Posted on 03/20/2009 5:12:14 AM PDT by RedCell
Word Play
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has an explanation about why she never mentioned the word "terrorism" during her first testimony on Capitol Hill.
Napolitano tells the German news site Spiegel Online that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: "I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."
James Carafano, senior research fellow at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation says: "By deliberately trying not to use the T word they run a serious political risk. If something does happen, they'll be accused of taking their eye off the ball and no amount of explanation after the fact will suffice."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“I referred to “man-caused” disasters”
I find that term sexist.
If there is a wave of attacks, this country likely will devolve into anarchy under Obama. He cannot handle a true crisis. He’ll be worse than Clinton was when it comes to making a real decision.
Terrorism Is a 'Man-Caused' Disaster?uh... Not exactly Janet.
(she was a great lady just couldn't cook a meatloaf)
I wonder if I could persuade you to change that. Not the illegal part, but the immigrant part. They're not immigrants. They're aliens. The difference is important. An alien is defined as:
1 a: belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange b: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign c: exotic 1 2: differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
We're not dealing with immigrants - who by nature of the word desire to become part of the culture they're moving into - we're dealing with aliens - who have no desire to become part of the culture, but who do desire to over run the culture that's present, and remake it for themselves.
Why not call it “Fluffy Marshmallows” instead?
“I wonder if I could persuade you to change that... They’re not immigrants. They’re aliens.”
***
So it shall be done.
“Calling a spade a spade” is just “monkey see, monkey do”...
:0 !!! That’s racist!!!
Seriously, calling illegal aliens “undocumented workers” is like calling a rapist an “undocumented boyfriend”.
1- the term is very Orwellian in nature and denies the essence of a terrorist's motive; to inflict terror, as he cannot muster enough physical strength to actually conquer his opponent. In this view it seems like just another PC (pick up the poop by the clean end) term to help us all embrace our diiiveeeersssity and excuse the hate of our enemies, while painting us all as the true haters. This thinking makes my head hurt.
2- the term may be an attempt to pre-label other activities, such as the coming protests against our government's actions, taxation, wealth confiscation and redistribution. Should a group ever try to rise up in force against our government, the fedgov will be unable to call these self-proclaimed patriots “terrorists”, lest they only fuel the protests or uprising with even more popular support. So, by creating this pre-label, the patriots can be called, not an evil name, rather, mere “instigators of man-caused disasters”. Then the full force needed to crush dissent would be excused as preventing such a “disaster”. And the leftists would cheer the oppression.
When “global warming” was shown to be a farce by so many scientists that critical mass was achieved in finally putting the matter to a shameful end, the leftists changed the terms to “climate change”- what, for centuries has been commonly known as “weather” now became an evil man-caused disaster. So it is now. I believe it is a preemptive attempt to re-label the actions of patriots and subtly equate them to the level of terrorists. When the redefinitions are complete, those who would oppress us will use this new term to rationalize all sorts of evil.
Never allow your enemy to define the terms, or you will always lose the debate. Cases in point...abortion is now "choice"...homosexuality is now "gay", "a lifestyle choice"...using elephant poop to paint a picture of the virgin Mary, or a crucifix in an urn of urin is called "an expression of art"...and so forth.
This redefinition of a terrorist is a foreshadow of evil thigns to come.
...IMHO
Yes, I’m a racist.
However, my new definition of “racist” is “one who speaks the truth”, not one who is prejudiced and disciminates based on prejudice.
Get with the program!
Definitely.
Truth really makes leftists mad.
It’s how you can tell you’ve spoken the truth - if a leftist gets mad.
Here’s a recent one that I’ve found that really convicts leftist apostate “Christians”:
God’s moral laws and their consequences are as immutable as His physical laws.
Someone please explain to me how that not mentioning terrorism is “it demonstrating that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Cause I’m missing something ,I don’t get it at all.
There is no greater evidence of a “man-caused disaster” than the Obama Administration.
I charge you with the task of posting your well thought out statement each and every day of the year.
You are so correct that I am personally ashamed that I have never put my thoughts into YOUR words. These people are NOT immigrants.
I grew up in a world of immigrants...people who turned their backs on a world that had condemned them to a miserable life, full of want, fear, and persecution. They came to America to become AMERICANS, and they did just that. Their children were to be educated in ENGLISH, steeped in the glories of AMERICAN history and in the end became AMERICANS.
Cultural mores, foods, religious festivals and even some good memories were cherished and incorporated into life in AMERICA, but the people were AMERICANS, firs and only.
I remember people who spoke with accents thick enough to cut, but people who when they spoke of America, spoke of “MY COUNTRY”.
This is what is lacking today.
Napolitano tells the German news site Spiegel Online that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: "I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.""Man-caused"? That's sexist. "Human-caused" is the correct term. Used in a sentence, "the 2008 election of Obama to the presidency was a human-caused disaster."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.