President Obama lives in a leftist bubble, where he turns every situation into a college classroom debate forum on his ideological causes. He fixates on “narratives” and word choice over substance. Most of the rest of the world lives where reality smacks them in the face, where brute force decides life and death struggle and where stark truths about human nature can’t be edited out, as some politically inconvenient line. Most of us in America live in the real world too, where we look at a situation like the San Bernadino terrorist attack, quickly assess the facts and form our conclusions based on those facts.
With unerring bad timing, President Obama makes bold declarations about America’s enemies, where events unfold that quickly blow apart his carefully constructed “narratives. “ISIL is contained,” the day before the Paris attack or “No specific threat to US,” just a week ago.
In keeping with the Obama administration bad timing, Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, announced all combat positions will be open to women the day after the San Bernadino terrorist attack by Islamic radicals. Assuredly, Secretary Carter believes that “diversity” makes us stronger, which he stated, but here’s the truth – selecting the best qualified people for military positions and maintaining high standards makes our military stronger.
So, selectivity, not diversity makes our military stronger and that means assessing the qualifications that best meet the mission.
In grueling combat jobs, where even most men fail to meet the physical standards, common sense and endless research can pinpoint with reliable accuracy where the female anatomy falls short on meeting these standards. The Army made sure some females made it through Ranger school, where questions of different treatment to get them through the course have been raised, but be that as it may, in reality very few women will rush to get into the elite units and few (if any) have the physical ability to pursue a career in these jobs. Adding women to these jobs adds no advantage – absolutely NONE. It creates another PC myth that must be maintained, even if the lie costs lives on the battlefield. That’s the truth. The entire hoopla about opening these fields to women is really about female officer career advancement, not about making the military stronger.
In the real world, where America’s adversaries size up our force, they hear the claptrap from the Pentagon, but they watch closely what happens in reality, far away from the DC echo chamber. President Obama has slashed our forces, he has purged top generals and promoted sycophants, his military decisions lack any coherence or strategic sense. And then we come to this latest announcement – yes, while feminists cheer about the prospect of women in combat, America’s adversaries are laughing at us. The day after an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil, the President preened on about “mixed motives”. Then his attorney general publicly announced her greatest fear is not another terrorist attack or keeping Americans safe, nope her greatest concern is that Americans don’t use hate speech against Muslims. And finally the Pentagon announced women in combat jobs…
America sits a divided nation – where every public institution lumbers under the weight of highly-charged factionalized fighting. One can only wonder what event or chain reaction will set the final collapse in motion. If our Republic is going to survive, the last thing to believe is that “diversity makes us stronger”. What made America great was not “diversity”, it was diverse people UNITED by a belief in a set of common civic values. Having common civic values and a common belief in The Constitution would help gird up our once great nation’s crumbling pillars. I’ve written about this need to find common ground many times (here, here, here, here and here) and as I said more than a year ago:
Truth matters and therein the fate of America lies. We have hostile camps in America, left and right, black, white and every shade in-between, who find it easier to treat each other as enemies rather than talk and find common ground as fellow American citizens. We’ve got too much diversity training and not enough American citizen training:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
General Mike Flynn, former DIA director, used the phrase that it’s time to “get real” in our fight against ISIS. It’s time to “get real” in putting the pieces together with this terrorist attack on American soil yesterday! The Obama administration will bend over backwards to call it everything except what it is – A TERRORIST ATTACK! The media keeps yammering on about how this shooter in San Bernadino left this workplace Christmas party angry. The shooter happens to be a devout Muslim, who recently traveled to Saudi Arabia – okay, that could be “not definitive”, but come on he went home and returned with his wife and reports indicate a third person and all of them were heavily armed, wearing black gear. Well, here’s a clue from a co-worker of the terrorist:
“Baccari said his co-worker, who said he was raised on a farm with goats and chickens, was reserved. Several months ago Farook grew out his beard. He appeared committed to his family, and never displayed any unusual behavior or discussed any radical political views.”
The suspect left THREE IEDS in the Inland Regional Center before fleeing the scene of their massacre. Sure, random act by disgruntled employee is to go home and gather together, not only the wife and guns, but IEDs lying around the house. Sure, he went home and just randomly constructed some IEDs, because he got pissed at the Christmas party. GET REAL!
I can tell you that for sure, that while the President will fixate on the gun problem in America, he’s barking up the wrong tree, by assiduously avoiding facing the Islamic radical problem. I know, the left will next say the work Christmas party was insensitive and “incited” this violent response… Yes, don’t make them angry, or else. Just wait, this line of insane reasoning is coming.
So sick of the venal politicizing Islam’s dark, radical underbelly, after more than a decade and thousands of American lives lost in a fight where our leaders refuse to identify the enemy – it’s Islamic radicals who are following an ideology that is promoted and funded by some of America’s supposed allies in the Mid-East! That’s not “hate”, that’s called identifying those who hate America and want to annihilate us (hint: America’s enemies).
Spiegel Online International ran an interview with General Mike Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, November 29, 2015, which offers some excellent insights into the challenges with defeating the Islamic State. It’s rare to find an American general who will candidly state the truth, so I find General Flynn’s “get real” approach, a breath of fresh air. The interview is in English. Here are a few takeaways:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the Balkans mission a model for the current war?
Flynn: We can learn some lessons from the Balkans. Strategically, I envision a breakup of the Middle East crisis area into sectors in the way we did back then, with certain nations taking responsibility for these sectors. In addition, we would need a coalition military command structure and, on a political level, the United Nations must be involved. The United States could take one sector, Russia as well and the Europeans another one. The Arabs must be involved in that sort of military operation, as well, and must be part of every sector. With this model, you would have opportunities — Russia, for example, must use its influence on Iran to have Tehran back out of Syria and other proxy efforts in the region.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: For that to happen, the West would have to cooperate fully with the Russians.
Flynn: We have to work constructively with Russia. Whether we like it or not, Russia made a decision to be there (in Syria) and to act militarily. They are there, and this has dramatically changed the dynamic. So you can’t say Russia is bad, they have to go home. It’s not going to happen. Get real. Look at what happened in the past few days: The president of France asked the US for help militarily (after the Paris attacks). That’s really weird to me, as an American. We should have been there first and offered support. Now he is flying to Moscow and asking Putin for help.
(Hat tip to Debra Heine, at PJ Media, who posted a more extensive piece on General Flynn’s interview)
Here’s an opinion on the Turkish/Russian air conflict from Nightwatch, which I believe is the most honest coming from an American source to date:
“NightWatch judges this shoot down was an ambush, not a defensive reaction. The Turks said they provided multiple warnings that the Russians said they did not receive. The Turks did not say that the warnings were acknowledged in any way over a five-minute period. Five minutes is long time in the air for determining whether a violator poses a threat.
The alleged warnings aside, the Turks have been watching Russian air operations for weeks. The Russians have been open about their operations, their target areas and their willingness to make arrangements for avoiding air conflicts. The Turks knew the Russian aircraft was not targeting Turkey and had a hotline which the Russians said was not used.
The Turks reacted to prior alleged violations without shooting, but with warnings. On their face, those prior incidents could be understood as creating the precedent for not shooting, on which the Russians might have relied. Against that backdrop, the Turks seem to have been waiting for an opportunity to correct any Russian perception of implied permission.
The Turks claim they had the right to shoot, but it was not a smart move. It makes Turkey appear to be providing air support to extreme Islamic terrorists. Russia, the US and the rest of NATO have long known that Turkey has been a primary supporter of the Islamic State since its inception. Now the Turks have acted openly as accomplices to terrorism, especially if the Turkish fighters operated in Syria.
Turkey has instigated a confrontation with Russia that could escalate to a crisis. The Russians will avenge this shoot down. They subscribe to the Israeli doctrine of asymmetric punishment.”
Now, if we find ourselves backing Turkey, which supports the Islamic State and has done everything it can to impede our success in fighting the Islamic State, then NATO ally or not, we should reassess who our friends really are. Erdogan is an Islamist snake in the grass, that’s my opinion. Now, if the facts shake out with truth being on the Russian side, should the US continue to bolster Turkey’s version of events? Shouldn’t we stand up for the truth? Nightwatch also provided this comment:
“The Russian General Staff said that the target of the Su-24M was a concentration of 1,000 North Caucasus terrorists in the mountains northeast of Latakia. They came through Turkey.”
So, remember when Turkey finally decided to help in the fight against the Islamic State this past summer, instead of focusing on attacking the Islamic State, Turkey started bombing the hell out of the Kurds,not the Islamic State. If what the Russians state is the truth, then we have a huge credibility problem. Some ally we have in Turkey…
Note: Nightwatch is a subscription publication. For more information click on this link:
In recent days, due to the unfolding terrorist attacks in Paris, in which at least one of the terrorists (possibly two) got into France using a fake Syrian passport, the US Refugee Resettlement Program has come under fire. Open borders advocates insist that there are no cases of refugees committing terrorist attacks in the US.
Back in 2013, the FBI charged two Iraqi refugees, who had gone through the Refugee Resettlement Program on terrorism charges, as both were known Iraqi bomb-makers, whose bombs were used to attack American soldiers. In 2013 the State Department paused the refugee program to review the process. This ABC story includes a 10 minute video report, which explains the refugee process:
So, only two years ago the FBI believed that dozens of Al Qaeda terrorists may have moved to the US as refugees, yet now the Obama administration insists all is well and it’s safe to allow tens of thousands of refugees from war-torn Syria. For a detailed and extensive chronicling of the problems with the Refugee Resettlement Program, please check out Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch (here). Sometimes Often, I feel like a broken record, stuck in the same worn out groove, so let me just say, I’ve covered this refugee “issue” several times before, like here, here, here,here, and here. Short version: The State Department pays millions of dollars to religious charities to provide the services in this refugee resettlement program, so as these charities preach about helping the poor refugees, keep in mind these charities are raking in millions …
After being dead wrong so many times, you’d think the Obama administration might get a clue that they’ve made grievous policy blunders, but nope, the narcissist-in-chief and his pompous secretary at the State Department double down, rather than face up to their gross incompetence. In a world where “ISIS is contained” didn’t really mean “contained” but instead meant “geographically contained”, you can be sure that if more terrorists enter the US through this refugee process, which Kerry and Johnson describe as “extraordinarily thorough and comprehensive“, these terms will be up for redefinition. They’ll just churn out more pathetic narratives, penned by some of the best fiction writers in the country,
So gather round the campfire for another tale from the Obama Chronicles…. a 4 and 1/2 page Kerry tale, in the form of a letter sent to the MA state governor to assuage concerns about the Refugee Resettlement Program. Pay attention:
Administration officials outlined the security steps now taken:
Candidates are first interviewed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (pssst, these are UN flunkies with no loyalty to the US) to determine their eligibility for refugee status — whether individuals have been persecuted based on political opinion, social group, race, religion, or nationality.
The State Department then takes over the process, through contracted resettlement support centers (pssst, got that contracted – often religious groups making money off the federal government) that conduct further interviews. The State Department performs background checks using a variety of terror, law enforcement, and intelligence databases.
The State Department then takes over the process, through contracted resettlement support centers that conduct further interviews (pssst, this involves asking them stuff like, “Are you a terrorist?). The State Department performs background checks using a variety of terror, law enforcement, and intelligence databases (pssst, in Syria there is no intelligence database to check against and even the Syrian government can not vet that passports are legitimate).
The US Citizen and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security conduct further reviews and interviews. The process includes vetting biometric information, such as fingerprints,(pssst, places like Syria or Somalia dont’ have governments to check databases for known criminals) for those between the ages of 14 and 79.
For a better description of the actual vetting process, refer back to the ABC 1o minute video, linked above where Brian Ross investigated the refugee screening process. Our national security is being contracted out – that’s the bottom line and don’t you feel much safer knowing Jeh Johnson and John Kerry took so much care in choosing carefully vetted language, designed to dupe you into believing they can actually vet these refugees….
In far more eloquent prose than I’m able to muster, Malcolm Pollack at the waka,waka,waka blog dissects the refugee resettlement argument in an excellent blog post, “The “Refugee” Question: Further Thoughts” Malcolm writes:
“In the discussion thread under our previous post, a commenter directed our readers’ attention to an article by Megan McArdle on the question of settling “Syrian” “refugees” in the United States. Further discussion ensued.
Ms. McArdle’s essay is helpful in that it identifies six low tactics that proponents of Syrian refugee resettlement have been using: Bible-beating, mockery, falsehood, mawkish incomprehension, straw-manning, and Western self-flagellation.
She then presses her case for U.S. resettlement with familiar arguments: we’ve assimilated all sorts of others before now; previous waves of immigrants were also regarded with a wary eye, but look how well it all worked out; most Muslims aren’t terrorists; etc.
She then says this sensible thing:
As long as you believe that it’s a good thing to help strangers at some sufficiently small cost to yourself, then we can have a reasonable discussion about whether the costs outweigh potential benefits.
That’s fair enough, I think. I’ll be happy to reply on her terms.”
He then completely eviscerates McArdle’s arguments. Please read his entire post.
“The summary below shows what al Qaeda looks like today – it is far from being “neutralize[d].” Instead, al Qaeda and its regional branches are fighting in more countries today than ever. They are trying to build radical Islamic states, just like ISIS, which garners more attention but hasn’t, contrary to conventional wisdom, surpassed al Qaeda in many areas.”
The above article by Bill Roggio and Thomas Joscelyn at The Long War Journal highlights key fallacies about Al Qaeda and ISIS, which the Obama administration clings to, despite overwhelming evidence that their strategy to defeat ISIS continues to flounder and they were dead wrong on Al Qaeda being decimated.
Despite playing with glue and paper today, I did read some news. For once I’ll forgo links to sources to do a quick post of bullet points of concern and also referring back to “old” news.
1. The threat of more terrorist attacks has escalated. Terrorism has not waned, and while the Obama administration tried to spin Al Qaeda as decimated, the truth is an Al Qaeda affiliate, AQI, morphed into an even more dangerous terrorist group. So, while the Obama narrative writers might want to quibble that ISIL (as they prefer to call them) is not Al Qaeda, just keep in mind that these are the lunatics who refuse to see any connection between radical Islamists and Islam.
2. Besides more terrorist attacks like the ones Paris has just suffered, keep in mind that Islamist terrorists have been trying to pull off a WMD attack against the West. The Obama administration lies a lot about WMD – they try to insist their Iran plan will keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which is ridiculously naive, but even worse the President fudged on assigning blame and announcing his infamous red line in Syria. He assigned blame for that attack before the investigation was even completed. He had decided on regime change and revving up the propaganda against Assad fit his narrative.
Certainly, there’s horrific violence on all sides in Syria, but it looks like the Obama administration downplayed the Syrian rebels and some of them possessing WMD capability. Recent reports indicate that Syrian rebels used WMD in an August attack. So, we’ve got that capability in the hands of apocalyptic terrorists and Europe is chock full of Islamists and Islamist sympathizers.
The FBI recently cited 900 active ISIS investigation within the US. Let me repeat, these lunatics want to use WMD against the West and the Obama administration has stayed mum about ISIS possessing WMD capability. Europe has that Balkans pipeline that Islamists utilize to smuggle weapons and explosives into Europe. We have porous borders.
We also have American black Muslim gangs with ties to Islamist radicals, in not only many American cities, but across America. There’s a dangerous nexus between America’s illegal drug trade and Islamic terrorism. The press seems to miss this connection repeatedly – in the Baltimore riots – there were black Muslim gangs there too. Reporters and even one of their favorite sources on “extremism” in America, The Southern Poverty Law Center, downplays that Islamic connection in bios of many of these black gangs.
3. There is no way to vet Syrian refugees, where there’s no Syrian database to check these passports against. While the vast majority of refugees are likely harmless, it doesn’t take very many to carry out terrorist attacks.
4. This White House has clueless morons, like Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes, with no real foreign policy expertise, making decisions, while our generals get ignored. 2016 remains a long ways away in this type of grave national security environment.
5. Just hope your state has competent leaders, because this administration falls far short on that metric. Let’s hope the adults in Washington will do what’s necessary, if this administration once again decides to “lead from behind”. The luxury of waiting it out and keeping our fingers crossed until 2016 seems like wishful thinking at this point. Just a few short weeks ago Europeans were blithely wallowing in their EU open borders euphoria and today France and Belgium appear to be living under martial law, fearing an imminent terrorist attack.
Each time an Islamic terror attack occurs, reporters take to the airwaves and print media scribbles on to report, explain, and ostensibly to inform us about the event. Political leaders, likewise rush to make declarations, lambast those with opposing views, or opine that we must act “NOW”! Along with this predictable reaction comes the dire predictions of larger, more violent attacks by Islamic terrorists in the offing. So, let’s explore the “Circle of Life of Islamic civilization”.
Today’s post is going to be links to other people’s writings, where you can read at your leisure. JK provides copious links to my blog and often very important ones get buried in blog post comments, never receiving the attention they deserve. Nightwatch, another source, which JK recommended to me when we met, provides another important rich resource for understanding of events around the world. Nightwatch is a subscription service, but well worth it. G. Murphy Donovan continues to write in clear, honest, stark terms about what to make of the Islamic war against Western civilization, so I want to add his link too. I leave it for you to decide on the basic question of whose understanding of this Islamic war is correct, President Obama and his “No Islam to see here” assertion, that these are the acts on “lone terrorists” and small groups of haters or the Global Jihad as part of an organized “living system” theory, which transcends individuals and rises to the level of a civilizational conflict.
Under the Obama-type understanding, Islam plays no role in the terrorist acts perpetrated against Western targets. These are just “violent extremists” – acting out of malevolence, but no higher-purpose. You watch people state repeatedly that they are “martyrs for Islam,” yet the American political Left insists there is no Islam in Islamic terror. Minta Marie Morze explains why in “A Naked Phrase Goes Clothes Shopping”:
People wonder why the President and his Administration won’t use the phrase “Jihadi violent extremism” or “Muslim violent extremism”. Even in the SOTU, he used the term “violent extremism”. He has said elsewhere that he is going to convene an international conference on “Violent Extremism”.
From the SOTU:
“. . . and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.”
While there are many reasons for the Administration to insist on these terms and against the others, against any term relating to Islamists, I believe that a major reason for the omission—a very, very important reason—is simply this:
If you use the phrases “Jihadi Violent Extremism” or “Muslim Violent Extremism”, and if you call for an international conference to deal with the problem, then Islamist Violence/Terrorism will be what it is about. If you simply say “violent extremism” and “violent extremist”, you can have conferences and make laws and policies and regulations about generic “Violent Extremists”. Then, at any time, by inserting numerous qualifiers before the term, you can make the laws, regs, and policies turn, with full force of the law, against all of the people and groups on the Right, all of those “fearful and reactive” people who hurt the Progressives.
See how easy it is? Now all the laws and regs and policies made to deal with “violent extremism” apply to these factions too!
A naked phrase can be dressed in any attire you choose to clothe it in. Just select the necessary qualifier. After all, note how the Administration’s spokespeople carefully say things like, “There are many people who use violence to further their cause”, and other such phrases. (It’s called “priming the pump” or “preparing the ground” or “working the room”.)
Minta’s explanation explains why Hillary Clinton refused to utter the words “Islamic terror” and tenaciously clung to the “violent extremism” lingo in the Dem debate Saturday night and as she stated in the previous Dem debate, she considers Republicans her enemy, not Islamic terrorists. In her comments, she often posits that within the Republicans are bastions of “violent right-wing extremists” and President Obama brushed rural Pennsylvanians, of which I am one, in one broad stroke as “clinging to their guns and religion”.
So, let’s move on to the big picture, where the “Circle of Life of Islamic civilization” forms the framework from which to understand what in the heck is going on. Often, Westerners will say things like, “Why do they hate us?” or “What are we doing to make them react like that?” (note the accepting blame mentality). The November 15th Nightwatch explains that the terrorists involved in the actual terrorist attacks form only a cell within a much larger system:
“France-Islamic terror: Special comment: The Islamic terrorist attacks on 13 November reinforce several attributes about terrorism that should be well known. Most important is that the attacks were a product of a living system. The news analysts talked about a network, but that word is too limited and anodyne to be a metaphor for a living system devoted to death.
Before the investigations are complete, many dozens of people will be found to have supported the attack preparations. Well-planned and executed terrorist attacks always are the products of a living system.
According to Miller, in Living Systems, every biological system performs 20 separate functions that are essential to sustain life. In every human body, different organs are specialized to perform the functions. In human groups, including a terrorist group, individuals perform one or more of the functions.
The attackers represent only one of the 20 functions. Unknown additional people, usually invisible to the police, perform the other 19 functions that the group requires. The French and Belgian police are rounding up those others now.
The French bombing of Syria betrays some understanding of the relationships in a living system. Communications between the attackers and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria is enough to justify a retaliatory attack to assuage public outrage a bit.
Nevertheless, ISIL operatives outside Syria and Iraq behave as independent actors, deriving guidance more than material support from the ISIL leadership. The more sinister parts of the living system are being found in Europe. These terrorists were locals. The specific targets were locally determined.”
Source: Nightwatch
JK mentioned a 2005 Foreign Affairs article, “Blowback Revisited”, in a comment yesterday, which chronicles the back story on the current crop of Islamist terrorists Europe and the United States must confront. If you don’t subscribe to Foreign Affairs, they allow you to register and view one free article a month. Here’s where we’re at today:
The byline starts:
TODAY’S INSURGENTS IN IRAQ ARE TOMORROW’S TERRORISTS
Here’s the key takeaway:
“Several factors could make blowback from the Iraq war even more dangerous than the fallout from Afghanistan. Foreign fighters started to arrive in Iraq even before Saddam’s regime fell. They have conducted most of the suicide bombings — including some that have delivered strategic successes such as the withdrawal of the UN and most international aid organizations — and the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, another alumnus of the Afghan war, is perhaps the most effective insurgent commander in the field. Fighters in Iraq are more battle hardened than the Afghan Arabs, who fought demoralized Soviet army conscripts. They are testing themselves against arguably the best army in history, acquiring skills in their battles against coalition forces that will be far more useful for future terrorist operations than those their counterparts learned during the 1980s. Mastering how to make improvised explosive devices or how to conduct suicide operations is more relevant to urban terrorism than the conventional guerrilla tactics used against the Red Army. U.S. military commanders say that techniques perfected in Iraq have been adopted by militants in Afghanistan.”
The article closes:
“The lesson of the decade of terror that followed the Afghan war was that underestimating the importance of blowback has severe consequences. Repeating the mistake in regard to Iraq could lead to even deadlier outcomes.”
G. Murphy Donovan perfectly describes the Western response to the threat we now face in a searing piece, “Friday the 13th in Paris” :
“No matter the body count or venue, Europe and America refuse to recognize jihad as a global Islamic assault. And as with the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, the best response that Francois Hollande and France can muster now is a karaoke Marseillaise, a knee-jerk hymn to irrelevant if not discredited notions of liberté, égalité, and fraternité.
Fey responses to terror are now routine in the West. Call it cultural appropriation. Summary executions are accepted by Islamist butcher and infidel victim alike. Atrocity has been routinized, now hallmarks of 21st Century practices in the East and tolerance in the West. Suicide bombers and their victims are joined by the same moral vacuity. The former have no moral compass and the latter are loath to exert any prudence.
Excuses are epidemic. Bernie Sanders on the looney Left actually believes that global warming and ISIS are wingmen. The Sanders pronouncement is of a piece with team Obama’s flawed assessments where ISIS has been described as the “junior varsity.”
Exaggerating a threat might be a no lose hedge but underestimating an existential threat can be fatal. Just ask Paris.”
GMD brusquely sweeps the cobwebs out of the corners of timid reactionary thinking and lays out the reality of Islamic civilization devoid of the burka of political correctness:
“For those with the attention span to notice, global Islamic terror is the most obvious symptom that globalization is not working. Democratic civility and “one-world” comity are not ascending stars, especially in the Muslim world. Societies that venerate 7th Century absolutist monoculture or cult prophets are impervious to fact or reason – much less democracy.
With the possible exception of Kurdistan and a few of the former Soviet Muslim republics, the Ummah is morphing into universal dystopic theocracy. (my highlight)
The quest for Islamic monoculture is facilitated by three trends: a weak or indecisive West, dishonest assessments of the threat, and a generation of leaders in the West who fail to appreciate or defend the virtue, indeed, superiority of their own culture. Indeed, of the three, the most pernicious is the last, the notion that all cultures and religious beliefs are morally equivalent.”
I’ll close with a link to a video on Living Systems Theory:
And in keeping with my Disney theme, above at minute 5:38 there’s a slide on the Circle of Life from the animated Disney movie, “The Lion King”. Below you can watch the entire “Morning Lesson with Mufasa”:
When my children were young, my younger sister came to visit and The Lion King was a hit then. She observed that she thought that movie was too violent for children. One can only wonder what children in war-torn Syria or downtown Paris think about the world they live in…
When figuring out what people mean, it helps to listen to what they say. Why after decades into the global jihad, those on the Left are still struggling to fathom what motivates Jihadists, boggles my mind. They tell us in every other breath why they are waging Jihad against us. To pretend they are not acting out of religious motivations found in Islam, when they quote their religious references, down to the verse, means you’re either an idiot or you’re willing to put political correctness over national security. Taking the Islam out of global Jihad is like pretending Spam is really ham.
Last night, during the second Democratic presidential debate, none of the three Democratic presidential candidates could mention the Islamic motivation that’s central to global jihad. Queen Hillary waxed on and on, praising President Bush for not calling it a holy war. Sanders and O’Malley likewise would not mention Islam in connection to the terrorist attack in Paris. They also offered no real plan for how to defeat global jihadists.
If someone says they want to kill you because his religion compels him to , then a rational person would not argue about what that person believes, you’d take the appropriate measures to protect yourself. I take what they say, as what they mean and they keep demonstrating they will act on their beliefs. Good enough for me – you say you see it as a ‘holy war” and you want to kill me and annihilate my fellow countrymen – I believe you – done deal! If the respected legal and religious scholars in the Arab world sanction your global jihad, who am I to quibble with what is really “Islamic” and what isn’t?
The Queen reigned supreme in that debate and Sanders and O’Malley tiptoed around even disagreeing with her. O’Malley got the evil eye several times, so his name assuredly got etched onto the Clinton machine hit list. Same old, same old in the coronation process.
libertybelle diaries 