If so, congratulations! You've officially been betrayed.
Yes, friends. Your President -- the Great Black Hope -- has officially thrown you under the bus.
(I guess you guys should feel good. It's been almost three full months. It took half that time for the Messiah to similarly disown his life-long mentor after he declared his inability to disown the man. You guys must have been REALLY special to him, like an excellent one-night stand or something.)
"Why do you say this?" you ask?
Have you seen the latest Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) report on potential domestic terrorists? If you haven't, let me give you the "short, short version":
If you fit the description in the second or third sentences of this post, YOU are a potential terrorist.
How do I know that Obama approves of the conclusion that YOU are a potential terrorist? Because he didn't fire his DHS secretary, Janet Napolitano, Day 1 Moment 1 Second 1 this report was issued.
I mean, could you EVER see Obama allowing a federal agency to produce a report indicting, say, all Muslim males in America, as potential terrorists?
If you can, please get your head examined, because you're nuts. Obama & Co. are so frightened of offending Muslims that they don't even use the T-word when crazy Muslims blow up a bus carrying soldiers or a restaurant full of civillians. They use the term "man-caused disasters" instead.
If the suspects in question are white and conservative, though? They're terrorists.
How many examples of serious domestic terrorism caused by white conservatives does DHS have over the past, say, 40 years? One. The big example cited by Liberals (and useful idiot conservatives who parrot their nonsense), of course, is Timothy McVeigh.
Well, yes, McVeigh was white and conservative. (And he was a veteran. Oh, that's right. I forgot to mention that point: if you love your country so much that you've joined the military and fought in combat to protect it, Obama and Janet Napolitano think you're a potential terrorist, too.) But there was one of him. Neither before nor since has there been any remotely noteable organization or group of people that supported his actions or tried to emulate him. In spite of this, our President and his DHS Secretary are pretty sure that people like him -- whites, conservatives, veterans -- are terrorists.
What is even more interesting is who is not included on this list of potential terrorists: the only group that has consistently produced terrorists who target Americans over the past 40 years. That would be Muslim males between 18-40.
19 Muslim males hijacked planes to bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and, were it not for the courage of potential terrorists like Todd Beamer on United 96, the Capitol Building or the White House). By DHS's own reasoning, that makes Muslim males 19 times as likely to commit terrorism as white, non-Muslim veterans. This doesn't even take into account the 1994 World Trade Center bombing (committed by Muslim males), the bombing of the USS Cole (ditto), the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Ethiopia (Muslim guys, again), or the bombing of Pan Am 103 (Muslim boys, again).
Jeez. It's a good thing DHS is openly committed to oppressing opponents of the Obama Administration -- instead of, say, keeping America safe or finding actual terrorists. Otherwise (assuming it used the same standards of proof and scrutiny laid out in this memo), DHS would have a GPS tracking device on every Muslim male in America. If they let them out at all.
So, I hope you feel better now if you played the useful white conservative idiot last November by voting for Obama. You can expect to be paid back for your kindness in this fashion many times over during the next 44 months or so. Enjoy.
2 comments:
Methinks the rightish-wing white male doth protest too much. This report mentions plots to assassinate the current president and murder Latino immigrants -- for which people had assembled weapons and done surveillance. Other right-wing terrorist acts like abortion clinic bombings and shootings have taken a handful of lives. Wasn't this about the profile of Muslim terrorists before 9/11? There was a lot of rhetoric; a few plots uncovered that had progressed to similar early stages of action; the first WTC bombing; the Millenium plot foiled by Customs.
I read part of the book _The Politics of Righteousness_ describing the 1990's right-wing loony scene the report refers to -- quite a few groups with violent rhetoric and scary beliefs. I don't think Justice is out of line taking these threats seriously. Throwing under the bus? Really!
While I really do worry about Obama's safety, you are correct to point out that Muslim fanatics are much more likely to carry out a large-scale attack on civilians in America or our allies. However, W.'s calls for "crusade" and heavy-handed blundering gave enormous aid and comfort to our bitterest enemies. Obama's charm offensive looks more likely to really reduce the risk of terrorism. Yes, his folks are bending over backwards not to give offense. Which do you prefer -- bluster or effectiveness?
"Which do you prefer -- bluster or effectiveness?"
Is this a relevant question, since we seem to be getting neither from the current administration (and only got the former from the previous one)?
Obama went to Europe to drum up troop support for Afghanistan. He got a lot of rhetorical support and zero troops. (Of course, the US media promptly declared the trip a success, even though it was a manifest failure on its own terms.) Is this effort supposed to demonstrate the effectiveness of our new charm offensive? If so, I'm not impressed.
Honestly, I don't see the point in trying to win the approval of people who hate us. Being civil towards them and demanding the same? Yes. But getting their approval? Why?
Good, pious Muslims don't accept as equal cultures other than Islam. They never have. Other cultures under Islam's control can exist, as long as they accept the superiority of Islam (through the dhimmi tax, for example), but Muslims don't respect them. You see that in literally every nation and culture that Islam has controlled. (In this, they have much in common with fundamentalist Christians and Liberals, both of whom insist on the absolute superiority of their own cultures to the exclusion of all others.)
Given this, why should we call the actions of Muslims anything other than what they are? They won't love us any better for it -- in fact, they'll probably despise us even more. They'll talk nicer to us, but only because they realize that it will induce us to concede ever more to them.
As with Communists, the only thing Muslim countries respect or respond to is shows of strength. Period. Now, there are better and worse ways to show one's strength (I would put Bush's methods under the "worse" category), but show it we must. Otherwise, we will be taken advantage of. The Carter administration proved this point over and over.
By changing our national security language to not mention Muslims (as Bush did) or terrorism (as Obama's done), or bowing to a foreign head of state (Obama's unprecedented decision) we signal that we learned nothing from Carter's many errors as president, and are committed to repeating many of them. We signal that we are weak and that we fear using what strength we still possess.
I guarantee you that if we keep this up, acts of terrorism will increase, not decrease. Bush pissed Muslims off, which did nothing to discourage new terrorists. Obama seems to want to encourage terrorists even more, however.
Post a Comment