A Tepid Response when Outrage is Required.

Leave a comment

Tepid.

Dictionary.com defines “tepid” likes this:

adjective

  1. moderately warm; lukewarm: tepid water.
  2. characterized by a lack of force or enthusiasm: tepid prose; the critics’ tepid reception for the new play.

Tepid is a great word to describe President Obama’s response to the latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem-a terrorist attack launched by who else, Hamas\Palestinians. The attack took place in a house of prayer and left a number of Rabbis with duo western\Israeli citizenship dead. An Israeli Druze policeman died a bit later after the shootout with the terrorists that also left the terrorists dead. Total Israeli dead numbered five.

It didn’t take long before we heard President Obama’s tepid response in which he repeated all the catch phrases that add up to the left’s idiotic moral equivalency arguments. Such as…

“The majority of the of the Palestinian people want peace.”

Obviously. That’s why they elected Hamas to their government and have a President overtly sympathetic to Hamas\Jihadis even as he issued his own tepid response to the attack that at the same time condemned it and justified it.

Obviously. That’s why Palestinians were dancing in the streets after the attack just as they did after 9\11.

Obviously.That’s why we heard numerous Muslim clerics deplore the attack and condemn the attackers. No, wait a minute, we didn’t hear any. Where are the so-called Muslim moderates? What is the definition of a Muslim moderate anyway? Is it a Jihadi who just stops short of cutting off people’s heads?

“We urge both sides to show restraint. Enough Palestinians and Israelis have died.”

There it is, the moral equivalency response. Terrorists attack defenseless Israeli citizens in a house of prayer and Israel which warns defenseless citizens of an impending attack should show restraint.

Never mind that Hamas hides its military assets among the civilian population in the hopes that Israel will kill civilians in their response. Hamas does this knowing full well that the western media will make much of the Israeli attacks and little of Hamas’ manipulation. The western media loves to make a victim out of the perpetrator. Hamas plays the western media like a fiddle.

It is noteworthy that Israel’s President Netanyahu called on western governments to express outrage. The fact he had to ask western governments to express outrage is because like Obama’s tepid remarks the tendency of the west is to likewise be tepid in their responses to Palestinian outrages.

The west with its bent toward political correctness and pacifism nominally fights ISIS in Iraq and Syria yet urges Israeli restraint in dealing with Hamas/Palestinians who are cut from the same cloth as ISIS. Go figure.

The Israeli government just relaxed the rules for Israelis to carry guns. That’s a response that makes sense. Perhaps if one of those hapless Rabbis had a gun the death toll would have been terrorists 2KIA and Israelis 0KIA or the attack would not have happened at all. Cowards do not like to face armed citizens. The defenseless make much easier targets for a coward. And the left wonders why we Second Amendment defenders like conceal and carry. Hamas and criminals is why.

One can only conclude from Obama’s tepid remarks that he sympathizes with Hamas and believes there is validity to their cause if not their methods.

Note to President Obama: Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and will not stop until that is achieved. And by the way, we’re next. At least two of those Rabbis were Americans.

Advertisements

The Great Charter

Leave a comment

The Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter to the Liberties of England, is a document originally issued in Latin in the year 1215. The Great Charter is truly great, because it was the first legal document to establish that leaders did not have arbitrary power, granted under Divine Authority, but instead were subject to the law of the land.

The feudal barons forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights. In a way, it was the world’s very first written Constitution. The charter was a major part of the process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world, an ideal which was eventually transported to the New World. It would inspire the Founding Fathers to draft a new document, the United States Constitution. constitutionfacts.com

The Great Charter or Magna Carta has been on my mind this week. I first learned of it back in grade school and then again in High School in my American Government class. I wonder if it’s still taught in the public school system. I doubt it.

Consider its significance.

For the first time the power of the king was limited by law. Although the power of the king had been challenged prior to the Great Charter the establishment of the Charter was the first successful attempt to get the king to submit to the will of the people as represented by the English feudal barons. The Great Charter protected their rights whereas previously the king could and did usurp rights and would claim that since he had a “divine right” to rule he could rule any which way he chose.

The best the people could hope for was a benevolent ruler as opposed to a power mad despot. What they got was usually something in-between. The Great Charter was the first step toward a government where by a ruler’s authority was limited by the governed.

As it says above the Great Charter was the world’s first written Constitution and it inspired the Founding Fathers of our own country to draft the US Constitution. It’s where we get the idea the even the President is limited by the rule of law and not immune from being prosecuted if he ignores it or breaks it.

In the past week we Americans who are paying attention have learned (or relearned at least one thing).

Our Imperial President will not be thwarted by an election that should curb his imperial ambitions.

The Imperial President has threatened, and we have no reason to doubt him, that he will by executive fiat change the law and push through his version of immigration reform without congressional approval or input.

The fact that he said numerous times on numerous occasions that he could not do what he is about to do illustrates the depth of his hypocrisy and disdain for the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

The fact the Imperial President could have accomplished all his goals in the first two years of his first term when the Imperial President had control of both houses of Congress seems to escape the notice of the compliant media and American people. The observant will ask, why now?

My answer to that question is because he thinks he can get away with it. The Imperial President is first and foremost an ideologue who promised to reshape America and as Dinsesh D’Souza has said in order to reshape something you have to undo something else. That something is the United States Great Charter that we call the Constitution. Since the new Congress will hinder his efforts at reshaping America he seeks to reshape it now; never mind the consequences.

Observers, including some liberals who have not lost their minds have noted that when the Imperial President issues his edict it will lead to a Constitutional crisis not seen in our country for a great many years. Should the Imperial President triumph in the end it will set a precedent for executive action that the progressives may live to regret.

When Speaker of the House Boehner says Congress will fight the Imperial President “tooth and nail” let us hope that he means it and that the power of the Imperial President is curbed and curbed permanently lest government of the people, by the people  and for the people be lost among a tidal wave of executive orders issued by a anti-Constitution wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

The Constitution, Protect It Or Destroy It

Leave a comment

The President swore to uphold the Constitution not ignore it or destroy it. Good stuff here from fellow blogger billover70.

billover70

Daniel,

I see that you expressed an opinion that executive orders are constitutional.  In order for something to be constitutional, I suppose that it would be found somewhere in the US Constitution. I have attempted to find the information from which your opinion may have been formed. Please help me locate the Article and Section that vests a Presidential power of “executive orders” that establishes laws.

I am a bit confused because Article I, Section 1 states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” I thought that “All” indicated a totality. Then there is that expression, “legislative powers”. I looked in one dictionary and found that the noun “legislation” meant, “The making or giving of laws”. Since the adjective, “legislative” is used to describe the powers of Congress, I have been led to understand that, “All legislative powers herein…

View original post 188 more words