Hillary’s Saudi Critique Problem

Danged if Hillary isn’t trying to have it both ways. She has been criticized far and wide, including from Bernie’s campaign, for taking money from Saudi Arabia and other countries. Then for favors and never complaining about the treatment of people in those countries.

Well, she tried to pivot to criticize them now. That was on Tuesday. Soon thereafter, the Saudi’s issued a stern smack down to Hillary. Other countries like Qatar and Kuwait followed suit with their criticism toward Clinton.

Heatstreet

The Orlando terrorist may be dead but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive. And we must attack it,” said Clinton.

The Saudis, Qataris, and Kuwaitis also donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

Saudi Arabia: $11-30 million
Qatar: $1-5 million
Kuwait: $5-10 million

It’s not nice to criticize the hand that’s been feeding the Clinton machine.

 

Saudi Arabia upset after Hillary Clinton links oil kingdom to terrorism

June 17, 2016 – Daniel Flitton | Sydney Morning Herald

Oh, Hillary, you certainly got their back up.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have piled on outrage after Hillary Clinton condemned the weekend slaughter in Orlando and directly linked the oil-rich monarchies to the funding of terrorism.

In separate letters to Fairfax Media, the embassies for both countries in Canberra took exception to reporting of Mrs Clinton’s call to “stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world”.

“Accusations levelled against the Kingdom of being lax or of supporting extremism fails to recognise the Kingdom’s leadership role in combating terrorism,” the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia wrote.

Kuwait’s embassy said it “wishes to convey its disapproval of the criticism and allegations stated by the presumptive candidate Ms. Hillary Clinton”.

The diplomatic stoush follows the rampage that killed 49 in a gay nightclub and a call by gunman Omar Mateen to emergency services where he pledged allegiance to Islamic State. …/

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-arabia-upset-after-hillary-clinton-links-oil-kingdom-to-terrorism-20160617-gpla3n.html#ixzz4BsF7Xh47  Follow us: @smh on Twitter

Here is the letter from Saudi Arabia disagreeing and taking issue with her criticism. (but you are a little late to the party anyway, Hillary — after you lined the Clinton pockets) See the article for other responses. Poor Hillary, feel the wrath.

Well, Hillary when you piss them off I am sure you will be doing damage control, as will Obama. But then you never knew that, did you? There is a lot of stuff in that letter.

Word police, DHS, Jeh Johnson and speech p/c

DHS report before Orlando massacre: Political correctness needed to fight Islamic terrorism

Washington Times

A report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council released days before the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, Florida, stressed the importance of combating extremism by avoiding terms that might offend Muslims. A HSAC subcommittee first created by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2015 published its report on June 9. Some instructions found in the report include:…

More

The Daily Caller reports:

The report urges DHS officials to “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

For example, the report says the DHS should be “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’”

The report acknowledges that, “There is a disagreement among scholars, government officials, and activists about the right lexicon to use around the issues of violent extremism.”

Nevertheless, the report states, “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”

“We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and words. Tone and word choice matter,” the report states.

Read more

It says that they should not use words like Sharia, Jihad, Takfir and refrain from using religiously charged terms. But the President of Islam defense goes to the prayer breakfast and lectures about Crusades and criticizes Christians.

The report advocates using and promoting gender diversity to youth. But avoid those things and terms that may be charged or problematic toward Muslims or Islam. Though any opportunity they get to critiize Christians or speak ill of them is acceptable.

For instance when they promote abortion and same-sex marriage, those are not divisive, religiously charged or problematic terms. My disgust meter registered a new high. Talking derogatorily about and marginalizing Christians is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged.

I bet that would have some effect on Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Years in the making, new narrative deletes old

I need to jump into my way-back machine to make some observational connections.

I’ve been following this popular political narrative for years, decades now. What I have seen is stunning hypocritical ignorance on the left to accept reality.

Back before Islamic radicalism was really on the radar to most people, we had these philosophical and religious conversations bustling around, later on the web with the internet. They were fairly simple to follow. There were passions on both sides.

The secularists on the rise were out in force to seize control of public dialogue. Successful in many aspects, the idea was to purge any mention of religious expression. But of course that was a political discussion, I mean what else could it be? It was laced with vitriolic hatred for anything of religious nature. Any morals or values founded on Christian principles were deemed taboo, at least for practical applications. Enter religious freedom and the 1st amendment debate. Of course, those spewing hatred were atheists, humanists and secularists, or anti-religion zealots. Anyone else was just not with the times, or hip to reality, as they portrayed it. That is a powerful marginalization tactic embraced by the Left, to simply dismiss a whole segment of society. An especially large one.

Somewhere along the way, we also had the creation of the moral majority. (founded in ’79, dissolved in late 80’s w/ resurgence in early 2000’s) Remember Jerry Falwell who was the poster child for all things Christian meddling in politics, and a huge target of the secular Leftists who despised him. This was was a reaction to the times not the cause of them. Now I won’t say Christians were always the innocent victims, they’ve had their share of problems. We are reminded all the time, so leave that to critics who regularly make the case. I don’t need to.

Onward to dialogue

These conversations took shape around religious liberty. Christians were frustrated by the onslaught of what were some heavy-handed, viscous anti-religion zealots. Okay, so they said their beef was with organized religion of all stripes. They set out with fervor to descend on any sites or organizations spewing Christian rhetoric or themes. That would become easy with Google ordering their popularity. Any place serving up or discussing Christian perspectives inevitably got a visit from one or more of these villains.

Often their M/O was a sneaky way to gain credibility by, first, appearing to agree with some part of the discussion, but then taking issue with the direction it was going. They usually got more argumentative as it went to eventually full rage at the site, its people, and their “narrow-minded” views — according to them. Typically they would post stuff countering the Christian message, in calculated ways, then accuse the site of not honoring the first amendment if it was removed or they were banned. This was just a game and they would come back under another alias if they were ejected.

It was sort of a daily thing. The more popular the site was the more persistent they got. Their goal was to shut it down, or confuse it so people lost interest, or eventually drive the owners to throw up their hands. It only took a few of them to wreak havoc on a site. These trolls may have been easy to spot but that didn’t matter. Most people are very familiar with that formula, which is the point. It was too common but worth remembering now.

Many Christian authors or site owners made a habit of saying other opinions were welcomed. That was a huge invitation. Trolls would hang any rules around the site’s neck in a typical liberal process-style argument — just like radicals do. Why do I bother with all this background? It is to remember where we’ve been, sort of like Moses reminding Jews of the goal instead of focusing on the hardships.

As things do on the internet, it evolved from there. Many people thought it was too much trouble to have an open, public, Christian forum on the net. One by one, many larger ones disappeared or reinvented themselves.

Then there were blogs sponsored by the Town Hall website. It was a hub for conservatives to hang out, talk, network, and explore news and activism. Many Christians migrated to these blogs as they popped up weekly on their pages along with the current news and regular columnists. That lasted until they decided they didn’t want the hassles anymore or server space became a factor. Off the starry-eyed bloggers went to start their own blogs, experience in tow. But before that happened, the same sort of pattern formed of Liberals and antagonists invading TH pages with regularity. It was as if Liberals had no other place to go or anything else to do except troll Townhall pages and blogs in search of arguments, causing chaos — not to mention calling people names using every personal attack they could come up with.

Onward and upward

Many former participants or bloggers found their homes on new blogs in the blog domains. Conservatives and Christians sort of regrouped in new and different areas. Many focusing on just politics, and some only on Christian topics. Some combined topics with news and current causes. It became a hodgepodge network of activism and information that breathes life into an otherwise hum-drum internet catering to liberal news and savvy entrepreneurs.

There was now a counterweight of conservative opinion out there, widely spread, even before social media like Facebook and twitter took off. You can still find some larger sites that stick to Christian issues or forums. They don’t make quite the same “all are welcomed” claims because, face it, all are not welcome — nor should they be. Some just want to cause chaos. It’s an evolving world in technology and information.

Evolution in motion

Back in early 2000’s things did change with the attack on 9/11. But before that we had the attack on the Cole and earlier WTC bombing in the 90’s. So those conversations and awareness was already out there. Though 911 did change many things, including dialogue on the web. The anti-Christians, naysayer antagonists and Leftist zealots on the internet were flummoxed on strategy.

They still opposed the Christians in the usual manner. But adjustments were made in dialogue regarding the newfound fears of terrorism. Christians were taken more seriously and had some credibility. Christians may have had a point to their concerns after all?

Then came the reminder of the left’s religious obsession almost immediately after 9/11. There was an onslaught of talk and fear that this would cause a huge backlash and resentment against Muslims. Who would be the villains? (not the anti-reliegion zealots) But it didn’t have to be real. Just the possibility of it happening was enough to provoke all kinds of talk, suspicions, theories aimed at Christians. What did we do… did Christians cause the attack? Were we to blame?

The double standards came out front and center. Here was religious-based hatred driving terrorism via Islamists. It would seem the classic example Leftists had hunted for over the years. Finally, they had the connection of bigotry and hatred to religion. What did they do? So they preached tolerance. Their longstanding intolerance for Christianity suddenly morphed into tolerance for Islam — for anything but Christians. They were fascinated by Islam. We were told it was a peaceful religion. It was only a handful of people, obviously off the path, who committed violent jihad. The former Christian critics became self-anointed tolerance experts.

Do you think that would translate to say Christianity? Why should it in their minds? They had already made their case against old, ancient, superstitious beliefs. But a complete pass was granted to Muslims and Islam. Almost immediately, Islamic spokesmen came out telling us that it had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims or their peaceful religion. And they looked to cite any example of bigotry they could find as Islamophobia.

Suddenly it was us, the victims, who had a disease: Islamophobia was the diagnosis and watchword. The mission was complete. Christians went from being victims, and direct targets of hatred, to the culprits of anti-Islamic hate. It didn’t even take note that those fighting for religious freedom were the Christians. Now they were the chief villains.

RightRing | Bullright ©

Obama, mosques R US

Daniel Pipes has written an excellent analysis of Obama’s mosque speech.

Assessing Obama’s Mosque Speech on Islam

by Daniel Pipes
Special to IPT News
February 8, 2016

Wishing to address growing anti-Islamic sentiments among the American public, Barack Obama ventured on Feb. 3 to the Islamic Society of Baltimore (sadly, a mosque with unsavory Islamist associations) to talk about Islam and Muslims. The 5,000-word speech contains much of interest. Here’s an in-depth assessment of its key points:

Obama:… “the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”

How can a person in a position of responsibility say something so patently wrong? Islam means submission, and does not derive from peace. As I explained in 2005, “There is no connection in meaning between salām and islām, peace and submission. These are two distinct words with unrelated meetings.” Shame on Obama.

Obama: “the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are. We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character.”

By this infantile logic, Hitler could not have been at war with Judaism because Jews were part of the very fabric of Germany.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/5151/assessing-obama-mosque-speech-on-islam#

Obama also said in his [errant and arrogant] mosque speech that:

“Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam. I refuse to give them legitimacy.”

Pretty desperate for legitimacy: I think a caliphate gives them legitimacy more than his words, which he refuses to use, would give them. They are religious leaders and holy warriors — not just playing them on TV. Are they acting when they’re running a caliphate, towns, a state and an oil network? Or when they behead rebels and infidels, when they recruit around the world to join their holy war? They’re just begging for legitimacy.

H/T to Counter Jihad Report

Obama’s perpetual defense of Islam

Best explanation yet.  He doesn’t want people to turn against Islam. Of course promoting Islam is also job #1. While promoting the US is way down on the list.

Obama: ‘Don’t turn on Islam’

Exclusive: Joseph Farah asks, ‘Why is he being so condescending to Americans?’

Joseph Farah | WND — 12/20/15

Muslim terrorists have been killing Americans with regularity going back to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, continuing through 9/11, the Boston Massacre, Fort Hood, the Beltway Sniper, San Bernardino and many other attacks in between.

Obama isn’t lecturing Muslims to stop attacks on Americans. Instead, he’s lecturing the victims not to retaliate, not to think mean thoughts about the perpetrators, not to show any signs of what he likes to call Islamophobia.

He said, in his weekly address to the nation last weekend, Americans should not turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam, because that’s what ISIS wants, because that attitude will undermine national security.

“Terrorists like ISIL are trying to divide us along lines of religion and background,” he said. “That’s how they stoke fear. That’s how they recruit. And just as Muslims around the world have to keep rejecting any twisted interpretation of Islam, all of us have to reject bigotry – in all its forms. I’ll say it again, prejudice and discrimination helps ISIL and it undermines our national security.”

Not only is Obama not taking the fight in any meaningful way to ISIS, he’s blaming the victims here at home for being angry and scared about the attacks.

Americans have been taking in the shorts from Islamic terrorists for more than 20 years, and they show no signs of going vigilante. There’s no evidence of “hate crimes” being perpetrated against Muslims in America, which is astonishing when you think about what we have endured. Yet, Americans are lectured constantly about their predilection toward bigotry.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/obama-dont-turn-on-islam/

I’m having a lot of trouble again. Look if they are not turning us against it based on what they are doing, and so-called moderates’ reaction to it, then I don’t know what will. If Muslims don’t care enough about that giant P/R disaster of their making, then how can we help them? How can a little truth about what is going on threaten Islam in any way if they don’t care to stop the horrors?

On the other hand, be scared and petrified about global warming and talk about the negative effects of that every chance you get — every time weather changes.

Work it into every conversation. Even get the Pope to chime in on those threats and run an ad campaign teaming up with a leading Democrat funder-organizer. Just don’t worry about the impacts of Islam on society. We don’t need to speculate about that problem. But do keep your eyes out for the Crusades, coming to a neighborhood near you.

Muslims’ Moral Equivalency Problem

How dark are the channels Islamists have constructed of moral equivalence with the Jews to oppressed Muslims? (or anyone else with racial or historical grievances) Muslims are the world-wide object of hatred and bigotry if you follow their apologists’ narrative. Just listen to them. It’s a natural exercise in revision and propaganda.

Once in a while it does pay to venture out and see what their unleashed Islam-peacism movement says, unabashedly. Of course, it is very easy to see through their rhetoric, even easier to poke plenty of holes where it conflicts with reality. But their writing is a sophistry without comparison, unless you go back to Hitler’s rise. Yes, the very thing they hail as the example of their own fascist oppression used a similar approach in its propaganda. They are determined to apply the Nazi example with the Jews to their current situation. A search for Muslims are the new Jews will set one on the path. They make a moral equivalence of Muslims with Jews’ Holocaust and Nazi persecution.

Though there is a moral equivalence of the Obama administration to the Islamists — be it with ISIS terrorists or the wider radical Islamist faction. Sure we are lectured almost daily about blaming all Muslims for what Islamists do. The anti-semetic, Jewish parallel is a canard for all practical purposes. Victimization? You don’t see it. This is a hollow, desperate comparison in search of victims. Rather, a percentage of Muslims victimize the world on behalf of Islam. Does it really matter that there is a percentage that are not complicit in their barbarianism?

I mentioned the reluctance and refusal of the rest of the Muslims to combat or contain the radicals before. It is left to the world to sort out, and the expense of dealing with it is very real. It sucks the urgency out of governments worldwide. That offends me and it should offend any other red-blooded, freedom-loving American. So Islam rightly offends me. I make no apologies. It doesn’t matter that I am a Christian, or weather one happens to be any other faith. Jews were legitimate victims not terrorists.

I am reluctant to make comparisons to the Holocaust. Many pro-lifers for years have drawn abortion parallels to the Holocaust. They may have good reasons, however, I consider the Nazi/Jew case sort of sacred . Not saying I don’t use Hitler or the Third Reich analogies with current examples. I frown on using “Holocaust” (terminology) much except on WWII. Overuse could desensitize the term. I say that to say it is offensive to me seeing and hearing Islamist bandy this terminology around applied to their current struggles.(whatever the hell they, or their apologists, think those are right now) On two grounds it is offensive. The portrayal of Muslims as victims worldwide and the Hitler, fascism comparison.

Now then, these apologists frame it as an oppressed Islam that is only reactionary to what the US (or the West) are doing. Though I’d like to know how we are the inspiration for the Caliphate?(scratch that thought, I’ve heard their rationale and it didn’t sell me but it does sell to Muslims.) This mantra gets it backwards: we are forced to react to what a strain of Islam has done (perfected) for decades. It is just as clever in semantics as it is in their parallel to the Jewish antisemitism and the Holocaust. It singles out Western governments as being complicit in the very terrorism they are fighting for life from. And yes, they blame us for it while calling (us) the real terrorists. We are the terrorists, not Muslims. It has a circular logic flavor to it. It’s an attempt to use a faulty perception to construct a faulty reality. They add as their buttress argument, as Obama does, that Christians had persecutions. Christians also had a reformation which they completely dismiss. Islam is having no reformation unless to turn humanity back to the eighth century.

They compare it to civil rights and racism. According to this rhetoric, we are “prejudice apologizers” for pointing out that being Muslim is not a race? Nor is being Christian a race. It is only a descriptor. See when we try to force fit these labels and canards, we screw up the logic of the underlining point.

But since they make the Nazi parallel, how much help were they fighting the Jewish Holocaust in WWII? Notice how they distance Muslims and Islam from ISIS or the Caliphate while their arguments, and blame, add fuel to the fire ISIS runs on. So their apologetic is not far from being sympatheticy for ISIS, or supporting its agenda. Yet their answer to everything we “bigots” suggest is that you are playing right into the hands of ISIS. Everything becomes “a recruiting tool” for ISIS. Gitmo, Gitmo detainees, war on terror, on and on. Our opposition to it is a recruitment tool.

Here is the ultimate problem with all this. What is actually on the menu of Islamists is to bring the same culture to our shores that is playing out in the Middle East. And to make it mainstream, politically, which is not all that far from the Left’s M/O. In essence, it seeks to turn our country into a battlefield – a war zone. But there is a common misunderstanding about that agenda. Many will point out that it needs some power or the force of government to be effective. No, it only needs immunity from governmental force to be very effective. And that is exactly what many are hell bent on giving them. Whether in ignorance or knowingly, it doesn’t really matter.

So as they tell us we are giving the terrorists recruitment tools, it is ridiculous. But they are giving Islamists exactly what they want and need, practically an invitation. ISIS and Islamists recruit no matter what and will use our weaknesses against as their chief tool.

I get so sick of all this rhetoric that we are somehow aiding ISIS by taking a tough stand. Indeed, the only thing that will be effective and that they understand is force. But we have to be willing to stand behind it, unlike our weak-kneed apologist-in-chief who sympathizes with Islam every chance he gets. Can you say “recruitment tool?” He sympathizes with ISIS whether he knows it or not — some think he knows exactly what he is doing.

If Muslims or their sympathetic political allies are worried about bias against Muslims, then they have to look also at the context of violence in beheadings and hatred by the Islamic radical communities, both here and abroad. Then tell us there is no justification for our suspicions and concerns. But as to religious hate crimes, it is more prevalent toward Jews than Muslims. Then look at Christian cleansings carried out throughout the Middle East and in Africa. No one seems concerned at a national level by those alarming atrocities, yet we are to worry about head scarfs, hijabs, and prayer considerations for Muslims. When an event like an Oklahoma beheading is carried out in the workplace by a radical Muslim, it is labeled a workplace violence incident, giving a false victim status aura to the perpetrator. Is that rational? Is that a hate crime committed by a radical Muslim? But we are to worry about Muslims’ sensitivities. Who else can carry out an attack like that without some backlash?

Of course the problem is that Islamic radicals have declared and waged war on us. Does the fact that they are a religion really make that much difference? Why should they be treated differently because it happens to be a religious sect that is waging the war via terrorism? But they are asking us to treat them differently because they are religiously motivated.

How then do they contort that into religious persecution on a parallel with Jews? How do they perceive Muslims and Islam as victims that need the world’s help to prevent their extermination? And of all places, to make that charge about the US just because we call for scrutiny and screening the very people who declared war on us, already attacked us multiple times, and want to destroy us. That is the outrageous case they are making. If Muslims have such great sensitivities about all this, then where is their outrage, concern and criticism for what radical Muslims are doing? Oh, right, they are afraid to speak out for fear of being targeted. Right. Christians around the world are suffering persecution and we are supposed to be preoccupied with Muslim sensitivities and non-persecution of Muslims right here in the USA.

A related article: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/182608/islamophobia-anti-semitism

RightRing | Bullright

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.

A message for Muslims: beware

So let me offend Muslims a little bit and say we should use a little psyops on them. (apply a little reverse psychology) It may sound provocative to some people.

We can start with one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. Joel has something to say about just such a situation as we are going through. People of Judah were down and things were bad. Joel felt judgement had come upon them.

Joel 1:2-4

2 Hear this, you elders;
listen, all who live in the land.
Has anything like this ever happened in your days
or in the days of your forefathers?
3 Tell it to your children,
and let your children tell it to their children,
and their children to the next generation.
4 What the locust swarm has left
the great locusts have eaten;
what the great locusts have left
the young locusts have eaten;
what the young locusts have left
other locusts have eaten.

Joel 2:6-7

6 At the sight of them, nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale.
7 They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.

They were depressed at the prospects all around them. They were no doubt wondering if God was with them? The answer came in the second half of chapter two.

Joel 2:25’I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten — the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm— my great army that I sent among you. (26) “You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed. (27) Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.

(28)’And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”

The point is we often debate the cause of bad things, but there is also judgment. Yet God is capable of restoring us to greater blessings for going through them. When we call on Him and pray, He hears. He can turn to good that which is done to us.

We tend to personalize it seeing circumstances as punishment feeling judgment has come, that God has removed his protection. But He will restore even bless us.

2 Chronicles 7:13″If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

So I have to wonder about the terrorism, as bad and evil as it all is? I’m thinking how God can restore us and greatly bless us for going through it. Then I wonder how great those blessings might be for what we are going through now?

Do hihadis and Islamists realize, with what they are doing, that God can and will bless us in the end? God will restore His people, and take them to greater heights. We can have faith in that. That’s the message I hear.

That should give Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists pause to know(or think) we will be restored. We will be blessed in spite of all they do. Now maybe that is the best message that could be sent to them. Just proclaim what is going to happen. That might be the best campaign we could have. It will also build a confidence among God’s people in anticipation of what is to come. Plus, it would be better than any propaganda we could employ. God repaid to his people what the locusts had eaten. God has a salvation plan, Christ.

RightRing | Bullright

Questions and stupid suggestions

Someone tell media that Trump is running as a candidate for President, not for commissioner of the speech police.

He gets a question about Muslims and, right on cue, media attacks Trump for “not correcting” the questioner. It sounds pretty suspicious to me.

The indictment is his “failure to correct a questioner“.  Another ludicrous thing to thank McCain for setting some stupid standard on. It is not their job to correct every person who may or not make a statement.

We aren’t in the silly season, we are in the desperate season. Everyone is appalled. I wish they were publicly appalled at the terrorism plots and hateful rhetoric from Islamists.– or at statements from Obama which he never apologizes for.

Media gets an “F- F” for being useful idiots.

(Fox and much of media is now on the Carly Fiorina bandwagon)

Selective first amendment

It’s so strange what some people will use the first amendment for, besides toilet tissue.

Just ask Pamella Geller, or her art exhibit in Texas. Well, let’s get something straight, there are no safety zones for the first amendment. So Geller knows this full well. Regardless, she had the exhibit/contest anyway. Now the post exhibit is being scripted, and it ain’t pretty.

Now that it’s over, and we all know the shooters who attacked it were stopped before carrying out their apparent mission, we have a new discussion. One on the first amendment. Sure, before the exhibit many complained about her holding something so controversial, if dangerous. No such controversy over the Muslims holding a “stand with the prophet convention” with all the characters it had — the one place guaranteed not to have a suicide bomber crash the party or a terrorist attack. Media wasn’t in a feeding frenzy over that.

Since the exhibit and the events are now history a new phenomena unfolds. That’s right, the fallout in the media and talking-head establishment over the exhibit. Sure they can gang up on Pamella Geller and actually blame her for what did happen. Let’s not misplace any of that venomous blame on exactly the right parties, Islamists. Instead let’s blame Geller for holding the event in the first place. Surely she knew something would happen. Surely she knew it would inflame radical Muslims. She was courting disaster. Surely she new the potential harm that it could attract. Right?

Check, check, check. She knew alright. And she went ahead and held it anyway, shrug. Why? What’s wrong with her? Is she just doing it for publicity? What a stunt, they say. Well, notice anything in all this criticism? Yes, it is the first amendment rearing its ugly head, once again,. I don’t mean that she had the event, I mean their criticism about it.

See article at Pamela Geller’s website.

After that came the denunciations. No, not against the Islamic fanatics. But against Geller.

From all across the Liberal dials, plus The New York Times, came blasts of outrage against Geller for being “provocative” and “asking for trouble.”

See, they can all come out safely to criticize her with their first amendment “rights”. Oh, that’s the thing to do now. But as to her taking a stand in defense of the first amendment? Not so much. Though they are right on board with calling her out or blaming her for the fallout from it. They’ll even claim it is the responsible thing to accept the criticism for it.

So let me understand the issue correctly. The guys with hoods and machetes get to define free speech. Then, as a course of action against would be assailants who don’t fall in line, hold them up to ridicule in the very-vocal and critical mainstream media. So the cries of outrage come against any cartoonists or a person who would hold such an event.

But Muslims and Islamists holding a “stand with Prophet Muhammad” and rally against “Islamophobia” that is perfectly acceptable and receives no criticism. Follow that with a cartoonist draw contest and the long knives come out. (pardon the pun)

Now class, we have our lesson on the first amendment. Thou shall not criticize the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or any Muslims, Sharia Law, or whatever hateful genocidal deeds they do. Got that class? Oh there will be tests on it too. But it is alright to use Islam in any way to condemn, attack, promote bigotry and hatred, or otherwise assault anyone else or their freedoms. In fact, not to worry, media and lots of outraged mouthpieces will make excuses for their right to do it. And media will question the motives of anyone who would criticize Islam. This is very important class, so I hope you’re taking notes and getting all this.

In the event of misconduct, such as the cartoonists or others, the first amendment shall be used to condemn the offender for his wrongful, provocative misuse of the first amendment. So everyone can now apply their first amendment toward criticizing the organizer of an event, but not to defend or sympathize with the offenders. Isn’t it funny how they were absolutely chomping at the bit to apply their first amendment toward the offender, yet cannot muster any defense for the accused. Oh, and the accused shall just be pronounced guilty — as if it is even possible to prove his/her innocence.

See they weren’t willing to use their first amendment to support Geller’s first amendment. But they are happy to use their first amendment to attack and condemn her — something Islamists also wasted no time in doing.

The comparison lives on, Ebola to IS

Ebola_2988634b The IS Motto: “Remaining and Expanding”

A while back I made a comparison of ISIS and Ebola (or Islamic State)  and was probably one of the first to draw direct parallels. Since then, the more I see and learn about either of these viruses the more similar they seem.

For instance, Ebola has been around since ’76 but its a naturally occurring virus. That means they may eliminate the latest epidemic but at some point it will return.

That much is really like ISIS, or Islamism itself. It keeps returning even in areas pushing natural boundaries or borders. Killing the latest strain of ISIS would only be followed by a return of Islamic terrorism under some other name.

But unlike the Ebola disease, radical rabid Islamists spread their virus in creative ways mutating almost daily. And, instead of a fear and withdraw, there is a natural attraction to it in the Mid East and Muslim world. A remote cell can be activated in any country and a willing individual radicalized just by reading their constant propaganda.

It is never politically correct to criticize the environment that breeds such an insidious and evil disease as ISIS or Islamic radicalism. In Ebola they try to use science and understanding to combat the plague. They claim knowledge is power and accurate information will only help not hurt us. It is in our interest to know about it to defeat it. So science claims.

Still Obama claimed the chances of an Ebola outbreak here is very low. In fact, he declared that it was very hard to get. Do not enact a travel ban because it could make the threat worse, he claims. We were worrying about nothing, before the exact remote chance indeed happened.

With the Islamic radicalism it is all about denial. We must deny the source, must deny its motivations, and must deny its end goals as ridiculous. Does that make any sense? Not to you or me but does to those in authority that lecture us about it. The same talking points apply to Islamicism though, when it happens…deny deny. They claim it is something happening way over in another part of the world that really has no affect here. So that was the mantra.

But they do say we have to contain Islamic terrorism there so it does not come here, or that was the assumption before Obama. He changed that. He decided until we have a case here that affects us, then we will worry about it. IOW, after the caliphate is formed, after the fatwas are drawn up, after they demonstrate they are here and serious. Then they will respond. But even then they tone down the source, laced in denial, about who they really are. Government is at work cleansing the terms. Even when it does happen, they call it something else so it technically wasn’t labeled Islamic terrorism.

Both are very much a threat to our national security. Both are dismissed as pretty much irrelevant to us in America. However, they tell us every trace of carbon is a problem. Thus, their war on coal and energy. EPA can design regs that will exterminate whole industries, and entire communities, but that is a commendable.

We are Islamophobic if we are worried about Islamonazis. We are fear mongering if we are concerned about Ebola. We are “flat-earthers” if we deny their man-made global warming agenda. We are extremists if we oppose EPA’s dictates. Now conservatives are even blamed for it all. But just don’t fear the Reaper.

RightRing | Bullright

Latest ISIS outrage

The most repulsive comparison I ever heard was the latest ISIS to Christians one. The talking point is there are extremists in both Islam and Christianity.

If ever there were polar opposites it would be ISIS and Christians. In fact, comparing Muslims and Christians is hardly possible. You can look around the world and see what Christians have done.

They helped build homes and communities, purify drinking water, teach farming and agriculture. The provide aid, food, and clothing in every disaster. They build schools and care for the sick. What do you see Muslims doing, besides blowing things up and killing people?

We can see what Christians consistently did in this country. Muslims were attacking this country since the very beginning. They want to compare that?

Michael Eric Dyson compared ISIS to Christians on MSNBC. (see video) So “we don’t have enough counter narratives when it comes to Islam,” says Peterson. Yea, that’s what we need more counter narratives. Except what narratives he is referring to.

That is probably the other underlining problem with their critique, they juxtapose gays (and civil rights) etc with the Christian persecutions going on right out in the open over in the Middle East. Can they not even address and discuss that atrocity, dare we say genocide? No, they must turn it around to make it about political correctness of gays.

Sure women’s rights is a problem too, but they must put it in context of abortion rights and gays. Meanwhile women are being stoned, beaten or killed for the most inexcusable reasons but they have to frame it in reproductive rights vernacular — as if that were the main problem. Give women abortion rights and they’ll be happy.

When Obama went to Africa and tried to sell them on same-sex marriage, they weren’t interested. Obama making the official State Dep position to promote gay rights around the globe probably is not a great sales pitch for America. Yet he told them in his Cairo address that we’ve been arrogant and dismissive toward their concerns in the past. Could trying to force gay rights on them make them like us any better?

But when it comes to Christian persecution he can’t even utter a word about it. He cannot bring it up with leaders or stand up for them. But he can stand up for a same sex couple trying to get married. Genocidal cleansing of Christians, women and children included, and he cannot make a public stand on it. Really now, can you compare IS or Islamic radicals to anything? It’s pure evil.

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

DHS’s Elibiary moves on

Mohamed Elibiary has left the building

Frank Gaffney, Jr  | Center for Security Policy | September 5, 2014

Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a record of influence operations in the service of its agenda, has announced his departure after five years on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. We can only hope that – at a moment when the danger posed by shariah-adherent Muslims is becoming more palpable by the day – the Department decided to stop legitimating an advisor who has publicly championed that it was, “ inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ return”, contended that the United States is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”

Elibiary had always been brazen in his support for Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, including featuring the Muslim Brotherhood “R4Bia” symbol on his twitter page, and publicly lauding Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.

In 2011, Elibiary was also suspected of utilizing his security clearance in order to access confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and seeking to “shop” the files to journalists in order to label then Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry an “Islamophobe.” In May 2014, during testimony before Congress, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted to Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), that this was “problematic.”

Whatever the cause of Elibiary’s departure from a senior advisory capacity in the Obama administration, it must be welcomed because – as documented in the Center for Security Policy’s online, video-based course entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) – he played a prominent role in blinding the U.S. government to the threat posed by the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad.”

Read more: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/09/05/mohamed-elibiary-has-left-the-building/


Certainly welcome news, but it is only about time. The recent inevitable caliphate statements may have finally pushed it over the top. Whatever the exact reasons, that he was such an advocate of Islamists should have caused his ouster long ago.  I am interested to see where he resurfaces.

Here is an ’09 interview where he told CNN that “institutions like Mosques or Islamic schools are not really conduits of radicalization.” And then Elibiary accuses “R-wingers” of misinterpreting his words. He went on to compare the radical appeal to that of the civil rights movement .

Inevitable Caliphate

All these problems with Islamists and terrorism throughout the world, namely the Mid East, are bad enough but we also have Muslim Islamistist sympathizers in high places. And they appear to be having influence over everything we do. Take this revealing quote from Elibiary, top adviser in DHS.

From the Clarion Project

Homeland Security’s Mohammed Elibiary: Caliphate Inevitable

Elibiary inferred that he wants the U.S. to support a future caliphate, framing it as a Muslim version of the European Union.
By Ryan Mauro
Wed, June 25, 2014

On June 13, Elibiary tweeted that the creation of a caliphate is “inevitable,” and America’s choice is whether to support it or not. He inferred that he wants the U.S. to support a future caliphate, framing it as a Muslim version of the European Union. The tweet is below:

Online supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a terrorist group that fights to reestablish the caliphate with Baghdad as its capital, distributed and praised Elibiary’s tweet.

In a follow-up tweet, he claimed that both political parties are “heading in that direction” of supporting a modern caliphate. As evidence, he pointed to the Bush Administration’s appointment of an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Obama Administration’s engagement of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In another tweet on June 21, Elibiary compared “drive by media slander of Islamism” to the segregation-era when African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens. In other words, the critics of the Islamist ideology are bigots. The tweet is below:

The governance of a potential caliphate would be based on sharia. Mosque and state would be combined. Elibiary is aware of this, but says the U.S. should not oppose sharia governance.

“We should remember that them [Islamists] ruling their countries with sharia law doesn’t mean them coming to our country and using our planes to destroy our buildings,” he told me in an extensive interview last year.

The reestablishment of the caliphate presents a direct threat to the West. A future caliph, or leader of a caliphate, would have widely recognized authority—or even an obligation—to declare and wage jihad.

More Clarion Project

Institutionalizing Anti-Semitism Pt-2

Calif. Taxpayers Funded Professors’ Meeting with Terrorists

Documents show San Francisco State University spent $7,000 to send professors on terror tour

BY: Adam Kredo | Washington Free Beacon
May 30, 2014 12:44 pm

San Francisco State University (SFSU) spent more than $7,000 to send two of its professors to the Middle East for a series of meetings with two convicted terrorists, according to funding documents obtained from a California Public Records Act.

SFSU professors Rabab Abdulhadi and Joanne Barker were awarded the money by the university for a trip to Jordan and the West Bank where they met with two notorious terrorists tied to Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), both of which are designated as terrorist groups by the U.S. State Department.

Abdulhadi, an ethnic studies professors, is already a controversial figure at SFSU, having organized anti-Israel events and served as the faculty adviser to an SFSU student who was booted from the school for posting a picture of himself holding a knife with a caption that read, “I want to stab an Israeli soldier.”

The revelation that California taxpayers footed the bill for the trip has sparked accusation that Abdulhadi obtained the funding on false pretenses and led a delegation of Jewish group to demand that SFSU launch an investigation into what they dubbed an “egregious misuse of university and taxpayer funds.”

During the January trip Abdulhadi and Barker met with terrorist Leila Khaled, a convicted hijacker and member of the PFLP, which has launched dozens of terrorist attacks and is responsible for the deaths of more than 20 U.S. citizens.

They also met with Sheikh Raed Salah, who has been convicted of funding Hamas and served prison time for inciting violence.

Jewish advocacy groups, including the AMCHA Initiative and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have expressed outrage over the meeting and demanded that SFSU promptly launch an investigation to examine if Abdulhadi improperly spent taxpayer funds provided by the school.

“Evidence demonstrates that Abdulhadi always intended to use the university-funded trip to build relationships with anti-Israel political activists to promote anti-Semitic academic, cultural, and economic boycotts of Israel and the meetings were set before Abdulhadi requested university approval,” the Jewish groups wrote in a recent letter to SFSU administrators, all of whom are documented to have signed off on the trip.

“We believe that there was some fraud going on in order to get the money, approval, insurance, she essentially defrauded the state and the taxpayers of California,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the AMCHA Initiative’s co-founder, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Abdulhadi initially stated in funding proposals that the purpose of her trip was to attend an academic conference at the American University in Lebanon. However, Abdulhadi was dropped from the conference just weeks before she was scheduled to arrive.

“On at least four official university documents signed by several SFSU and CSU administrators, including SFSU President Wong and CSU [California State University] Chancellor White, Abdulhadi concealed the fact that the true purpose of her trip was political activism, as well as the fact that she had planned to meet with individuals affiliated with organizations on the U.S. State Department’s list of Designated Terrorist Organizations,” the Jewish groups stated in their letter.

The groups argue that there is clear evidence Abdulhadi “always intended to use the university-funded trip to build relationships with anti-Israel political activists to promote anti-Semitic academic, cultural and economic boycotts of Israel and the meetings were set before Abdulhadi requested university approval.”

Abdulhadi has long been at the center of anti-Israel activities on SFSU’s campus.

The professor organized a March event in which she “glorified and condoned terrorism to SFSU students,” according to AMCHA.

Boycotts against Israel also were celebrated at the event, which was reported to have left Jewish attendees in “tears,” according to video and eyewitness accounts.

An earlier anti-Israel event organized by Abdulhadi last year urged students who attended to make signs that read, “My heroes have always killed colonizers.”

Abdulhadi also sparked controversy earlier this year for serving as the academic adviser to student Mohammad Hammad, who was ejected from SFSU after groups such as AMCHA highlighted internet postings in which the student wished violence on Jews and threatened to kill Israeli soldiers.

Hammad, who was eventually investigated by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force, was initially invited by Abdulhadi to attend the controversial trip and participate in the meetings with terrorists.

Hammad, in a Tumblr posting, stated that Abdulhadi had asked him to “join her and a delegation that she is taking to Palestine on a 10-Day trip … during which we will be visiting with prominent figures associated with the Palestinian Resistance Movement.”

“I WILL GET TO MEET [terrorist] LEILA KHALED,” Hammad wrote at the time.

SFSU officials, including President Wong and Chancellor White, did not respond to Free Beacon requests for comment about the controversy.

Abdulhadi also did not respond to an email request seeking comment.

SFSU spokeswoman Ellen Griffin told the Free Beacon on Friday that university professors are encouraged to communicate with whomever they like.

“Universities respect and encourage academic freedom and do not censor their scholars or condone censorship by others,” Griffin said in a statement. “Faculty can and do communicate with others relevant to their research, communicating by various methods that can involve travel.”

The potentially improper use of funds will be investigated, Griffin said.

“Any allegations that a member of the university community misused state funds will be investigated,” she stated.

AMCHA’s Rossman-Benjamin said that Abdulhadi’s anti-Israel activism on campus is part of a larger effort by university professors across the nation to boycott Israel and take aim at Jews.

University “faculty [are] simply abusing academic freedom and using their classrooms and conference walls to promote their own animus to the Jewish state and Jews,” she said.

Temple University recently came under similar fire for refusing to condemn a professor who questioned the deaths of 6 million Jewish in the Holocaust and engaged in anti-Semitic discourse on a secret listserv.

Other professors on the secret listserv operated by members of the Modern Language Association—which is currently engaged in efforts to boycott Israel—were similarly caught engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric, the Free Beacon reported.

Welcome to academia activism 101 in 2014.

Geert Wilders’ open letter to Pope Francis

Baron Bodisey of Gates of Vienna blog posted an open  letter from Geert Wilders, of the Dutch Parliament, to Pope Francis. I encourage you to read the  letter there.

Here is an excerpt:

“The Koran is full of bellicose and hate-mongering verses against non-Muslims. Your Holiness will be able to find them if he reads the Koran, but I will name just a few:

 2:191-193:

“And slay them wherever you come upon them, […] Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s.”

 4:89:

“If they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

 5:33:

“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, […]: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.”

 8:60:

“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

 9:5:

“When the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

 9:29:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah.”

 9:30:

“The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them.”

 9:123:

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

 47:4:

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”

See: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/12/open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-francis/