LA – CC stands for Islam solidairity

This will come as a surprise to few.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles: “It’s time to establish a greater solidarity with Islam”

December 26, 2015 By Robert Spencer

The contemporary Catholic Church has wholeheartedly endorsed that idea that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Muslims are the first victims of jihad terrorism. This proposition is enforced as an iron dogma, the one non-negotiable point in today’s comfortable suburban Church: anything goes, everything is winked at, moral teaching is discarded or ignored left and right, but whisper that Islamic jihadists point to the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and you’ll be the new Jan Hus.

The piece in the Los Angeles archdiocesan newspaper is just one example of the barrage of nonsense that comes from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on this issue, but it is noteworthy in being particularly counterfactual. It spends a great deal of time admonishing us that the first victims of Islamic jihad terror groups are other Muslims, as Fr. Ronald Rolheiser apparently believes, with Barack Obama and numerous other Western leaders, that this proves that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and the rest are un-Islamic. In fact, it only establishes that they believe their Muslim opponents to be un-Islamic, and because Islam mandates death for heresy and apostasy, they kill those opponents.

Rolheiser also says: “But the Muslim religion is not to blame here. There is nothing inherent in either the Koran or in Islam itself that morally or religiously undergirds this kind of violence.” Well, let’s see. Apparently Rolheiser has overlooked just a few passages from the Qur’an, including:

From, “Our Muslim brothers and sisters,” by Ronald Rolheiser:

Popular opinion more and more blames the Muslim religion itself for that violence, suggesting that there is something inherent in Islam itself that’s responsible for this kind of violence. That equation needs to be challenged, both in the name of truth and in the name of what’s best in us as Christians.

First of all, it’s untrue: Painting all Muslims with the same brush is like painting all Christians with the same brush, akin to looking at the most depraved man who calls himself a Christian and saying: “That’s Christians for you! They’re all the same!” …/.

Read more: Jihad Watch .org

Lots of passages here to show how much supporting evidence the terrorism agenda has just in the Qu’ran.

Rolheiser goes on to say:

When we look at the history of any terrorist Islamic group such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, we see that it first establishes itself by terrorizing and killing thousands of its own people, honest, God-fearing Muslims. And it goes on killing them. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram have killed thousands more Muslims than they have killed Christians or persons of any other religion. While their ultimate target may well be the secularized Christian West, more immediately their real war is against true Islam.

If that is the case, then we are justified in wondering (loudly) where are all these adherents to this “true Islam”? Are they suppressed or deliberately silent, and why are they not fighting back with everything in their means? Are they outnumbered? — No, because they always tell us a small percentage of Muslims follow this violent path of jihad. So, according to apologists, far more Muslims adhere to the peaceful ways.

But their lack of fighting or repelling it is not lost on us. We stand by with amazement, and frankly offended, as this defensive burden has shifted to the rest of the world to resist this growing, tyrannical force — even if from a smaller number of Muslims. How much will sympathy for complacent Muslims who refuse to take it on do, is a huge question?

Showing solidarity with complacency can be as dangerous as siding with the radical Islamists. Just like the inaction of peaceful Muslims have taught us. Ignorance has become not just an excuse… it is an entire strategy.

Source article:

It’s terrorism, stupid

Only here would we spend a day and a half debating whether or not this is Terrorism? Nah, we can’t jump to conclusions.(what jump?) Obama again calls it “a tragedy.” They wouldn’t even release the name because it might point to Islamic terrorism.

But they jumped to a gun control problem. Obama ensures the American people that ‘we are going to get to the bottom of this’. I really wish he hadn’t said that. It is not the guns that are the problem here.

All the Democrat pols sounded like parrots talking about gun control and politicizing the act within minutes. Then they say the prayers aren’t working and a paper declares “God is not fixing this.”

Yet oh don’t talk about the elephant in the room, Islamic jihad terrorism, or Islamic radicalism.(shhhh) What nonsense. Sorry, but God doesn’t have a lot to work with there.

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?

peace sign photo: Peace Peace10.png

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

Crusades or Jihad, the proverbial question

So the old comparison the Jihad or the Crusades? The question answered and illustrated that there really is no comparison, and not a moral equivalence either. So Obama trots out the philosophical question – as if it were one.

Bill Warner developed a nice summary.

Does it sort of make you wonder what Obama’s intentions are and where he is going with his thesis, and what he wanted to accomplish?

It doesn’t take Solomon to answer that, and you don’t have to split a baby over it …unless of course you like splitting babies. Just get people to talk about the Crusades.

Some liberal pundit said that Obama was just trolling them at the prayer-breakfast for a reaction, and he got one. (he he) Right, his job is to provoke us. If he learned one thing from sitting in the pew of Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years, it was how to point fingers.

Evil nature redux…

Let’s skip the Adam and Eve thing and go straight to the current situation with IS [ISIS] and bloodthirsty Islamist terrorists. Or does it depend on the meaning of “is”?

We’re talking an insidious type of evil here, even beyond their horrifying practices to such evil. The people who worry about passing gas in a crowded room (or how to lie about it), or worry about a soil stain on their underwear, making all daily prayers at the mosque, or about a woman showing a square inch of flesh — burqas don’t have wardrobe malfunctions — are the very same people responsible for wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter of people, even children, in the most gruesome manner like barbarian animals. Ones who believe in sacred jihad terrorism.

Then they lecture people on the proper adherence to their faith and Allah. Or the proper code of conduct for women, and on Islamic piety. The same people are telling everyone else what to do. Is there not one hell of a contradiction there?

Right these are the guys — known as the religion of peace — who are in charge of a caliphate that supposedly represents a billion plus Muslims. Strains of evil and hate run through it all. Are these not serious issues?

Then Obama trots out the old lame excuse that Islam is a religion of peace, and that these people are not Islamic. Maybe Obama is almost as schizophrenic and in denial as they are? Judging by the way Obama treats US people here, and what he’s inflicted on America, he has a propensity for evil himself.


ISIS is an Islamic (Terrorist) State, by their own definition.

Of course, the problem there is in definitions. There are different definitions for terrorism. But terrorism is not a state by most definitions. So it does not fit. They seem to have a problem. If it is a self-proclaimed state, then it is more an act of war than mere terrorism. That’s based on their definitions. It is considered war in terrorists’ ideology. We’re the ones arguing over semantics and definitions.

So it would seem that Obama and others have yet to prove their case that it is not — a state and not Islamic. Saying “is not” does not cut it. It is an Islamic terrorism State.

Job 34:10
10 “Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
Far be it from God to do wickedness,
Isa 5:20
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Matt 12:34-35
34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.

RightRing | Bullright

Thoughts: Silent Screams

It is the dominance of moral relativism in liberal institutions like the New York Times that make even the most apologetic expose of the Muslim Brotherhood a major event. – Caroline Glick

Just Gene
Article from The Jerusalem Post
Column One
by Caroline S. Glick
    Two events happened on Wednesday which should send a shiver down the spine of everyone concerned about the future of the American Jewish community.  But to understand their importance it is important to consider the context in which they occurred.
US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) shakes hands with Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo
   Photo credit – Rueters
 On January 13, the New York Times reported on a series of virulently anti-Jewish comments Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi made in speeches given in 2010.  Among other things, Morsi said, “We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them, for Zionists, for Jews.”  He said that Egyptian children “must feed on hatred, hatred must continue.  The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him.”   
    In another speech, he called Jews “bloodsuckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs.”
    Two weeks after the Times ran the story, the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of a military aid package announced in December 2012 entailing the provision of 20 F-16 s and 200 M1-A1 Abrams tanks. 
    The Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and other prominent American Jewish groups did not oppose the weapons transfer.
    With the American Jewish leadership silent on the issue, Israel found its national security, championed by Sen. Rand Paul.  He attached an amendment to a budget bill that would bar the US from transferring the advanced weapons platforms to Egypt.
    Paul explained, “Egypt is currently governed by a religious zealot…who said recently that Jews were bloodsuckers and descendants of apes and pigs.  This doesn’t sound like the kind of stable personality we [sh]ould be sending our most sophisticated weapons to.”
    Paul’s amendment was overwhelmingly defeated, due in large part to the silence of the American Jewish leadership.
    The Times noted that Morsi’s castigation of Jews as “apes and pigs” was “a slur for Jews that is familiar across the Muslim world”.
    Significantly the Times failed to note that the reason it is familiar is because it comes from both the Koran and the hadith.  The scripturally based denigration of Jews as apes and pigs is legion among leading clerics of both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam.
    It was not a coincidence that the Times failed to mention why Morsi’s castigation of Jews as apes and pigs was so familiar to Muslim audiences.  The Islamic sources of Muslim Brotherhood Jew hatred, and indeed, hatred of Jews by Islamic leaders from both the Sunni and Shi’ite worlds is largely overlooked by the liberal ideological camp.   And the overwhelming majority of the American Jewish leadership is associated with the liberal ideological camp.
    If the Times acknowledged that the Jew hatred espoused by Morsi and his colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as by their Shi’ite colleagues in the Iranian regime and Hezbollah is based on the Koran, they would have to acknowledge that Islamic Jew hatred and other bigotry is not necessarily antithetical to mainstream Islamic teaching.  And that is something that the Times, like its fellow liberal institutions, is not capable of acknowledging. 
    They are incapable of acknowledging this possibility because considering it would implicitly require a critical study of jihadist doctrine.  And a critical study of jihadist doctrine would show that the doctrine of jihad, or Islamic holy war subscribed to by the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, as well as by the Iranian regime and Hezbollah and their affiliates, is widely supported, violent, bigoted, evil and dangerous to the free world. (Just Gene’s italics)
    And that isn’t even the biggest problem with studying the doctrine of jihad.  The biggest problem is that a critical study of the doctrine of jihad would force liberal institutions like the New York Times and the institutional leadership of the American Jewish community alike to abandon the reigning dogma of the liberal ideological camp – moral relativism.
    Moral relativism is based on a refusal to call evil evil and a concomitant willingness to denigrate truth if truth requires you to notice evil.  Since pointing out the reality of the danger the jihadist doctrines propagated by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood involves the implicit demand that people make distinctions between good and evil and side with good against evil, moral relativists – that is most liberals – cannot contend with jihad.
    This is why the American Jewish leadership refused to join Rand Paul and his conservative Republican colleagues in the Senate and demand an immediate cessation of US military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian military even after the evidence of the Brotherhood’s genocidal Jew hatred was splashed across the front page of the Times.
    It is the dominance of moral relativism in liberal institutions like the New York Times that make even the most apologetic expose of the Muslim Brotherhood a major event.  And it is the dominance of liberal orthodoxies in the mainstream Jewish community that makes it all but impossible for Jewish leaders to speak up against the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the manifest danger its genocidal hatred of Jews poses not only for Israel, but for Jews everywhere.
    It is bad enough that liberal Jewish leaders won’t speak out against the Koranic-inspired evil that characterizes the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.  What is worse is what their own morally relative blindness causes them to do.  On Wednesday, we saw two distressing examples of the consequences of this self-imposed embrace of ideological fantasies.
    First, on Wednesday, Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law School’s Journal of Conflict Resolution gave its annual International Advocate of Peace Award to former president Jimmy Carter.  Carter’s long record of anti-Israel, and indeed anti-Semitic, actions and behavior made the decision to bestow him with the honor an affront not only to the cause of peace, but to the cause of Jewish legal rights.  As an advocate of Hamas and a man who castigates Israel as an illegal “apartheid” state, Carter has a long record of outspoken opposition to both Jewish human rights and to viable peace between Israel and its neighbors.  (Just Gene recommends you read Carter’s own book)
    For outsiders, the Orthodox Jewish university’s law school’s law journal’s decision to honor Carter was shocking, but as it works out, the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution confers its prize almost exclusively on people active in pressuring Israel to make concessions to Palestinian terrorists who reject Israel’s right to exist.  Past winners include Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, John Wallach and Seeds of Peace and, perhaps most astoundingly, the outspoken Jew hater Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
    In other words, Carter wasn’t chosen for the honor despite his anti-Israel record.  He was selected because of his anti-Israel record.
    In a similar fashion, New York’s 92nd Street Y invited virulent Israel hater Roger Waters to perform a concert on April 30.  Given Water’s outspoken opposition to Israel, his call for total economic and cultural warfare against the Jewish state and his leading role in the BDS movement, it is not possible that the 92nd Street Y was not unaware of his radical, anti-Semitic sentiments.  And so, the only reasonable explanation for his invitation to perform at the Jewish institution is that the Y wanted to invite this openly anti-Semite musician to perform.  A public outcry by pro-Israeli activists forced the Y to cancel his performance.
    The day that Carter was embraced by the Orthodox Jewish establishment, Jewish author and activist Pamela Geller was silenced.  Geller is the nightmare of the liberal Jewish establishment.  She is a beautiful and articulate speaker and writer who has risen to prominence in the US for her steadfast commitment to exposing the deadly pathologies of Jew hatred, misogyny and other prejudices inherent to jihadist ideology.  Geller’s website, Atlas Shrugs, is a clearing house for information on Islamic persecution of women, Christians and apostates and hatred of Jews.  She also showcases the documented ties between mainstream American Islamic groups and the Muslim Brotherhood.
    An indefatigable defender of Israel, Geller recently ran a highly controversial, and successful ad campaign in the New York and San Francisco public transportation systems in response to an anti-Israel campaign.  Her billboards read, “In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.  Support Israel.  Defeat Jihad.”
    Geller was scheduled to speak on April 13 at the Great Neck Synagogue in Great Neck, New York.  The topic of her talk was “The Imposition of Shari’a in America.”
    Last month, after learning of her talk, a consortium of Islamic and leftist activists in Nassau County led by Habeed Ahmen from the Islamic Center of Long Island launched a pressure campaign to coerce the synagogue into cancelling her speech.  Members of the group telephoned the synagogue and castigated Geller as a bigot, and likened her to the Nazis in the 1930s.
    In short order liberal rabbis Michael White and Jerome Davidson took over the opposition to Geller and launched a media campaign attacking her as a bigot and demanding that the Great Neck Synagogue cancel her speech.  Rejecting the distinction Geller makes between jihadists and their victims – Muslim and non-Muslim alike, White and Davidson claimed that she opposes all Muslims and so her speech must be canceled.  By hosting her, they intoned, the Great Neck Synagogue would be guilty of propagating hate speech.  Liberal Christian and Jewish activists and their Muslim associates threatened to protest the speech.
    On Wednesday the synagogue caved in to their massive pressure.  Citing “security concerns” the synagogue board released a statement saying that while “these important issues must be discussed, the synagogue is unable to bear the burden” of the pressure campaign surrounding Geller’s planned speech  Her event was canceled.
    Surveys of the American Jewish community taken in recent years by the American Jewish Committee demonstrates that the vast majority of American Jews are deeply supportive of Israel, and their views tend toward the Right side of the political spectrum in issues related to Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Islamic conflict with the Jewish state.
    On the other hand , the AJC’s surveys show that for the vast majority of American Jews, Israel is not a voting issue.  This state of affairs was reflected by a comment that Yeshiva University student Ben Winter made to the media regarding the absence of student protest against Carter on Wednesday.  In Winter’s words, “While many students at YU feel strongly about their Zionism, few have the courage to publicly express their opinions.”


The danger exposed by the cancellation of Geller’s speech and the conferral of honors on the likes of Carter and Waters by mainstream Jewish institutions is daunting.  If moral relativism remains the dominant dogma of the American Jewish establishment, the already weakly defended, but still strongly rooted, support for Israel among the rank and file of the American Jewish community will dissipate.  

Published 4/11/2013
Just Gene

Thank you, Caroline – but   
“Evil exists because good men do nothing”.
Wrong – those who do nothing are evil!!!
It is not only the Jews who do not speak out: where are the Christians, whose churches are being burned and their members slaughtered – where are the so called good Muslims, who say this is not true Islam – where are the women, who watch their sisters being tortured and raped – where are the politicians and diplomats of the world, too interested in filling their own pockets….

Where are all the world’s charities – too busy patting themselves on the back, while they spew out rhetoric, semantics and bullshit? HELL, where are the IAA (Idiots Association of Atheists) who believe they can eliminate religion by removing Nativity scenes from public property, but don’t have the cojones to say anything against Allahu Akbar?

When the Nazis came for the Jews, I heard them scream, but I’m not Jewish – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for the Catholics, I heard them scream, but I’m not Catholic – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for the Handicapped, I heard them scream, but I’m not Handicapped – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for the retarded, I heard them scream, but I’m not retarded – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for the professors, I heard them scream, but I’m not a professor – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for the bankers, I heard them scream, but I’m not a banker – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for the politicians, I heard them scream, but I’m not a politician – I’m safe
When the Nazis came for me, I screamed, there was no one left to hear me
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
When they come for you and you scream, and you will scream, will it make a sound?