Podcast 320

The Islamic State Threat. What should the United States do about the Islamic State? As attacks, beheadings and burnings become more extreme, the west’s response seems muddled. The public discussion of the issue is emotional and often devoid of facts, lately centering on whether the Islamic State is payback for the Crusades. Last summer President Obama initiated airstrikes on the Islamic State; a group he had referred to as the ‘JV Team’ of terrorists, a remark which will go down as one of the greater mistakes of his administration. Later he called for airstrikes, promising ‘no boots on the ground’, now he is asking Congress for a new force authorization which may or may not give Obama – or the next president – authority to send troops into the region to fight the Islamic State. As the group expands into Libya, Yemen and threatens Europe, it’s time for ordinary Americans to start thinking about what the country’s response should be. Yes, this will be an election issue in 2016 because the threat will get worse before it gets better. Has anyone told you how the Islamic State differs from Al Qaeda? What are the theological underpinnings of the group and how does its theology appeal to Sunni Tribes in the region? Is this a religious conflict, or tribal? What is Iran’s role in the fight? These aren’t questions for foreign policy experts, but for ordinary Americans who are going to be voting for presidential candidates, as the 2016 race begins in less than one year. Do you know what you need to know? Or, are you ok with going into another conflict, where service men and women are going to die, without asking the important questions; Why? What are the stakes? What is the foreign policy of the United States. What should it be? How do we conduct ourselves in the world? What interests are we willing to use deadly force to protect? How might we have caused this conflict. How do we avoid this happening in the future? What have we learned as a people about these kinds of struggles, since the US first invaded Iraq in 2003. Has our Afghanistan experience taught us anything? You can listen to people scream and yell at each other on cable TV news and talk radio, or we can get down to business and discuss as many parameters of the issue as possible (Editor’s Note: Or at least the parameters I have been able to research so far). The Islamic State is a gathering storm. The current state of affairs in the Middle East is becoming a dangerous threat to the region and Europe directly, maybe the United States directly. The old World War 2 and Cold War foreign policy paradigms won’t work. Those who are ignorant of at least the broad contours of the situation are more easily manipulated in the political process. Take some time and get a little more balanced view of the situation. Sponsored by Depot Star. 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 46:10 — ) | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

Podcast 292

Free Speech. The founding principles of the US Government guarantee freedom of expression, without qualification. Americans have gone to war to protect their rights, and to fight for the same kinds of rights for the people of other countries. It might be said, at the very least Liberty is the main tenant of Western Society. Why then do we tolerate ‘leaders’ who insist on qualifying these unalienable rights? The White House has qualified its assertions of freedom of expression and this was a week in which President Obama was shamed for not showing unity with our French allies in their time of need. But, Pope Francis didn’t attend the massive march in Paris either. While both President Obama and The Pope initially condemned the Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo, they seem to be back pedaling their remarks. The Pope, in his shiny big airplane, on the way to wave his scepter at the dancing peasants in the Philippines, says Freedom of Expression has limits, echoing similar statements from the White House. The Pope says killing in the name of God is an ‘aberration’; a factually incorrect statement since the Church has advocated and killed quite a few people in the name of God over the years. In the next breath the Roman Prelate asserts there are limits to free speech. Um, no your communist Holiness, actually, there aren’t. And to the qualifiers; Please stop comparing Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The idea of free expression was made for just this kind of thing. If our leaders won’t stand up for core western values without qualification, what is the point of western civilization? If protecting unalienable rights is in fact virtue in its purest form, and the reason for the existence of our government, and our leaders won’t protect our rights, or are afraid to stand up for them when we are threatened, where is virtue? What, then, is the purpose of government? Let’s put it this way; The Pope is certainly no Winston Churchill. If he isn’t confusing economic philosophy, jumping on board with Global Warming Believers (a religion in itself), now he’s exhorting supposedly free people to act as though they are actually not free at all. Is the Pope morally bankrupt? Sponsored by X Government Cars. (Editor’s Note: I may have referred to Pope John Paul II, in this podcast as Pope John Paul the 23rd, which of course is a mistake. I hate when I make mistakes!)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 30:03 — ) | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS