Obama Orders Changes in National Security Vocabulary

It may be yesterday’s news, but some items need a certain amount of reflection and consideration of what their consequences might be, or just how developments might fit into overall trends.

As Noam Amdurski at Matzav.com points out, President Barack Obama has ordered a significant change “in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: ‘The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.’” [1]

This conflict, previously considered to be so great, now cannot even be described as what it actually is against, “militant Islamic radicalism.”

This change is supposed to reassure Muslims that America doesn’t view them primarily as terrorist threats. But why is it necessary to change national security documents? To achieve a little positive PR that will not in any way change or ameliorate the actual threat? Well, we don’t want Muslims mad at us, but why would they care about such a document that only factually describes a situation, and should not be seen as offensive to anyone, except maybe actual terrorists.

The President has received criticism about this change. Just one example:

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech. [2]

Of course, the White House dismisses such criticism, as they dismiss most criticism. But the professor’s point is valid, and his opinion is probably shared by most Americans familiar with the situation.

But some people live to be offended, and if they speak up (certain politically-favored ones, particularly), then everything must stop and be changed to appease them.

It may seem laudable that the President is taking steps to avoid offense, but, in fact, he is taking steps to prevent effective communication. In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother saw to it that the Newspeak Dictionary was revised at intervals, and always by the removal of words the regime didn’t like. He knew that words are the building blocks of thoughts, so making certain words unavailable (soon to be forgotten, it was hoped), would stop people from having thoughts offensive to the regime.

Apparently, it is offensive to Obama to refer to militant Islamic radicals in those terms, although that is the most accurate way to refer to them.

Obama’s revision of official vocabulary put FBI Director Robert Mueller in the awkward position of communicating the Islamist terrorist threat without using the prohibited words:

In Senate testimony, Robert Meuller does everything he can to suggest that he is talking about Islamic extremists. He cites Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers at Fort Hood. He cites Mumbai attacks planner David Headley. [3]

How long before the government tries to mandate that everyone follow Obama’s example, such as schools receiving government aid, other agencies, etc.?

Front Page Magazine online had the following comments:

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote….

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation…. [4]

The article reports that the French ambassador, while prefacing his remarks with kind words for the resolution, pointed out that “human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems.” [5]

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms. [6]

Fortunately, the United States voted against the 2010 UN resolution on “defamation of religion,” promoted by the 57-nation OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference).
The non-binding resolution did pass 20-17 in the UN Human Rights Commission, with eight nations abstaining.

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that any effort that could lead to the criminalization of the defamation of religion is ‘a false solution, that exchanges one wrong for another….’” [7] An accurate comment.

Atheists were concerned over the resolution, since they want to be free to criticize religion and don’t want government surveillance and control over religious or anti-religious views. [8] Under the resolution, if implemented, any negative comments about a religion could be regarded as offensive.

What seems to be desired by the proponents of this resolution is something like Canada’s ill-named “Human Rights Commission,” which has resulted in taxpayer-funded prosecutions simply on someone’s complaint of being offended. Defendants are given no legal help, and lack the rights of a criminal defendant, yet are subject to heavy fines, lifetime speech bans, etc., and truth is no defense. More information here.


The proponents want to get this resolution added to international law, so that any criticism of Islam can be criminalized. We should not move any further in that direction, but Obama is a little too inclined to follow the lead of Britain and Canada.

The unstated secret is that going to great lengths to avoid associating terrorism with Islam, and further, also making strong efforts to accommodate Muslim demands, is finally based on fear. Some Muslims have shown that they are willing to react violently when they perceive an insult. Everyone is supposed to understand this and agree that it’s justified. But it isn’t. It’s a culture clash of sorts, but freedoms deserves protection and illegal violence deserves punishment.

I certainly advocate respecting, not insulting religions, but that leaves room for criticism, even strong criticism. I advocate protecting the God-given right to free speech, which includes saying or printing things some might find offensive. If ideas have merit, they don’t need the government to protect them from competition, and if not, they don’t need the government to suppress them.

Punish illegal actions, not opinions and words. When words are suppressed, thought is impaired, as Big Brother knew well. The deterioration of language is a significant aspect of the “dumbing down” phenomenon of recent decades. And without free exchange of ideas, we don’t know who thinks what, or how to truly engage in debate or discussion.


[1] Noam Amdurski, “Obama Bans Terms ‘Islam’ and ‘Jihad’ from U.S. Security Document,” 04/07/10, Matzav.com.


[2] Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, “‘Islamic Radicalism’ Phrase to Be Removed from Obama’s National Security Documents,” 04/07/2010, at CNS News.


[3 ] Alec Rawls, “FBI Director Tries To Warn About Home Grown Islamic Terrorists, Without Mentioning ‘Islam’ [Reader Post],” 04/17/2010, Flopping Aces, republished (found) at InfidelsAreCool.com, which identifies itself as an anti-jihad site.

[4] Deborah Weiss, “Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss,” 10/16/2009, Front Page Magazine, republished (found) at The International Free Press Society.


[5] AND [6] Ibid.

[7] Editorial, reflecting the views of the United States Government, “Defamation of Religion Resolution,” VOANews.com.


[8] American Atheists, “Atheists Concerned over UN Defamation of Religions Resolution,” Opposing Views.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Merry Christmas from Grinch and Company

As I write this, there remains the slenderest possibility that the “health care reform” bill may not pass the Senate. I keep reading that Democratic Party leaders are looking toward a Christmas Eve vote on the measure. The health care bill has less than 40 percent support among the American public (see video in my previous post). President Obama himself has a 41 percent “strong disapproval” rating among likely voters according to Rasmussen (12/20/2009).

But if Sen. Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President have their way, we’re going to get it come hell or high water. Merry Christmas. Enjoy your “gift.”

Another item under the socialist tree for us is a “meaningful” agreement on climate change. Even China is on board with it, since it is an unenforceable, non-binding “agreement” underwritten with America’s $100 billion pledge to help third world countries deal with the non-existent problem of man-made climate change, although, even if everyone participated fully, there would be produced virtually no measurable change in the earth’s climate. And the Obama Administration and Democrat-controlled Congress want to give us cap and trade as an additional contribution to the cause.

You’ve heard of gifts that break the bank. This one will strain many, many budgets.

Now, if they could only get us to stop driving and flying, stop eating beef and drinking milk, and, preferably, stop breathing, or maybe just kill ourselves off and leave the earth to the more-deserving creatures of nature, that would apparently be their ideal. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the basic direction the environmental extremists want us to go.

They would like their climate-change religion to replace the traditional religions of the world, especially Christianity. Others might be OK if they don’t interfere with the great environmentalist plan. Before Christians and Christian groups get much more involved in the climate change movement, they should consider the fact that, while the Bible teaches responsible care of things under our stewardship, it also teaches that the earth was created primarily as a home for man. Animals, and indeed all nature, were placed under man’s subjection, and intended for his use, for the glory of God. Although sin has led to various abuses, this intention has not changed.

As we celebrate the birth of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, we might do well to reflect on these things. Every responsible citizen would like to minimize pollution and preserve a safe and human-friendly environment. But it need not be at the cost of our freedom and our economy.

“… [W]here the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). America’s heritage is liberty and individual responsibility, based explicitly on the Judeo-Christian tradition. These are principles now endangered by what used to be called “creeping socialism,” that has now become blatant socialist-fascist power-grabbing government. Obama is quick, and rather enthusiastic, in pointing out his view that America is no longer considered a Christian nation. He himself claims to be a Christian, but if he is in agreement with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it’s a far-out fringe using the name Christian. I don’t know what Obama’s actual beliefs are, but we know something of his associations, including twenty years as Wright’s church member.

David Barton, in one of Wallbuilders’ periodic emails (12/17/2009), quotes from Harry Truman’s Christmas message in 1952 (near the end of tenure as President):

“Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairer place. This faith sustains us today as it has sustained mankind for centuries past. This is why the Christmas story, with the bright stars shining and the angels singing, moves us to wonder and stirs our hearts to praise. Now, my fellow countrymen, I wish for all of you a Christmas filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and many years of future happiness with the peace of God reigning upon this earth.”

Amen, I say.

Obama can’t bring himself to mention Christmas or Christ on the official Holiday (?) greeting cards. G.K. Chesterton’s words are especially true today: “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
(Illustrated London News 08/11/1928)

There are convincing arguments against “health care reform” and cap and trade that do not rely on theological or religious reasons. Economic and political arguments will suffice. But because of the out-of-touch government officials’ attempts at minimizing Christianity and promoting every kind of multi-culturalism and relativism, some defense appears to be needed. More eloquent spokesmen than I can state this better; I just feel I need to say something.

These presents I’ve mentioned, from our beloved federal government, reflect, I think, the political equivalent of the spirit of the pre-repentant Grinch. Unlike Dr. Seuss’s famous character, these politicians aren’t likely to change their ways (politically, I mean). They’ll continue this kind of “giving” to the American people as long as they have the opportunity.

I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. So far, it’s still America and still comparatively free. Thanks be to God.

Illustration: clipart.christiansunite.com

At UN, Obama Impresses and Receives Praise and Concern from His Mentors

Ah, Hugo Chavez. He just can’t resist picking at George W. Bush. Chavez appears to be proud of his protégé Barack Obama. Obama received high marks for his UN speech from Chavez, Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi, among other tyrants and thugs whom Obama seems to admire.



At the United Nations General Assembly, Obama said, “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” For plain arrogance, Obama is hard to beat. And as far as I can tell, Barack Obama is the champion at blaming the previous administration(s) for not only his own troubles, but the world’s.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog, commented, “Does Obama believe that anything positive will come of this stomach-turning spectacle. Or does he just like to bask in the glow of applause for the proposition that the U.S. was a pretty rotten place until he assumed control, without worrying about who it is that’s applauding?” [1]

Again he apologized for America, as is his custom, and also, as is his custom, he declared that America is now the good guy in the world since he has taken charge. He has shown little respect for America’s true allies, such as Great Britain, Australia, Colombia, and especially Israel. No, he wants to cultivate the world’s dictators at the expense of allies who have actually supported American interests.

U.K. Telegraph commentator Nile Gardiner wrote, “It’s always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.” [2]

He’s the one who’s stopping America from torturing people. But the techniques used to interrogate detainees were not torture. Again, he has to get in a dig at the Bush Administration, which, by the way, managed to help America avoid another 9/11-type attack by using these methods.

He’s going to get the world on board with dealing with “climate change” when he can’t get the American people on board with his ridiculous cap and trade plan. His promotion of this plan is proof, if any more were needed, that he won’t help the U.S. economy, and, in keeping with his grand plan, he cannot.

Yes, Obama seems to be popular at the UN and probably thinks he’s enhancing America’s standing in the world. But in reality, he’s pandering to a bunch of dictators. Whatever respect he has earned will become evident in future developments.


[1] Paul Mirengoff, “Obama Takes the Supplication of America to a Disgusting New Level,” Powerline Blog 09/23/09 at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024578.php

[2] Nile Gardiner, “Barack at the UN: Was this Obama’s most naïve speech ever?,” Telegraph.co.uk, 09/23/09 at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100011129/barack-at-the-un-was-this-obama’s-most-naive-speech-ever/, quoted at Stop the ACLU.com http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/24/obama-at-united-nations-anti-israeli-sentiment-gets-biggest-applause/