Self-contradictory presidential statement

In his speech on the eve of 9/11, President Obama made a statement that is blatantly self-contradictory. It struck me that way when I first heard it, but I thought I would let it lie for a few days and see if anyone in the media picked up on it. But alas, I haven’t heard anyone on CNN or Fox News mention it, nor have I read about it in any online news source. So here I go. The statement was, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

The particular part that is self-contradictory is his assertion that ISIS/ISIL “has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” My question is: all who stand in its way to do what? The very fact that ISIS is “on its way” somewhere indicates that it has a vision. But what is that vision? It seems to me they have made it quite clear. In fact, this vision is expressed in its name. If we use the name Obama prefers, this terrorist organization calls it’s the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This indicates that its vision is to establish a state governed by a caliph where Shariah law is administered. Moreover, the territory of this state will consist of Iraq plus Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, and the Sinai Peninsula (the Levant).

To describe the vision of ISIS/ISIL as merely slaughtering people is like saying the vision of an offensive line is to block the defensive line. No, the vision of an offensive line is to enable the guy with the ball to get a touchdown. The vision is scoring and ultimately winning. Blocking is merely the means to an end. For the president to tell the American people that ISIS/ISIL has no end game and cannot see anything beyond its current murderous rampage through Iraq is dangerously deceptive.

Here is the speech I would have given: “My fellow Americans, ISIS has a vision of turning the entire area that currently consists of Iraq, Syria, Jordan Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, and Sinai into an Islamic state under Shariah law and they will stop at nothing to accomplish this. As far as they are concerned, anyone who opposes them is expendable and should be killed in a horrific way, thus instilling fear in all others who dare to oppose them. And because they will stop at nothing to achieve their vision, I say they must be stopped. And to do so is going to require overwhelming military power.

"Now I would be glad to have the assistance of other nations, especially the Europeans, but if no one else is willing step up, then America will go it alone. Why? Because these people take the Koran literally and believe they have a solemn responsibility to bring the entire world under subjection to Allah, which has been the ultimate goal of Islam from its founding. After Muhammad died in 632, his Islamic armies swept across Arabia, north African, and the Middle East, spreading Islam at the edge of the sword. The only thing that stopped them from taking Europe was Charles Martel’s victory at the Battle of Tours in 732 and the intervention of John Sobieski and his Polish army in 1683 at the gates of Vienna. But our European friends better wake up and realize that the Muslim world has never given up on their goal of conquering Europe for Allah. ISIS has already announced that one of their immediate goals is taking Italy and Spain. My fellow Americans, once Europe has fallen, we will ne next. They are already encouraging their jihadist brethren to attack us right here in the homeland. It’s just a matter of time.

"This is why ISIS must be stopped now. Every day that goes by they become more entrenched in the territory that have already taken, which is an area about the size of New England. And even though they have recently had a couple of setbacks, they have nevertheless had enough victories to attract thousands of new followers. Since this past spring their army has grown from around 800 to over 30,000. Folks, time is of the essence. These people have shown that in there minds there is no such thing as a civilian. They have beheaded two Americans who had nothing to do with our military, and they have killed thousands of Syrians and Iraqis solely because they stood in the way of achieving their vision. Therefore, when we attack them, we will do it from the position that there are no civilians. We will attack them with overwhelming fire power. This is what we did in Dresden to defeat Naziism and this is what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring the Imperial Japanese army to its knees. Sadly, the cost of destroying an evil ideology is often the death of many people who never really bought into it.

"I confess to you today that I should have left a strong residual force in Iraq, but I can’t undue my mistakes of the past. So my fellow Americans, it’s back to Iraq we go. And by the way, I am also instructing the Army Corp of Engineers to immediately begin constructing an impassible fence across our entire southern border. I am also ordering increased surveillance of our northern border, and I’m asking Congress to double the size of our Coast Guard. Furthermore, I am beginning an immediate process for deporting every person within our borders who did not enter our country through proper legal channels. Let the whole world know that from this day forth, if you enter the United States illegally, you will not receive one penny of assistance and you will not be welcome here."

         

OK, it's time they change their name

Yes, it's high time that the owners of the New York Yankees change the name of their team. Here is why.

According to Wikipedia: The origin of the term is uncertain. In 1758, British General James Wolfe made the earliest recorded use of the word Yankee to refer to people from what was to become the United States, referring to the New England soldiers under his command as Yankees: "I can afford you two companies of Yankees, and the more because they are better for ranging and scouting than either work or vigilance".[5] Later British use of the word often was derogatory, as in a cartoon of 1775 ridiculing "Yankee" soldiers.[5]

The word Yankee is a variation that could have referred to the Dutch Americans.[7] Michael Quinion and Patrick Hanks argue that the term refers to the Dutch pet name Janneke[9] or Janke[10] ("Johnny"), which – owing to the Dutch pronunciation of J as the English Y – would be Anglicized as "Yankee". Quinion and Hanks posit it was "used as a nickname for a Dutch-speaking American in colonial times" and could have grown to include non-Dutch colonists as well.[9]

H. L. Mencken derived it from the slur "John Cheese", applied by the English colonists to the Dutch – "Here comes a John Cheese"[11] – owing to the importance of their dairy cultivation, which introduced the black-and-white dairy cow from Friesland and North Holland to America in the mid-1600s. The modern Dutch for John Cheese is Jan Kaas but this would be spoken Jan Kees in some dialects.[10]

According to Cecil Adams: “The origins of "Yankee" have been fiercely debated throughout the history of the Republic, and to this day the Oxford English Dictionary says the source of the word is "unascertained." Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation was advanced by H.L. Mencken, the well-known newsman-scholar (and don't tell me that isn't an unusual combination), who argued that Yankee derives from the expression Jan Kaas, literally "John Cheese." This supposedly was a derogatory nickname bestowed on the Dutch by the Germans and the Flemish in the 1600s. (Wisconsin cheeseheads can undoubtedly relate.)

The English later applied the term to Dutch pirates, and later still Dutch settlers in New York applied it to English settlers in Connecticut, who were known for their piratical trading practices. During the French and Indian War the British general James Wolfe took to referring derisively to the native New Englanders in his army as Yankees."

Why should the New York baseball team continue to use a name that is so disparaging to the Dutch settlers of New York state and their descendants. To hell with the legacy of Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, Mantle, and Jeter, I demand that the Yankees change their name immediately. In fact, I will no longer use this ethnic slur in any future published commentaries. So there!     

Who said this?

“I will submit today an official complaint to the federal court against the president of the Republic for committing a clear constitutional violation for the sake of political calculations.”

Was is 1) Jefferson Davis, 2) John Boehner, or 3) Nouri al-Maliki?

Enough said...

 

Conviction and conscience

"We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." [James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance to the Assemby of Virginia]

The word "exercise" suggests action. Thus, it is the right of every man to act in a manner dictated by his conviction and conscience, even if his conviction dictates that he should not provided abortion-inducing drugs to his employees or make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. It is not the place of government to forbid such actions under penalty of law. But what if his conviction dictates that he shoot his next-door neighbor in the head? This is where the case for governance by "conviction and conscience" breaks down. The conviction of the Nazis was that Jews should be eliminated, and for many, this was completely consistent with the dictates of conscience. Today we see the wholesale slaughter of people in Iraq, and the perpetrators are believe they are simply carrying out the duty they owe to their Creator. 

This is why biblical morality is the only solution. Everything else is merely human opinion or preference. The Bible stands firmly behind those who are unwilling to contribute to killing babies or legitimize sexual immorality, but it utterly condemns the murderers of Jews, Shiites, and next-door neighbors. This means that conviction and conscience must be informed by biblical precept. This is not to say that government should force anyone to embrace the Bible; God doesn't even do that. It merely means that the government must not seek to prevent people from following the dictates of their biblically-informed conviction and conscience. There is nothing about real Christianity that threatens the peace, security, or freedom of a society. Just because an employer is not providing certain easily obtained "contraceptives" to his employees does not mean he is preventing them from having them. If they want them, they'll just have to get them somewhere else. 

The real issue in all the backlash against the Hobby Lobby decision has nothing to do with women's health or personal freedom; it has to do with legitimizing the killing of pre-born babies. The same is true of the wedding cake matter. Those people could go somewhere else to get a cake, but the fact that one store refused to make them one made a statement against same-sex marriage, and that could not be allowed to stand. So they appealed to the government to either force the cake-maker to make them a cake or penalize them harshly for refusing to. It's all about calling good evil and evil good. It's all about the public justification of sin. The policy of Holly Lobby was a public statement against abortion; therefore, our anti-God government could not let it stand. Fortunately Anthony Kennedy saw the light on this one and swung the decision in the right direction. Thank you Justice Kennedy.           

American weakness

North Korea, Iran, Benghazi, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, and now Iraq -- classic examples of point 10 in my definition of true American conservatism: "that in the matter of international relations and America’s global responsibilities, American weakness—whether it be militarily, politically, or economically—is provocative to the enemies of freedom."

Cantor

US hypocrisy

“We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed,” the U.S. said in a statement.
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#wyWlOA7BY3Lj9Et7.99

“We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed,” the U.S. said in a statement.
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#wyWlOA7BY3Lj9Et7.99

“We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed,” the U.S. said in a statement.
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#52dtlz6IYuTKvcDt.99

Statement from the US State Department to the government of Sudan: "We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed... We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law."

Yet right here in the United States, our own government does not respect the right of its citizens to freedom of religion, a right enshrined in our own Constitution. For example, Elaine Huguenin has been ordered to pay two women $7000.00 because she declined to photograph their "commitment ceremony." Her mistake was to tell them that she was declining because her Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message being communicated by the ceremony. Perhaps she should have lied and simply said she had a scheduling conflict. But of course that would have also been in conflict with her Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court has recently refused to consider the appeal of this case.

In another example of hypocrisy, the public ourcry against the kidnapping of 300 Christian school girls by Boku Haram, the Nigerian Islamic terror group, has been deafening and our government has responded by sending in investigators. Yet over the past 5 to 10 years, this same group has murdered around 3000 Nigerian Christians by bombing churches. They seem to especially like setting off bombs on Easter Sunday morning. Yet there has been virtually no outcry against these atrocitites. Only recently Boku Haram kidnapped 50 Christian boys and the story bearly made the news. Has this terror group finally crossed some kind of "political correctness" line by kidnapping girls?

The other day, I heard a liberal commentator say that if we locate these Nigerian girls (which is unlikely), we should immediately send in special forces to rescue them. His conclusion was, "The hell with national sovereignty." Okay, then why shouldn't we do exactly the same thing for Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag? Or for every other female victim of kidnapping or religious persecution anywhere else in the world? The hell with national sovereignty. Yet, what would be our response if another nation violated our national sovereignty? This is what happens when people allow passion to overtake reason.

Certainly the Nigerian kidnappings were horrible, but there are a lot of horrible things going on in the world. Let's at least be consistent. Hypocrisy is also a horrible thing.

The first step...

The first step toward creating an entire society strung out on drugs is convincing children and their parents that they need synthesized drugs in order to function. This sets the stage for the rest of their lives. Today nearly 30% of American adults are taking prescription antidepressent drugs. Who knows what percentage of the population in Washington and Colorado are regularly smoking marijuana. We are clearly on our way to the Idiocracy.

As reported by UPI: "According to a new health study, some 7.5 percent of children ages 6 to 17 are being prescribed psych meds for emotional or behavioral problems. The study is based on information collected as a part of the National Health Interview Survey, designed and carried out by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics." Read more at: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2014/04/25/75-percent-of-schoolchildren-take-prescription-psych-meds/9691398436127/#ixzz2zvkVLzqb

Constitutional confusion

According to CBS News, Cliven Bundy told a Las Vegas radio station on Monday, “The founding fathers didn’t create a government like this.” I think Mr. Bundy may have forgotten his history. In 1794, President George Washington himself led the Army of the United States against some farmers in western Pennsylvania who refused to pay the new federal tax on whiskey. Tax collection at the point of a gun has been the norm from the beginning.