 |
| Bob's Political/Media Articles in the Ft. Worth Examiner: CLICK HERE |
|
Whatever You Do, Don’t Say the “T” Word!
By Bob Chochola
Friday, June 12, 2009 Issue
National Examiner
The PC Police Have Taken-Over! Will Osama bin Laden be far Behind?
B. H. Obama has renewed his vow to “defeat” al-Qaeda. This is interesting juxtaposition against his mandate forbidding the use of “hateful” terms like: terror, terrorism, and terrorist – except when referring to conservatives, Christians, American military personnel, gun owners, and tax objectors. And ironical considering he has suggested letting al-Qaeda members (some directly involved with the 9-11 “man made disasters”) walk right out the prison doors. One question might be, what will Obama be doing about (the man formerly known as) the worst terrorist the world has ever known – Osama bin Laden?
Another question: what exactly does the president plan to call Osama and his ilk now that the word “terrorist” is officially out of the American vocabulary? Some possibilities liberals will endorse: really bad dude, hater (a favorite among democrats when confronted by facts and real statistics contrary to their perceived realty), right wing conspirator, hope-o-phobe, product of the failed Bush policies of the last eight years, not so nice guys, and kill-joy.
The first avenue to explore would be a quick look back at the last media-appointed American president (and a democrat) who waffled and wussied America right smack into the teeth of the 9-11 (insert PC adjective here) attacks on New York City and Washington DC. Liberals will argue that it was under George W. Bush that these (Uhem!) attacks took place. But “W” was merely the gift recipient of eight years of a predecessor who failed to do anything about America’s worst enemies in spite of repeated attacks on American interests, including a US warship, two US embassies, and the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
Many historians who study (you know, the T-word) agree on a couple of things: al-Qaeda is not finished with us yet – mainly because we’re still here. And the next attack, as it is an al-Qaeda trademark to do so, will be much more “spectacular” (in a bad way) than the last one. As usual, liberals have a cavalier attitude about this, but it may be wise to remember they also had a cavalier attitude before 9-11.
Bill Clinton’s “get tough” policy with those not-so-nice-guys was to fire million-dollar-a-pop cruise missiles blindly into the desert in the middle of the night in an attempt to destroy Islamic extremists, and (according to Clinton) reduce the possibility of innocent civilians killed by the incoming strikes – collateral damage, as it were. Of course, this strategy also reduced the possibility of killing Islamic extremists, but it more importantly made Bill Clinton wildly popular with CNN and The New York Times. In spite of Clinton’s lack of military prowess and inability to act decisively in the face of grave threats to America, he did scare the hell out of every camel and side-winder within earshot of a target, no doubt about it.
Meanwhile, in between oval office cigar smoke-break encounters with young female interns, (“alleged”) attempted rape, lying under oath, and obstructing justice, Bubba did manage to strike-up a “productive dialogue” with TIME Magazine’s Man of the Year candidate Yassir Arafat on the White House lawn – sending the American media into a frenzy of praise for the president, and allowing terror groups like Hamas and Hezbuhlah to align forces against Israel in the Middle East.
Good going Bill! Way to lay the smack-down on those really bad dudes.
The Hope of Audacity!
As for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they were constant reminders (or at least they should have been) during the entirety of Clinton’s two terms, that not all the world loves a democrat. It may on the surface appear that way, but in reality is not the case. However, America’s enemies do love having a democrat in the White House, because it means four-to-eight years of the world’s greatest superpower chasing ghosts and appeasing her sworn enemies, while those enemies plot destruction and murder uninterrupted and unmolested.
Here’s another term liberals like: fear monger. What’s it called when that which the “fear monger” is mongering about, actually happens?
Fact monger!
Obama insists that he will enable the world to love America again. This feat, minus a definition of “the world” according to the president, depends upon two giant assumptions: one is that the world loved America in the first place. The second assumption being that the world is willing to love America again without any strings attached. The president’s goal depends entirely upon an America that bows to the saber rattlers, harsh critics, and really bad dudes many of whom have a lot to gain from an America in retreat – or better, defeat.
This nonsense is coming from a president who spent twenty-years (age 26-46) listening to a lunatic racist pastor preaching “God damn America!” and he even titled his book The Audacity of Hope after one of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. No, actually, Jeremiah Wright and Osama bin Laden do have a lot in common – in the “God damn America!” sense. They both blame America for all their troubles and for all the world’s wrongdoings.
Feel-the-love-America talk from a guy, Obama, who is married to a First Lady who says she has never been proud to be an American. Bet she doesn’t mind it too much now!
Obama also spent his early years socializing (please excuse the expression) and doing the business of crooked Chicago politics with known and admitted communist and cofounder of the domestic terror group The Weather Underground, Bill Ayers. Ayers, you will recall, bombed the Pentagon, U. S. Capitol, and several police stations and was quoted in an interview published on September 11, 2001 as saying that he wished he had set more bombs. Mr. Ayers has been photographed jumping on an American flag, and said after the 9-11 attacks that this country makes him want to “puke.” Mr. Ayers is a true patriot!
His delightfully timid and gushingly pro-American wife, fellow Weatherman Bernadine Dohrn, once waxed philosophically about the [Charles] Manson Family’s mass murders in this way:
“Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!”
Historically speaking, the so-called peace movement’s beloved symbol of recognition and solidarity, the peace sign, originated from this gruesome murder scene, as it was the hand gesture used by the Manson Family paying tribute to their despicable act described by Ms Dohrn. It evolved into the universal symbol for peace with a little bit of help from friends in the media. Peace, indeed!****
Ayer’s wife Dohrn later said,
“Bring the revolution home, kill your parents – that’s where it’s at.”
She’s a darling - delicate flower of a woman.*
These are the ideals and convictions of the dolts voters put in charge of their collective fate on November 4th, 2008. Like it or not – believe it or not – to some degree this is Obama’s philosophy too. Would he socialize with Ayers, Dohrn, and Wright if his beliefs were any different?
Swindled and lied to by the news media, led astray by wacko Hollywood stars and Oprah Winfrey, blinded by empty promises, caught-up in a whirlwind of political shenanigans and election year smoke and mirrors, voters once again fell for the hype of politics-as-usual (disguised as a remedy for politics-as-usual) and didn’t use their brains. Now an internet blogger can’t even use the “T” word without being labeled an “extremist” by The Department of Homeland Security.
Carter, Clinton, Obama: A Trilogy of Terror!
It is certain al-Qaeda will attack again. It’s also a given that they will do it on American soil and it will have a greater impact and be even more “spectacular” than the 9-11 attacks.
Peter Bergen, a Middle Eastern correspondent for CNN, the only reporter ever to have interviewed Osama bin Laden in person – twice – in his book The Osama bin Laden I Know states that every new al-Qaeda attack is two-fold: the impact must be dramatically greater than that of the last attack and it must serve as a “dry run” of sorts for a future attack. In other words, the WTC bomb in 1993 was in-and-of-itself a bold attack on American soil, but it was also used by al-Qaeda to test NYC emergency responders and impact on the public at large for future reference.**
It might also be interesting to note that before water boarding was deemed cruel and unusual punishment by the same democrats who once supported it as a means of getting vital national security information (FYI… that fact has now been documented by US State Department memo records; sorry Nanci P.), a small scrap of truth became public knowledge revealing original plans for 9-11 that included using twenty aircraft – ten on either coast. Osama bin Laden himself scaled-back the attack because he thought it to be too bold. Will it be too bold the next time, or will the really bad dude hiding somewhere in Western Pakistan be able to pull the trigger on another masterwork of evil?
Estimates show that a dirty nuclear bomb roughly the size of a coffee thermos, and detonated in Los Angeles with a “cooperative” wind blowing, would kill roughly three-hundred-thousand people, make sick and homeless millions more, and render the LA basin useless for more than ten years. A similar bomb detonated on the island of Manhattan would more than likely have the same kind of devastating results. Most of the plans and materials needed to make such a bomb can be acquired online. People crazy enough to make such a device are probably here in the United States already.***
Imagine the aftermath of 9-11, had the nineteen attackers been carrying a couple of these dirty nuclear devices. What would life in New York City, Washington DC, and America for that matter, be like today? It’s safe to assume that the second a new democrat took office terrorists the world over resumed normal operations – now not only can they work without fear of serious counter attack, but thanks to president Obama, they won’t have to suffer the emotional scars of name-calling either.
During the Carter administration Americans were taken hostage in Iran and a failed attempt to rescue them caused many people the world over to wonder, had America lost her ability to respond? Was she even willing to respond? Carter, a democrat who to this day harbors sympathetic views towards American (and Israeli) enemies abroad, did not respond decisively and paved the way for a new era of threat to the free world.
Ronald Reagan warned of terror dangers in the 1980’s and acted accordingly. The American hostages were set free and a sense returned that the United States would not tolerate being attacked, nor would it sit by idle and let allies become victims of terrorism.
It was Reagan who made the first great stand, to a chorus of criticism from university professors, the ever-present mindless chirping of Hollywood liberals, democrats who failed to recognize an immanent threat, a left-leaning news media, Spain, France, and Russia.
Bush 41 and the US military later laid down the law to Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm and a surrender agreement signed by the Iraqi dictator was put in place, thus temporarily putting an end to long-time tyranny.
But the deal fell-apart during Clinton’s two terms in office when Hussein repeatedly and with great degree of defiance broke the peace accord – again Bubba didn’t do much (except harmlessly light-up the night sky over Iraq with cruise missiles and bombers whenever his impeachment hearings began to dominate the 24-hour news cycle).
Enter Bush 43.
G. W. Bush was handed by his impeached predecessor an Iraqi dictator that had violated every UN resolution on the table. Saddam Hussein had also kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq – yet another violation of the peace accord he himself had signed after surrendering. And shortly into W’s first term in office came the worst terror attack ever on American soil courtesy of bin Laden.
Suddenly it was once again up to a republican to do all the dirty work. While democrats criticized with vigor the most difficult tasks at hand, our military on two fronts under G. W. Bush defeated the Taliban and removed Hussein from power to set-free the Iraqi people.
It is obvious that democrats cannot and will not act when action is needed. They blather and boast; democrats will waffle and waiver. All the while, they will allow those who plot destruction to carry-on with their business, because according to the left it is America’s own doing that such hatred exists in the first place. Terror, or whatever they will call it, is the “chickens coming home to roost” in their eyes. America is the bad guy and deserves such retribution.
Obama will no doubt face a major terror threat – maybe even an attack. Each new study of terror seems to predict that “the next” attack isn’t a matter of “if” but a matter of “when” at this point in time. Even Joe Biden has said the “test” will come quickly, much to the dismay of Obama’s political advisors (alright, who let Joe out of the bunker?). But will the new administration be able to answer the call? If history is any indication, the answer will be no. And one has got to wonder what America is going to look like after that test.
It doesn’t do any good to white wash truth, create false realities, and point the finger of blame. However, these are distinct traits and strategies of the left. Democrats, as usual, are whistling past the graveyard and accusing republicans of creating fear and inventing enemies. Or is that, creating enemies and inventing fear? But it will be terrorists who make honest fact mongers out of republicans; terrorists will kill more Americans. Democrats will blame American “imperialism” and add insult upon injury by trying to marginalize (even criminalize) the republican response.
Ann Coulter’s metaphorical depiction of the democratic utopia as a snow-globe world filled with imaginary victims seeking retribution and taxpayer payola is to say the least, brilliant and right on the mark. The left loves to create fake victims to be saved by democratic illusion and a monthly government check. Voters, in other words.*
Terror produces real victims, because it is a real world issue. To say the victims deserve their fate is testimony to what the left represents - it illuminates the wrong-headed vision of the party of defeat.
Meanwhile, America does far more good in this world than any other nation on Earth. It has done so since the end of World War II. America has made mistakes too, but the good outweighs the bad – by far.
American global leadership and military superiority have made the world a better place and have preserved a life of freedom - one nation under God - for all who have traveled to her shores. America has freed, fed, cured, and housed countless of thousands more. This is a good thing unless you happen to be a terrorist – or a democrat.
It is also a very fragile role. There are many evildoers with sights set on America’s demise. With the help of a party that completely refuses to believe that a clear and present danger exists, how long will it take our enemies to ultimately succeed?
SOURCES & NOTES:
* Guilty; by Ann Coulter
** The Osama bin Laden I know; by Peter Bergen
*** Reported by FOX News 2008.
**** It should be noted that in many countries around the world over the past decade, particularly in Muslim strongholds, the “peace sign” hand gesture (previously created by the Manson Family symbolizing the fork used to stab one of their murder victims, and adapted as the universal symbol of peace during the 1960’s) is now commonly used and displayed for TV news cameras broadcasting live during riots and anti-American protests. It is widely used by Muslim women and children during these riots and anti-American protests, as well. (No doubt they’re tired of being used as human shields by American suicide bombers.) Typically the gesture is accompanied by the universal chant, “Death to America!” Charlie M. probably never figured on this kind of negative publicity. There goes your shot at parole, Charlie – again!
|
