Today we’ll discuss a number of stories on the theme of how the use of language, by politicians and others, serves the cause of either creation or destruction, because it contributes to either awareness or evasion of reality.
Join us live, either by phone or in the chatroom!
The show can be accessed here.
To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Finally, if you would like to support the show financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.
Program Notes
Remarks by the President in Closing of the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism
Obama: ‘Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding’
Sorry, Calling Terrorists ‘Islamic’ Doesn’t Solve The Problem
Eric Holder: “We’re not at a time of war”
CBS: “Is this a failure to properly identify the enemy?”
The New York Post mocks Obama’s take on ‘Islamic’ terrorism
California Code Sections Describing the EERA’s “Organizational Security Arrangement”
The Shape of Things To Come: How an industrial designer became Apple’s greatest product
The science behind commonly used anti-depressants appears to be backwards, researchers say
Don't Let It Go 
La genialidad de Ayn Rand a 110 años de su nacimiento
http://institutoamagi.org/?p=5892
Edward Snowden ISFLC Address
Here’s a thought I had during the show that seems to address Yaron’s and Bosch’s disagreements on the proper U.S. stance against Jihadists. I would love to hear if anyone disagrees and why.
The separation of church and state forbids the government from taking an official position on religious views. For this reason, it is inappropriate for the president to say things like ISIS is “a perversion of Islam” or “Islam is a religion of peace” etc. since this suggests an official U.S. interpretation of the religion. But it would also be inappropriate for him to say “Islam mandates war and rights violations so the enemy is Islam” for the same reason. So the president ought to…
1. Identify and name the interpretation of Islam that requires the literal waging of war on us/our allies. (Islamic totalitarianism or something)
2. Declare war on all organizations that promote it.
3. Remain neutral on interpretations of Islam that don’t call for violence or rights violations.
4. Protect free speech while Bosch and other brave individuals point out that the religion itself is evil. And that it makes no sense to try to make a religion of peace out of an anti-peace book when you could just drop it all together. But also leaving Muslims free to make up their own peaceful version by omitting the worst passages the way Christians and Jews have.
Any thoughts?
Michael. We didn’t have a problem with Islamic terrorism before there was Islamic immigration to the west.
The solution is to end Islamic immigration and begin outmigrating them.
In sane world someone named Mohammed Emwazi wouldn’t have been let into the UK.
MM