What the Heck Did He Mean Here?

This is from a speech Sen. Obama gave in Colorado in July, 2008. Watch it and ask yourself what in the world he's talking about.

Here's the long version (24 min) from the Obama Campaign site. You might want to skip to the 14 min mark or so for a reasonable lead in.

So why would we need a "civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded" as the military? We already have the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, TSA and various federal and state law enforcement agencies. Since Defense is about 20% of regular federal spending (whatever that means these days), this suggests a massive spending project without any apparent purpose.

Taking the relatively benign interpretation of Obama's proposal, he may be suggesting, as the Left is wont to do, that all desired spending is a matter of "national security." He doesn't really have anything useful for them to do, but he's sure it needs to be done in a big way. In this interpretation the plan is only a colossal waste of money, to be spent on make-work projects like the FDR administration promulgated during the Great Depression. These kinds of programs were ineffective then, and they might well precipitate a depression if tried now.

Looking beyond that, we can guess that this may be a vehicle for channeling more federal money into favored "community organizations" such as ACORN, Nation of Islam, etc. Such a powerful, strong, well-funded civilian force would be very handy to have in the future for stealing elections, intimidating opponents, and perhaps busting a few heads, as needed. Anyone for pogroms?

Who Should We Trust on Foreign Policy?

It's hard to make a better foreign policy case for McCain than Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, did the other day. However, Melanie Phillips is up to the task:

The Spectator: "No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor."

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

It's an excellent article, and you should read the rest.

---

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Biden meant when he told the crowd of Democrat fundraisers that they needed to stand behind Obama in the upcoming crisis, because his decision(s) would appear to be wrong. Did he mean Obama would cave to a threat, showing weakness before aggression, and embolden our enemies everywhere? That's certainly plausible, and it would mean Joe was asking them to stand behind Obama, because no one else would. Alternatively, was he saying that Obama would respond aggressively and recklessly to a situation, say by invading Pakistan, to show he's tough, and the fundraising group would be shocked and dismayed? Hope we don't have to find out...

Who Is Bill Ayers?

From Five Feet of Fury.

Muslims Riot Over Exam Question

In a New Delhi university a riot broke out over the wording of an exam question on Mohammed's life for a graduate level history course. Fortunately the authorities quickly took stern actions:

Meanwhile, Jharkhand Chief Minister, Madhu Koda has directed Ranchi University Vice Chancellor, A A Khan to inquire into the question paper scandal.

Koda said he would talk to the university authorities and urge them to initiate action against the question paper-setters.

He expressed concern over the issue, saying such an act could hurt the sentiments of a community and affect communal harmony. Meanwhile, the University administration cancelled the History examination and set up a committee to inquire into the matter.

Apparently disclosing the entire question in the article would be too "inflammatory," but the paper does mention:

Students allege that the question was an insult to Prophet Mohammad as it refers to the Prophet as a 'businessman' and a 'raider' in his early days.

The facts around these aspects of Mohammed's life are well-known and beyond dispute:

He was a successful trader
He did lead his followers in attacks on caravans and cities

So it's hard to discern exactly what part of the undisclosed question was misrepresenting his life.

The discussion thread attached to the article is also interesting reading. Evidently the trials and tribulations faced by the poor Muslims at the hands of infidels are the same the world over, regardless of the identities of the "oppressors."

Root Cause of Terrorism

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, writes in OpinionJournal about the inherent propensity to violence in Islam. Dr. Hamid now lives in the West and describes himself as a Muslim reformer.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

We don't know whether or not Dr. Hamid's efforts to create a non-violent Islamic theology will succeed, but we wish him the very best of luck. Read the rest of his excellent article here.