Posted on 04/21/2010 3:02:59 PM PDT by jessduntno
Since his early days in office, Barak Obama has sought to influence public thought by manipulating language. As matters of policy, acts of “terrorism” became known as “man-caused disasters,” and terrorists captured in the field were no longer considered “unlawful enemy combatants.” Now, he has purged the terms “Jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from a national security strategy document to show that the U.S. “does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.”
Thus, Obama seeks to define out of existence the essential nature of today’s terrorist threat in order to placate those who justify or condone terrorism. He also seeks to distinguish his security strategy from the “Bush Doctrine of Preventive War,” which had identified “the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism [as] the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
Obama’s Orwellian torturing of language to sanitize the image of terrorists and their enablers is counterbalanced by the harsh terminology he uses when discussing Israel. Obama routinely refers to Israeli “settlements” in Judea and Samaria as “occupation,” employing a term used by Israel’s enemies to mean the entire State of Israel. He has applied the term “settlements” to Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, including Ramat Shlomo, though these local enclaves existed for generations before the influx of Arab immigrants during the late Ottoman and British Mandatory periods and although the city never had an Arab majority. Moreover, he refrains from using any terms that evoke Jewish ancestral rights in the Jewish homeland so as to quell any dialogue regarding the historical justification for Israel’s existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
And so many want to secede from the United States. Glad to see a few real Patriots remain.
There is a catch, though...it is an oath of allegiance to the REPUBLIC...
No, its a oath of allegiance to the United States and the Republic.
"No, its a oath of allegiance to the United States and the Republic."
My point exactly. You can not pledge allegiance to one or the other. And since it is a pledge to the flag and to the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, I can only assume that was clear. Not sure what you are driving at, I am just saying that one does not exclude (or include) the other...that the United Sates and TO THE REPUBLIC for which it stands are inseparable...in my mind, at least. When it fails to be a Republic, you can use the pledge to wipe your arse...which seems to be the desire of many people today.
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.