Tuesday, December 08, 2015

President Obama finally stands up... to the Oval Office.

So President Obama gave a speech from the Oval Office, while standing at a podium, instead of sitting at his desk. Whatever image or sensitivity that was suppose to display... I don't much care. What I do care about is what he actually said, and so, I'm going to reply to it with about as much care as he seems to have given to writing it. IOW: Here comes yet another rant. Damn this is getting tiring.

The speech's transcription is here if you'd like to read along, but either way there are a few sentences, from the opening, and one from the close, that I'd like you to keep fixed in mind - these from the opening:
"So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people."
, and this from the ending:
"...Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL..."
What President Obama is acknowledging, is that there is no evidence that these terrorists were directed by terrorist organizations, that they were motivated by islamist radicalization, that they are at war with America and the West, and that we are at war with ISIS. While I'm amazed that he got that much right, it is nearly the only thing he got right in his speech, and even so he fails to give it any meaning.

Let's go through it, and then you can let me know if you think I've missed something - just be prepared to explain why.

Moving on.
"As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino."[emphasis mine]
When did President Obama first realize this? Why was he so reluctant to state it openly? Why did it take an act of Congress for those wounded in the attacks at Fort Hood to be recognized as being the result of 'terrorists... less complicated attacks', rather than the lesser designation of 'workplace violence' fought for five years to label them as, depriving them of the status and benefits of war related actions?
"As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people."
Damn right. BTW, upholding our Laws is first on that list. But if President Obama does realize that that's the case, then please explain this:
"Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us."
I refer you back to the quote above. In that President Obama said that San Bernardino wasn't the result of an organized attack, and that we are at war with ISIS. Is he unaware that ISIS's chief strategy, stated openly since their inception, and demonstrated again and again (Paris, etc.), is to incite and call for 'lone wolf' attacks? If not, he should resign. But if so, why is he now proposing a strategy designed entirely around organized attacks coming from established organizations? Has he never heard the folly of fighting the new war by the rules of the last war?

"... Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for."
Mr. President, you are the one giving in to fear, and you and your administration and like minded loyalists are inciting fear through politically correct intimidation. You daily demonstrate your fear of offending those who mean us harm, but the fear our people are feeling, is fear of being singled out 'for acting stupidly', for racial profiling by you and members of your administration and the climate of PC intimidation under color of authority that you spread. Your policies of political correctness have now cost lives, as evidenced by the neighbors of the San Bernardino terrorists who didn't report their suspicious activities, for fear of being labeled as 'profiling'.

What you are feeling the heat of is our national anger being directed towards your administration because you seem to be giving your fear of offending them, far more weight than you are showing any resolve to for defending us. What you are saying and doing, is exactly the sort of rhetoric - empty towards terrorist sympathizers, and loaded for bear towards our people - that spreads the intimidation of politically correct policies.

Mr. President: Please save your threats for the enemies of the American people, rather than for the American People themselves.
"... Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power."
We certainly should be. Tell me, why did we have intel on ISIS's headquarters on hand, un-acted upon, and give it to France for bombing, rather than bombing it ourself? And what concrete actions did you take to prevent similar attacks from occurring here in America? Other than petulantly insisting on the wholesale unvetted importation of Syrian refugees, even after the Paris attacks, insisting instead that 'climate change' is the greatest threat we face!
"Third... And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online."
How? What are you actually doing, besides spouting empty rhetoric? What are you doing to alleviate the fear of politically correct responses which your administration fosters on a daily basis with threats, such as from your Attorney General, towards those who choose to speak out against islamist sympathizers? What did you do to bring down the fear of politically correct retaliation, such as those which could have prevented the San Bernardino terrorist's slaughter of Americans? Whatever you are doing, we aren't aware of it and and neither are the radicalized terrorists.
"Fourth... Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all."
What did you just imply about Russia? Is that you calling the 1980's and asking to borrow its foreign policy? Is there a mea culpa you should be offering your former foe Gov. Romney? Hint: YES.
"... I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa *Waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice."
Why for the Visa Waiver program? Are you thinking that that is the only path into America that terrorists will use to slip past your 'high-tech law enforcement'? What evidence can you give that you actually are diligently applying that to the tens of thousands of refugees that you are urging upon the peoples of America? What have you done to apply those standards to the thousands that your administration is still encouraging to flood across our own borders?
"To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security."
Translation: Merely the suspicion of guilt by govt bureaucrats is now going to be enough to deprive us of our rights. You sir were an adjunct 'constitutional law professor', a Senator, and now President - you don't get the grace I might extend to someone going off of their poorly thought out good intentions alone. This is an egregious assault upon ALL of our constitutionally protected rights.

Setting the precedent that suspicion alone, and by anonymous accusers using poorly defined criteria, can qualify a citizen for penalty and deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights, is an implicit abridgment of all of our 'privileges and immunities, from those protected by every other Amendment. Principles only have strength in unbreached integrity - if one can be abridged by the power of the pen and phone, then none of them can stand against your pen and phone. None.

Dear Leftists: Let me ask you - would you be willing to have Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump deciding upon whether or not it was safe for you to retain your (once upon a time, but no more after this) constitutionally protected rights?

Do you really not understand that THAT is how this works? Do you really not understand the pure folly of seeking to promote laws that you want Your guys to administer? That's not 'how you law' you damn fools! Instead, you seek and pass laws that you'd feel comfortable with your worst nightmare being in charge of administering, and if you can't feel comfortable with their being empowered with such laws - then you don't promote them! Why? Because someday they will be in office and have power over you!
"We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures."
That is not a gun safety measure Mr. President, you're not talking about trigger locks here, you're talking about a measure to trample our constitutionally protected right to bear arms, and several other rights as well!
"But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill."
No, Mr. President, that is not what we can do - clearly, that is not what we can do (see Fort Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino for reference). What we can do is, make it harder for anti-American, particularly for militantly anti-American Islamists to enter or remain in our country. What we can do, is:

  1. Bring charges against those you have reasonable suspicion of being terrorists.
  2. Do not allow anyone in this country under refugee or immigrant status, who retains allegiance to any foreign power or law that conflicts with our Constitution. Sharia, Communism, etc. Eject those who are here under those conditions.
  3. Destroy any entity who poses a credible threat to our people.
Or, to put it simply, our strategy should be: We win, They lose. Those who are not comfortable with that, should not be allowed to enter or remain here.
"Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that."
After seven years you're finally 'talking' to congress about this? Only now? Shameful.
"Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight."[emphasis mine]
Again, ISIS's strategy is to send in lone wolf terrorists. At long last, Mr. President, do you still not get that?!

For over a year you've made a show of pretend war - risking the lives of our military personnel, their families and our wealth, to make war policy by political photo-ops. If Congress believes that we are at war with ISIS, then they should DECLARE WAR on ISIS and those who harbor or support them.

But understand - War means WAR. Not 'measured responses' and not nation building. It means destruction, as total as is practical for us, and for our allies, to inflict and co-exist with. If you've not the stomach or will to fully follow through on that in all aspects, then do not dabble with our people's lives for your political comfort and profit.
"But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination."
Anyone notice the cheap con-man switch he just made here? He just attempted to tie his general call of 'just as Muslims...' to political and legal responsibilities upon Americans - IOW he just tied his pet religious affections to our civic obligations. Sorry Mr. President, in this matter there most definitely is a separation of Church and State. There is zero, none, nada 'just as' binding that religion's responsibilities, to the people of this nation. Those of their faith who do support war against our nation and people, places NO corresponding responsibility upon us.
"...It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country."
False. Religious tests have been a part of our immigration laws. And tests for political ideology too, as well as literacy, ability to earn a living, speak the language, etc. Seeing as Islamists adhere a system of laws, Sharia, that they say Muslims are called to follow, means that those following Islam have a double bar to meet and step over. And no, I don't feel bad for mentioning that. Those Muslims who feel no allegiance to Sharia, and who truly desire to become Americans and to respect and abide by our laws - welcome. But as smuggling in those who don't, yet who will pretend to be, is the stated strategy of attack of the organization ISIS that you say we are at war with, then don't you think there needs to be a more strict policy covering immigration of those most likely to be islamists, from entering America?

"It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently."
It's in our Laws Mr. President, that all will be held equal before the law. And one of those laws is that you do not incite to insurrection or terrorism against Americans. Assuming, perhaps too generously, that you actually mean American Citizens (rather than bad-dreamers, illegal immigrants, visa-violators, etc.), then no matter what you'd like to do with your pen or your phone, all Americans receive equal treatment before the law, and anyone seeking penalty or favors for some, are doing so on an illegal basis, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

BTW: Seeing to it that that is done, that is Your job, Mr. President. Please do it.

1 comment:

Jules said...

Glad to see that the Trumpinator is shocking the saintly virgins in the media... by daring to talk about reality. In the country I was born and raised in : France, the FN will probably win the presidential election. So we might have a worldwide new wave of poliiticians who dont look down on the people, who can take decisive action against terrorists and criminals, and who will secure the borders, The FN is fairly anti- free market - but thats a detail at the stage France is at - with islamist sympathisers around all it's cities in large numbers, with Aks and RPGs.

I look forward to the death of old media - all the preening imbeciles parotting the party line like the automatons for suicide that they are.