A Tepid Response when Outrage is Required.

Leave a comment


Dictionary.com defines “tepid” likes this:


  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.


Obama Crosses the Rubicon


I believe that the founders of our country had a measure of genius and most of that came from being keen observers of the past. They were educated men with a grasp of history as well as students of government of states long ago that had passed into the dust bin of history. They also seemed to understand human nature quite well which compelled them to create a system of checks and balances to prevent one faction of government becoming too powerful and tyrannical.

I'm Thomas Jefferson and if I could I'd roll over in my grave.

I’m Thomas Jefferson and if I could I’d roll over in my grave.

Perhaps the government they studied most was that of ancient Rome.

Rome was a republic before it became an empire. It wasn’t a republic in the same sense the US is supposed to be a republic but it did have republican ideals in an early development form.

For example, the Roman Legions under the Republic (and later under the Empire) carried an Eagle Standard (Aquila). A small model of an eagle sat on top of the standard pole and right under that eagle was a small flag with the letters SPQR. The letters stood for the Senate and People of Rome.


The Roman Republic was under the rule of a plurality of senators. The Romans had a distrust of kings having tossed out the last Etruscan one prior to the formation of the republic. To prevent the military from abuses the legions were controlled by consuls who had term limits and who had to be elected by the senators. It certainly was not a perfect system but it was unique compared to the despotic regimes to the east and barbarian warlords to the west and north of Rome. The uniqueness of  the system is why our founders found aspects of it quite attractive.

The Roman Republic died a slow death as powerful individuals (Marius, Sulla, Caesar) backed by the powerful Roman Legions hacked away (usually literally) at its ideals. This was the issue that got Julius Caesar killed. The Roman Senate rightly suspected that Caesar would make himself emperor after he had taken care of his last rival (Pompey) and crossed the  Rubicon River essentially daring the Senate to stop him.  We remember what followed as the Ides of March and Brutus’ betrayal but at the root was the distrust of one man becoming too popular and too powerful. Hence, Caesar was assassinated.

What followed was another nasty civil war in which Caesar’s nephew Octavius emerged the victor. Octavius became Augustus and the republic was dead forever. Augustus was followed by Tiberius, the infamous Caligula, Claudius and Nero who was the last of Caesar’s line.

Caligula has gone down in history as the insane tyrant. Scholars debate the degree of insanity. However, even by the loose Roman standards Caligula was a degenerate and that's saying something! One of the stories regarding Caligula and his disdain for the Roman Senate includes making the Senate honor his horse as a fellow senator.

Caligula has gone down in history as the insane tyrant. Scholars debate the degree of insanity. However, even by the loose Roman standards Caligula was a degenerate and that’s saying something! One of the stories regarding Caligula and his disdain for the Roman Senate includes making the Senate honor his horse as a fellow senator.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin101395.html#jpEcwTT79FjBSzIY.99

While Caesar’s line was extinguished other strong men emerged as the emperor became more and more supreme and the senate less and less important often serving as a mere rubber stamp for the emperor. The emperor had a Praetorian Guard while the Senate did not so to disagree with the emperor was to risk one’s life and property.

The founders of our republic knew all this and much more. They knew the temptation of power and they knew what tyranny looked like. They took great pains to mitigate human nature and lessen the risk of one faction of government dominating all the rest. The chief executive, the President, was to be a President and not a king and his power was to be limited by a congress while a watchful Supreme Court was to make sure the Constitution was the law of the land rather than a edict from a strong man.

While the system was not perfect it worked well enough until fairly recently when an unscrupulous cabal of progressives under President Obama sought to undermine the balance of power by over using executive orders.

The latest outrage is the hiring of John Podesta as counselor to President Obama. Politico puts it this way:

It also signals a more aggressive focus by the White House on using executive authority to circumvent Congress in the final three years of the administration.

The vehicle used to circumvent the check and balance of Congress (House and Senate) is executive authority. In other words, if the President says it, then it will be done. It’s Podesta’s job to counsel Obama and use that power.The rational put out to the American people will be, it will end the grid lock of a do nothing Congress. It’s a knock against the Republican House that wrestled control of the house from the Democrats in 2010 as Obamacare was roundly rejected. Podesta’s focus will be ramming that deeply flawed entitlement down the people’s throats come hell or high water.

In other words, Podesta is the power behind the throne (and the IRS and FBI could very well turn out to be the Praetorian Guard and used as enforcers. We’ve already seen glimpses of that!

It’s a naked power grab on top of any number naked power grabs by this administration. Why there hasn’t been more of an outcry in the House and Senate suggests that the majority are complicit in the undoing of our republic. Harry Reid, strong man in the Senate would be chief among the conspirators.

The people, by and large, seem largely ignorant or indifferent as to how our government is supposed to work. The Founders were not afraid of gridlock. They were afraid of power grabs and gridlock prevented that!

I suppose as long as the Bread and Circuses (entitlements) continue the majority will slumber through it all being more concerned about their free iPhones that their loss of liberty.

Abraham Lincoln in the midst of a bloody civil war said this in the Gettysburg Address: Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It is perishing folks. It’s why I’m Tea Party.

Lying when the ends justify the means

Leave a comment

There was an interesting column on Townhall the other day.

The tile of the column was Obama Lies Like a Marxist and the author is Terry P. Jeffrey from CNS News.

The good old days when a lie was a lie and Jiminy Cricket would call him on it.

The good old days when a lie was a lie and Jiminy Cricket would call him on it.

Jeffrey quotes Obama:

“They’ll have to finally acknowledge that this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system,” he said. “They’ll see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”

Americans knows by now that the President’s statement and it’s variations used over 30 times is a blatant and boldface lie and that the President knew it was a lie when he said it and repeated it time and time again. And no even more lies are being told to cover the original lies.

At the end of the article Jeffrey quotes another American President, Ronald Reagan:

In his first press conference as president in 1981, Ronald Reagan, who would lead the West to victory in the Cold War, startled the liberal press when he accurately described the mendacity of the leaders of the Soviet Union, who were seeking a “one-world socialist or communist state.”

They “have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause,” said Reagan, “meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, and that is moral, not immoral.

In my opinion Jeffrey is spot on and his observation should terrify us.

Every dictator and tyrant throughout history has lied through his teeth and not thought it immoral on the basis that it advanced their agenda. It’s a variation on the ends justify the means and then calling the ends moral.

Some will argue that politicians all fudge the truth, obfuscate the truth, mangle the truth, obscure the truth, blur the truth, confuse the truth and in general twist truth like silly putty and to a degree they of course do.

But having said that there was a time in this country when there were limits to what a President could get away with. I point to President Richard Nixon who lied his socks off about Watergate and for his trouble ended up resigning in disgrace rather than face impeachment. This administration makes the Watergate conspirators look like boy scouts by comparison.

Nixon crossed an invisible line and Republicans and Democrats alike recognized the line had been crossed and Nixon had to go. Not so today with most highly polarized Congress since the American Civil War.

President Obama and his administration trot out one lie after the other and then lie again to cover for the first lie. A complacent and sympathetic media aids and abets the lying because it knows it furthers the statist agenda.

President Obama said his administration would be the most transparent ever. In a way he’s right, if you know what to look for.

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.

Caricature and Politcal Correctness

1 Comment

The free dictionary defines caricature as: A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject’s distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.

The use of caricature to mock political leaders enjoys a time-honored tradition especially in the English-speaking world. Below is a British example mocking King George III and his policies. King George had the dubious honor of being mocked by his subjects on the both sides of the Atlantic.

A caricature of King George III entitled 'Temperance enjoying a frugal meal.'

A caricature of King George III entitled ‘Temperance enjoying a frugal meal.’

President Lincoln was mocked as well through caricature. The cartoon below is from Punch, a British publication, famous for its ability to mock through caricature. This one shows a foolish looking Lincoln trying to convince a freed slave to fight for the Union.The jab seems to have more to do with Lincoln’s policies rather than attacking Lincoln personally. Britain was pro-Confederacy during our Civil War.

The caption would not pass a political correctness test today!

‘Why, I du declare, it’s my dear old friend Sambo. Lend us a hand, old hoss, du.”

‘Why, I du declare, it’s my dear old friend Sambo. Lend us a hand, old hoss, du.”

The use of masks is another way to use caricature to mock a politician although the mocking is more usually personal than directed at policy. George W. Bush was relentlessly mocked, often very cruelly by the left. Here a person caricatures George Bush as Satan.

George W. Bush mask as Satan. Mask caricatures of Bush were common while he was President, most were not flattering.

George W. Bush mask as Satan. Mask caricatures of Bush were common while he was President, most were not flattering.

Another caricature of George W. Bush, this time as an ape.

Caricature of George Bush as an ape. President Lincoln was also mocked as an ape.

Caricature of George Bush as an ape. President Lincoln was also mocked as an ape.

President Obama is also mocked via the use of caricature. The right can be just as cruel mocking him as the left was in mocking George W. Bush. In politics, mockery and caricature is par for the course. Most politicians expect it and man or wo-man up  to it. The cartoon below takes a Sarah Palin quote way out of context and applies it to President Obama.

President Obama caricature.

President Obama caricature.

Given the history of caricature and the mockery of political figures not to mention the First Amendment, I find it amusing and chilling that the rodeo clown who wore a Obama mask would be subject to sensitivity training and possible investigation by the Justice Department.

The rodeo Clown who sparked a media firestorm because he wore an Obama mask.

The rodeo Clown who sparked a media firestorm because he wore a Obama mask.

Personally, I think there is a difference between a well thought out caricature and name-calling that demonizes an opponent. I think the two examples given above about President Bush and the one example regarding President Obama are simply name calling that tend to demonize. The one regarding Bush is blatant demonization and contribute nothing to debate as do personal attacks.

The last picture is about the rodeo clown who wore a Obama mask during a performance at the Missouri State Fair. It now appears he will be banned for life at that fair and be subject to sensitivity training at the least.

Here’s some comments and observations:

1) Unless the clown violated some clear-cut rules or guidelines that prohibited the use of political masks of all types he should not be disciplined. Period.

2) While the use of the mask is name calling it certainly is not demonization. If something similar happened in the Bush administration or even the Clinton administration it would be news. The left is guilty of far worse and guilty more frequently. To have the Justice Department look into this is pure hypocrisy of the highest order. If the President was not so narcissistic he’d make some hay by poking fun at himself and let this poor off. Instead, it’s become a big deal. Sad.

3) One can argue what is in good taste or bad taste but the bottom line is we still have freedom of speech and expression in this country so to prosecute this man is to send a message: Do not criticize or mock our President in any way or else. This flies in the face in our Constitution, something the Administration does now on a regular basis. This should have a chilling effect on both the right and the left and to all thinking Americans.

4) Political correctness is being used as a club to control thought as well as speech and action. When one group gets to define what is acceptable  thought and speech you have a dictatorship and a persecuted minority that will not tow the party line. For all their yapping about diversity the left requires conformity and will use law to get it. Big brother is here and he looks a lot like the mask on a rodeo clown, although he certainly is not a clown and knows exactly what he is doing.

And that’s the way I see it.

Below is a great caricature that speaks volumes!


%d bloggers like this: