Is ISIS a terrorist organization?

Is ISIS a terrorist organization? It’s an important distinction. Not simply because the left refuses to label them radical Islamist terrorists. Because thinking of them simply in terms of extremists who are merely using a religious interpretation as a cover is dangerous and short-sighted.

The message being pushed by government and a complicit media is the best way to deny ISIS is to act normal. Don’t show fear or intimidation. Continue to work and play as always. In short, be an American and live the American way. How could this be misguided?

Because the premise is wrong. The left/right squabble over labels is just a sideshow. There are a myriad of factors at play here. Protection from a terrorist threat is standard big government salesmanship. ISIS as the boogeyman requires an entity the size of the federal government to protect the citizens. Certainly we can’t do it ourselves, right? Just as the TSA was created to give the ‘impression’ of safety to keep the public flying and spending their hard earned dollars, Obama and his minions want you to see ISIS as the JV team. Just leave it in the hands of Uncle Sam to protect you and don’t stop spending money.

Growing and empowering government is always part of it. Keeping the economic engine running is always another. Broadening the threat of ISIS to require a military-industrial complex response is the base point in the war on terror. Of course we have a political component in that immigration is a left/right battle over indoctrinating a permanent voting block. These issues incorporate the various stakeholders who have skin in the game. There is much to gain no matter which side of the ISIS debate you fall on.

Getting back to my point of the wrong premise. Strip away the gloss over how to categorize ISIS. The right says you can’t defeat an enemy you can’t identify. The left goose steps with Obama to protect Islam as well as the party agenda to secure votes. In other words, neither side has any real interest in eliminating ISIS. That’s not to say they won’t be replaced by some other incarnation in the future. Just that an endless war on terror provides endless opportunities for all agendas.

So is ISIS really a terrorist organization? Well, you’ll never defeat them as such. Obama would have you believe that ISIS is nothing more than “a bunch of killers with good social media”. So just carry on and leave it to the pros. By now, everyone should know that there is zero chance of that working.

The right approach is also multi-faceted. They continue to tap dance with the elephant in the room. Still can’t say it out loud but they will keep pointing out that Obama really is Muslim and that’s why he so vociferously protects Islam. And of course they are all in with a war on an enemy that can’t be defined by borders. War on an ideology is nothing short of Heaven sent as it is limitless.

ISIS isn’t a terrorist organization. Nor are they radical or extremist. Like any good theocracy, they simply take the Koran at its word. To the letter. It is the run of the mill Muslim that doesn’t follow the Koran verbatim ( and yes, just as so many Christians also do with the Bible ). Islam gives man much more latitude than Christianity as far as interpretation.

However, our PC world says we can’t support this thinking. To believe that it is the very basis of Islam at fault is to indite an entire religion and its millions of followers. What about the millions of peaceful Muslim followers?

So we arrive at the incorrect premise and why we can’t defeat ISIS by labeling them radical Islamic extremists. The battle between Islam and Christianity has existed since the inception of Islam. Its outcome is foretold in the Bible. No political squabble will decide it. You won’t eradicate an ideology by bombing it.

When you believe that ISIS are merely terrorists taking religion to an extreme, you believe that victory requires simply turning public opinion against them in order to force other Islam followers to police their own and force extremists out from within. If only it were so easy.

Radical Islam will exist until the end of Islam. As the good book tells us.

Obama on ISIS – “I don’t think they’re gaining strength, we have contained them” – as Paris burns

Per usual, President Obama is on the wrong side of history. Paris, France has suffered their 9/11 tragedy with a well coordinated attack on six different sites as well over 100 have lost their lives. ISIS has claimed responsibility and officials are now also beginning to place blame at the feet of ISIS as well calling it “an act of war”.

Yet Obama continues to push forth his narrative that he has been able to keep the “J.V.” team at bay. This warped view is what led to the massive cover-up effort in the Benghazi tragedy.

Just yesterday morning, Obama appeared on one of his favorite left wing media outlets.

Obama: ISIS Is Not Getting ‘Stronger,’ We Have ‘Contained’ Them

Certainly makes one wonder about Obama’s true intentions, doesn’t it?

Glenn didn’t die – UPDATED***

Fan of The Walking Dead? Spellchek has been an avid watcher since the beginning. Why watch zombies endlessly eat people? Well, it’s certainly a good analogy as to what is happening in our country with the political establishment devouring the liberty of its citizens.

To the point is the cliffhanger AMC has created with the question of whether or not the character Glenn died two weeks ago. They are playing it up for maximum ratings, which is fine. Spellchek simply has to weigh in to get on record before the answer is revealed.

Glenn is not dead. The character who was with Glenn did die. In fact, I’ll bet we’ll see that it was actually him being eaten while laying on top of Glenn.

Time will tell.

UPDATE – 11/22/15   TOLD YA!!!

The federal budget simplified

It’s been awhile since Spellchek has posted on simplifying the federal budget so anyone can understand it, so it’s time for an update. It’s the drop 8 zeros method I’m referring to. By taking incomprehensible federal budget numbers and simply removing 8 zeros from the end, the resulting numbers compare to a standard household budget. It’s much easier to wrap your head around these numbers when you can see how they work in your own budget.

For example, the estimated FY2015 federal tax revenue is $3.249 trillion dollars. Over $3 trillion dollars is even beyond Monopoly money comparisons. However, lop off 8 zeros and we have $31,249. Easy to comprehend. Here are some numbers and how they would fit into our household budget comparison.

U.S. tax revenue                $3,249,000,000,000

U.S. federal spending        $3,688,000,000,000

U.S. deficit 2015                $438,900,000,000

U.S. debt                            $18,150,000,000,000

Contrast these numbers with our household budget

Your annual pay                 $32,490

What you spent                  $36,880

Over budget by                  $4,390

Total accumulated debt       $181,500

Wow. You could direct every penny you earn toward your debt for over 5 1/2 years without ever spending a penny toward such luxuries as food, shelter, transportation, etc., except that still wouldn’t pay it off as interest is accumulating all the while.

Budget numbers source

Bill Gates calls for socialism to save the world

Bill Gates says that capitalism cannot save us from climate change

The world’s richest man, Bill Gates, has said that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to produce effective energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

Bill, Bill, Bill. It’s too bad we can’t have a discussion where we have even a basic understanding of the terms. You claim that only socialism can save the planet, yet you give us concrete examples as to the opposite. Let’s start with yourself. Bill, you’re a philanthropist. You give your money away to the causes you support. That’s not socialism. Forced redistribution of wealth is what you’re calling for. That’s not socialism either but that’s a discussion for another day. You announce your plan to invest $2 billion of your own money into green energy and call on your billionaire brethren to do the same. Great stuff. Not socialism.

Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

Hold on Bill. Substantial tax? Incentive for innovators? You claim that only government has the capacity to lead the way in R & D to solve big problems. Then why the plea to innovators? Innovators are private sector. Incentives aren’t socialism. Dis-incentivizing through a substantial tax is more like it if you support the heavy hand of government. But let’s get to the crux of the issue. If supporters of global warming such as yourself are truly, truly serious about ending man-made climate change, you don’t do it through market manipulation. You don’t do it by moving the goalposts to entice the private sector. You make it law. Period. Screw the carbon credits. If climate change is truly man-made than you need to stop it. Now. If a company or industry violates emissions levels then they should be shut down. Today.

But of course it isn’t really about a solution to a problem. The theory of man-made climate change is about profit for many and control for most. Sure we have some with integrity who truly believe they are trying to solve a real problem but they are the exception. The Al Gore’s of the world are only after the demon itself, the pride of capitalism, profit. The U.N.’s of the world see the opportunity for a massive expansion of control.

The climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the US and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else.

Hopefully? That’s certainly encouraging, isn’t it? Coming from the world’s richest man and one who has rode the coattails of capitalism to incredible wealth, I would expect a bit more. After all, if it’s saving the planet we’re talking about, haven’t we already seen enough of the whole hopey-changey thing?