The Obama White House has more respect for the homicidal enemies of the United States than it does for the average American citizen. For while Obama operatives at one point set up an email account to gather intelligence on those critical of healthcare legislation and categorized those questioning the need for end of life counseling as astroturf protestors, it has been announced that America is no longer at war with terrorism or even jihadists for that matter.
Instead of blowing this human scum into Sheol, the administration plans to increase aide to foreign governments that will no doubt come back to be used against Americans. There is nothing quite like having the best enemy that money can buy.
Despite their shortcomings, one must acknowledge that America's enemies do not respect weakness. However, that is exactly what the nation is projecting.
Changing what is said about the situation is not going to change the situation. Nor is it going to change what the enemies of the United States think about the United States or their intentions towards Americans.
Interestingly, instead of mustering the intellectual wherewithal to rise to the challenges to our freedom and very existence, leaders throughout various institutions are going out of their way to cater to Islamist preferences and shackle Western perceptions.
Many policy eggheads are attempting to either outthink the issue or to paint themselves with a veneer of psuedosophistication by sneering down their noses that we cannot refer to these malcontents as jihadists either since that is a legitimate religious term meaning "to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral good."
This certainly creates a problem of how to refer to the terrorist group Islamic Jihad if these words can no longer be used in reference to that organization. I guess one is suppose to use some kind of squiggly like Prince did when he could not make up his mind as to what he wanted to be called.
This linguistic fickleness always prompts elites to construct the conceptual cages that hinder the nation in the conflict of ideas. For example, Americans are to disimbue themselves of jihad’s negative connotations since the word is precious to Mohammedans.
This is an expansion of a policy that has been underway for nearly a decade. I remember that one of the very first columns I published online dealt with lily-livered Evangelicals all in an uproar over how it was inappropriate to have a Bible college athletic team named the “Crusaders” or to call revivalistic outreaches “crusades” since these terms unsettle Muslims because of events transpiring centuries ago that not a single Muslim alive today had to endure. Forgiveness, obviously, is not a strongpoint of this particular world religion.
Had Americans been this spineless throughout the course of its history, it is doubtful that there would have been an America for very long. But I suppose to the likes of Barack Obama, that would make little difference since the loyalties of Barack Obama and his family have often been with those out to undermine this great nation.
Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor John Brennnan pointed out to the Center For Strategic and International Studies the impropriety of the phrase “the war on terror” because as a tactic, “You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself.”
So does that mean we should refrain from using the term "war" in relation to other implacable misfortunes and tragedies that will plague mankind until Christ Himself will sets foot upon the Earth and sets all things right? Are liberals going to give up their beloved "war on poverty" and the resources devoted to this effort?
The Gospels note that the poor will always be with us. Thus efforts to alleviate such deprivations are a waste of time according to the war on terror analogy.
Around the world, radical Islamists don't care whatsoever what they say as they enslave, maim, and kill those daring to enunciate ideas and values different than their own. And adopting an obsessive politeness bordering on weakness is not going to change that.
Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
