Obama's problem with the C word

Don’t worry, this won’t be a foul-mouthed tirade.  I don’t allow that on this blog.

No, the C word is the one that President Obama seems to have such difficulty with.  C stands for Christianity.  And it is the word that he has a problem with, not the letter.  He managed to use the letter C when he equated the actions of ISIS terrorists to those of the Crusaders from more than 900 years ago!  He doesn’t have a problem with the letter I, as it relates to 'the inquisition', which he also linked as some kind of equivalence to the ISIS terrorists.

Obama has other difficulties with the letter I.  He is unable to use the phrase Islamic  and Terrorists together.

Consider:

• 
  
• The 9/11 bombers in the USA were Muslims.
• The 7/7 bombers in London, were Muslims
• The Madrid train bombers were Muslims
• The Charlie Hebdo killers were Muslims
• The Bali bombers were Muslim
• The Mumbai killers were Muslim
• The killers of more than 2,000 inhabitants of the Nigerian town of Baga, are Muslim
• The killers of hostages held by ISIS, are Muslim
• The killer of Fusilier Lee Rigby, on the streets of London, are Muslim
• The Boston Marathon bombers are/were Muslim

The list goes horrifically on and on and provides evidence of many terrorist atrocities and all carried out by Muslims.

And yet, President Obama, aided it has to be said by some other political leaders, continue, to insist that Islam is the ‘religion of peace’.  Obama is unable to specify that these people are Islamic Terrorists.  Astute observers will note that the current problem child calls itself Islamic State or Islamic State in Syria or as Obama insists on calling them, Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL) and that all of these names make absolute and clear reference to the religion of the followers.  It is abundantly clear by the names used that these are Islamic.  Delve a little further and see the aims of this organisation (howsoever named) and it is crystal clear that the over-arching goal is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.  A caliphate where only one religion, Islam, is allowed.  A caliphate where Sharia law, based on interpretations of the Quran, the holy book of the religion of Islam, applies.   A caliphate where freedoms are severely curtailed and all are subservient to the religion of Islam.

Could it be that Obama doesn’t call a ‘spade a spade’ or a Muslim bomber or killer, an Islamic terrorist because he doesn’t want to offend his buddies in Saudi Arabia?  The Saudi government has long been seen as the major backer of Al Qaeda and its now successor, ISIS.  The Saudi’s , who follow the Sunni strand of Islam, see AQ and ISIS as a potent weapon in their struggle for regional dominance against Shiite Iran.

Whatever the reason, Obama just cannot bring himself to call these barbarians, Islamic Terrorists   Perhaps, the reason is, as so often claimed in the Twittersphere, Obama himself is a Muslim.  The latest rumour is that the ring that Obama wears carries, in Arabic script the Shahada – the Islamic creed – engraved upon it.

This posting is primarily aimed at any political leaders out there.  At what point will you publicly distance yourself from Obama and those who still maintain that Islam is the 'religion of peace'?   When will you take that disagreement further and actively oppose these fools?  Oh, and such opposition must be on the broadest possible front - not just on foreign affairs but on every issue - budget - oppose, endorsement of appointees, oppose, shut down the government.

If you're not a Western political leader, maybe pass this onto your leaders and get them to start the fight-back.

If you're a Muslim, when will you aggressively attack, with the emphasis on aggressively, your co-religionists?  King Abdullah of Jordan has started to show the way but even he needs to get his country on a war-footing against both ISIS and radical Islam.  Someone on Twitter suggested that the difference between a radical Islamist and and 'regular Islamist is that the Radical Islamist wants to cut off your head, while the 'regular' Islamist wants the Radical Islamist to behead the infidel.  If Islam is truly a 'religion of peace' then Islam needs to reform and Islam needs to clean its house and Western leaders need to cease the appeasement of Islamic terrorists and the nations that support them.

The power of Twitter and the Anglosphere

I have been thinking about Twitter recently (apologies if not using the copyright symbol is somehow wrong!) and its power for good.

I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.

The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version?  I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it,  property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly.   The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England  through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.

It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before.  Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.

Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon.  Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security.  Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.

People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents.  Look at what happened to Phil Robertson.  He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty.  In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin.  Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'.  Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.

A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given. 

I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial.  Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised.  In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech.  The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin.  Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about!   What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!

So back to Twitter and its power for good.  The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments.  Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame.  However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case.  A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted.  Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this.  The right to his free expression of speech was met.  In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E.  Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression.  I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained.  Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right.  No one can give you something which you already have!

Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack.  There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all.  Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams. 

Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning.  He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them.  I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents.  Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England.  Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!