Have a comment?

Perhaps you too have been wondering why it is that President Obama is always, always telling us who we are as Americans and who we are not... The little clump of words about who we are as Americans pops out of the president's mouth so often it's easy to miss it...

...The phrase, you'll notice, carries a vaguely therapeutic air. Our language everywhere shows the smudgy hand of the therapist, the life coach, the counselor, the facilitator. People nowadays say they "reach out" to people that they just used to talk to, and "share" things when they just used to say things, and talk of themselves, of their feelings and impressions and habits, without ceasing. It is the mission of the therapists and life coaches to enable you to find yourself, "to discover who you really are as a person," to decant the authentic you. I suppose it was inevitable that the seductive language of therapy would migrate into the language of politics...

From Obama Negativa, a must-read article by Andrew Ferguson. [PDF]

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote...

The Obama Doctrine: "Do as little as necessary to appear to be doing
something without actually committing to a cause or course of action."

Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) November 1, 2014

And worth a redux -- let's not forget what a liar Hillary Clinton is, and that she indeed had the authority to utter the "stand down" (wait) orders.

From JudicialWatch this week: Documents Reveal State Department Officials Told Three Months before Attack that Benghazi Security Guards Abandoning Posts Out of Fear for Safety. "'These documents show that the U.S. Special Mission at Benghazi was a sitting duck and that the State Department's local militia 'security' feared for their own safety and wouldn't even show up to provide necessary protection'... 'All security indicators were flashing red and, perhaps, with a show of strength to secure the Benghazi mission, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods might be alive today...'"

From the excellent Powerline Blog:

Is ISIS Islamic?

President Obama tells us that "ISIL speaks for no religion," while John Kerry assures us that "The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings." It is curious that this is perhaps the one proposition on which they agree with George W. Bush.

But is it true? Brother Rashid, a Muslim who converted to Christianity and now hosts an Arabic-language television show, tells Obama, "with all due respect," that he is wrong: ISIL is thoroughly Islamic and follows in the footsteps of Mohammed.

It would be nice if Islam were a religion of peace, but what would be nice isn't always true...

All over the world, simultaneously at any given second, an uncountable number of people are: being subjected to grave injustices that will ruin their lives; or being beaten, raped, tortured, maimed and murdered; or in the throes of painful and severe illnesses; or starving; or being discriminated against; or losing loved ones, including children; or witnessing various horrors and atrocities.

For each individual who is suffering, that others also are suffering or facing worse, or that others are faring better or even living charmed lives, is an irrelevancy that neither increases nor decreases the particular individuals' pain. Similarly, for each individual who has strived mightily and has failed, that strangers in his or her the "same demographic group" have succeeded is of little consolation.

So on what basis do we pluck out the isolated stories that together make up the tapestry of how we see the world? Why are some stories significant, heralded in the news headlines and carried for years, while others are just not even on the radar?

Why, e.g., is it important and make worldwide news when one already ill woman in Ireland dies because she cannot get an abortion, when on the same day thousands of other pregnant women also are dying horrible deaths?

Why, e.g., was the "anniversary" on August 24 of Emmett Till's murder passed around and around the blogsphere and listserves as imparting some kind of important information or relevant moral story today for our lives, whereas that same day was also the ignored anniversary of all kinds of other events arguably just as important, such as: (1391) hundreds of Jews massacred in Palma de Mallorca; (1572) thousands of Protestants massacred by the King of France; (1940) thousands died in German Lufwaffe air raids; (2004) 89 airline passengers died in terrorist attacks by female Chechen suicide bombers; (2014) in Willow Springs, Illinois, Luis Zapata shot his wife Samantha Zapata, in the back and killed her, and in Coventry, Connecticut, Gregory Pawloski murdered his girlfriend Janet Lesko, and roughly 45 other people in the U.S. were murdered, half of them by blacks, who represent less than 13% of the population. In light of all of this, what made the Emmett Till story of more significance -- today? What was the message, or lesson, or moral being passed on?

Why, e.g., was this current headline written: "U.S. and Canadian Arctic one of the world's most dangerous places for women" in a place with sparse population and relatively few incidents and atrocities (regardless of the "rate") compared with, say, the daily murders going on in Deerborn or DC? What was the point worthy of making this a story in the social discourse -- to bring U.S. and Canada in the minds of the public to the level of places like Pakistan, Syria, Congo, Somalia, etc? To diss the encroachment of Anglo taint (alcohol, e.g.) into ostensibly charming traditional Eskimo life? To be shocking and drive traffic to the website? For ANY woman who gets raped or murdered ANYWHERE, where she is at that moment in time is equal to the most dangerous place on earth.

Why, e.g., was the death of Robin Williams worthy of so many headlines? Why do we care why or how he died (by his own hand, in what looks more likely to have been another drugged autoerotic asphyxiation, which tactfully will not be whispered in the press**) on a day when millions of others around the world were murdered or died unwanted deaths? [** he was in a seated position on a chair with a belt around his neck and his hands free, with the other end of the belt wedged into the frame of his closet door]. On the same day, millions of people lost parents, spouses, children, siblings and other loved ones -- and each one of these events were of infinitely more importance to the individuals directly affected.

Clearly, what makes some stories significant isn't necessarily that they speak truths, or are of something that holds special personal significance to us, or are more shocking than others, or constitute an accurate random sampling of events, or give us close to an accurate picture of the world.

Just something to keep in mind next time another screaming missive comes around designed to appeal to your emotions for ulterior reasons.

I suppose it's rude to ask -- but WHY is it rude to ask -- WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

On other things: two articles worthy of a read today while the Nincompoop-in-Chief waffles over being cornered into doing "something" about the growing threat of ISIS, and the extraordinary incompetence he's demonstrated in office. Thomas Sowell: No More Affirmative Action Presidents. And Daniel Greenfield: Moderate Islam is Our New Religion.