Islam indoctrination 101

Once again, a public school firmly putting its foot down on the side of Islam indoctrination of students. Case in Maryland ignites suit.

Daily Signal

A Maryland couple are suing their county school system, the school board, and their daughter’s high school principal over what they claim was “Islamic indoctrination and propaganda” in a world history class.

John Kevin Wood and his wife, Melissa, say they are Christians and were upset to learn their 16-year-old daughter brought home homework that characterized Muslims as having “stronger” faith than Christians.

Read: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/29/christian-family-sues-over-islamic-indoctrination-homework/

Not just “stronger faith”, but students are made to recite the profession of faith. And we know how importantly significant that is to Muslims. Order the prayer rugs.

P/C BS in PA

This story happens to be from a Pa college. It is a pretty good indicator when things are happening there, they are probably happening everywhere else. Probably with the same mindlessness.

WND

Take the small campus of Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, please. Students there are demanding that administrators rename a building called “Lynch Memorial Hall” because of the racial overtones of the word “lynch,” which recalls the public murders of black men in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Never mind that Lynch Memorial Hall is named after Clyde A. Lynch, president of the college from 1932 until his death in 1950.

Read http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/pc-madness-spreads/

So now anyone with that name is subject to a ban. Too bad the name Barrack Obama doesn’t carry that kind of stigma. They must not be aware of the name of our Attorney General or we’d have a major revolt on our hands.

Can anyone keep up with the perpetual offenses these people seem to see, or feel, everywhere? That would be hard since they are inventing them every day.

Franklin Graham lives in reality USA

Franklin Graham — (Facebook)

“Politicians in Washington seem to be totally disconnected with reality.”

For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over. Donald J. Trump has been criticized by some for saying something similar. The new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said yesterday that he disagrees—saying that “such views are not what this party stands for and more importantly it’s not what this country stands for.” Politicians in Washington seem to be totally disconnected with reality.

Research shows that there are 2.75 million Muslims living in the U.S. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51% of Muslims living in America believe “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to sharia” (Islamic law) instead of the U.S. Constitution. 29% agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable, and 25% agree that violence against America can be justified as part of global jihad. Among males under the age of 45, that number rises to 36%. And 29% of males under 45 believe that violence against America is justified in order to make Sharia the law of the land. This is frightening.

Our politicians are not listening to the truth—my prayer is that God will open their eyes. This affects our security and the future of our nation. If you agree, email your Congressman or Senator today, and SHARE this with others (be sure to copy & paste this text when sharing).

Graham was referring to a Pew Research poll.

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

By Michael Lipka | Pew Research

Muslims are the fastest-growing religious group in the world. … Here are answers to some key questions about Muslims, …./ [read]

From the Washington Post

In July, Graham, the son of Billy Graham, wrote on Facebook that the country should “should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled.” That post came after four Marines and a sailor were fatally shot at military facilities in Chattanooga, Tenn., by a Kuwait-born U.S. citizen from a conservative Muslim family.

Another Pew Research article says:

The public continues to express conflicted views of Islam. Favorable opinions of Islam have declined since 2005, but there has been virtually no change over the past year in the proportion of Americans saying that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

And that is not all that has declined since 2005.

More on Graham’s Facebook here.

If it is a matter of life and death, which I believe it proves, then what is the problem with our concerns about their dysfunctional vetting? The left couldn’t even vet the current president in 2 elections. Certainly, the ruling-class are disconnected from reality.

I’m offended by Muslims

Yes, you read that right. It’s not politically correct, you say? No, but it is correct to say. (Sorry Hillary, Obama, et al)

News for Muslims: I’m offended we have to sacrifice and fight this battle of Islamic terrorism. What are you doing? What have you done about it? Do you plan on doing anything about it? But our men, women, civilians, and soldiers are killed and maimed by this ideology, which happens to align itself with Islam and Muslims’ faith.

War with Islamists is a 100 year war, but also a permanent one. No one wants to think this is a permanent state of the world. It’s a way of life. Yet our leaders are crying and whining about global warming being a permanent condition of this world. They want us to change our entire lifestyle to reflect that reality their scientists’ claim. No, they demand we do.

I’m offended by Muslims. They all offend me, since they haven’t been able to stop ISIS or any of the other 100 plus terrorist groups. Have Muslims at large ever prevented or intercepted a terrorist plot? Even if they did it would only be one plot, one act. Can they show me a mosque or network that they shut down? No. Do they want us to police it?

But when France was attacked, a Muslim group ran out to say they condemned this act on the strongest possible terms. What’s that mean and what is that worth? Are they just going to come out every time and condemn the act? Are they also condemning ISIS for their existence? Sorry, I’m having a hard time qualifying their condemnation.

Yet they, Muslims and Islamists, tell us that the real problem is people like me that suggest the whole religion might be to blame. That’s the problem they are concerned about and that’s the problem they want all of America (everyone) to actively work on. They want our government stepping in to prevent that injustice. Their biggest worry is that their religion is being slandered somehow by the victims and citizens of the world.

Some people say they are afraid to speak out or come forward to criticize ISIS or Islamist radicals. Yet they are not afraid to come out to criticize us for “hating” on Islam. Isn’t Islamic terrorism giving Muslims a bad name? Wouldn’t you think they would be concerned about that enough to take a stand and do something to stop it? We’ve been waiting over 12 years now. It hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like it is going to happen. It has declared war on us and civilization. It is left to the world to deal with and combat it. That is insulting and offensive.

RightRing | Bullright

We may never know Chattanooga shooter’s motives

SO the Chattanooga shooter investigation seems to be on a real slow train.

Pamela Geller

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – The public may never know what motivated a 24-year-old Chattanooga man to kill four Marines and a sailor in an attack on Chattanooga’s U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center last July.

Investigators have said Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a homegrown violent extremist but have not offered more details about what motivated the attack that began at a military recruiting center and ended when Abdulazeez was shot to death by police who followed him to the reserve center.

“Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people,” [FBI Director James Comey] said.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/fbi-chief-refuses-to-release-motive-in-chattanooga-jihad-murders-we-dont-want-to-smear-people.html/

Sometimes it’s better if people not know, I take it. Wouldn’t want to damage or smear anyone. Nope. Isn’t he the same guy running the Hillary servergate investigation?

No smearing … unless it is the American people, then by all means go ahead.

Black Lives Matter seek debate forum

Washington Post reports on the BLM appeal to both parties for a debate style forum:

“The lessons of history are clear, and instructive for us right now. It is both protest and policy work that will get us the win, and we need every single possible strategy at our disposal in order to see real change,” Packnett [BLM organizer spokesman] said. “So I think we have an opportunity to be creative here in how we engage presidential candidates in the same way that our movement has been creative in how we have protested and created peaceful but necessary disruption around the country.”

Creative, in the same way they protest? Shutting down malls and townhall meetings, blocking traffic, storming police stations, just for a few of their creative efforts.

They since have been told by both Parties that the debate schedules are full and that they should have a townhall forum to showcase their issues. Talks continue but the DNC said it would sponsor such an event. RNC said it would be open to participating.

When they stand on their proud uber-radical protest tactics, disrupting and shouting down any dissent, calling for death to cops, and interrupting anyone’s lives they can, they still want people to support a public forum for their rhetoric. What happens if others, say more rational voices, protest them and their forum? I don’t suppose that is on their agenda.

What is pretty ironic is that they don’t want to debate. Their tactics and strategy oppose that. There is no other perspective but theirs. If you don’t get that then look at those they protested and how they do it. Now they say they want a debate?

First, they should debate themselves on why the cop killing is a common theme endorsed by their platform? But you never hear them address that every time they call for “pigs in a blanket…fry ’em like bacon.” Yet they want to mainstream their organization and expect everyone to respect and embrace their organization. Really?

Of course if you don’t endorse them you’re a de facto target. Dems, in their endless tolerance to all things radical, will not utter a peep to them. As long as they vote between calling for “death to cops,” what’s the problem? And as long as they vote correctly, which is pretty much a given. I suppose Cair will want a debate next. BLM chants death to cops but the DOJ and homeland security see white supremacists and right-wing “racist” groups as the biggest terrorist threat. (next to Global Warming) No public forum for them.

The Papal Smackdown on U.S.

The Pope will arrive in US next week with the usual fanfare that entails a Papal visit. In view of expectations and his prior statements, he will probably stir the pot rather heavily. Then the joint session speech.

With those known factors, as well as his positions, I may write about it because it’s something I follow. However, I want to forewarn anyone that opposition and disagreement is not Pope bashing. I’ve been through that so many times my head would spin counting. Again, criticism is not Pope-bashing just as criticizing Obama is not racism.

Francis started this with his controversial statements. But I don’t expect to see anyone boycott his joint-session speech, or bar Obama from meeting the Pope because we are in political campaign season. (ala Bibi) Just the opposite, Obama is all about that. And since when did someone come here meddling in our policies? That kind of influence will be welcomed by the Democrats, though they are tied to the abortion industry as “law of the land”. But because they appreciate his socialist bent on economic and cultural matters, they encourage him all the more to make that case to the American people. (i.e. Ted Kennedy & Yuri Andropov)

So as a reminder, I am not a Catholic though I have no interest in bashing the Pope. I’ve also expressed my disagreement and disappointment with evangelicals and protestants in many areas. This was brought about by Pope Francis. As far as separating politics from religion, this Pope has erased many political boundaries. I’m not a separationist either and will not play those games, much less use that as fodder against the Pope of Rome.

On the outside chance he does not delve into controversial, political areas — and what haven’t the Dems politicized — it is still a matter that his people and Vatican have taken stands on these things, whether directly by Francis or his many evolving set of advisers. He may decide, as many politicians do, to let staffers and advisers make his case. But the case is his nonetheless, and he laid claim to it.

The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

How the truth became politically incorrect to Obama

The story here is not only that truth became politically incorrect to Obama but also, more importantly, that anyone endorsing or trafficking in truth became the opposition to Obama. Imagine that, just by aligning oneself with the truth turns one into an enemy of Obama. And by extension, considering his position, it thereby turns one into an enemy of the state. We see how all this works. In effect, truth has become Obama’s chief enemy, and thereby an enemy of the state.

Of course it would be a difficult thing for media to accept. Fortunately, they don’t have to worry about such a thing. That would admit being played or hoodwinked by Obama.

The Iran deal reveals a chunk of this truism about Bary Soetoro. Go back to his campaign days where, asked about Iran, he always favored talking to Iran. His supporters loved it. Conservatives took issue with that for exactly the reasons we witnessed, of “negotiation” with the talks. Of course we were told we were wrong that talks do not equal negotiating. But they do and did. Now we also see how that negotiation turned out .

So they made it so complex, attaching side deals, which no one will see between Iran and IAEA, that it would be purposefully hard to understand. Trust us, they said, it is a good deal. (a good deal of BS) See it would require trust. However, trust does not make it a good deal. But “trust” is the fallacy that Obama has peddled all along, since his early days as Senator, to his first campaign to today. We are always to just trust him, with little or no basis for it, and then we get screwed in the end. Trust though is a central ingredient in his modus operandi and agenda. It’s the top necessary ingredient with Obama. Which is why I called his a faith-based campaign: “Hope and change” and “change you can believe in.”

The side deals, as they are referred to, are unknown to Kerry and even Obama. By law, all materials of the deal must be given to Congress. So how can they sign off on something they don’t know the details of, and cannot see? But that is what Obama is asking of Congress. It’s a good deal, trust us, “peace in our time.” Trust is the operative word.

Remember Reagan’s maxim of trust and verify?

We always verify after the fact that he lied to us. But it always shows in the end our trust was without merit. We always get a raw deal or royally screwed. He is not happy enough to screw us in the present, he wants to stick to future generations too. There are normally multiple layers of screwage. He also sets it up where future negotiations with Iran will be necessary. Then the future administration(s) will have to deal with Tehran. We really made Iran some kind of a partner.

Every step along the way on issues Obama abused our trust and destroyed the grounds for it. I can’t say he actually destroyed our trust because people cannot accept that their trust was shot through, because that would be admitting they were taken, lied to, or hoodwinked. Who wants to admit being a mark? But they continue to trust him.

It is a serial abuse relationship Obama has with even many of his voters and base. (they aren’t all communists though they endorse Marxist people, which is another subject) To admit it is more than they can take. Each step Obama requires people to just trust him.

Seeing is believing, or not.

We know it is not the transparency he promised, another lie. So behind their backs he is abusing their trust in him. A few, and I don’t know how many, are probably privy to this whole charade Obama plays but who also believe in the destination anyway, so it is acceptable. Remember the professor of Obamcare, Jonathan Gruber, and his repeated statements that they had to lie to us. Which is more profound, that they believed they had to lie to us or that lying is such a necessary tactic in their agenda?

Well, it was the same premise in the Iran deal, they had to lie to the American people. From the beginning they said we would have anytime anywhere access and that would be in any agreement. Now we see we don’t have anywhere anytime access. Then Kerry said that anywhere anytime was not promised, or part of the plan. He denied that there were any side deals and, low and behold, there are side deals. They denied that sanctions were working though they claim that sanctions, in fact — ones congress not Obama imposed — were the pressure that brought them to the negotiation table. Then they condemned any talk of new sanctions or reinstatement of the previous ones, which Obama lifted. They claimed eliminating the prospect of a nuclear Iran was the objective, while they in effect enshrined their nuclear ability. They also denied that containment was their strategy, but voila theirs is a strategy of containment.

Furthermore, let’s back up again to the campaign trail. Obama claimed his mission was to stop proliferation. In fact he wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons. We now see he has proliferated them starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He said he would do these things with, he assured us, the purest of motives. Now we look at what really motivated him.

The political strategy, lie a lot — early and often.

Probably the biggest parallel theme to things though is the lies. Its a tactic and an overall strategy of his. Tell us anything in order to get his way, pass legislation, accomplish his mission or goal — preferably the opposite of what he is doing. Obamacare was built on lies and illusion. He sold the initial idea that it would only affect those who didn’t have insurance or medical coverage. Hello, it affected everyone. He said if you liked your plan you could keep your plan. Wrong, you couldn’t. He said if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Wrong. He said it would lower the cost of your insurance, saving average family 2500 per/yr. In fact, it increased the cost and for some families by 2500 a year. He said it would lower our debt while it added to it.

But probably the central, critical lie he used from the onset was that, since there was a majority of people already covered, it would not affect them. That made it very palatable. It basically was only going to help those who had no coverage. So people went along because they believed it would not affect them personally, least not negatively. And many of those are the very ones it affects the most, and in the worst way. Now they have soaring premiums and deductibles. It was a pack of lies, actually built on a foundation of lies. Sound familiar? Then came Professor Gruber who said just that. Well, then it was the lie that he was nothing and not connected with drafting the law. Actually he was an architect of the law. See?

So now we have an Iran deal following the same formula. Tell the people anything at the beginning, lie and promise them anything. Whatever means to the ends. Then deny what you said and did. But then Gruber’s admission was even worse than admitting they lied. It was, yes we lied to the stupid American people. But it even went a step deeper than that.

Daily Caller

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Catch that? First he told us they had to lie to the stupid people. Then he suggested they had to lie to us because we are stupid. In effect, we are the cause for their lying. It’s our fault they lied.(that’s something like the ultimate lie) Like: I’ll admit I lied but the reason was because you made it so necessary. It’s all our fault and we’re stupid, so we probably can’t even understand that. Geesh. Maybe one day we’ll come up to their level and be able to understand — surely it won’t be soon. By then they will be even smarter. It’s not even that government knows best, it is that the progressives know better than all.

Then there was Senator Hillary CLinton’s statement to General Petraeus that his report “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.” Take that from the Liars Club. Ironically, that is exactly what Obama and his administration, including Hillary, requires from us — “suspension of disbelief.” We know he’s lying to us, but let’s not pay much attention to that detail. Instead, let’s accept what he says as the truth. Most places would call deceit on that level fraud. Just like the kind that ushered Obama into office. But in his campaign, at the time, he was busy pointing out Hillary’s lies. Round and round it goes, where it stops only Obama knows. But it never will stop because he cannot allow the lies to end.

RightRing | Bullright

Structural Radicalism: the new description

Since the progressives are obsessed with “structural racism,” I thought it was time for another term to describe the reality of what we have. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. A H/T to Pepp for the inspiration from our discussion.

The new term is Structural Radicalism. So now I am saddled with defining it. But that should not be easy because of our current state of affairs, or is it current affairs of state? (Merriam-Webster)

Structural
: relating to the way something is built or organized
: relating to the structure of something

Radicalism
: the opinions and behavior of people who favor extreme changes especially in government
: radical political ideas and behavior

The integrated structure of radical political ideas and behavior. Now we have it. I suppose one could substitute ideology for opinions, and actions for behavior.

It amuses me how the word “reform” pops up related to government or even political parties. It probably ranks right up there with the most used words by politicians, though probably has as many meanings. In the context used it usually refers to change for good. That’s what they mean or imply anyway.

The problem is that we have already had de facto reform over decades now. Schools, government, culture, society in general. That’s what caused most of our problems. Their reform has percolated since the 60’s. But that reform hasn’t been necessarily good. Roe v Wade, Obamacare, EPA, Kelo decision, education, amnesty, border security, homeland security, housing, sanctuary cities, Bipartisan Campaign Reform, same-sex mariage.

Oh change has come and has people calling for a change back. Remember Obama’s mantra was “Hope and Change”. But the part no one quotes is “change you can believe in” — a faith-based campaign theme. Or the belief in nothingness, as exhibited in his record.

Of course what we got was not what you believed or even wanted. What we got was the invasion of radical mindset in all corners of the government. An infestation Over the years, the same radical ideology has invaded many state and local governments. Chicago, Detroit, San Fran, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, NYC and Universities. Now that seeing is believing, what can you do about it? We are a nation under siege of radicals. Everyone else can see it. And how do you deal with this radicalization of our system? That is a brain buster.

So do you reason with it? That is a foreign language to them. They care as much about reason and logic as nothing. They have no credibility. Emotions are king and activism is their means. They want decisions and law based on ideology and mob activism.

We need an updated strategy

You see, many people believe that the good ideas just win but that is not the nature of radicalism. Is it enough to be right about the issue or issues? Do radicals recoil and pull back all their weapons because “yea, you are right”? So the problem is much bigger than ideas. A certain amount of these radicals will never be converted, and they ill not admit they are wrong and won’t quit. The thing is we need a radical approach to radicalism.

Someone would say but the founders were radicals. Yes, but a different kind of radical. I would call that fundamental radicalism, contrary to what we see here. They are statists, big-government radicals that infiltrated our system at the highest levels.

How do we deal with this progressive radicalism?I admit it will take a tough approach. One might say a radical opposition of the fundamental type. Where that foundational radicalism had some integrity with patriots pledging their lives and fortunes on foundational principles. That kind of unwavering devotion is needed to defeat this Marxist, statist radicalism. So there is no standard political approach with them that will be successful. Might as well talk to a wall. Power and force is all it understands. And don’t expect to reason with it to win it over.

That is why we are at a loss to combat it with any success.They don’t care about due process (Hello Obama & Harry Reid), by their radical nature. They are capable of using and twisting the process to serve their ends. Yet we see how outraged everyone got at Rand Paul or Ted Cruz when they took a tough stand. None of the outraged can tell us what to do. The common ways don’t work.

That also opens the door for economic radicalism interwoven in their activism. We see that rolling out all the time. CEO for Mozilla, gay wedding cakes, Dr. Laura I presume. But those holding the reins of power share the same ideological agenda, which is how we get to a Mayor of Baltimore issuing a stand down order to police during riots and looting. It’s how we get government agencies locking down private bank accounts of individuals, or get the IRS and every alphabet agency jumping on Tea Party organizers. Private property being seized in eminent domain. K-Street lobbyists and government spending. Foreign policy, same thing: negotiating with terrorists, demonstrating lack of will to defend the country and our posterity. It’s structural.

One proposed answer is an Article V Convention — complete with its own hazards — but we still have to deal with the systemic radicalism embedded in our system. But enough of the people have to see it as the real structural radicalism it is, first.

PS: Happy Fourth of July, Independence Day, too.

RightRing | Bullright

Double-minded standards

Incidentally, if you were also feeling a bit rainbowed out — and it has only been days so far — then check out this post on Sons of Liberty. It will certainly remind you that you are not alone in your feeling of overwhelming rainbow fanaticism — rainbowphilia.

It’s a list of businesses or organizations going gaga over the gay flag and same-sex cause. The list of examples is excruciatingly painful and incestuous in pandering to this sociosexual political agenda. And maybe it is just the beginning too.

But at the very same time we learned that a rebel flag harkening back to the confederate history is far too controversial, polarizing and racist to even display. So there was a frenzy to ban it and a competition who could be first to throw it under the bus. Even NASCAR has gotten in the fray by banning it.

The problem it seems is that anyone waving it, using it or endorsing it in any way is now de facto racist. If that were not bad enough, reports say two flag companies announced they would stop making it, and stores will stop selling it. If you are looking for hash brownies or pot granola you might have some luck, but some things are considered too rage inducing to make anymore.

And then when you see the Left buried neck-deep in both issues it sort of lights your hair on fire. On one hand anything related to the flag is racist. While on the other, the rainbow flag is the greatest thing. Should that mean that anyone endorsing the rainbow flag is gay? Under and by the Left’s orthodoxy you would think so.

But no, everyone is suppose to embrace the rainbow LGBTQ flag, to be hip. That goes for businesses too. See the list, including the American Airlines picture. Even in this very WordPress program there was a rainbow banner installed on the edit page. I checked and Google had similar links to pro-LGBT pages celebrating their euphoric sexuality of the community. It obviously is not meant to be a personal statement but a gesture to identify with a broader culture.

No such allowance or tolerance should be made for the Confederate flag and those who rally around it. In that case: demonize it along with the people who associate themselves with it. Want an example? Reports condemn people who overlay the American Flag on their profile, after a successful campaign for people to put rainbow filters on FB profiles.

As that article points out about this fast-and-furious flurry of rainbow activity, does it all appear a little contrived, especially the White House lighting project? Was this roll out sporadic? It all shows how disingenuous the left is on anything. It’s all about the political cause. If it benefits that, great, but if not it is the problem. Now a sexual cause too.

RightRing | Bullright

Here we are far from paradise

Erik Rush nailed this one to the wall, in Lutheresque style. A little high brow at beginning but great analysis.

Silencing America’s Majority

Erik Rush | July 2, 2015 | Sons of Liberty

Excerpt:

Shakur had no proof whatsoever of anything he said – yet he and Shabazz were allowed to stand there at length and incite Americans to kill other Americans. Conversely, a white individual cannot criticize our president’s tie without being pilloried for racism.

This double standard is quite similar to that of militant homosexuals being allowed to call for the complete disenfranchisement of Christians, the burning of their businesses, and even violent action against them – yet woe be unto the Christian who criticizes homosexuals or their attendant political agenda, no matter how diplomatically it is done.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/07/silencing-americas-majority/

Yes, the double standards could not be more glaring. On one hand we have Christians who must be bullied, on the other side we have gays who are encouraged to bully — and proud of it. Then there is the media playing right along.

Disagree with Obama and you are a racist bigot, woman-hating, homophobic, anti-choice, Obama hater, and card-carrying right-wing conspiracist nut job. If however you support him, you can be any kind of terrorist-loving, hedonistic, ant-Semitic, anti-Christian, fascist, race-pimping bigot you want to be…and preferably loud and proud about it. Pardon all the hyphenations but the leftists have industrialized their use.

NBC Pulls Trump Card

NBC plays the Trump card. Wasn’t that predictable?

In their disagreement with what Trump has said on the illegal invasion on the border, they terminated their business dealings with him. I bet the Left was applauding. I wonder what is in the contract, if there was one? They just prove they can break business ties on words they don’t like — whatever they find objectionable.

Their business deals must abolish the speech of anyone they deal with. Funny that working relationship has not affected Rev Al Sharpton’s mouth. Or maybe that is what they wanted when they hired him? Yet they refused responsibility and made a disclaimer for Williams’ words.

Change org’s petition was said:

“Please cancel Miss USA, Miss Universe and the Apprentice. You are supporting a hateful and narcissistic individual without any kind of values, both personal and business wise. Not only that, but you are supporting a growing trend of bigotry and division in this country.”

USA today says “Trump continues to deny he’s a bigot”.

But NBC should be careful of appeasing liberal left demands. What happens when it refuses to do what they or Univision wants? Well, when they find out it won’t be pretty. This was consequences for running, the statements were the excuse. It always seems free speech is a one way street with the left.

Along those terms, here’s the latest version: police crackdown on Ferguson riots violated the free speech of thugs and looters rioting. Hey, free speech must mean free stuff to the left. If that’s the case, seeing the way Obama’s been cracking down on conservatives we should be entitled to loot Fort Knox — if there is anything in it.

Ode to the rainbow

I used to like rainbows, way back, and I really have nothing against them. But now I suppose there will be another new term soon, rainbowphobia. Note to Websters’.

As of yesterday with the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, I saw the rainbow on everything, everywhere in support of that agenda. Of course it was already bad enough that the LGBT community had co-opted the rainbow years ago. Suddenly it was everywhere as if planned yesterday. Anywhere they could stick it.

These days I guess everything is about associations or symbolic interpretations. Triggering is the buzzword for something that inflames one. It’s about common perceptions, new and evolving meanings. It’s about the meaning of something at a given time.

Since they attach the symbol to anything related to same-sex or LGBT, they lay claim to areas that used to mean something else, just like the rainbow. Meanings of words change and society is suppose to adapt. But one thing I will sadly miss is the rainbow – or the non-sexualized, time honored rainbow. We’ll probably be called phobic over it.

So I thought in honor of that a few special mentions and helpful reminders would be appropriate.(all quotes in NIV)

Gen 9:12-16

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

Ezek 1:25-28

Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. 26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.

Rev 4:3

And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow , resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.

Rev 10:1-2

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand.

Funny how the rainbow is now symbolic for gay issues or same-sex marriage. Normally, there are limits to symbols but there seems to be no limit to the ways they can use this one. I never understood the connection between this symbol and their cause.

They have reinterpreted the meaning of yet another time-honored historical thing. Or are we now somewhere over the rainbow? Perhaps we need a psychological term for their obsession with using the rainbow? The term could be rainbow-philia.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary running for Berlin

Pro-Hillary Dems say we need a woman in the Oval Office. Ready for Hillary. “It’s time we had a woman president.” Presumably she has sufficient estrogen and female genitalia to qualify. Providing no one calls her bona fides into question.

They point out and ask why do we need a white guy for president? The problem is the white guys were not elected simply because they were white men.

Obama was elected because he was black. It wasn’t based on his accomplishments or record. We created a new qualification for president: skin color, ethnicity, or race. Now they added gender to the affirmative action prerequisites for the job.

So we can now justifiably choose our presidents on an “historical first” basis. First Hispanic, first Asian, first Arab, first Russian. All’s fair. What’s wrong with that?

How about its time to elect a German president? How does that sound? Why isn’t it politically correct? We need a Sicilian or Italian for president.

What if someone said we need a German descendent for president? That conjures up the Third Reich in Germany, particularly Hitler. Ah, we’re over that. We need to elect people on race, ethnicity or sexual identity. Then attack anyone questioning those qualifiers. How dare you? You must be a bigot or racist if you don’t approve.

Certainly voting against them would qualify you as a racist, as it does with Obama. Any disagreement is met with a charge of racism. Then any disagreement with Hillary is misogyny, woman hating, a war on women. It is the most ridiculous idea the Left has had. So why not the first German or first Nazi? Why not? It’s what they are doing.

RightRing | Bullright

“The way” is not ‘a way’

A very interesting subject often comes up within Christianity but is sometimes raised in a subtle, even sneaky manner. This could be a divisive message for some people, though I suggest that problem is with them not me. That subject is exclusivity, or the exclusiveness of the Christian faith. No matter how many times arguments against it are injected, it is not a new issue. In fact, it has been with us from the beginning.

The first thing to remember, for most people who were either drawn to or matured in their faith, is that exclusivity is an important part of the Christianity message. It wasn’t called the “way” or the road for nothing. But exclusivity has consequences and significance. It makes some people cringe. One reason that matters is it comes from Christians. If it were only from secularists and atheists it would be just another criticism of Christianity.

The whole problem comes in when talking about other religions, whether it’s Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam etc. But in a nutshell, to take exclusivity out of the equation would mean that it doesn’t matter which religion(or faith) you subscribe to, if basically the same. In application, those of this philosophy say they feel that way – uncomfortable. The effect is to make all beliefs coequal ways. Jesus did not teach that. How long then before people turn that thinking into a consensus of convenience? Then anyone opposing that view, like me, would be the marginalized outliers. That’s how it works in practice.

I apologize for having a habit of repeating myself. But it is a critical point.

II Corinthians 11:4
“For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.”

The real problem is some insist this non-exclusivity is the way it really is, or should be. Some people are just not comfortable with the idea of Christianity as the only, true way. They want to believe there are other ways. They often cite ‘my Father’s house has many mansions’ or ‘judge not lest you be judged’ to make their case. [Jn 14:2 & Mat 7:1]This creates a problem for Christians and Christianity. It is a politically correct view. One does not want to offend others by believing the Christian path, as espoused by Jesus, is the only way. It is inconvenient and makes them uncomfortable.

However, since the beginning of the church and after Christ’s death and resurrection, this exclusive message has been the case. Not accepting Christian exclusivity goes against the grain, fundamentals and the teachings. It’s also a concept inherent in many faiths, in their message. So why are Christians the only ones intimidated and uncomfortable with that tenet of their faith? It doesn’t seem to bother other faiths.

The exclusivity of Christianity is something we must come to terms with though, that is if we believe our own faith. Partly the reason for the issue is because much has been made of it over the years, largely by secularists extorting it for their own gain. The logic goes something like this: ‘sure, everyone thinks that theirs is the only true way and that is the problem. Everyone thinks he/she is right and, thus, believes everyone else is wrong. That is divisive.’ They ask you to alter your belief based on the idea you may offend someone. While you are at it, they insinuate, suspend your belief in who Jesus is too. It’s just the friendlier thing to do. Of course, the problem would then be what Jesus came and died for. He is the fulfillment of prophecy.

Why we are supposedly the only ones who need to accommodate all the others is a question mark for me? Now if you take that exclusive part out of the faith, what do you have? It wouldn’t matter what you believe in whether it is Buddhism or the Hale Bopp comet, if all roads lead to the same place. Now I am not referring here to inter-denominational battles over doctrinal differences. That is a little different. Sure disagreements exist but part of that has to do with the necessary exclusivity. Again, the exclusivity is inherent in the message and our faith. But it is not the problem with it; it is the purpose of it.

Now how we treat people outside of that is another matter. We would like them to find Jesus, certainly not by force or duress. We love them and treat them nice. Then we go out of our way to be non-offensive by bending over backwards until we’re basically saying there is no difference between one religion or the other. That’s the message we are sending. Secularists pounded that drum for years. Whether consciously or unconsciously, that’s the effect of what we are doing.

If we did not believe in exclusivity we wouldn’t be Christians, because that is the message we accept in Christ and are baptized into. No, it is not politically correct.

Luke 12:51
“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”

Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”

I Corinthians 1:23
“but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,”

Matthew 13:57
And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” [58]And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

It works to the enemies’ favor because then we have, in effect, disarmed ourselves if we no longer believe Christianity is the only true way. (John 24:6) Jesus said to [Thomas], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me”. So many people make themselves the judge and jury that everyone is right, to avoid thinking others are wrong. It just sounds better and nicer, doesn’t it? Believing others are wrong just doesn’t feel comfortable. And who wants to tell others that the faith they believe or have been raised in is not the correct way? So let’s just remove that.

It’s not only coming from random pews, but from some pulpits and clergy as well. I’m not referring to the non-Christians because they will say what they will anyway. So this puts the problem within the walls of the church, not just outside it. If you are Christian, you should accept the exclusivity of the faith as a reality and come to terms with it.

If believing in exclusivity of Christ was a problem, the disciples were heavily involved in it. And they even died for that purpose. They weren’t suspending their judgement about other religions by preaching in the synagogues. That would have been politically incorrect to do. Jesus didn’t ask Peter if he would die for all the world’s religions. And Christ did not say he himself was irrelevant. But that would be the extension of what people are doing by reducing everything down to a politically correct stew.

Well, all that political correctness…. that was never my cross to bear.

Acts 4:11
“He is the stone which was rejected by you, The Builders, but which became the chief corner stone. [12]”And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 Corinthians 3:11
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

___________________________________________________________

“It’s Not My Cross to Bear” — by Allman Brothers Band 1969

Yeah
I have not come, yeah, to testify
About our bad, bad misfortune
And I ain’t here a wonderin’ why
But I’ll live on and I’ll be strong
‘Cause it just ain’t my cross to bear

RightRing | Bullright

ESP and Liberal minds (2)

Once again the subject is language and liberals. The Baltimore Mayor did a stunning reversal, or whatever you call it, on what she clearly stated in a press conference.

“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

She later challenged the reporter who challenged what she said. Then she said the problem was the media twisting her words that she never said. Well, she did and we all heard it, but therein is the problem.

Fox’s Megyn Kelley took on the Mayor’s denial. Go to the video tape. Yep, that’s what she said, we heard her. Then it came to pundit commentary, so the token leftist was all bent out of shape that we actually applied her words to her. How dare you! He said what she really meant by those words, and that no mayor or official in the country would allow or want destruction taking place in their city. But she said it.

He went on to interpret what she intended or “meant to say”.(which requires revision) But that the mayor’s heart and concerns were in exactly the right place. It wasn’t just one Democrat pundit, many of the left said the same thing. So they could reinterpret her words into a harmless intent of goodwill, which she really meant. (we all know what she meant) Except for one thing, what the mayor actually said — in her own press conference, not behind doors in private. Though it makes one wonder what she says behind closed doors?

She also used the word thug to describe criminals, but then later revised her words to “misguided young people who need our support.” Apparently that revision satisfied the perpetually-peeved protestors because I haven’t heard any more rev interpretations.

It turns out that Liberals have the gift of telepathy on demand. Yes, they can read minds and intentions. They are good at it, too, because their powers are limitless. Then it’s treated as an official translation and reported that way. For example, if someone says “the sky is blue”, liberals can go out to translate what he meant was it is some color other than white or red, never mind clearly calling it blue. Media would report his intentions. Leftists say if Mayor Blake had it to do over again, she would have said something else. So they can just go ahead and fill in all those blanks for her.

Like Hillary goes out to say they were dead broke leaving the WH and people come out to translate what she really meant by that. So actually dead broke can mean a whole lot of things, I just thought it meant dead broke. Hillary has a village of interpreters.

What about when Obama goes out of his way to make some sort of racial or stereotypical slur? That is fine, the problem was your ears. Libs will rush out to say what he really meant. They say he was right to say those who “cling to guns and religion” with “antipathy” toward others, and it needed to be said. Since he is right, they say he should not apologize but be congratulated. But when you are correct about the term thugs — when even Obama used it — you should be shamed, scolded and forced to apologize… for being right and using the correct term. (no ESP interpretations allowed)

And it turns out the media that can do telepathic interpretations, and police language the rest of us use, runs prison TV on a loop on weekends. We should be shamed and cast as racists for using the word “thug,” while Baltimore’s Mayor Chaos must be given wide birth to telepathic interpretations on whatever she says. Having MSNBC’s #1 race-baiting anchor for a spokesperson, and running the translation efforts for the Mayor, should settle any outrage or dispute over what she says. I’m glad for their ESP expertise. Without their telepathic translators we would never know what looney leftists really say. And often the translations are worse than their actual statements.

RightRing | Bullright

What state are we in?

… who is in our state or something like that?

“4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies”

Published on Jan 28, 2015
During a press conference on how to combat radical Islamic extremism, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated that under the leadership of Barack Obama the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated all of the National Security Agencies of the United States. Furthermore, Lyons said that Obama is deliberately unilaterally disarming the military and spoke to the need for the new GOP controlled congress and Military leaders to stand up to the administration and uphold their oaths.

Big H/T – Pat Dollard Feb 8,2015 and Top Right News (see article) and TPNN

See no evil, say no evil

On the Sunday news circuit, HS Secretary Jeh Johnson reminded the public that “if you see something say something.”

Well, just as long as you don’t say that you see Islamic radicalism or terrorism. You are not supposed to see or say that.

Semantics Summit

Instead of a Summit on Extremism it is really a semantics summit.

“Political grievances that are exploited by terrorists.” Is he admitting he is a terrorist? Seriously, he’s done more to exploit grievances and divide people than anyone.

If I hear one more hand-picked letter example from Obama of a Muslim child saying they are good people, my head will explode. Where are all the letters from Christians saying this intolerance and genocide against Christians and Jews has to stop? None. Oh, he’s getting no letters from concerned Christians. More validation of his defense of Islam tour.

Obama boiled it down to a semantics soup. No matter what you see on the menu, you are getting semantics soup. (no offense to the Soup Nazi)

As Eric Holder instructed us, what does it matter if they use the words “Islamic terrorism” or not? Ask Obama, It matters a whole lot to him. If it really didn’t matter he wouldn’t have problems using it occasionally, so at least people know what he is talking about.

Related
Obama’s religious blindness aids Islamic State: Column by James S. Robbins