UPDATED W TRANSCRIPT: Watch President Obama's Speech on ISIS & San Bernardino Shooting Here at 8 P.M.

Streaming live from the White House YouTube channel...


In just a few minutes, President Barack Obama will address the country regarding his plans to engage the Islamic State (ISIS), both here and abroad.

Full transcript of his remarks after the jump.

Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've hardened our defenses—from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas—disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda's leadership.

Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.

For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I've authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

Well, here's what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies—including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.

Third, we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's operations—to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries—and with our Muslim communities here at home—to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process—and timeline—to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL—a group that threatens us all.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa *Waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies—no matter how effective they are—cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do—and must do—is make it harder for them to kill.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.

The strategy that we are using now—airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country—that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.

Here's what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world—including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans—of every faith—to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes—and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.

My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity—that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges—whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks—by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

NEXT: When Pot Becomes Legal Next Year, Thank Glenn Beck - & Reason!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I predict major derp

    1. AlmightyJB. You must be Nostradamus, because that’s exactly what happened. =)

  2. Bad people exist, so you need to give up your civil rights so you’ll be safe.

    There, now you don’t have to watch.

    1. But we’re not afraid!

      1. You’re not afraid of Obama?

    2. We’ll continue to push for gun laws that we’ll continue to not enforce until we get the laws we want.

      1. One day the perfect law will be written. And it will be enforced by the very TOPPEST of MEN.

    3. That’s an amazingly accurate synopsis! How did you know? Are you a witch?

      1. ‘E’s made ou’ o’ wood?

  3. oh good, just the excuse I needed to walk down to the bar and watch football.

    1. They interrupted the game to show the liar in chief.

  4. Who dat girl?…

    1. Unitarians? Wait wut?

      1. Yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw that:)

    2. The same thing struck me when I read reports of the alleged attackers’ names–that the woman had a man’s name, not the bit about it being Arabic for “Michael”, which is bull crap.

  5. I’m excited because every time this man speaks things get even more perfect!

  6. Let’s see how first person comments he makes in a speech about Islamic terrorism.

    1. If B. Hussein Obama did not have the courage to mention gender specific pronouns as the greatest threat to our society, then he is just trying to distract us from the real problems. And climate change, that too.

  7. Holy crap, he just admitted Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack!

    1. I caught that too.

      I wonder if it will be offically reclassified ?

    2. He couldn’t say that terrorist mass-shootings are commonplace and then only give two examples.

      How problematic that he’s implying members of the military should not be allowed access to guns.

      1. They aren’t allowed access to guns on post, unless they are MPs.

        1. That is how Hasan was able to murder so many people before he got shot.

  8. This is the same kind of attack we saw in Chattanoga where a racists idiot shot some black churchgoers .

    He just said it.

    1. Well he said that San Bernardino was just like Chattanoga.

      I added the part about the racist idiot.

      But we all know Chattanoga wasn’t like San Bernardino

      1. The truth is whatever Obama says it is, you racist.

        1. I prefer racist bastard thank you very much.

          1. How about cystic custard?

            1. Mmm that sounds good.

    2. This is the same kind of attack we saw in Chattanoga where a racists idiot shot some black churchgoers .

      This is why we need facepalm smilies

    3. Chattanooga was where a 2nd-gen Muslim killed some recruiters and shot up a military facility.

      1. Sorry.

        I got it confused with where the ISIS inspired raicist and a Confederate flag killed some people minding their own business

        1. So in your world, John Hinckley was a Jodie Foster-inspired assassin?

  9. It might be my TV but his head looks over-large for the body under it.

    1. Like an orange on a toothpick?

      1. A chocolate orange.

  10. “Watch President Obama’s Speech on ISIS & San Bernardino Shooting

    I’d rather eat mud.

    1. I’d rather eat mud.

      I haven’t laughed at a comment this hard in quite a while.

  11. Do you suppose that’s a normal suit, or is it like coveralls where you step into it and zip it up the back?

  12. He and his sychphants are the only people who call it ISIL.

    They call themselves IS. Everyone else calls them ISIS.

    1. You noticed.
      Not once did he even hint at opposing the Islamic State.
      The term “Levant” refers to that geographical area but it is of Western origin; it is a FRENCH word. Does anyone now believe that the Islamic State defers to Western labels, or that it is pro-French?
      Obama is using the crisis to attack his political enemies. I am still surprised that he takes that much notice of libertarianism, so seek to destroy us.

      1. Obama uses ISIL precisely because everyone else uses ISIS. There is no more depth to his thinking than that. Trying to infer deeper meaning is like reading tea leaves.

  13. Were they on the no-fly list, idiot?

    Is everybody on the no-fly list a danger to anybody?

    1. Since they can put anyone on the list and there’s no path to getting taken off, the list would be a great way to stop gun purchases.

      1. Also a great way to stop people from flying.

      2. Well Ted Kennedy was on that list. Maybe no drive list would have been more appropriate for him.

        1. His car flew, briefly.

          1. If the RethugliKKKans had properly funded the nation’s infrastructure that accident on that rickety, unsafe bridge never would have happened!

      3. The new no fly list will be amended to include anybody who has applied for a gun background check, ever. Plus everybody who has not.

    2. I would bet money that Obama was against the existence of the no-fly list back when he was first running for Senate in 2004.

    3. He said he can’t imagine what the argument against preventing no-fly list people from buying guns could be. Cant imagine.

      Constitutional. Scholar.

      …who plays 12 dimensional chess.

  14. “Cult of thugs.”

    Did he adopt a dubya accent there?

    1. Saw Cult of Thugs back in ’84 at the Riverside gravel pit. Great show.

      1. I saw the Insect Surfers at UC Riverside back in the day!

        1. My older brother used to see ZZ Top for $.50 and 10 cent beer at The SunValley Dance Hall in Victoria Texas.

          By the time I came around we got WheatStraw for free and 10 cent beer.

          But I did get to see David Allen Coe there back in the day when he still wore sequined jumpsuits

        2. If you get a chance to see Caravan of Thieves, go. They’re an amazing mash-up of Gypsy, folk and rock. And a great name… Better than ‘cult of thugs’, and their song ‘Raise the Dead’ is fabulous.

    2. So because of a shooting in San Bernardino, he wants to invade Syria and ban guns, or what?

    3. I thought the T word was racist?

      1. What Obama says can’t be racist because he’s black.

        Only white people can be racist because they’re the ones who’ve benefited from institutionalized racism for the past 400 years.

        Don’t you know anything about racism?

        1. Nope. I hate everyone so unable to relate to selective Hate.

      2. Thug is anti-Indian racism. Ad in people from India, not Siberian-Americans.

  15. This is dumb and boring. Where’s my time limit buzzer?

    1. He ignored it in Paris you think he gonna aide by yours ?

  16. 0.05% of the population. Has died to gun violence in the last decade, combined. So, let’s put it to the front of the agenda. I hate this guy more than bush.

    1. Well, it’s all small beer compared to climate change, which is the greatest threat to national security today, obvi.

      1. I was watching this today and the very last question was for the Defense Secretary to rank Climate Change compared to all the other risk we were facing today.…..tions-isis

        1. @3:18:00 (about.) thanks for linking, even though I wanted to cut myself after watching for a few minutes

    2. I don’t like bush either.

      I kept getting those random hairs on the back of my tongue so my wife complained but complied.

      She is now glad she did.

      1. They are not random.

        Mine did when I started joking about getting cat’s hairball meds for me from the vet.

        Ok, I was only half joking.

        1. The flounder are running Suthenboy.

          Come a fishing with me.

          1. Why have flounder when you can have sushi grade ahi?

            1. Because self caught fresh flounder are better than some frozen fish that some Chinese fish monger tells you is better ?

              And beer drinking while fishing with friends ?

              1. Huh. So we aren’t talking about vagina? My mistake.

                1. Keep up Playa.

    3. The percentage is higher in places that Obama admires and wishes he could model here.

    4. “0.05% of the population. Has died to gun violence in the last decade, combined”

      And most of them were suicides.

  17. “They are our neighbors and our co-workers….”


    Well, they were our co-workers until they showed up at the Christmas party and opened fire.

    1. Haha I missed that. Poorly chosen cliche indeed.

    2. “They are our neighbors and our co-workers…”

      And Obama has devoted his entire presidency to bending over and %$@*ing their rights in the ass.

      But this time, I’m sure it’ll be different?


    3. I talked back to the tv then and added “and our murderers”.

      My wife in another room asked ” what ?”

      I replied ” Im talking to the tv so get off my lawn”.

      She knows what it means

    4. Note that the people they shot had recently thrown a baby shower for them.

      1. And does that not speak to the depraivty that Islam inspires in it’s followers?

        The west must get over the idea that these people are radical Islamists.

        They are the most devout of Muslims.

        You cannot begin to defeat your self declared enemy if you can’t at a minimum even define who they are.

        1. self declared isn’t right

          I was trying to say that they have declared themselvves our enemy ut I have had several eers and I;m typing faster than I’m capable

          How’s that ?


  18. Well British gun laws did defeat the IRA, didn’t they?

  19. So it’s OK for Obama to scream “Allahu Akbar!” in a public address yet department store clerks go to jail for saying “Merry Christmas”. Our Muslim-in-Chief is a disgrace.

    1. Who’s gone to jail for saying Merry Christmas?

      1. That’s the first I hear of this. I know some stores prohibit their workers from saying it (which is retarded enough) but never heard jail.

        1. Well, obviously they should go to jail for saying it. It’s a micro-aggression if ever there were one.

          1. #BurlivesMatters

            1. #WhitePowerChristmas

  20. Is he pivoting towards guns? Syria? Friendly Muslims?

    1. He changed his pivot foot so, technically, he is travelling. Refs won’t call it though.

    2. The whole thing was an excuse to slip in the gun control talking points in there to a captive audience for the most watched TV show of the week.

  21. This is not a time for turning against each other. That is exactly what ISIL wants. Mooslim-Americans are your neighbors and co-workers. Unlike those NRA Republican ideologues who want terrorists to buy assault rifles next door to a school.

    1. I heard the NRA actually has a Discounted Assault Weapons for Underprivledged Terrorists program.

      Spread it around.

      1. “DAWUT”

  22. Jesus Allah what the heck the Eagles nearly handing over the game to the Patriots?

    Wait. Is this the right thread? What did I miss?

    1. Just being courteous – the Pats handed out free touchdowns at the end of the first half.

    2. Chip Kelly knows more about football than all of us here put together.

  23. The CBS guy keeps pronouncing it Muzzlems. Very apt.

  24. Around “…the mass shootings that are all too common…” I had to check out before I ripped the tv off the wall. Clearly, the reason two Muslim fanatics went on a murder spree is because of California’s notorious gun laws and the various bitter clingers of America, all of whom are just falling all over themselves to make sure that Muslim terrorists are the only Americans with access to firearms.

  25. Hey, he didn’t surrender so there’s that.

  26. Hmm, Pittsburgh vs. Indianapolis? Two mediocre teams, so not a big national audience, and from two of the most pro-gun cities in the US.

    1. On the scale of things is Penn. considered a permissive gun state?

      1. It is pro-gun compared to other states in its region. The anti-gun animus emanates almost entirely from Philly (which unfortunately controls statewide politics at this point).

  27. Great, we’re going to make the visa process for foreign spouses even more labyrinthine, while letting in 20K Syrian refugees on an oath that they’re not terrorists.

    1. This is the first I have heard of an Oath.

      See Almighty’s comment at the top of the thread – ‘Who’s that girl?’.

      Don’t worry, they will be vetted.

  28. Well, for some reason, the vid on my screen is stuck on “Next Up”, so it looks like I’ll miss it.

    1. Are you sure it’s not your screen saver?

  29. Of course, he addresses the issue of discrimination with all the nuance of a runaway truck set to collide with a brick wall. Like the good partisan ideologue that he is.

    You know,he could have used this moment to bring the nation together. “Let us not turn to anger against our Muslim friends” would have sufficed. But no, he had to put on his mean his face, point his finger RIGHT at the camera and give us a stern warning. We, the Islamophobes ready to strike unsuspecting Muslim victims.

  30. Front National wins first round of French regional elections

    Maybe Obama spoke too soon when he called the French his allies.

    1. “Le Pen has led a drive to “detoxify” the party and move away from the racist, jackbooted, antisemitic imagery of the past. But the party’s hardline positions on Islam and immigration remain unchanged and, since the Paris attacks, FN’s key concerns ? the refugee crisis, security, Islam and national identity ? have become the main talking points in France, personally benefiting Le Pen.”

      It’s not surprising they’d do well. They’ve been around for a long time.

  31. We have just had the worst terror attack on US soil since 9/11 and this is what we get? Distraction and twisting a war against western civilization into domestic politics? No change in strategy? Don’t say mean things about Muslims?

    He still wants to disarm America and import 100,000 Syrians.

    People are scared now and they are going to get pissed off pretty soon.

    1. The speech served no purpose. It just reveals what the people in the White House think of Americans. That were all going to go apeshit on the Muslims if people like them don’t educate us on why that’s wrong.

    2. “People are scared now and they are going to get pissed off pretty soon.”

      And the talking heads act like they can’t understand why Trump sounds like an attractive alternative to Obama.

      A pendulum always swings back and forth.

  32. Speaking of inartful phrasing, it was interesting that he said “we will work with our allies, and even other countries like Russia” to get a ceasefire in Syria. Ostensibly, the Russians are still supposed to be our allies in the WOT.

    1. Actually the only interesting point he made was regarding the cease fire in Syria and possible political solution.. The Assad regime situation is the major point of contention between us and Russia. Sounds like we may be compromising on that now. Will be interesting to see what happens with that.

      1. I was watching Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Joseph Dunford testimony to Congress concerning ISIS strategy on CSPAN today. Tulsi Gabbard’s first question was how many nukes does Russia have pointed towards the US snd vice versa.

        1. If only Hillary were still around to hit the overcharge reset button.

      2. As good an idea as that would be, I can’t see Obama compromising on that. He would lose a lot of face.

        It’s amazing, but he’s turning out to be even more stubborn about “staying the course” than Bush was.

        1. I have to think that all the players have to recognize that ISIS is problem one and those secondary issues are a much lower priority. Russia has had it’s share of Islamic terrorism.

      3. It is getting old watching Putin punk our Twink in Chief over and over again. He just told us it was about to happen again.

        Other than letting the Ruskies have a naval base in Syria I am still not sure how Assad threatens our national interest. He funds Hamas? Iran is the world’s largest sponsor of terror yet he bends over backward for them.

        Obumbles attended a madrasa when he was a kid. Does anyone know if it was Sunni or Shiite? Before anyone gets excited, keep in mind that he was awfully accommodating to the Muslim Brotherhood and they are Sunni.

        1. It’s all about Obama’s legacy. He said Assad had to go; backing off that position makes him look weak.

        2. Both Obama and Hilliary have Muslim Brotherhood people in their staffs with close access to them.

          I’m too full of beer to post the links but they exist and if your google works you can do it for yoursself.

          It’s disturbing when you see it in it’s entireity.

          Other than Mid East oil money connections I can’t understand why theat level of influence.

        3. Other than letting the Ruskies have a naval base in Syria I am still not sure how Assad threatens our national interest.

          I’ve been wondering that myself for a while now. As far as I can tell, it’s the fact that Assad called Mr. Obama’s bluff and the royal ego can’t take that.

  33. “It isn’t a perverted interpretation of islam,”

    I bet to differ, It is a literal interpretation of Islam. The punishment for apostasy is death.

    1. As opposed to the literal interpretation of Jewish scripture, which is fluffy bunnies of tolerance?

      1. Yes. Because Jews, usually on the receiving end of pogroms, are totally infamous for terrorism and having a death cult.


        1. I thought we were talking about the literal interpretation of religious documents, not the demonstrated behavior of adherents?

          Cuz 99% of Muslims have no connection to terrorism, so you’re going to strike out there.

          1. Giving money, comfort, or cultural support isn’t a connection ?

            1. Freely-given money is definitely support. If you pull in coerced money then that would mean every American who pays taxes supported the war in Iraq and Obama’s misadventures in Libya and Syria.

              I don’t know what you mean by the other two. If cultural support just means being part of a culture that the terrorists think is supportive of their terrorism, then that isn’t a connection.

              1. This fuckin’ melodica guy makes some pretty good arguments.

      2. Unless I’m missing something, Jews don’t want to take over the world, just the Holy Land…

        Whereas Muslims want to turn the whole planet into a caliphate. Hell, maybe even galaxy eventually.

        1. They would then become a problem for the aliens.

          Assuming they could build a space program at all.

        2. Psalm 2

          1 Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain?
          2 The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed:
          3 ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.’
          4 He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision.
          5 Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure:
          6 ‘Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.’
          7 I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: ‘Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
          8 Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
          9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’
          10 Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.
          11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
          12 Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled.
          Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.

          1. That is awesome, I hope you check out Handel’s version from the Messiah.

        3. More tolerance bunnies from Deuteronomy 20:10-18

          “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

          1. Are you posting Old Testament verses as a way to make Christianity look as bad as Islam ?

            Here are the New Testament commands from God for Christians compared to the Koran commands to Muslims.

            Parallel Verses
            New International Version
            “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

            New Living Translation
            So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.

            English Standard Version
            A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

            Berean Study Bible
            A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another.

            Berean Literal Bible
            A new commandment I give to you, that you should love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.

            New American Standard Bible
            “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

            King James Bible
            A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

            Here is the Koranic commands.

              1. So you go ahead and compare the two.

                I would love to read your explanation.

            1. My point is to show that there are passages of the Jewish scriptures that look hideously barbaric and appear to promote acts of brutal violence when read literally, by an outsider.

              The people who quote a few nasty passages from the Quran to try to smear Islam as a violent religion are also reading literally, as outsiders — outsiders with a very specific axe to grind against Islam before they read a single word, I might add.

              Have you read the entire Quran and eliminated the possibility of any redeeming passages?

              1. No I just compare the actions of those who read the Koran vs. those who read the Bible.

                You ?

              2. In the case of the Quran newer verses abrogate older verses. And since Muhammed became increasingly violent at the end of his life those verses are not cherry picked, they are the correct interpretation.

                I don’t know how the Jews interpret the Old Testament, but it appears they don’t see it like the Quran and never have.

                1. Most people don’t have a clue what is in the bible or koran.

                  to wit…

                  I agree with OneOut that the literal interpretation of OT verses has gone the way of the Dodo. For the Koran, not so much.

        4. “Unless I’m missing something, Jews don’t want to take over the world, just the Holy Land…”

          Only because they’ve got the rest of the world securely in their pants already.


          1. The Jews Bombed Pearl Harbor.

            1. It was a false flag operation run by the Jews so we would go to war against the yellow horde, who frequently break kosher rules.

            2. Actually, American Jews were pretty happy when the Japanese pulled a Pearl Harbor on Port Arthur, launching a war against Russia, the country that Jews of the time loved to hate.

    2. Tens of millions of Muslims support groups like ISIS or terrorism in some form be it passively or violently.

      This is not a small problem.

      It’s, moreover, disturbing how they’re willing, in this particular case, to leave their child without a family to go and murder for an ideology. I think this runs deeper than the notion of their ‘desperate’ because of Western imperialism or Israeli ‘occupation.

      1. No way. If tens of millions were materially supporting terrorism we would have a much bigger problem than we do.

        1. According to Pew, they estimate 15-20% of Muslims say they’re ‘radical’. Do the math.

          Huge to me.

          1. A poll response is not meaningful support. That’s like saying 30 million Republicans are volunteering for the Trump campaign because he has 30% support in polls.

            1. Never go on memory. I should know better.


              The interesting part is the fact large majorities don’t condone suicide bombings BUT there’s enough support to cause problems as we know.


              Of course, there’s always Brigette Gabriel’s take:


          2. And wait a minute, saying you’re a radical = supporting terrorism? Somebody tell Brian Doherty.

            1. It was a poor choice of words on my part. So you can leave Brian alone!

      2. I am too lazy to look it up now but I remember reading that one of Custer’s indian scouts tried in vain to explain to him that Indians live primarily in the spirit world and whites live primarily in the material world and that is why they could never understand each other. Custer couldn’t grasp that.

        People from secular, civilized cultures do not understand people from primitive cultures. We go to church and mouth th words and profess to believe, then we leave church and forget all about it. We go about our lives as if we are rational and civilized. The magical absurdities are just for social signaling.

        They do not. They actually believe the absurd shit their religion teaches. They believe it like you believe your car is in your driveway.

        1. *Disclaimer: There are a great many people brought up in that culture who don’t buy into that nonsense and are secularized, i.e. they have joined the enlightenment. They are there but the number is much lower than the number who actively or tacitly support violent jihad.

        2. I recommend William T. Cavanaugh’s book *the myth of religious violence.* Cavanaugh makes a good case that the very idea of a secular world separate from “religion” was an invention of governments in Europe as they centralized in the 16 through 18 centuries, and taken up later by Third World state-makers. The new states wanted a monopoly on violence and wanted dominion over the lives of their subjects. People with competing allegiances, like to God and church, were an obstacle to state centralization. To justify their power grabs, governments and supportive intellectuals proffered the “secular state” as antidote to “religion,” for which the governments blamed their own violence. Religion was now supposed to be state-run, or relegated to a private sphere, and in either case it must not challenge the state. But far from curbing violence, the secular states engaged in massive war and internal repression.

          1. But far from curbing violence, the secular states engaged in massive war and internal repression.

            So… same as it ever was? If the author is trying to claim that this was different when religion was the center of power, well… that’s just absurd.

        3. They believe it like you believe your car is in your driveway.

          Well, I think my cars are full of shit when they talk to me, so I guess we’re all OK.

  34. I decided that we don’t really want to battle Islamic terrorism. If we did, we’d nuke something, and then warn that Mecca was next.
    Instead, terrorism is the perfect unending war, necessitating more government and more restrictions on civil rights.
    Hell, maybe I should vote for Trump; if we’re going to have fascism, let’s do it right!

    1. Is it a plausible scenario or legitimate discussion for the U.S. to contemplate such an action not unlike similar reasons seen with Japan in WWII?

      1. Which justification for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings do you think applies to this case?

        1. I don’t believe there is one. I’m just ‘wondering’ in response to DenverJ bringing the notion up.

            1. Give me one. The only one I can think of is to ‘send a message’ or bring an enemy to its knees. But does this jive with libertarian NAP? I’m still trying to figure out where you guys stand on all this. I read John, FdA, Papaya and the sort and see so many view points.

              1. To keep from having to invade mainland Japan and save up to a million lives, both American and Japanese.

                A knockout punch to an enemy that struck first jives perfectly with the NAP, especially if it circumvents more damaging measures that would be required without it.

                1. To keep from having to invade mainland Japan and save up to a million lives, both American and Japanese.

                  How does that apply to the current situation?

                  1. It doesn’t. I was only responding to Rufus who said he didn’t think there was a justification for nuking Japan. There was and I gave it.

                    He also said he didn’t understand how any justification could jive with the NAP.

                    The only justifications I have heard for not doing it amount to pointing out the horror and immorality it entailed. At that time every choice we had besides defeat was evil. We chose the least of the evils, even as great as that one was.

                    1. “The only justifications I have heard for not doing it amount to pointing out the horror and immorality it entailed. At that time every choice we had besides defeat was evil. We chose the least of the evils, even as great as that one was.”

                      And how do those times materially differ from these times ?

                    2. Because terrorists, unlike the Japanese, are incapable of mounting an offensive capable of harming our way of life in the slightest, without our own consent.

                2. I seem to recall a pretty intense debate over this not too long ago and it involved Gilmore but I forget who else.

                  For the record, while I’ve gone back and forth over the years, I lean on the side of ‘Yay’ on the decision.

                  I can just imagine how Truman’s conscience must have stressed him.

                  1. “I seem to recall a pretty intense debate over this not too long ago and it involved Gilmore but I forget who else.”

                    I was involved and the prime “nay” was Tony who could not answer the simple question that stops any honest argument that they should not have been used:
                    “What alternative do you propose and how would it be more humane?”
                    As soon as someone answers that question with a real alternative, I’ll be happy to change my mind.

                    1. My hunch said it was you but couldn’t commit in writing!

                    2. The only answer I’ve heard surrounds the theory Japan was going to surrender.

                    3. “The only answer I’ve heard surrounds the theory Japan was going to surrender.”

                      “Downfall”, Richard B. Frank is best, but “Japan’s Longest Day” by a Japanese think tank does well also.
                      Even the Japanese admitted they were no where close to surrender; it took the Emperor to intercede and the military almost killed him as a result.
                      Anyone who makes that claim is ignorant of the circumstances.

                    4. Yeah, they had several days after the first bomb to surrender and expressly chose not to.

                    5. Which neatly answers those who, with concerned hindsight, ask ‘why did we drop the second one?’
                      Because the first one didn’t do the job.

                    6. *I was peripherally involved and i had no real opinion about the yay or nay part. it happened, and there are good reasons it did. did it *have* to…? Were there zero other options?

                      …that was the part where me and Sevo got into a pissing match, because he read a book that said the Japs were absolutely not ready to make terms w/ the US… and i’d seen a half dozen sources saying otherwise, that while there was internal disagreement between the army/the emperor/the foreign ministers et al… that they were basically conceding that the game was up and it was all a matter of ‘how to surrender and retain the throne’, etc. … but that we went ahead anyway because the japs were less important then scaring the russians into stopping their land-grabs east and west and to put them in a different attitude at the bargaining table.

                      at least that’s how i remember it. this was one summary of the view i tend to think is closer to ‘consensus’

                  2. Except that Truman himself says he never lost a minute of sleep over his decision.

                3. Agreed…the bloodbath that was averted was far better than a far greater bloodbath if we didn’t end it there.

                  No one wants to see innocents suffer, yet imperial Japan put a target on their people by their actions.

                  Fuck Imperial Japan, they started it and suffered the consequences. Certainly not our problem…we helped them modernize with billions of our dollars. We acted with remarkable restraint as we had the foresight to imagine Japan as a positive player moving forward. And it worked…

                  We are not perfect by any means, but have been pretty supportive of failed states trying to not be failed states. I’m ok with that, I think Americans are ok with that. I am.

                  Fed gov is so inefficent , whether that can be overcome is the issue.

              2. “Give me one.”

                To put the fucking breaks on Stalin, who was getting out of hand. If we want to make it into a question of felicific calculus, the number of lives saved by the bombs was quite easily in excess of those extinguished by the bombs, and the amount of misery prevented to folks that wouldn’t have been mercifully kilt off was immeasurably greater than the amount of suffering engendered by the bombs. I think it would be difficult to argue that Stalin could have been held back by anything less than two atomic bombings. Furthermore, directly attacking the soviets would have escalated things, while demonstrating with the nips instead cooled things down.

            2. Suthenboy, which one do you think applies?

      2. I’ma say no. Beside the moral objection, the situation is completely different. The choices of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both symbolic and strategic, and both were within the territorial boundaries of a sovereign state. There isn’t an equivalent in the jihadi community. I see where you’re going–the threat of desecrating the most holy place in Islam, holding it hostage against the good behavior of adherents–but it’s not only impractical, it’s probably the single most effective terrorist recruitment tactic imaginable.

        1. There had been years of vicious and fierce fighting against a ruthless enemy that built into it as well. It was, as you point out, a conventional war with prescribed rules of engagement (which Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany didn’t necessarily follow). I know there’s a debate as to whether Japan were readying to surrender but I don’t know, to me it looked as though they were going to fight to the bitter end.

          1. “to me it looked as though they were going to fight to the bitter end.”

            Anyone who has examined ALL the records of the time; the Japanese, ours and the ones that finally got released 15 years ago, agrees with you.

    2. I have friends that live near Mecca, so could we not do that?

    3. “…that Mecca was next.”

      Actually if it came to nukes that would be President Suthenboy’s first target. Extermination would be next. Cut the bullshit and reform your culture or we erase Islam from the earth.

      1. It’s unusual to run into somebody who’s this comfortable with genocide. Thanks for the experience, I guess.

      2. You realize that erasing Islam from the earth, by the method you propose, would entail a genocide 200 times larger than the Holocaust?

        1. 200?

          And the genocide that they are not only proposing but actively and aggressively pursuing now is how many times larger than that?

          1. 1.6 billion / 6 million = 267, so I was underestimating

            What genocide are “they” pursuing?

            1. The erasure of everyone who isnt muslim. Everyone who isnt them.

              So 267 x 6.125 = 1635 times the holocaust.

              The difference is that we would stand down when they acquiesce, they would not. They would grind on until they convert, enslave or murder every non-muslim. They would throw the world back into the dark ages in a sea of blood.

              1. Bullshit. Even if it weren’t, they don’t have the means. All the terror attacks that have you guys calling for genocide added together don’t come close to keeping up with non-Muslim population growth.

                1. So your solution is to have babies faster than they can kill them?

                  I must be drunk arguing with Tulpa.

                  Pray tell, what is your proposed solution?

                  1. What is the problem that I’m supposed to be proposing a solution to? 20 people a year dying in a terrorist attack? You’d save more lives by promoting bathtub safety.

                  2. My point is, you’re proposing “preemptive genocide” when “they”, whoever that is, can’t even manage to decrease our population, much less commit genocide.

                2. Oh, and by ‘bullshit’ you mean they don’t intend to establish a world caliphate free of apostates or infidels despite the cacophony of influential muslim voices preaching that very goal?

                  1. Most of “them” don’t intend that or even give a thought to it.

                    The ones who do don’t have anything close to the means necessary to achieve it.

                    1. melodica|12.6.15 @ 10:54PM|#
                      “Most of “them” don’t intend that or even give a thought to it.
                      The ones who do don’t have anything close to the means necessary to achieve it.”

                      War is the friend of the state and the state declaring war on some undefined population with an undefined end point is just wonderful for giving us brand new taxes and TSAs by the bushel.
                      You get the ones who engaged in it and IGNORE the rest; I got a life to live that doesn’t include turning over half of it to the government to fight one more half-baked war.

                    2. I got a life to live that doesn’t include turning over half of it to the government to fight one more half-baked war.

                      A-fucking-men brother! Life is too short to be wasted on this pants-shitting bullshit.

                3. Tony

                  Shut up.

      3. You don’t have to kill 2 billion people, you just have to break their faith, to bring it below the level that they’re willing to die for it. Destroying one of the five pillars may well accomplish that.

  35. Too soon for OT?

    “Climate change message has religious backers”
    “The Bible has always been clear about the call to care for the world that God has created and to love our neighbors,” said Rachel Lamb, 26, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action and the daughter of a Baptist minister. She notes that the poor will suffer most from the consequences of a warming climate, making it particularly compelling to Christians.”…..679882.php

    Jack keeps telling us how the catastophists are backed with data that’s real sciencey, right?

    1. We already had two overtime games today, so no, it’s not too early.

    2. There is a complete lack of any data showing that climate change is occurring. Zero. Nada. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

      1. Actually that’s the problem with the term. It’s meaningless since the climate is not fixed; it’s ever changing.

        What we’re seeing is a group of individuals over reacting to ‘changes in climate’ and using it to, I’ve come to believe (call me conspiratorial but I feel its plain to see) actually change an economic system.

        They’ve always been wrong with their prognostications because their premises and models are always wrong. And then they go back to tinker with them thinking this time they’ve got it ‘right’. Like alchemists in olden times when they managed to find a sap willing to fund (and feed) their nonsense, erm, science.

        1. call me conspiratorial

          Not at all. *Everything* the left advocates – gun control, thought-crime, climate change ‘mitigation’ – is done with the end goal in mind of total control of the little people. When pressed they will hem and haw but the obvious conclusion is that the only system which will give them everything they want is communism.

        2. When your plan is to wildly enrich yourself at the expense of the successful and productive it really isnt difficult to find willing saps.

        3. Also, by no data showing climate change I mean no climate change that is outside the statistically normal. There is change but it is unremarkable and more often than not not the changes they predicted. The rationalizations they use to explain that are identical to the rationalization strategies the devoutly religious use.

          End of more than one debate on religion: “Suthenboy, I can’t refute any one of your arguments. I admit they are all sound, but I just cannot get on with where they lead. I can’t accept that. What I am trying to tell you is that no matter what you say, no matter how irrefutable your arguments, I am still going to believe. There is simply no argument that will separate me from my faith. ”

          This is the same as the end to any global warming debate with the addition of ‘give us your money’.

  36. I did find it interesting Obama mentioned the US as being “exceptional”. On an unrelated note, does cpan filter their calls to find the dumbest people in the universe?

    1. Yes. They only take C-span viewers.


  37. “Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”

    So is the Daily News gonna bust his chops tomorrow?

    1. If ‘Bust his chops’ is a euphemism for ‘suck his dick’, then yes.

      It was the greatest speech in the history of this country and in a time of such need. He truly is the light bringer.

  38. Far different than i expected.

    note: i read most, but skimmed some, so there might be some crazyness i missed…. but.,.. Aside from the expected gun control points, he was far more direct, more specific, and less-weasely than he’s known for.

    There were still some LOL moments there =

    “the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war”

    Oh really? after 3 years, you’ve all decided “enough is enough! lets stop that civil war in someone else’s country.” as though all that was lacking was the Right Process & Timeline…

    Where have i heard that kind of hubris before? Oh, right = the other civil conflict in that region that’s been going on for ~40 years (*israel /palestine)

    But.. as for much of the rest… its almost like he was taking notes from his critics, and pre-empting them point by point. This could just as well have been a GW.Bush speech.

    1. The local rag is claiming he ‘has a plan’ to stop free-lance terrorists like the San Berdo couple; I also scanned the transcript and saw nothing about any ‘plan’.
      I think the headline writer just figured he must, ’cause he’s Obo!

      1. It’s a secret plan to end the war, like the man he modeled his presidency after.

        1. Same election slogan, too…

          “Nixon’s the One!”

          “Obama’s the black one!”

      2. On second read, i’m starting to walk back my earlier positive impression…

        He’s basically just reiterated the buffet of ‘assorted actions” the US/others have taken so far about ISIS…

        …..pretending that, all together, these things represent a ‘co-ordinated strategy’ rather than an ad-hoc array of half-measures taken in order to be “seen doing something” but not so much as to force the US into something like “specific goals” in a “specific timeline”

        The fact that he’s now articulated that they WILL put things into a ‘specific structure with specific timeline’ … but not said what that actually is? seems to me just his same-old M.O. of putting new names on the same-old processes, and pretending something happened.

        I felt that, after Paris… that there was a strong likelihood that Obama would be forced to pony-up some kind of more-direct and authoritative statement of purpose re: action taken to destroy ISIS. Going into the elections, the dems , regardless of what candidates said about the topic, would just be seen to be vague, bumbling, feckless…. so = i was sort of expecting an “ISIS speech” at some point anyway.

        The actual “new” stuff re: ISIS isn’t as much as initially appeared.. The desire for an AUMF is sort of all there is, plus the claim that there’s some vague coalition and timeline.

        The fact that he says muslims should be policing their own, that seems sorta new.

        1. “He’s basically just reiterated the buffet of ‘assorted actions” the US/others have taken so far about ISIS.”

          I seem to recall that as the Chinese Menu approach: “Two from column A, one from B and two from C, no substitutions, please.”

  39. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?

    Suspect is the key word.

    1. What’s the argument for “allowing terror suspects to use the internet?”

      The she-terrorist seemed to get encouragement from radicals on the Internet.

      What’s the argument for “allowing” terror suspects to leave their hometowns, or to associate with other people. Just serve them with banning orders like with the “anti-terror” laws in apartheid South Africa.

      1. /sarc

    2. What could possibly be the argument for forcing states to accept having random people from a country full of terrorists dropped into their borders?

      1. Pretty sure it’s ‘full faith and credit’; the states don’t have border police and if they did, are you sure you want the Balkans right here in River City?

  40. Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

    So untried citizens who have been denied one civil liberty without due process should be denied another? Why not just take all the folks on the no fly list out and shoot them?

    This has to be the world’s laziest, most feckless attempt to chip away at civil liberties. Remember when BHO was campaigning against violations of civil liberties & executive overreach and promising people that he respected the second amendment?

    1. This has to be the world’s laziest, most feckless attempt to chip away at civil liberties.

      It’s been focus grouped up the wazoo and polls well among low info voters.

      1. You mean Dem Proggie low info voters right ?

      2. You mean Dem Proggie low info voters right ?

    2. The late Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was on the no-fly list. He couldn’t get off the list. If he couldn’t get off the list then how could your average American get off the list.

      1. This was a particularly stupid move on the part of our government. Why would anyone think it was a good idea to force Ted Kennedy to drive rather than fly?

  41. From Amash’s facebook feed:

    Putting someone on a no-fly list without due process and infringing on someone’s right to keep and bear arms without due process are both wrong. The latter is a Second Amendment violation, and both are Fifth Amendment violations.



    Mr. President I know that you see yourself as some sort of Hybrid between a Third World Tinpot Dictator, and A European Enlightened Socialist.

    You are neither of these things.

    You are shoveling shit against the tide.

    You are a lying little Turd Burglar.

    Stop that !!!


    1. The Enjaindered Specie List?

      1. More like the engendered feces list.

  43. Fuck you, cut taxes.

    The economy is in the shitter. Fuck this sidebar shit. Put more money in my pocket by—you know—not taking so much of it.

  44. This is interesting:

    Huma Abedin is from Pakistan. One of the San Bernardino shooters Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan. Her husband, the other shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook’s parents were born in Pakistan.

    Obama, Hillary, and the Muslim Brotherhood connection

  45. If he was in the Oval Office, why didn’t he give the speech sitting behind the Resolute desk, the way all presidents used to? You can see the desk was in the background, but he was speaking from a lectern in front of it. Or, rather, in front of what, on closer inspection, appears to be a bluescreen on which was projected a *picture* of the Resolute desk. (if that were the real Resolute desk, it would extend forward into the space that Obama appears to be occupying.) So why does he play little games of deception with the American people?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.