It has been a difficult week for our country. A black man, Alton Sterling, was killed by police in Louisiana. Another black man, Philando Castile, was killed by a police officer in Minnesota. Then, five police officers (Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, Brent Thompson and Patrick Zamarripa) were murdered and another seven wounded in an ambush in Dallas, Texas. There is no doubt that race relations have worsened during the term of our first black President. It behooves us to see if his words help or hurt.
As a reminder, President Obama has not been particularly helpful with regards to race relations in the past. He jumped to conclusions with regards to the arrest of black Professor Gates by calling the Cambridge Police officers stupid, before knowing any of the facts. He told us that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon (Martin), which was totally unrelated to whether George Zimmerman acted legally or not. It was found he did act legally. Obama immediately dispatched the DOJ to Ferguson, Missouri after the police killing of Michael Brown, essentially condemning the entire Ferguson Police Department.
Now, with the sad and unfortunate killings of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile, Obama said this: "These are not isolated incidents...They're symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system." Is that a helpful generalization? Would it not be more helpful to say that he looks forward to a complete investigation of all shootings by local and state authorities; and, if necessary, he will ask the DOJ to investigate. Would it not be better to say that when anyone is stopped by the police they should comply with officers' orders. Doesn't Obama's comment essentially say that the entire criminal justice system is biased against blacks? It is untrue; and how is that possibly helpful?
Disappointingly, the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, was no better in his comments. Said Dayton: "Would this have happened if the passengers, the drivers were white? I don't think it would have." Thank you, Governor, for essentially claiming that all police officers are racist. Democrats like Obama and Dayton are doing nothing other than pandering to part of their political base, blacks. They are not trying to be unifying voices, and they are not helping matters by saying police and the criminal justice system are against blacks.
The New York Times editorial board was also quick to attack the police. In their 7/9/16 editorial, they state that the murderer of the five Dallas police officers committed his crime to "avenge the "innocent" deaths of black citizens in police encounters elsewhere." I'm confused. Does "innocent" deaths mean that the police acted wrongfully? Don't we need to know all the facts first, before making that generalization?
The Times also told us in their 7/8/16 editorial that police have now killed 123 blacks in the US this year. What generalization are we supposed to make from that single statistic? Here's a statistic: 509 people have been killed by police this year. 238 were white. 79 were Hispanic. The rest were unknown/other. 484 of those killed were male, only 25 were female. Clearly, the police are unjustly targeting males. Or, maybe, females are far less likely to commit crimes, and far more likely to comply with orders from police. Just maybe.
Here are some more statistics. In the first half of this year alone, in the single city of Chicago, 263 blacks have been murdered. We can extrapolate from past statistics that most of the murderers were also black. The NY Daily News reported on 11/19/13 that from January through June, 2013, blacks made up 63.8% of murder victims in Chicago; and blacks made up 70% of the perpetrators. Another site provided similar statistics for the year 2011 - blacks were 75.3% of the murder victims and 71.3% of the perpetrators. What generalization can Obama make from those numbers? None, because he would rather not discuss it.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Monday, July 4, 2016
A Few Words From Our Founders - Happy 240th Birthday America!
"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..." (The Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4, 1776.)
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil..." (Thomas Paine in "Common Sense," published January 9, 1776.)
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too little..." (Thomas Paine in his second pamphlet, "The American Crisis," published in December, 1776. Perhaps his most famous line from that pamphlet is "These are the times that try men's souls.") Sometimes, it seems to this writer that some do, indeed, esteem their liberty too little.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." (George Washington, January 8, 1790, in his first annual message to Congress.)
"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Martha Jefferson, May 5, 1787.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." (George Washington, Farewell Address.)
"Adore G-d. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true..." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825.)
"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom." (John Adams, in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787.) This is the primary area where our country is falling far short. Many of our children need not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They are taught only about America's faults, not its overwhelming goodness. Many know little or nothing of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution - the greatest governing document ever written.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 51.) Not something Obama and many other politicians appreciate. For many politicians, there should be no limit on their power.
Lastly, one of my personal favorites: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.) This one Amendment gives Americans rights that many around the world can only dream of. Some countries prohibit speech critical of their government. Some countries, even in Europe, have "hate speech" laws prohibiting certain speech. Some countries have an official state religion; and prohibit conversion to other religions.
G-d Bless the USA!
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil..." (Thomas Paine in "Common Sense," published January 9, 1776.)
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too little..." (Thomas Paine in his second pamphlet, "The American Crisis," published in December, 1776. Perhaps his most famous line from that pamphlet is "These are the times that try men's souls.") Sometimes, it seems to this writer that some do, indeed, esteem their liberty too little.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." (George Washington, January 8, 1790, in his first annual message to Congress.)
"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Martha Jefferson, May 5, 1787.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." (George Washington, Farewell Address.)
"Adore G-d. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true..." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825.)
"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom." (John Adams, in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787.) This is the primary area where our country is falling far short. Many of our children need not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They are taught only about America's faults, not its overwhelming goodness. Many know little or nothing of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution - the greatest governing document ever written.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 51.) Not something Obama and many other politicians appreciate. For many politicians, there should be no limit on their power.
Lastly, one of my personal favorites: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.) This one Amendment gives Americans rights that many around the world can only dream of. Some countries prohibit speech critical of their government. Some countries, even in Europe, have "hate speech" laws prohibiting certain speech. Some countries have an official state religion; and prohibit conversion to other religions.
G-d Bless the USA!
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Your Speech vs. Islamic Terrorism - Which is the Bigger Problem?
In the town of Twin Falls, Idaho, three juveniles (ages 14, 10 and 7) were accused of rape and other disgustingly sordid acts on a five year old girl. It was falsely reported that the boys were Syrian refugees, prompting quite a bit of backlash online. It turned out that two of the youths were Sudanese and one was Iraqi.
The United States Attorney for Idaho, Wendy J. Olson, said this: "The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law." Really? The US Attorney is the chief federal prosecutor for whatever district or state to which they are appointed. Are we to believe the US Attorney does not know First Amendment law?
Do not think for one minute that this is just a rogue federal prosecutor in a small state improperly threatening federal prosecution against people who exercise their First Amendment rights. Every US Attorney across the country answers to the US Attorney General, currently Loretta Lynch. Following the San Bernardino massacre, AG Lynch expressed her concern about anti-Muslim speech. It bears repeating what Lynch said: "...this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting the mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals...when we see that, we will take action." (For more of Lynch's comments see the 12/5/15 post entitled "San Bernardino, Part III.")
UCLA Constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, commented on Prosecutor Olson's remarks: "There is no First Amendment exception for "inflammatory" statements; and even false statements about matters of public concern, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, are an inevitable part of free debate." Then, Professor Volokh got to the crux of the matter: "It looks like an attempt to chill Constitutionally protected speech through the threat of federal prosecution."
Somehow, American's reactions to terror and other vile acts gets a much more emotional reaction from our leaders - a reaction of severe consternation - than does the underlying attack on innocents. When the government tells us "if you see something, say something," they really do not mean it. How else can we explain these government threats? Then, there is the possibility of being branded a "racist" for reporting suspicious actions - if those actions were carried out by Muslims, or Middle Eastern appearing men. That is exactly what happened when the neighbors of the San Bernardino terrorists saw suspicious activities and said nothing. They did not want to be branded "racists."
The US Army knew Major Hasan was communicating online with radical Islamists, but even they did nothing to stop him. Political correctness resulted in even the Army fearing a label of "racist" more than they feared a terrorist attack.
So, we have the US Army, the Attorney General and a United States Attorney worrying more about Americans' reactions to terrorism than to the actual terrorism. Of course, they take their direction from their boss, President and Commander-in-Chief Obama. It was Obama, who only two weeks after the Benghazi attack, said this at the UN: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." The Commander-in-chief expressed more concern about criticism of Islam than about the death of his Ambassador at the hands of Islamic terrorists.
If you doubt the validity of that last sentence, just take a look at today's videos. First, Obama was sitting with the Mexican President discussing the still fresh terrorist attack on the Istanbul airport. He spoke with a monotone, and was emotionless. Later, at a press conference with both the Mexican and Canadian leaders he was much more emotional. Not about the terrorist attack or people killed, but about what Trump says we need to do to protect this country. We all remember that Obama was on the golf course literally minutes after announcing the beheading of reporter James Foley.
We have a very serious problem when our country's leaders concern themselves more with political correctness and anti-Islamic speech, than with the safety and security of American citizens.
The United States Attorney for Idaho, Wendy J. Olson, said this: "The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law." Really? The US Attorney is the chief federal prosecutor for whatever district or state to which they are appointed. Are we to believe the US Attorney does not know First Amendment law?
Do not think for one minute that this is just a rogue federal prosecutor in a small state improperly threatening federal prosecution against people who exercise their First Amendment rights. Every US Attorney across the country answers to the US Attorney General, currently Loretta Lynch. Following the San Bernardino massacre, AG Lynch expressed her concern about anti-Muslim speech. It bears repeating what Lynch said: "...this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting the mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals...when we see that, we will take action." (For more of Lynch's comments see the 12/5/15 post entitled "San Bernardino, Part III.")
UCLA Constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, commented on Prosecutor Olson's remarks: "There is no First Amendment exception for "inflammatory" statements; and even false statements about matters of public concern, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, are an inevitable part of free debate." Then, Professor Volokh got to the crux of the matter: "It looks like an attempt to chill Constitutionally protected speech through the threat of federal prosecution."
Somehow, American's reactions to terror and other vile acts gets a much more emotional reaction from our leaders - a reaction of severe consternation - than does the underlying attack on innocents. When the government tells us "if you see something, say something," they really do not mean it. How else can we explain these government threats? Then, there is the possibility of being branded a "racist" for reporting suspicious actions - if those actions were carried out by Muslims, or Middle Eastern appearing men. That is exactly what happened when the neighbors of the San Bernardino terrorists saw suspicious activities and said nothing. They did not want to be branded "racists."
The US Army knew Major Hasan was communicating online with radical Islamists, but even they did nothing to stop him. Political correctness resulted in even the Army fearing a label of "racist" more than they feared a terrorist attack.
So, we have the US Army, the Attorney General and a United States Attorney worrying more about Americans' reactions to terrorism than to the actual terrorism. Of course, they take their direction from their boss, President and Commander-in-Chief Obama. It was Obama, who only two weeks after the Benghazi attack, said this at the UN: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." The Commander-in-chief expressed more concern about criticism of Islam than about the death of his Ambassador at the hands of Islamic terrorists.
If you doubt the validity of that last sentence, just take a look at today's videos. First, Obama was sitting with the Mexican President discussing the still fresh terrorist attack on the Istanbul airport. He spoke with a monotone, and was emotionless. Later, at a press conference with both the Mexican and Canadian leaders he was much more emotional. Not about the terrorist attack or people killed, but about what Trump says we need to do to protect this country. We all remember that Obama was on the golf course literally minutes after announcing the beheading of reporter James Foley.
We have a very serious problem when our country's leaders concern themselves more with political correctness and anti-Islamic speech, than with the safety and security of American citizens.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Are We Ar War With Islam? Part VI
Looking at history, it is fairly clear that we were at war with Communism. We had regional proxy wars, and the Cold War. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson had no problem defining who the enemy was. Did that mean every Russian, every Chinese citizen, or every Cuban believed in Communism? Did it mean that every citizen of every Communist state believed in extending the reach of Communism across the globe? Of course not. No more than every single Muslim believes in violent jihad, or forcing all the world's people to live under Sharia law.
But just how many Muslims do believe in being governed under Sharia law? According to a Pew Research Center report of 12/7/15 by Michael Lipka, 25 countries have Muslim populations in which at least 50% of the Muslims would like to see Sharia law govern. The percentages range from 52% to 99%, when we only count countries with 50% or more agreeing. These countries include Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Niger, Djibouti, Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Kenya, Mali, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon and Liberia.
We know that Communist states were totalitarian states. We know that Communists did not believe in what we in the West consider to be basic civil rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and petition the government. Is there any similarity to Sharia law? No freedom of speech. The Organization of Islamic States has been trying for years to get the UN to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. We have seen how death threats are made against those who criticize Islam. We have seen the actual killings at Charlie Hebdo. No freedom of religion. In some Muslim countries it is a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. And do not look for churches or synagogues in some Muslim countries. Freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for change? That did not work out well in Iran with their "Green Revolution."
So, we see how both Communist ideology and Islam's Sharia law are inconsistent with basic American and Western values. Are there other differences between Sharia law and Western values? You bet. According to an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the June 14, 2016 Wall Street Journal, at least 40 Muslim countries/territories criminalize homosexuality. You think the Orlando murderer was alone in his beliefs about homosexuality? According to an article in the 6/13/16 Washington Post, at least 10 Muslim countries have the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. Some have death by stoning; when the punishment is less than death it may be imprisonment and/or flogging. Inconsistent with Western values? You bet.
How about Muslim countries treatment of women? It does vary, but we also know how extreme some are. Some countries have large percentages of their populations that do not believe women should be able to choose their own clothing. 56% in Tunisia, 52% in "westernized" Turkey, 49% in Lebanon and 47% in Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
You think that the disgustingly named "honor killings" occur only overseas? The American Conservative said that the Justice Department estimates that there are 27 "honor killings" yearly right here in the USA. One can surmise that there are many more than 27, as the victims are dead, unable to report their own deaths. When killed by their own families, there is no one to complain. Yes, I fully acknowledge that many in the Muslim community condemn such killings. But one must ask how there is a culture that sustains such killings.
Whether women are allowed to be out in public without a man, get an education, work, hold public office can all vary from country to country. So, Obama wants to fight "violent extremists," not "radical Islamists." But,as John Guandolo opined (see Part V), how do we develop a strategy without identifying the enemy. Is the enemy only those who carry out violent attacks? Is the enemy those who support those terrorists, even if they do not participate? Or, can we say that the ideology that supports not just the Islamic terrorists but also a way of viewing the world that is completely contrary to American, Constitutional and Western values is the real problem?
Once again, I fully acknowledge those Muslims who do not support terrorism or jihad, and who do not want to live by Sharia law nor enforce it upon others. But not all Germans supported Hitler, not all Chinese supported Mao, and not all Russians supported Stalin. It is unclear to this writer why identifying the true enemy can ever be an insult to those who do not hold such radical, anti-American beliefs. It is time for Obama and the left to face reality. Or, we can just continue to blame everything that happens on the Republicans, as the New York Times does.
But just how many Muslims do believe in being governed under Sharia law? According to a Pew Research Center report of 12/7/15 by Michael Lipka, 25 countries have Muslim populations in which at least 50% of the Muslims would like to see Sharia law govern. The percentages range from 52% to 99%, when we only count countries with 50% or more agreeing. These countries include Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Niger, Djibouti, Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Kenya, Mali, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon and Liberia.
We know that Communist states were totalitarian states. We know that Communists did not believe in what we in the West consider to be basic civil rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and petition the government. Is there any similarity to Sharia law? No freedom of speech. The Organization of Islamic States has been trying for years to get the UN to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. We have seen how death threats are made against those who criticize Islam. We have seen the actual killings at Charlie Hebdo. No freedom of religion. In some Muslim countries it is a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. And do not look for churches or synagogues in some Muslim countries. Freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for change? That did not work out well in Iran with their "Green Revolution."
So, we see how both Communist ideology and Islam's Sharia law are inconsistent with basic American and Western values. Are there other differences between Sharia law and Western values? You bet. According to an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the June 14, 2016 Wall Street Journal, at least 40 Muslim countries/territories criminalize homosexuality. You think the Orlando murderer was alone in his beliefs about homosexuality? According to an article in the 6/13/16 Washington Post, at least 10 Muslim countries have the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. Some have death by stoning; when the punishment is less than death it may be imprisonment and/or flogging. Inconsistent with Western values? You bet.
How about Muslim countries treatment of women? It does vary, but we also know how extreme some are. Some countries have large percentages of their populations that do not believe women should be able to choose their own clothing. 56% in Tunisia, 52% in "westernized" Turkey, 49% in Lebanon and 47% in Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
You think that the disgustingly named "honor killings" occur only overseas? The American Conservative said that the Justice Department estimates that there are 27 "honor killings" yearly right here in the USA. One can surmise that there are many more than 27, as the victims are dead, unable to report their own deaths. When killed by their own families, there is no one to complain. Yes, I fully acknowledge that many in the Muslim community condemn such killings. But one must ask how there is a culture that sustains such killings.
Whether women are allowed to be out in public without a man, get an education, work, hold public office can all vary from country to country. So, Obama wants to fight "violent extremists," not "radical Islamists." But,as John Guandolo opined (see Part V), how do we develop a strategy without identifying the enemy. Is the enemy only those who carry out violent attacks? Is the enemy those who support those terrorists, even if they do not participate? Or, can we say that the ideology that supports not just the Islamic terrorists but also a way of viewing the world that is completely contrary to American, Constitutional and Western values is the real problem?
Once again, I fully acknowledge those Muslims who do not support terrorism or jihad, and who do not want to live by Sharia law nor enforce it upon others. But not all Germans supported Hitler, not all Chinese supported Mao, and not all Russians supported Stalin. It is unclear to this writer why identifying the true enemy can ever be an insult to those who do not hold such radical, anti-American beliefs. It is time for Obama and the left to face reality. Or, we can just continue to blame everything that happens on the Republicans, as the New York Times does.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Are We At War With Islam? Part V
(Note: A comment to the last two part post raised the issue of whether "radical" Islam in fact is typical of all Islam. For newer readers, please note that I previously posted a 4 part series on whether we are at war with Islam. Part I was posted on 8/29/10, Part II on 9/13/10, Part III on 9/30/12 and Part IV on 6/6/13. The topics ranged from Islamic propaganda, Islamic influence on education, the Ground Zero mosque, limits on free speech, lack of tolerance, and media bias. It appears that this is an appropriate time for Part V.)
Following the Orlando massacre, President Obama felt compelled to push back against Republicans who have criticized his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam" for the 7 1/2 years of his Presidency. Said Obama: "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them "radical Islamists." Obama went on: "What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed 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...this is a political distraction."
Just a distraction? According to the Washington Times (4/25/13), in 2011 the "White House ordered cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive." This order affected all federal law enforcement, intelligence and military training manuals and courses, resulting in "teachings on Islam be(ing) scrubbed." Is this a good idea? Was it smart that Obama allowed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, 2 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving illegal funding of Hamas, to determine what should be taught to those who defend us in the fight against Islamic terror?
John Guandolo was a counter-terrorism agent in the FBI. His opinion on Obama's order is quite frightening: "There is no strategy in the FBI...At FBI headquarters it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood's movement in the United States or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities."
We already have far too many examples of Americans dying because of Obama's order. Major Nidal Hasan was able to carry out his murderous attack at Fort Hood even though the Army knew of his radical Islamist ties. Political correctness ordered by Obama prevented action against him beforehand. After the 9/11 Benghazi attack, Obama and Hillary both lied about the cause of the attack, preferring to blame a movie video over the true cause - radical Islamic terror. And now we have had the attack in Orlando. The FBI was well aware of the killer beforehand. It has been reported that he even told them that he wanted to die a martyr. Yet, he was not even under constant surveillance.
For the left, and much of the mainstream media, it is clear with whom we are at war - Republicans! That's right. This is from the lead editorial in the 6/15/16 New York Times (really): "While the precise motivation for the rampage (in Orlando) remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. X (the truth-uncensored refuses to use his name) was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish."
The Times concluded their editorial with this: "The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots." So, for the Times, Republicans, society and hate are the real perpetrators. Nowhere in their editorial do they mention that the real perpetrator was a Muslim; nowhere does the Times mention the motivating factor of radical Islam and ISIS. This is the newspaper that calls itself "the paper of record." We on the right know it to be "the paper of left-wing propaganda and lies."
So, are we at war with radical Islam? Should we be? Or, does all of Islam currently have serious problems that should cause us to be at war with Islam? Please see Part VI.
Following the Orlando massacre, President Obama felt compelled to push back against Republicans who have criticized his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam" for the 7 1/2 years of his Presidency. Said Obama: "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them "radical Islamists." Obama went on: "What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed 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...this is a political distraction."
Just a distraction? According to the Washington Times (4/25/13), in 2011 the "White House ordered cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive." This order affected all federal law enforcement, intelligence and military training manuals and courses, resulting in "teachings on Islam be(ing) scrubbed." Is this a good idea? Was it smart that Obama allowed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, 2 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving illegal funding of Hamas, to determine what should be taught to those who defend us in the fight against Islamic terror?
John Guandolo was a counter-terrorism agent in the FBI. His opinion on Obama's order is quite frightening: "There is no strategy in the FBI...At FBI headquarters it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood's movement in the United States or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities."
We already have far too many examples of Americans dying because of Obama's order. Major Nidal Hasan was able to carry out his murderous attack at Fort Hood even though the Army knew of his radical Islamist ties. Political correctness ordered by Obama prevented action against him beforehand. After the 9/11 Benghazi attack, Obama and Hillary both lied about the cause of the attack, preferring to blame a movie video over the true cause - radical Islamic terror. And now we have had the attack in Orlando. The FBI was well aware of the killer beforehand. It has been reported that he even told them that he wanted to die a martyr. Yet, he was not even under constant surveillance.
For the left, and much of the mainstream media, it is clear with whom we are at war - Republicans! That's right. This is from the lead editorial in the 6/15/16 New York Times (really): "While the precise motivation for the rampage (in Orlando) remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. X (the truth-uncensored refuses to use his name) was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish."
The Times concluded their editorial with this: "The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots." So, for the Times, Republicans, society and hate are the real perpetrators. Nowhere in their editorial do they mention that the real perpetrator was a Muslim; nowhere does the Times mention the motivating factor of radical Islam and ISIS. This is the newspaper that calls itself "the paper of record." We on the right know it to be "the paper of left-wing propaganda and lies."
So, are we at war with radical Islam? Should we be? Or, does all of Islam currently have serious problems that should cause us to be at war with Islam? Please see Part VI.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Massacre in Orlando, Part II
Today, Hillary Clinton spoke about what happened in Orlando. I agreed with her when she said that Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries, needed to end their support for radical mosques in the US and around the world. But merely saying it does not make it so. Otherwise, FDR would have told Hitler that he needed to stop invading other countries and stop the Holocaust. And why should I, or anyone, believe that Hillary is serious about taking on the Saudis?
Hannity reported today that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $25 million from the Saudis alone. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes to women and to gays. Recall after 9/11 when a Saudi Prince offered $10 million to Mayor Rudy Giuliani to help rebuild New York City. But the Prince suggested that US policies in the Middle East contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In refusing the money, Giuliani said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this act. There is no justification for it." Rudy has principles, and he stood by them. Who knows how much of the Clinton Foundation money may ultimately benefit the Clintons. And where were their principles?
The Clintons take money from the Saudi regime, but she is the pro-women candidate? Please. Maybe someone can explain to me where all the outrage is from women about this issue. Hillary also wishes to bring to the US tens of thousands more Muslim refugees. Some Muslim countries punish homosexuality with imprisonment or death. Individual Muslims, such as the murderer in Orlando, are offended by the idea of homosexuality. Yet, even after this horrific attack, I would predict that gays will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary. They will vote for a candidate who will bring people to this country, knowing that at least some of those people would like to see them dead. As I said in my January 17, 2016 post, many on the left have lost the natural instinct to survive. That survival instinct has been overcome by political correctness, and left-wing ideology.
President Obama spoke yesterday following the Orlando massacre. He did refer to the terrible atrocity as "an act of terror," as well as "an act of hate." He added: "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer." Except, that early on it was known that the murderer was motivated by radical Islam. He shouted Allahu Akbar during the attack. But at no time during his speech did Obama utter the words "Muslim" or "Islam" or even "radical Islam." At no time during his 7 1/2 years in office has Obama been able to figure out how all these terrorist killings might be connected. Well, he certainly does know; the real question is why he refuses to ever say it.
FoxNews.com published a piece by John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN. Bolton explained that these radical Islamic terror groups are not organized the way a government or corporation is. People are not sitting in offices exchanging memos. They use social media to get their message out. There has already been talk of whether this latest attacker had connections to any terror group, or if he was a "lone wolf." But, as Bolton explains, "...the number of true "lone wolf" terrorists is infinitesimal." From which one might conclude, why would we bring more potential "lone wolf" terrorists to our shores. Why, until ISIS is destroyed, and they are unable to preach their radical jihadist ideology, would we want to do that?
As Bolton went on to say: "...the United States must urgently discard the fiction that we pay no price for not pursuing international terrorists vigorously and relentlessly." After noting the "lackadaisical" way that Obama has targeted terrorist bases, Bolton said this: "Obama manifestly believes that, as bad as terrorists are, American "overreaction" is worse." Obama has consistently shown that he does not believe in the use of American power - in any form. He believes the US needs to step back from the world stage and let others come to the fore.
But, as this blog has frequently noted, the withdrawal of US involvement does not generally result in the rest of the free world leading the way. No, the result is that tyrannical governments, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, feel empowered by US withdrawal. Even more so does that apply to terrorist groups such as ISIS.
If you do not care about your own survival, then I hope that you will think of your children and grandchildren when you go to vote. If you think radical Islam is the problem, Trump is your candidate. If you think guns are the problem, and that notwithstanding the Clinton's close ties to the Saudis ($25 million tends to create those ties) that Hillary will be tough on them and their funding of radical mosques throughout this country, then Hillary is for you. If, contrary to all evidence, you believe that people are basically good, then Hillary is for you. But if you understand that the world is filled with bad actors, then you side with Trump.
Hannity reported today that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $25 million from the Saudis alone. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes to women and to gays. Recall after 9/11 when a Saudi Prince offered $10 million to Mayor Rudy Giuliani to help rebuild New York City. But the Prince suggested that US policies in the Middle East contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In refusing the money, Giuliani said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this act. There is no justification for it." Rudy has principles, and he stood by them. Who knows how much of the Clinton Foundation money may ultimately benefit the Clintons. And where were their principles?
The Clintons take money from the Saudi regime, but she is the pro-women candidate? Please. Maybe someone can explain to me where all the outrage is from women about this issue. Hillary also wishes to bring to the US tens of thousands more Muslim refugees. Some Muslim countries punish homosexuality with imprisonment or death. Individual Muslims, such as the murderer in Orlando, are offended by the idea of homosexuality. Yet, even after this horrific attack, I would predict that gays will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary. They will vote for a candidate who will bring people to this country, knowing that at least some of those people would like to see them dead. As I said in my January 17, 2016 post, many on the left have lost the natural instinct to survive. That survival instinct has been overcome by political correctness, and left-wing ideology.
President Obama spoke yesterday following the Orlando massacre. He did refer to the terrible atrocity as "an act of terror," as well as "an act of hate." He added: "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer." Except, that early on it was known that the murderer was motivated by radical Islam. He shouted Allahu Akbar during the attack. But at no time during his speech did Obama utter the words "Muslim" or "Islam" or even "radical Islam." At no time during his 7 1/2 years in office has Obama been able to figure out how all these terrorist killings might be connected. Well, he certainly does know; the real question is why he refuses to ever say it.
FoxNews.com published a piece by John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN. Bolton explained that these radical Islamic terror groups are not organized the way a government or corporation is. People are not sitting in offices exchanging memos. They use social media to get their message out. There has already been talk of whether this latest attacker had connections to any terror group, or if he was a "lone wolf." But, as Bolton explains, "...the number of true "lone wolf" terrorists is infinitesimal." From which one might conclude, why would we bring more potential "lone wolf" terrorists to our shores. Why, until ISIS is destroyed, and they are unable to preach their radical jihadist ideology, would we want to do that?
As Bolton went on to say: "...the United States must urgently discard the fiction that we pay no price for not pursuing international terrorists vigorously and relentlessly." After noting the "lackadaisical" way that Obama has targeted terrorist bases, Bolton said this: "Obama manifestly believes that, as bad as terrorists are, American "overreaction" is worse." Obama has consistently shown that he does not believe in the use of American power - in any form. He believes the US needs to step back from the world stage and let others come to the fore.
But, as this blog has frequently noted, the withdrawal of US involvement does not generally result in the rest of the free world leading the way. No, the result is that tyrannical governments, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, feel empowered by US withdrawal. Even more so does that apply to terrorist groups such as ISIS.
If you do not care about your own survival, then I hope that you will think of your children and grandchildren when you go to vote. If you think radical Islam is the problem, Trump is your candidate. If you think guns are the problem, and that notwithstanding the Clinton's close ties to the Saudis ($25 million tends to create those ties) that Hillary will be tough on them and their funding of radical mosques throughout this country, then Hillary is for you. If, contrary to all evidence, you believe that people are basically good, then Hillary is for you. But if you understand that the world is filled with bad actors, then you side with Trump.
Massacre in Orlando, Part I
It happened yet again. Another Islamist inspired massacre of people just living their lives. This time it was at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Just recently, it was at a cafe in Tel Aviv, Israel. And it seems like yesterday that we were mourning the San Bernardino killings committed by a coworker of the victims; a coworker motivated by radical Islam. The list of killings committed in the name of Islam is long, and I will not repeat them all. Nor will I, as is my policy, name the perpetrator.
The reactions also are all too predictable. One site posted some tweets from the Hollywood crowd. Ariana Grande said: "How how how how can one have so much hate?" Kirstie Alley tweeted: "I can't fathom this kind of hatred and insanity. Paul Feig: "There's enough hate in this world. It's just too much...Enough hate."
I have to admit, I have difficulty understanding such comments about "hate." My first issue with addressing the problem as being one of "hate" is this: is there some ideology called "hate" that has numerous followers throughout the world? What are the main tenets of this "hate" ideology? Who are the leaders of "hate"? Assuming we are correct in referring to what happened as "hate," we need to be clear that this hatred flows from a very specific ideology called radical Islam. (One can question whether this hatred flows from all of Islam, but that topic is not being addressed here.) So, it is simply incorrect to refer to "hate" as any kind of motivating factor in these types of atrocities. But if we must use the term "hate" let's at least use it properly: "hate inspired by radical Islam." There is no separate "hate" ideology.
The second issue I have with the use of the term "hate" is the way it is discussed as if it were some unnatural phenomenon. The left incorrectly assumes that people are inherently good. Conservatives tend to believe that goodness is taught. Anyone who asks how there can be such "hate" in the world is obviously unfamiliar with all of history. Such people have no knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis, Mao and the Red Chinese, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Sudan and on and on. One hundred million people killed in the Twentieth Century. How can anyone believe that people are basically good? Do not misunderstand; there are many good and fine people in the world. Unfortunately, there are also many bad and evil people.
The other predictable reaction was the overwhelming call for more gun control. Julianne Moore tweeted: "How many people have to be killed before we act as a nation to # End Gun Violence?" The June 13, 2016 LA Times: "While it is essential to understand the motivations of the gunman, that shouldn't distract us from the issue of all-too-ready access to guns." President Obama: "This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub."
The first problem with the gun issue is that the left ignores the millions upon millions of guns that are out there that are never used for criminal purposes. The second problem is that the policy usually called for by the left results in only law-abiding citizens not having access to guns. Does anyone truly believe that people with evil intentions will be unable to obtain firearms? That any law will deter those who wish to commit evil deeds? For how many years/decades has heroin been illegal? Somehow, people are still able to obtain it. The third problem with the left's analysis is something that Obama, without realizing it, actually hinted at.
Obama mentioned the locations of various mass shootings - a school, a house of worship, a movie theater and a nightclub. Those places do actually have something in common - no one already there had a firearm. Only the perpetrators were armed. After the attack in Orlando I had the opportunity to speak with an LAPD officer. I asked if he thought there was a consensus among officers about whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon. (The Federal Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit just ruled that there is no Constitutional right to concealed carry.) On the record, the officer said he had no comment. Off the record he said he thought it would be a good idea to have armed citizens. For those who disagree, I just have one question: if your loved one was killed in that nightclub, wouldn't you be a whole lot happier if one or more customers was armed and able to take out the perpetrator, before your loved one was killed?
The reactions also are all too predictable. One site posted some tweets from the Hollywood crowd. Ariana Grande said: "How how how how can one have so much hate?" Kirstie Alley tweeted: "I can't fathom this kind of hatred and insanity. Paul Feig: "There's enough hate in this world. It's just too much...Enough hate."
I have to admit, I have difficulty understanding such comments about "hate." My first issue with addressing the problem as being one of "hate" is this: is there some ideology called "hate" that has numerous followers throughout the world? What are the main tenets of this "hate" ideology? Who are the leaders of "hate"? Assuming we are correct in referring to what happened as "hate," we need to be clear that this hatred flows from a very specific ideology called radical Islam. (One can question whether this hatred flows from all of Islam, but that topic is not being addressed here.) So, it is simply incorrect to refer to "hate" as any kind of motivating factor in these types of atrocities. But if we must use the term "hate" let's at least use it properly: "hate inspired by radical Islam." There is no separate "hate" ideology.
The second issue I have with the use of the term "hate" is the way it is discussed as if it were some unnatural phenomenon. The left incorrectly assumes that people are inherently good. Conservatives tend to believe that goodness is taught. Anyone who asks how there can be such "hate" in the world is obviously unfamiliar with all of history. Such people have no knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis, Mao and the Red Chinese, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Sudan and on and on. One hundred million people killed in the Twentieth Century. How can anyone believe that people are basically good? Do not misunderstand; there are many good and fine people in the world. Unfortunately, there are also many bad and evil people.
The other predictable reaction was the overwhelming call for more gun control. Julianne Moore tweeted: "How many people have to be killed before we act as a nation to # End Gun Violence?" The June 13, 2016 LA Times: "While it is essential to understand the motivations of the gunman, that shouldn't distract us from the issue of all-too-ready access to guns." President Obama: "This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub."
The first problem with the gun issue is that the left ignores the millions upon millions of guns that are out there that are never used for criminal purposes. The second problem is that the policy usually called for by the left results in only law-abiding citizens not having access to guns. Does anyone truly believe that people with evil intentions will be unable to obtain firearms? That any law will deter those who wish to commit evil deeds? For how many years/decades has heroin been illegal? Somehow, people are still able to obtain it. The third problem with the left's analysis is something that Obama, without realizing it, actually hinted at.
Obama mentioned the locations of various mass shootings - a school, a house of worship, a movie theater and a nightclub. Those places do actually have something in common - no one already there had a firearm. Only the perpetrators were armed. After the attack in Orlando I had the opportunity to speak with an LAPD officer. I asked if he thought there was a consensus among officers about whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon. (The Federal Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit just ruled that there is no Constitutional right to concealed carry.) On the record, the officer said he had no comment. Off the record he said he thought it would be a good idea to have armed citizens. For those who disagree, I just have one question: if your loved one was killed in that nightclub, wouldn't you be a whole lot happier if one or more customers was armed and able to take out the perpetrator, before your loved one was killed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)