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.

Shariah and the goal of a Caliphate

Leave a comment

IMG_1204.JPG

The picture is of self-appointed Sharia police in Germany. They ran afoul of the German police as they attempted to enforce sharia law on Germans that were drinking.

This little incident came to mind last night after I heard the President’s speech regarding taking military action against ISIS.

The President is quite right to categorize ISIS as a terrorist organization and quite right to try to form a coalition of the willing to do something about it.

There was at least one thing missing from the President’s speech and that was the word, caliphate. The goal of ISIS is a caliphate, that is Islamic rule worldwide from a central caliphate not dissimilar to the old Ottoman Empire who were the last Islamists to try it.

What the President and his advisors do not seem to get is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. One way is military conquest like ISIS is capable of doing but the other way is more subtle.

The other way is to infiltrate western cultures and claim special rights  like enforcing sharia on Moslems and non-Moslems alike.  Then when busted claim victim status. racism and cultural insensitivity.

The subtle way is probably more effective in the long run especially because most of the west is naive about caliphate goals and frankly uber sensitive to anyone who claims victim status.

It has already been established that many ISIS fighters hold western passports and that should prove that within western nations there is a ready-made “fifth column” ready to take up the cause and methods of ISIS in those western nations. I would suggest that the sharia police are already on board philosophically with their more militant cousins and their goals are identical.

The war on Islamic fascism is bigger than you seem to think Mr. President.

Moral Equivalency-Hamas vs Israel

Leave a comment

There is a great column by Dennis Prager on Townhall.com titled, The Jewish State in a Morally Sick World.

In the article Prager discusses the concept of moral equivalency as it relates to the ongoing struggles between Israel and Hamas as well as the Islamic States that support Hamas.

The definition of moral equivalency from rationalwiki.org is: Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

Prager makes the argument that the moral gulf between Israel and Hamas is as great as the moral gulf between the Western Allies in WW2 and the Nazis. Prager continues to make his point by noting that hundreds\thousands of British were killed in the blitz and thousands\hundreds of thousands were killed in Germany by the RAF and USAF later in the war.

Prager notes and accurately I think that if all you do is look at the casualty rate you have some sort of moral equivalency that makes the western allies as bad as the Nazis. And this is the kind of illogical fallacy that many in the west commit when they compare Israel to Hamas.  The argument goes something like this. If Hamas kills three and the Israeli’s kill 30 in response, then Israel has not shown restraint and is immoral for doing so. Hamas on the other hand gets a pass because they hide among their civilians and look like the victims to the western media.

Hamas uses the western media to focus on the Palestinian\Hamas casualty rate versus the casualty rate of the Israelis to make a moral equivalency argument; or better put, to paint themselves as the victims of Israeli aggression as it they had nothing to do with the Israeli reaction to their incessant missile attacks and pledge to kill all Jews.

Hamas deliberately puts their own people in harm’s way to make the sympathy point and many in the western world fall for it and urge Israel to show restraint and/or just surrender to the acts of terror.

Below is Israel’s PM Netanyahu speaking to western ambassadors pleading with them to take a moral stand against Hamas. Netanyahu is quite right when he says that if the west lets this go the west will be next. The jihadis use our own morality against us while they have little of their own.

MAD

Leave a comment

MAD stood for mutually assured destruction during the Cold War. The theory was that neither superpower would start a nuclear war because each had the power to destroy the other so no one would win. MAD obviously worked because the superpowers were rational enough to “get it.”

All that came to mind as Secretary of State John Kerry returned to the US waving a metaphorical piece of paper declaring peace in our time with Iran. Why Obama and Kerry would find the mullahs in Iran trustworthy is astounding. Why they would find the mullahs in Iran rational is equally astounding.

Our Israeli friends who have everything to lose are not going to wait around to see if a nuclear Iran is trustworthy or rational. They cannot afford to be stupid or naive.

When will they speak up?

Leave a comment

For the moment it appears that controversy about Syria and poison gas has died down. The ever trust worthy and human rights advocate Vladimir Putin has brokered a deal where by Syria’s chemical weapons will be handed over to Russia and then to the U.N.

Yet, in the space of a day or two Islamic terrorists have killed over 60 in a shopping mall in Kenya and murdered 80 Christians in Pakistan. The incidents are notable for the death tolls but it makes one wonder how many other victims of Islamic terror are not noticed because the body count is less.

It seems the world does not care all that much. Perhaps if the terrorists use poison gas someone, somewhere will draw a red line and actually enforce it.

The more important question is why do the leaders of the religion of peace remain relatively silent about these atrocities? Their silence is deafening leaving one to conclude they either quietly approve or they are scared out of their wits to confront those who kill in the name of Allah.

Muslims living in western countries wonder why they are suspect. Perhaps it is their silence that makes them so.

Dennis Praeger address this issue in his Townhall Column for today. I don’t agree with Praeger’s view of the gospel but his main point about Muslim leaders remaining silent is spot on.

Link to NYT article on the suicide bombing of Pakistani Christian Church

Christian Minority In Pakistan Pounded By Islamists In Brutal Suicide Bombing (freedomoutpost.com)

Remembering Two 9/11’s

1 Comment

Eleven years ago today my dad and I went fishing. He was retired and I was pastoring a small church in the Milwaukee area. One of the upsides in pastoring that church is that I could see my aging parents once a week. Dad like to shore fish and sometimes he would come to my house which was close to Lake Michigan and we’d head to the lake to wet a line. We never caught anything but that was not the point. It was just good to be with dad and “shoot the baloney” as he would put it. After fishing we’d go to lunch and continue the baloney shooting. There is nothing remarkable about any of this except for the date. It was 9\11\2001.

We had finished fishing, again having caught nothing, and got in the car. I turned the radio on and neither of us could believe our ears-a large plane had crashed into one of the twin towers in New York City. Was it an accident, was it a pilot suicide, what the hec just happened were the questions that swirled about in our minds.

We arrived at my house and turned on the television. We witnessed the second aircraft crashing into the second tower. The sight of the second plane crashing into the second tower answered our questions. It was not an accident but it was a pilot suicide although not of the type we originally guessed. We surmised, quite rightly, that the US had been attacked by Islamic terrorists.

The moment it dawned on us it was no accident and that we'd probably go to war.

The moment it dawned on us it was no accident and that we’d probably go to war.

At this point my dad left to go home to be with my mother. They both had lived through World War 2 and my dad had served at the war’s end. My dad made comments about Pearl Harbor and wanted to be with mom when he shared the news. He also shared concern about his grandson (my son) who was in his early twenties at the time and what it all meant should the US go to war.

After then President Bush said that we’d go after the terrorists wherever they might be found as well as the countries that hid them my dad nodded his approval even though it might have meant his grandson could be part of that going after. It was clear cut in dad’s mind and he was not the kind of guy who was inclined to Republican views. Never-the-less, in his mind Bush was absolutely right and never mind that dad didn’t particularly like him.

I think dad’s mindset was that of what is now called the “greatest generation.” The generation that lived through the great depression and World War 2 and knew that sometimes a country had to go war even while it most certainly preferred peace. To dad and most of his generation it was simply a matter of right versus wrong, wrong to let Americans die at the hands of terrorists and do nothing.

Mom passed away in 2004 and dad in 2006 so neither witnessed the election of President Obama. I doubt they would have voted for him because they were pro-life Catholics and while they leaned Democrat they could not longer tolerate the massacre of a different type of innocent-the unborn.

Had my father lived through 9/11/12 I wonder what his reaction would have been to Benghazi and the murder of four Americans by a different set of Islamic terrorists.

English: President George W. Bush and Presiden...

English: President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama meet in the Oval Office of the White House Monday, November 10, 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Big Difference!

The cover-up, the false narrative of what happened and why, the Secretary of State saying, “what difference does it make” and the fact the administration let our people die would have enraged dad.

But, we are a different country now. The greatest generation is quickly passing away and along with it a collective ability to judge some things simply as right and wrong and act accordingly. I suspect that dad should he still be alive would more concerned with his grandson and his growing family and what kind of country they are inheriting.

My dad, 1946 on duty as MP in occupied Germany.

My dad, 1946 on duty as MP in occupied Germany.

And God made them male and female and indeterminate.

Leave a comment

“…and God made them male and female and “indeterminate.” (Der Spiegel)

Germany is following Australia’s and Finland’s lead in allowing a third choice when it comes to gender identification on documents that ask for the information. A person simply has to enter the letter “X” for indeterminate rather than ” m” for male or “f” for female.

I could probably go on for quite a while about all the things that are wrong with this confusion but will settle for this.

It’s not exactly a secret how far Germany has drifted from Christianity since the heady days of the Reformation and Martin Luther. And where one thing retreats, another advances and in Germany’s case as well as much of Western Europe that something is Islam.

Nominal cultural Christians, agnostics and atheists may mock Christians that take Scripture seriously and get away with it since most Bible believing Christians are not surprised by anti-Christian biases but with Islam, it’s an animal of a rather different sort.

Islam tends towards being touchy.

religion-of-peace

Sharia law prescribes death to homosexuals as well as calling gender confusion sin. Sharia law is also the stated goal within the western democracies by any honest Islamist. Some rightly fear this trend while their politicians bend over back wards to accommodate Islam.

The irony is the abandonment of traditional Christianity while militant Islam  is on the rise. As one thing retreats, another advances.

For a real eye opener on what slam teaches on homosexuality follow this link to the ReligionofPeace.com

A quick search turned up a number of pictures of Islam demonstrating for Sharia in Europe and here.

sharia_law

Sharia-law-in-Europe

sharia-sack1

shariadfgs

Sharia-SC

Older Entries