As President Obama & Mrs. Clinton ask: What's in a name, you should ask: What isn't in it?

What is in a name?
President Obama and Hillary Clinton, after avoiding a certain name for a number of years, are now turning back and asking 'What's in a name?'

CNN reports that on being pressed on the matter of using "Islamic Terrorism", President Obama 'went on a tirade':

"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.""

The Washington Times notes of Hillary:

"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.

Right?

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?

President Obama's response to terror attack in America: "we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be"

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.

Speaking of which, President Obama helpfully chimed in with words of wizdumb, in which the U.K.'s Daily Mail noted that he had made:

"... 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."

America? What's it gonna be?