city mayor (who has) to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive." Now I've got it. Yes, just like FDR and General Eisenhower during WWII deciding they needed to "degrade" the Nazis.

I can just imagine Obama being President during WWII telling the media that they are overstating the threat. ISIS controls one-third of Syria and Iraq. Libya is a failed state and is where the Coptic Christians were murdered. Yemen is a failed state, with both Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS elements. Somalia is a failed state. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are in the Egyptian Sinai. ISIS is now threatening Italy and Rome. What's the problem?

Marie Harf, spokesperson at the State Department, actually said this: "We cannot kill our way out of this war (with ISIS). We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether..." At that point, apparently even Chris Matthews could not take it and said to her: "We're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people."

However, in true Marxist fashion, Ms. Harf was attempting to explain that all human behavior flows from economics. Whereas those of us on the right understand that the radical Muslims are driven by ideology, Ms. Harf does not. The Communists and Nazis? Ideology driven. But even if Ms. Harf was right, what has 50 years of fighting the war on poverty with billions of dollars accomplished in this country? More people dependent on government. Besides, as Matthews said, we have always had poor people in the world. We have always had displaced people. But only those who justify their actions with Islam are committing the atrocities today.

When ISIS held a captured Jordanian pilot, they offered an exchange for a convicted terrorist being held in a Jordanian prison. Except that the Jordanian pilot had already been burned alive. When Jordan's King Abdullah found out he immediately had the convicted terrorist executed. And these words came from the Jordanian leadership, promising a "strong, earth-shaking and decisive" response; which indeed was followed by airstrikes on ISIS targets. And this: "The revenge will be as big as the calamity that has hit Jordan." I don't know about you, but I miss having a President who could speak with such passion about evil. Instead, Obama tells us we are overstating the threat.

"Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." So said former Iranian President Rafsanjani. Some of the Ayatollahs have made similar comments. Yet Obama is dead set on giving Iran nuclear capability, all in exchange for their promise to help bring stability to the Middle East. That is what I would refer to as insanity.

On February 12, 2015, the New York Times had this headline on the first page above the fold: "Chapel Hill Shooting Leaves 3 Muslims Dead." Sadly, some lunatic killed three young people - Muslims - who lived in the same complex as he did. The police indicated that there was a long running dispute over a parking space. It was a tragic murder. Why do I bring this up? In the 5/27/13 edition of the NY Times, there was a lengthy article about rioting in Sweden and other European cities. The headline failed to mention that the rioters in every city were Muslims. In fact, in the entire lengthy article, you would not find the word "Muslim" or "Islam." (See my 6/6/13 post entitled "Are We At War With Islam?...Part IV.) You see, the NY Times will only mention Muslims as victims, never as perpetrators. Just like Obama.

In explaining why, notwithstanding all the controversy, he is coming to speak to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "I'm going to Washington because as Prime Minister of Israel, it's my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal (with Iran) that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel." And he said this: "The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue." Sadly, it is for Obama and many Democrats who are threatening to boycott the speech. And he said this: "I think the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world." I wish that our President spoke with such moral clarity.

And for those of you not keeping with what Jewish students on American college campuses have to put up with, here is a small sampling: "With Jews we lose." A refrain heard in student body elections. "Kill the Jews." "Hitler was right." "The best Jew is a dead Jew." In addition to these hateful comments, Jewish students suffer real intimidation and even physical assault. Of course, most of this behavior comes from Muslim students. Again, this occurs on American college campuses. Think the problem is just in Europe and the Middle East?

Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere are calling for investigation into the killing of the 3 Muslim students as a hate crime. In fact, they are already referring to it as an act of terror. And Obama is obliging them by having his Justice Department start a federal investigation. Ironic, is it not, that these same Arab leaders are silent on the beheadings of the Coptic Christians and the murder of Jews at the kosher Deli in Paris. Curiously, Obama also does not refer to the Jews or Christians. Hmmm.

In Their Own Words, Part I

At the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month President Obama said this: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this (referring to radical Islam, which he calls violent extremism) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ...So this is not unique to one group or one religion." Now, assuming that a comparison can even be made to the Crusades - that was 800 years ago! Are the Crusades a problem today? This type of moronic comment simply provides a subtle explanation and even justification for the outrageous behavior of ISIS. Obama should be ashamed of himself.

Obama on Vox after the Paris massacre: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you have a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shot a bunch of folks in a Deli in Paris." What? No, nothing random about it. The target was a kosher Jewish Deli - and the four who were murdered were Jews. But Obama has an issue with Jews being the victims of radical Muslims (another phrase he cannot bring himself to utter). We already know that these violent zealots are all "randomly" Muslim. Obama has gotten away with so many lies, it is hard to blame him for thinking that he can get away with even the most absurd ones.

Subsequently, White House Press Secretary/Liar for the President, had this to say: the kosher Deli victims were "killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be." Earnest and the spokesliars at the State Department make me very concerned about the future of this country. If any of them had integrity they would resign before spewing the nonsense that they do. Question for Earnest: Did the murderer "randomly" target a kosher Jewish Deli? Or, as happens many times, was a radical Muslim targeting Jews?

At his January State of the Union address, Obama said: "Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?" Yes! Why not? If everyone did spectacularly well, then no one is doing so - because everyone would be doing equally well. Which, of course, is the true goal of all socialists. Except with socialism, everyone ends up doing equally poorly.

Also at the State of the Union, Obama said this: "And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger." It is truly amazing to me how many people believe this lie. In six years Obama has shown no interest in working with Republicans. He rarely invited the Congressional Republican leadership to the White House. He is not like Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill to get things done; or like Bill Clinton who worked with Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. No, Obama is a pure ideologue, and the above quote was all for political show.

David Axelrod, former political adviser and campaign manager for Obama, said in his new book "Believer": If Mr. Obama's views were "evolving" publicly (regarding gay marriage), "they were fully evolved behind closed doors." Spoiler alert: What? Obama lied in 2008 when he claimed that as a Christian he opposed gay marriage? Shocking!

Josh Earnest, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS, said this: "The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists." I guess Christians cannot be the victims of these "random" Muslim terrorists either. Then again, Obama has expressed no concern for the one million Christians displaced from Muslim-run Arab countries over the last decade. That would be more than the number of Arabs (now calling themselves "Palestinians") who were displaced from their homes during the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map back in 1948-49. But Obama cares a great deal about those people.