"He hammered Trump over his "dangerous" mindset and "loose talk and sloppiness" about who exactly America was fighting, implying that Trump's remarks were actually driving Muslims who might be prone to radicalization into the arms of ISIS.
And he doubled down to repudiate Republican campaigns that he was abetting terrorism by refusing to use the words "radical Islamic terrorism."
"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. "Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?" he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.
"Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above," he said. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.""
"Mrs. Clinton said she preferred the term “radical jihadism.”
“To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think, means the same thing. I’m happy to say either, but that’s not the point,” she said on NBC’s “Today” show. “All of his talk and demagoguery and rhetoric is not going to solve the problem. I’m not going to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion.”
The former secretary of state later dropped “radical Islam” when she delivered a speech in Cleveland, where she vowed to defeat terrorism with a sustained air campaign and the help of an international coalition."
And, no, of course "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away", is quite correct, merely using a name, in and of itself, does and will do, nothing, nothing at all, and "demagoguery and rhetoric is not going to solve the problem" is so very, very true, they are quite right there.
But that hardly makes it unimportant. In fact, the only thing their comments and questions serve to do, is to distract the listener (that'd be you America) from what is worthwhile in that frustration which they are now responding to. Finally.
It might make things a bit clearer, to take a moment to ask another question:
"Why avoid using the correct name?"
That opens up some interesting issues... yes indeedy.
You see, what with few people today being nominalists, the name itself isn't the issue, but what it identifies IS, and not using the correct name, avoiding using the more meaningful name, using other less appropriate names, can succeed only in misidentifying the nature of the problem that is being spoken of - as President 'adjunct professor' Obama, and Mrs. 'the meaning of IS is' Clinton, must surely be aware of. And directing people's concerns and efforts towards a misidentified, or by that means, unknown, purpose, is potentially a very dangerous thing, especially when you're talking about the security of an entire nation.
Why don't they understand this? Or worse, why do they understand this, and persist in the diversion?
Maybe an additional small example would help... maybe, for instance, if someone were to identify President Obama and/or Mrs. Clinton as... say... Traitors - would that be an issue?
Ahhh... I sense that that particular mis-identification might have stirred up a few emotional responses... why is that? Isn't 'traitor' simply a label for a person in leadership who fails to act decisively against an enemy? Wuh? There's more to it than that? Why quibble over details? Hmm? Because they're not traitors? Well what of it? Why demagogue on the issue, it is only a name, after all.
Hmm? Oh, you think it does matter? Really. Why?
Might it be, because a name isn't simply a sound that we mouth, but a term that serves to correctly identify and distinguish one thing, from other like things, as 'throne' and 'stool' do. More, when a name is attached to a complex concept, one that is integrated within a deep and wide ranging set of additional issues and concepts, one that is likely stir a particular response in your listener, then using the correct name can serve to motivate a people with a certain sense of mind, and determination towards a very particular purpose, and with such motivations, even an entire nation's attention and efforts can become galvanized and united towards a definite and particular goal.
So again, it's not 'what's in a name' that is the important question here, but what isn't in the name that is being used, and why are they avoiding that?
With all the media overload that's been put on the 'Transgender bathroom' issue, it might be worthwhile to look at it from a somewhat different perspective, one that goes in somewhere just below the froth of the spin-cycle. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of the typical articles floating around that are worth reading - mainly because most of them seem to think that the transgender issue, is about the transgendered, and if there's one thing that this latest drive towards 'toleration’ is not about, it's those afflicted with transgenderism.
Now wait, you say, these Transgender edicts and laws and demonstrations... they're all about the well intentioned concerns and efforts to make life easier for those unfortunate few afflicted with gender dysphoria... aren't they? Oh Hell no. You don't comfort the sick by inflaming their illness, nor do you afflict the healthy by forcing them to accommodate the delusions of the mentally unhealthy. What's worse, you don't impose restrictive behaviors upon all, which flatter one set of the mentally unhealthy, while enabling a more dangerously mentally ill set, the hetero sexual predator, with legal red carpet access to their prey in the most secluded and vulnerable condition - while at the same time preventing those who would defend them, from even identifying or acting upon the obvious threat. As you might be aware, identifying the obvious in that way, is... frowned upon. Why do you suppose that is?
There is one post on the issue though, by Heather MacDonald , that I can recommend, because rather than being too distracted by the transgender issues and laws themselves, she turns to some of the more fundamental issues involved. She identifies, lays fault and blame upon, the willingness of people to simply chuckle at the 'laughable' statements that have been flowing steadily out of Academia, for decades and decades. Because as she notes,
"One take-away from the transgender-bathroom wars is that the public ignores arcane academic theory at its peril. For two decades, a growing constellation of gender-studies, queer-studies, and women’s-studies departments have been beavering away at propositions that would strike many people outside academia as surprising — such as that biological sex and “gender” are mere ideological constructs imposed by a Eurocentric, heteronormative power structure. Even though skeptical journalists have regularly dived into the murky swamp of academic theory and returned bearing nuggets of impenetrable jargon and even stranger ideas, the public and most politicians have shrugged off such academic abominations, if they have taken note at all. (Senator Marco Rubio’s deplorable jab at “philosophy majors” during his presidential run demonstrated how clueless your typical politician is about the real problems in academia.)"
She's absolutely right, in that '...the public ignores arcane academic theory at its peril', but is simply noting that going to get that same public to look at these 'arcane' theories with any deeper interest? Sure, she notes how disastrous public policies have eventually followed from those who've been indoctrinated with these theories, yyyearsss down the line - as today’s issues stemmed from those theories two decades ago - but is that enough? I mean, seriously, can you imagine anything more worthy of being thought of as irrelevant by and to the public at large, than silly, unrealistic, academic theories about 'heteronormative power structures', and 'patriarchal hegemony's'? Why should they care about them? Yes, we should care, but unless people understand how to get the 'what', 'why' and 'how' of it, no one who's ignored them in the past, is going to take note of them in the future.
Isn't there something about those inane theories that should have stood out then, now and tomorrow, to alert people that they should be noted, refuted, denounced and derided as the clear and present dangers that they are to everyone from the most casual observer, to the parents of, and the students themselves, that are being subjected to them?
I believe that the answer to that is yes, there is a 'Tell' that any observer can easily identify and call them out on.
And the secret Identity Is...
There was, and still are, real, real time consequences, to the pernicious ideas of arcane wacademic theories, but it requires looking past the appearances and spin of things, it requires your not being distracted by those features that are meant to catch your attention and distract you from their real target, and thankfully in this latest issue, they've put that secret target right up front and center in their boilerplate - even though that secret is also their Achilles' heel.
To see it, ask yourself this one question:
What do you mean by 'identify'?
At first it would seem puzzling that there is such confusion over these issues, as the words 'Identify', or plain old 'Identity' have some fairly cut & dry definitions. For instance: Identity:
i·den·ti·ty - ˌīˈden(t)ədē/ - noun - 1. the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.
, and Identify:
i·den·ti·fy - īˈden(t)əˌfī/ - verb - 1. establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is. synonyms: recognize, single out, pick out, spot, point out, pinpoint, put one's finger on, put a name to, name, know..."
Or IOW, to be able to identify something is to be able to distinguish one thing from another, and so become able to think more clearly about it - it is in fact one of the fundamental features of thinking itself. Now ask yourself, is that what you suppose these professors, activists and politicians are intent on doing, or avoiding doing? Is carefully Identifying what's what, what they are after? Do they themselves seem more able to identify the fundamentals of what they are yammering about - what men and women are - or do they seem astonishingly confused by the question? Look at this video, and forget about the transgender distraction for the moment, and just focus on the spectacle of the students unwillingness to identify the obvious fact that a white man identifying as a Chinese woman is and should be immediately ridiculous, but it isn't until the 5'9" man identifies as being 6'5", that finally causes some of these students to hesitate - what kind of 'education' are they receiving? What sort of education is it, whose ideas demand that you deny what you can clearly identify as being true?
The fact that they can't clearly identify or explain the positions they want you to comply with, has got to have you questioning their commitment to identifying what is real and true - doesn't it? Don't they seem more interested in passionately playing let's pretend that our positions - not reasons, but assertions - make us better than you are? It takes very little to rephrase their own statements, to identify what they intentionally evade, and to show them to be self refuting.
IOW, their "Tell" is that their reams of posturing verbiage is not meant to better reveal what is true, but to obscure the identity of what it is that they are claiming to support, they 'darken council with words without understanding'. Their 'Tell' is that their self important language of 'let’s pretend' and 'lets admire ourselves for our pretense!', consistently obscures your ability to be able to identify what it IS that they are talking about, making wise action unknowable, and unwise results probable.
Their "Tell" is to avoid identifying what they claim to be speaking about, their "Tell" is to make contradictory statements and demand that you let them get away with them, their "Tell" is to demand that, like Orwell's '1984', that we not only nod, but embrace the idea that 2+2=5,
which is not simply inane, it is dangerous. And those agitating for norms and laws based upon these "Tells" are uninterested in identifying that obvious fact.
The one thing that they do seem to be interested in doing, is identifying just how much more, at this moment in time, that they can get away with, how much more they can remove from your ability to identify, and so to think clearly about, and to understand and stand up for in the world around you. No, this sudden cultural push is not about men or women 'identifying' as women or men, neither is it about being kind or tolerant towards the mentally ill, or 'fighting back!' against those who'd bully the dysphoric few, those serve as pretexts for, not the purposes of, the transgender agitators. The agitators are not being agitated up in order to help those few men or women who identify as being the opposite sex, but to take advantage of our best and brightest who have been 'educated' to the point of being unable to even identify what a man or a woman is.
And why? How well can a people who are unable or unwilling to identify what a Man or a Woman is, be counted upon to identify what an Individual Right is, or be counted upon to recognize when one is being wronged? Might that not present certain political opportunities for those whose passionate ambition is to use the power of the state to change how we all live (and even use the bathroom), for the greater good? Might that not present opportunities for those who long to live our lives for us... for us?
That, not transgenderism, is the identity of the serious issue facing us, in this and most other popular issues and causes. In much the same way that a 'Memorial Day Sale!' has far less to do with Memorial Day, than with increasing a stores' sales; the Transgender Laws, edicts and popular press, have less to do with 'the plight of the Transgendered', than with transforming and multiplying our laws into ever more versatile tools for imposing power upon the public at large, as justified on the basis of inflamed passions, rather than upon identifiable reasons – because that’s where the Power lies.
The vast majority of the issues trumpeted in our headlines, are but useful pretexts for channeling the passionate grievances of a popular few - or many – so as to enable legislators, bureaucrats, media and educators, to exercise ever more power over the public at large; and how better to revel in that power, than to tell an entire people that the normal expectations and behaviors which they have long held, are no longer to be respected? That what they feel is Right, is Wrong. That their personal opinions and habits are to be forced to give way, not because a clearer understanding and delineation of Right and Wrong has been reached, but to make way for a mostly undefined and indefinable claim of some, against all?
And again, why? How many things are more infuriating, than feeling that you can't speak up, and must accept what is 'politically correct' at work, in a restaurant, at an event, family dinner or when trying to relax?
Contrary to popular belief, and as any bully can tell you, tyranny doesn't really need laws to tyrannize you, it only needs to be feared by you.
In a time such as ours, where ‘Political Correctness’ can result in the ruination of lives, careers and associations, then legally 'toothless' pronouncements such as Obama’s bathroom edict do not need to be enforced everywhere, or even anywhere, at all - it only needs to be asserted, and clamored after by mobs who are visibly ready to shout down or even violently attack, those who gainsay it. Not everywhere, only somewhere, publicly, in order for its threat to be felt everywhere. And so it is that corporations feel pressure to make statements and policies about it, people are afraid to speak out about it, or to be condemned about their own observations and beliefs about it, even though 'it' has no legal leg to stand on. This is the ultimate in spinning executive action ‘under color of authority’, knowing it will be bolstered by the fear of a threat from unseen forces, it is an abuse of Power all its own, that will cloud your ability to identify, to distinguish, to think, inducing anger on all sides of the issue (AKA Community Organizing).
The stupefying power of power
And once again, why? A useful quote to keep in mind, is one from Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"“Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. … The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other...."
What Bonhoeffer (in 1920's-1930's Germany) was observing, and what people like Saul Alinsky are adept at exploiting [see inset], is the stupefying power that power has, when exerted over people. It's not so much that the people are stupid, but that intelligent people find themselves unable to identify or act upon what the actual issue is, and so their actions become indistinguishable from someone acting stupidly. As Power is imposed upon their lives in ways that they are powerless to prevent... unless a person very consciously attends to it, identifies the nature of what is happening to them, then there is going to be slippage between their thought, and that which is thought about, and that slippage expresses itself as both cracks and pressure release valves. People become stupefied as that place where idea and reality should have been firmly connected in their minds, has instead been forced aside, and now anything, usually in the form of meaningless catchwords and popular sentiments, will pass easily through their thoughts and possibly into poorly thought out actions, and more likely than not, leaving a persistent anger in its wake.
Because more power is ever the desire of the powerful, and because heated passions are the time tested means to swaying popular opinion, that is what is repeatedly used to turn We The People to their latest purposes. Whatever momentary mask such causes might wear, from gay marriage, to Christians baking wedding cakes, Seals, Whales, AIDS, Global Warming, Acid Rain, Global Cooling, DDT, etc., it is their emotional appeal and the agitation which they induce, and together with the lack of clear identification which they make difficult, at best, which serves as a means to better gain and impose power upon society 'for the greater good', and for the benefit of those seeking or maintaining power over them.
Given all of that, the issue of the day, which just happens to be Transgenderism today, becomes more clearly identifiable as but a means to an end, and it's the tomorrows of their ends, that we should all be deeply troubled by. Worse, the true identity of the problems facing us, is that every time we let a ridiculous statement go by unchallenged and unchecked, to posture about as if it is a true and meaningful thought, we give those empty words the power of an actual point, and that point will be turned against us - that is its point. To fail to identify these issues as such, is what started us down the path to where we are today - is this where you wanted to be? What will be the tomorrows that follow from this today?
The real trouble with the Transgender issue, is what you and I fear to clearly identify it as, either by inducing an unwillingness in you to identify that which is as being what it actually is, or through requiring you to not say or act on what you know to be true. Such unchecked power is a clear and present danger in all of its forms - not only legislatively, but intellectually, socially and culturally - as it forcibly separates your thoughts from your actions, which effectively flushes the West down the toilet. Who needs an army to invade us, when we'll so willingly eliminate ourselves?
IOW, while you're busy bickering about Hillary/Bernie and Trump, what made their candidacies possible is slipping past you, unidentified, and growing ever more powerful over every aspect of your life.
Last night, a homegrown islamic radical, used the 911 (!) emergency line to publicly declare his allegiance to ISIS, and attacked an Orlando Florida nightclub, killing 50 people, and wounding at least as many more. The reason he gave his father, was that he saw two men kissing, and was angered by it. Do you believe that somehow during his previous decades of life, in Florida, he had managed to avoid such offensive scenes? No, me neither.
This man Mateen, a registered Democrat Muslim (you know, like 'Conservative Christian') was an Islamist sympatheizer, something which had brought him to the attention of the FBI more than once in the recent past, once through his relationship to a suicide bomber in Syria, but they didn't have enough to bring charges against him.
He'd worked for several years as a security guard, had a conceal carry license, and legally complied with the laws, regulations and background checks, to purchase at least some of his weapons. Worse, he was fully armed with Islamic radiclism, locked and loaded with terrorist ideals, and set loose on America.
Following the terrorist's massacre, Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, lept to his preconceived conclusions, and following standard leftie procedure, decried how bad guns are, demanded gun control laws and background checks, to 'keep America safe'. Which, as that is standard leftist SOP, is entirely understandable. But if you want to understand what that means, keep this in mind:
#1 Misidentify the problem - call it something anonymous and vaguely threatening, like 'gun violence', sort of like 'tornado damage'.
#2 Propose solutions that will solve no actual problems other than to push the left's political agenda,
#3 Above all else, avoid naming the real issues:
- People who have no respect for life and individual rights, will deprive others of their rights and even their lives, for the crime of being inconvenient to them.
- Once again, an Islamic Terrorist had easy access to legally disarmed Americans, whose respect for the law prevented the possibility of resisting their murderous assault.
For those who, either due to an overly emotional reaction, or an acute infection of fact aversion, might have caused them to miss the facts just recounted, let's recap it for the record,
The murderer passed a background check such as Sen. Sanders called for.
He went through the waiting period to get a concealed carry license.
The nightclub was legally designated a gun free zone
None of these 'common sense' regulations or laws did a thing to stop the attack
The only thing that did work according to plan, was that despite the fact that Florida has a high number of conceal carry permits, everyone in that nightclub was legally disarmed in its 'gun free zone' and unable to defend themselves against a zealot who'd pledged his allegiance to ISIS.
So once again, the gun control laws that Sen. Sanders and Secretary Clinton want, were in place and in effect, and once again they were entirely ineffective.
As immediately after Sanders' interview, all my leftie friends picked up the meme:
To one of them, Dixie, I pointed out the bullet points above. She replied:
"What the F how can any norrnal citizen feel thats somehow infringeing on their rights. . ...so at what age do we arm our children ..3 , 5 ,10 ??? every person must be armed ??? come on is that the vision of America? we are getting this all F'ed up!! ONE of the problems is we allowed the NRFA to have their way ..way too long. now we are and will pay the price! just another day."
Which didn't really seem to make any point about my points, so I pointed out again that
"Dixie:"... how can any norrnal citizen feel thats somehow infringeing on their rights..." The point was that what Sanders was calling for, is already in place. And it long has, and will continue to be, ineffective. The point is, that calling for more of what has demonstrably not worked, anywhere, is pointless. If you see someway it does make sense, please, explain.
"...so at what age do we arm our children ..3 , 5..." What proposal are you getting that from?
"...of the problems is we allowed the NRA to have their way ..way too long..." The 2nd Amdt preceded the NRA by many years, and there are many groups of people, blacks during the Civil Rights era for instance, who lived through exactly what the 2nd Amdt exists to prevent, local govt attempting to disarm and subjugate them, and still feel that they owe their lives and those of their families, to it. I assume that That isn't the problem you're referring to... so ... what is?"
For asking those quesitons, I was called a gun nut. And unfriended. Huh. Go figure.
Others were blathering on about "STOP THE HATE". Tell me, how do you "STOP HATE"? Presumably using force isn't the answer they have in mind, so... how? By repeating wishful platitudes and memes? Here's a thought, if you'd like to stop hate, stop promoting thinking that is divorced from reality and ambivalent towards truth. Those are, after all, the necessary foundation for the continuation of irrational hate... but then... that would fly in the face of what is the pro-regressive mantra, to demand that we pass more laws, restrict more liberties, infringe upon more individual rights, and above all else, to never, ever stop lying and evading what the real issues and agendas are.
"... no reference to ISIS or Islamic terror in his brief remarks. "
But he did go on to observe that:
"'Although it's still early in the investigation we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate,' Obama said, making no reference to ISIS or Islamic terror in his brief remarks. "
"Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. 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. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well."
WTH? Yes, Mr. President, it is a time for choosing, we as Americans need to ask ourselves whether we want to be the kind of country that disarms its own citizens, or not. Do we want to be the kind of country that uses its media, regulations and laws to bully its people into being unable to defend themselves, or not. Do we want to be the kind of country that understands that a free people have, first and foremost, the right to live, to live their own lives, and to defend their lives and their property - or not.
But even more importantly than that, we need to decide if we are going to continue to be the kind of country that refuses to identify the nature of the problems we face, in order to peddle a politically feel-good agenda of 'correctness', that oppresses our liberty and gets our people killed.
And you are right again, Mr. President, "...to actively do nothing is a decision as well."