Posted on 12/31/2016 2:15:26 AM PST by RoosterRedux
While candidate Trump was demanding that the enemy be named, and me-too Hillary was thus goaded into the occasional mention of “jihadists,” Obama tried to defend his refusal to invoke radical Islam. The defense was classic Obama. Part One was flat wrong: “There’s no religious rationale,” he maintained, that would justify” the “barbarism” in which terrorists engage — something that could only be right if we ignore scripture and adopt Obama’s eccentric notion of “religious rationale.” Part Two drew on Obama’s bottomless supply of strawmen: “Using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” he lectured, will not make the terrorist threat “go away” — as if anyone had claimed it would.
The point, of course, is not that there is talismanic power in uttering an enemy’s identity. It is to convey, to the enemy and to an anxious American public, that our leader comprehends who the enemy is, what the enemy’s objectives are, and what drives the enemy to achieve them.
Obviously, Obama is too smart not to know this. After eight infuriating years, I am beyond trying to fathom whether his intentional gibberish masks some misguided but well-meaning strategy, some dogma to which he is hopelessly beholden, or something more sinister. The imperative now is to address the mess he is leaving behind, not unwind how and why he came to make it.
All in all I thought it was a thoughtful and respectful piece.
I must admit that I started reading with a completely biased attitude that I would reject this piece. However, I can find no real fault with it because it does not start with the premise that his questions regarding Trump, prove that Donald Trump does not fully understand the problem. He s actually encouraged by what he sees, as I was encouraged by what I read.
Summarizing the steps Trump should take in dealing with the Palestinians, McCarthy writes: “That would tell radical Islam that America rejects its objectives as well as its tactics, that we will fight its ideology as well as its terrorism.”
Correct, but unfortunately, those steps would not affect the Islamic mindset of conquest. They already know how we think. Their response will be to readjust and continue as usual, which will be to turn the world into an IED battleground.
This is a really good article by Andrew McCarthy. It should be read in full by all.
You left out the part where he bowed down low and submissively to the king of Saud.
Bump. That was what the majority of voters felt too, me included. WYSIWYG. The moment I solidified for choice for him was when he said that he achieved everything and now wanted to help America. It was genuine. I believed him and still do.
That is far from obvious. In fact, he's a clear example of people misidentifying a nice (unexpectedly standard American Caucasian) voice and ability to follow a script with intellect. Happens with performers all the time. And it works in reverse as well, from high IQ wheelchair bound people with cerebral palsy misdiagnosed as "retarded" to Southerners whose accents make Boston bred morons like John Kerry haughty.
Lot of money backing the status quo. It can pay off even seemingly independent mouthpieces to say what it wants said.
I know exactly why. Everyone on that list is a globalist Bushitte NWO Free Trader first and foremost, above all else. It is their religion. When Trump started talking about putting America first, tariffs and negating trade deals that was heresy to these people. They hate Trump.
“It was in the 15th paragraph where Mr. McCarthy goes off the rails and jumps on the “majority of muslims are good and helpful” bandwagon.”
Even if that were true, there are multiple millions who are not. And these millions will not, as Obama and Hillary and the democrats believe, openly confess their supremacist views and their predilection to infiltrate and terrorize.
What he refuses to acknowledge: Islam is organically incompatible with Western Christianized thought. Enlightened Islamic leaders are always in the secular Islamic world, not the religious leaders. The religious leaders could shut the terrorism down overnight. Islam has never created an enlightened modern society and is no different from any other totalitarian ideology.
Yes, the animosity is toned down because these goons backed the wrong guys. Just as a matter of approach it would make sense for them to ‘tone down’ their stuff.
While I agree about the toning down, the tone to me came off as arrogantly tutorial in chastising Trump to my mind.
What difference does it really make if as he claims “Trump believes Islam is a culture of death, or as he believes, a culture of conquest.” The end result is the same: if you don’t submit, you die.
As for the Radical Islam vs. regular Islam thing, I believe that they are one in the same, but in this societal climate we have right now, that’s not a preferred mantra. But that still doesn’t erase the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of jihadism/terrorism is committed by Muslims which leads one to the inescapable conclusion that there is something very, very wrong and sinister about Islam across the board.
“......Obama and all of his supporters MUST be relegated to the dust bin of history, never to return.”.......
I too have said and believe that is one of the greatest things Trump could achieve. Completely and totally remove and eliminate any mention of odumbo and his ilk from our history for the past 8 years, like they never happened. Instead put in place a bit of “history” describing what should NEVER, EVER be allowed to happen to this nation again, repeat NEVER, ever.
During this election, I described it as the ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ election. They called us Deplorable and it became a badge of honor. We got tired of being bullied by the self righteous criminals and weirdos and stood united to defeat them.
Well yes & no. There is definitely overlap there for sure, but it does not encompass everyone within the religion. What is important to identify, are those that steadfastly believe in Sharia. For it is Sharia that exposes the moderate as being anything but.
there is something very, very wrong and sinister about Islam across the board
That is correct, and it is Sharia that is very wrong and indeed sinister. That was the point Andrew McCarthy was making.
I guess my point is that we must be diligent with the Trump distractors, but we must also not totally discount them because they are. We then become just as bad as they. Instead we must find common grounds where we agree, and demand the same of them. It is the only way to come together to work together toward the same goal.
The reality is, had Trump not done what he did, which of course was remove the ridiculous political correctness that forbade talking about the problems within Islam. The problems that must be rejected and conquered if we are to live with them. Andrew McCarthy stepped up and offered his advice, and I welcome it. It is exactly what Trump fought for. Accepting his interjection makes it more likely that he will start to appreciate what Trump brings to the table.
I honestly believe Trump does not like people who are afraid to stand up to him. Instead he appreciates people who make informed sound arguments. He then knows that this person is speaking from knowledge. He respects and listens to people who are knowledgeable. That respect in return commands respect for him, and changes attitudes. Thus I think it is in our and Trump's best interest to emulate Trump. Which we can do by thoughtfully listen to dissenting viewpoints that are offered up respectfully. If we disagree with those viewpoints, we respond with respect and knowledge as to why we disagree.
That is truly what taking the high road is all about and why I have to laugh when Democrats laud themselves as taking that road. When in reality they have no concept of it. Instead they just give lip service that their approach is the high road, and that anyone who disagrees with them is on the low road.
I can sympathize with your thoughts but I do not think that we need to be understanding and compassionate with these WELL-KNOWN detractors who had at one point some kind of conservative street cred.
I see no reason to treat them with kid gloves in hopes of them having seen the light. They used their notoriety and reputations to try and erase Donald Trump from the ticket in favor of some of the saddest excuses of political no-accounts there ever was. I am willing to be far more conciliatory to former Jeb or Cruz supporters than I am for these false icons of conservatives that are nothing more than pampered elitists.
You are putting words into my mouth that I did not utter, and I completely agree that be do not need to be understanding or compassionate. I said we must listen and work together. Big difference.
One involves listening and giving them a voice. When they are right we all benefit, when they are wrong and we explain why they are wrong and that their idea is rejected, we still all benefit. The other is just capitulating to their demands, and we all lose.
The goal is to work together. The old adage, united we stand, divided we fall is much more than just a catchy phrase. It is the whole basis for success and longevity of society at large.
Perhaps, but when I read your "...we must be diligent..." comment I took it to mean understanding and compassionate. If that was wrong I apologize. My main point is that I am not willing at all to give any future credence to these so-called conservatives who are nothing but establishment elitists who sit on their ass behind a keyboard or in front of a Sunday camera and pontificate all they assume they know better than us. The truth is they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and they certainly don't have any idea about flyover America and what their elitist duplicity has done to them.
BTTT
They’re intellectual conservative ideologues. Trump is an average Joe pragmatist who uses everyman’s words.
They parse every single word and miss the overarching meaning of his message. They fail to see the forest for the trees.
having or showing care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties
No, I am the kind of person who at least attempts to use words as they are defined. Words have meaning, and when I use words I mean what they mean. 8>)
There is no need to apologize, because you stated your position calmly and considerately, so no offense was taken.
Instead I take it as part of the art of communication. Often times ideas and thoughts need clarification before participants realize if they are on the same page or not.
I fully agree with your points, I only wanted to perhaps expand on them that we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the same trap they themselves have fallen in. Because then we become no better than they. It reaps rewards as well. Those being that they begin to gain a respect for us that they had previously dismissed due to their own biases. They no longer can legitimately hide behind their false claim that we are stupid and uninformed. They also have to start taking a closer examination of themselves. In that process we both start to realize that neither of us have all the answers. That we need to work together, and that we both have positives we bring to the table.
In other words we communicate, and that conversation then allows the conservative viewpoint to truly be considered. We are not only fighting the liberal viewpoint, but the moderate one as well.
That changes may be tried, but when they fail we recognize that failure and move away from that failure. Most importantly we stop continuing with that failure, which has been the case for far too long now. If the moderate and conservative viewpoints join forces then they become the dominant driving force.
When we institute a change we monitor it, assess it and make sound decisions. We do not move in haste in either the implementation or retreat. Reagan was almost ready to concede defeat on his supply side economic theory because it did not pay the dividends as quickly as he had hoped. It was afforded a little more time, and fortunately is proved it was indeed a sound theory. The reason for it taking longer than originally imagined, was the previous economic theory had created such a hole that it needed more time to overcome that deficit it had created.
It’s been illuminating discussing this with you. At my age, however, I am not so interested in these finer points of winning because it has been a very long time since our side has actually won. In that regard, I am wholly not interested in giving any of those naysayers, supposedly on our side or not, any refuge. The truth is there are millions of real Americans that have to be listened to above these elitists, in my opinion.
Regardless it was still informative to get your opinion and insight.
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.