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

9/11 Memorial

In memory of those killed, and injured on 9/11/01

In memory of those heroes Killed on 9/11/12

Never Forget

May God Bless America.

World Trade Center
Pentagon
Shanksville

Benghazi

Not here, not there, not anywhere, nope

Here’s a little diddy I was thinking about.

Remember the old roasting routine Bush did where he was poking fun by looking everywhere for WMD?

Well, now funny as that was, let’s give Bush some credit now. Applause, well at least he was looking for it. We have to hand it to him for that.

Now we have Obama who would not see Islamic terrorism if it was right in front of his Kenyan face. And whatever ISIS might be, it sure is not Islamic. Nope.

How come the libs aren’t laughing at Obama?

2 faces of Islam narrative

(Follow up from Our Muslim Tolerance Problem)

As the narrative goes: The 2 faces of Islam: peaceful vs. Islamic radical terrorism, jihad, suicide bombers, a caliphate, violent intolerance, Sharia Law enforcing.

We the public have a tolerance deficit? Obviously, they have two incompatible faces then within Islam. So someone is tolerating someone else at their own peril — guess which one? It could be that tolerance is the problem. Still, they lecture us that we just aren’t tolerant enough, which isn’t working out too well for Muslims right now. Have moderate-Muslims proved to us that tolerance is the solution?

Let’s understand that “the West” is almost the only ones standing between these caliphate-crazed radical terrorists and the kinder more “moderate Muslims”. The radicals, whether a minority or not, stand to cannibalize the entire religion. So while the entire free world is on their hit list, Islam as a whole is on their menu just the same. You just have to know what a caliphate is.

But here is the problem: moderates, or whatever you call yourselves, there is no special pecking order. You will all be absorbed just like the Germans under the Third Reich. The truth is the West is about the only one fighting this battle. Actually, You owe us. Your religion is experiencing a coup d’état, according to the narrative. but the only ones doing anything about it are Western-allied countries. (and some of them aren’t doing too much)

You want to preach to us about Islamophobia and tolerance? Sure you see the Islamo-fascism or Islamoterrorism and either deny it or choose to ignore it. We don’t have that luxury. You spout the rhetoric that not all Muslims are terrorists. Big deal, what are your doing about it? We also take the brunt of blame from Jihadis. They aren’t forcing their 10th century barbarism on you personally, yet. But wait, it’s in the works. It can’t be soon enough for radical Imams pushing it. And since 1800 they’ve been waging war within Islam, too. Meanwhile good, peaceful Muslims just happen to mysteriously transform into head choppers and suicide bombers. Why is that?

But maybe some people have been looking at this all wrong? You know the mantra that Islamic terrorists are corrupting an otherwise beautiful, peaceful religion. Well, for over twelve years now that is the preferred verbiage. What if it is the other way around?

Is it possible the radicalized jihadis are right and the so-called moderates are the real dupes. That would mean that the accurate face of Islam is the radical, violent side. That would make “moderates” the imposters in Islam. What if that’s the case and we’ve been looking at it in reverse? Maybe the real face of Islam is that of radicals and terrorists? But no one ever mentions that possibility.

But even if they prefer to be called moderates, what they do has empowered Islamic radicals. If they won’t step up and condemn the Islamists, it is hard to really call them “moderates” then, isn’t it?

The question is where does the tolerance for radical Islamic terrorists end? That intolerance would be a good thing. Yet Muslims tell us our intolerance is the big problem. Now Obama has no aversion to the “death cult” term but stubbornly avoids the underlined source, Islamism.

However, there is a simpler and clearer way to see it.

Wild Olive website has a good description of Islam nuance. It summarizes:

In Islam there are only two states of existence, Dar es Salaam (House of Peace – under Islam) and Dar el Harb (House of War – not yet under Islam)

But let’s not talk about that face.

RightRing | Bullright

Barack Hussein-Chamberlain Obama

Not Obama’s words but:

We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. — Neville Chamberlain

Obama has not come to terms with the idea that others do not want to discuss, or that others do not want peace. In fact, both are antithetical to their Islamist plans.He has so much in common with Chamberlain it is uncanny. No one can deter him.

In all the world, we are the one country with the know how and means to fight the Islamic terrorism. No other country is equipped or has the experience, good or bad, to do it.

But we have an administration that just wants to confuse and dilute all that into a P/C stew. Rather than applying our expertise, experience and might, we have confused and deterred our objectives. We don’t even call it what it is: Islamic driven terrorism.

Obama’s half-hearted if deceitful efforts to oppose something aimed at the foundation of freedom is a distant objective. He’s busy laying his “foundation” on sand. (shifting sand at that)

No, we didn’t build that. When did we become apologists for our enemies? We were somehow able to call communism what it  is, fascism what it is, and Nazis what they were. Why should this be different?

But at the same time, WH chief of staff Denis McConough bravely used the first name of a hostage in Syria ISIS has been holding since 2013, after her family asked them not to. Last year the WH outed the CIA station chief in Afghanistan. But using appropriate names or labels for terrorists is a problem and forbidden by the WH. They use names and labels freely when they want.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama the page turner

Obama said in his 2015 SOTU that we turned the page. Yea, we turned the page and found about the same thing on that one.

Daily Caller

“Fifteen years that dawned with terror touching our shores; that unfolded with a new generation fighting two long and costly wars; that saw a vicious recession spread across our nation and the world. … Tonight, we turn the page,” Obama declared.

Turn to what? Making a deadly deal in negotiation with Iran, believing in rose-colored democracy in Cuba, labeling climate change the biggest threat in the world? The Obama page is riddled with defects but that never stopped him. The new page of dissing Israel’s security concerns. Create an illegal immigration crisis. Dictator du jour. Oh right, that new foundation he said they laid. What was wrong with the old foundation?

The Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

We will always be conceived in liberty but one must seriously question what proposition we are dedicated to now, in 2015? Obama’s proposition, whatever he decides that is. May the world not long remember what Obama says, but it can never ignore what he did here. If this was the legacy he was after then he certainly got one.

“Know this: the shadow of crisis has passed.” No, he’s still president.

Then in closing Obama said he has only one agenda — the same one he had since elected, “to do what I think is best for America“. That depends on his meaning of “best” for the country, doesn’t it? If he thinks changing and rewriting our immigration law is best for the country. If lying to us about Benghazi was best for the country. If bypassing Congress is best for our country. If calling ISIS the JV team was best for the country. If immi-gate was best for the country. If green-funding-gate was best for the country. If denying even a smidgen of corruption in the IRS is best. Best for who, really?

Even more telling than his list of guests of special mention at the SOTU was who he did not choose to spotlight. Like the husband of the woman beheaded in Oklahoma, or the parents of the student slain in New Jersey as fair game, or James Foley’s family, or the parents of the kidnapped and beheaded journalist, or family members of countless other victims of non-Islamic terrorists. Or any victims of his IRS non-scandal.

It shows you where he is focused. He’d rather use a Democrat campaign operative as a human interest story. Who wants to talk about another victim of Islamic terrorism?

But may we not soon forget what he did. The shadow endures.

State of the Union is Under Siege.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama stands with Muslims

On the heels of the Charlie Hebdo executions, leaders show their solidarity in Paris and Obama is conveniently MIA. Sure he made a few statements but as all the leaders show support, no Obama. Let the criticism and excuses fly.

Not pictured: The United States http://t.co/gsxLAnDhWC—
Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 11, 2015

Pandering to College kids or his political agenda takes priority. How dare they upstage that. After seeing his sinking poll/approvals among youth, he is scrambling to stop the hemorrhaging any way he can. (promising more aid or free tuition)

I’m just guessing that Valerie Jarret made the decision: ‘you don’t have to go to Paris…we’re still working on the SOTU speech. Get those college kids back on board.’ Obama’s legacy is much more important.

Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised, speaking of Arab and Pakistani immigrants in his Audacity of Hope: [p-261]

“I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.“

It’s clear he was referring to Muslims since he was talking about post 9/11 attacks.

And at the UN, Obama said:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Remember he was saying that after the terrorist attack in Benghazi killing an ambassador and 3 Americans. If he could lecture us then on Islam criticism, what would he have told people at rally in France anyway? — “Buck up?” So maybe he just spared them a lecture on the finer points of Islam.

He carefully added in that UN speech,

“But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn he hate we see in images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or the churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Apparently he is telling us that he has no credibility on the matter. He suggests the offended people and Muslims must also criticize those who slander Christians or, gasp, deny the Holocaust. Of course, we know he just threw that in for an illusion of fairness.

With his penchant for defending Islam — as if it needs another defender — when was the last time he came to the defense of Christians, or Holocaust victims? We’ve seen a genocide across the Middle East by his Muslim victims, and he cannot be moved to reaction to speak up for Christians. Yet he is moved to defend Islam at almost every opportunity.

When has he said “the future does not belong to those who slander Christ?” So the train left the station. At every opportunity, Obama was right there sympathizing with Islam, Muslims. The Audacity of hypocrisy and bias — any synonym for ‘biased’ fits Obama.

Here’s a good chronicle of his Islam bias in 2013 at “Now the end begins.”

Now Kerry calls the criticism “quibbling” and the White House says security logistics were a concern. But if he had gone, his own words could have been used against him anyway. Besides, it is not only his words but his actions that are the problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Taqiyya , or basic Islamic lying

Your basic definition for starters:

Taqiyya — The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

But then that does not begin to get at the nuanced roots of the application.

Taqqiya – An Tactic of Lying, Concealment

Islamists interpret their scripture to say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals.
Mon, April 7, 2014 | The Clarion Project

Taqiyya is an idea of Islamic jurisprudence that has been redefined and appropriated by Islamists as part of their political strategy. This piece is not about use of the concept in mainstream theology.

Hard to define exactly, it has been variously translated as dissimulation, concealment, lying and diplomacy. Other words that are used are kitman and idtirar. These Arabic terms all have subtly different meanings.

Nevertheless they are used to describe the same overall strategy as practiced by Islamists: using deceit as a religious and political weapon.

It has been used by Islamists in a different context. Their interpretations of scripture say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals, namely world conquest.

More at The Clarion Project

The next post will give some depth and background into this tactic or tradition.In view of the current events, its hard to know how this tactic might be employed. But does anyone notice the recent lying campaign Obama himself has been on over IS terrorists, and the nature of Islam with respect to the terrorism we see?

It seems like a perfect opportunity for those of the craft to employ useful techniques like this time-honored one. We’ve already seen the propaganda campaign by terrorists. This is an intrinsic part of Islam’s overall campaign. It deserves serious consideration.

When dealing with something of evil nature such as Islamic terrorism — just like Alinsky’s rules of radicals in politics — we must be aware of the techniques. How similar in nature are those two forces? I think the following post will be interesting and informative.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama switched sides

Mideast expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

‘America has moved toward its Muslim enemies’
by Garth Kant | WND
August 28, 2014

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that puts the president’s motives into question.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.

Former CIA operations officer Clare Lopez

She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

[…/]

Much more at: WND