Rev Graham disputes Obama’s gun control agenda

See: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-isis/

Dir. Brennan:

“In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”

“We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks,” he said. “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”

“They’re taking advantage of the liberties that we’ve fought so hard to defend,” he said.

But Comander-Divert-and-Deny is worried about guns. Never mind immigration, border or refugee crises. Priorities. He has already disrupted our law enforcement process and supplanted political correctness throughout. He ignores the central, overwhelming threat. The one he shall not name, RIT. I smell another Obama lecture coming to Americans .

Message — target guns not Islamist terrorists.

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.

Hillary Wrong for America

Clinton failed in office. Now she is spewing critique about what it takes to fulfill the duties of office. Her candidacy requires the willing suspense of disbelief. Lying is her moral duty.

Now it is surreal, Hillary making a speech on national security. Is that an oxymoron? Billed as a foreign policy speech, but it wasn’t. It was a political campaign attack speech.

She claimed to be right there in the situation room as Obama made the decision on Bin Laden. Well, I was in the room when my son was born but it doesn’t mean I gave birth to him. See that’s the thing, she’s like a comic book character always there in the picture when something big happened. She lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

But she is not just unfit for any office, she is unfit to be a candidate – a mockery.

She claimed to take full responsibility for Benghazi. What speck of responsibility did she ever take? No one can name any responsibility she took. She evaded any truth and lied.

She said she’d take that 3 am phone call. It went to voice mail and she never responded.

She said her private server arrangement at State Department was allowed. She called the investigation a “security review.” That’s like Hillary giving a national security speech now.

Hillary’s Russian reset set up the Ukraine invasion. Her reset was even a literal failure in choreography. She claimed Trump shouldn’t be trusted with the nuclear codes. Her bloody handprints are all over: from Boko Haram, to Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt to Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the arms running that ended up going to ISIS.

Hillary was chief proponent for action in Libya. Recently she said it was the president’s call. After Benghazi, she claimed to accept all responsibility for it. This is schizophrenic. She didn’t even assume any responsibility while it happened. But then she accepted full responsibility? And now she says we need to do more to help Libya. Hillary, I think you have done enough.

She said she would be forthcoming and cooperate with all the email investigation. No, she never interviewed with Inspector General. She said she would and did cooperate in the Benghazi investigation. But they never even interviewed her.

She sent personal emails at the time noting Benghazi was a terrorist attack, while doing nothing about it, and then she pushed the lie it was caused by a video. She told grieving families it was a video. Responsibility? Then she called them liars.

Hillary told Petreaus that his “testimony required the willing suspension of disbelief.” Her candidacy requires the willing suspension of disbelief. She did far worse than Petraeus ever did and he got charged. Hillary admitted her server was a mistake and then denied she did anything wrong. “It was allowed,” by who?

Hillary’s definition of responsibility is lying. She calls lying cooperating. Her definition of a record of failure is a record of accomplishment. That’s just for starters.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama the agent of the enemy

A reminder that in 2014, Claire Lopez diagnosed the mission of Obama and little has changed since. It’s time the cold truth is finally known. What we have here is not a communication failure, what we have is full blown treason.

CIA Officer: Obama is a Muslim Agent with Brotherhood Ties to Take Down USA

by Jason DeWitt | November 2015 | Top Right News

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer, and she is risking her professional career to call out President Barack Obama in the biggest way possible.

Lopez is well respected in the intelligence community and worked in the Reagan White House. After two decades in the field with the CIA, and as an instructor for special forces and intelligence students, Lopez is now with the Center for Security Policy managing the counter-jihad and Shariah programs.

Now, she is claiming Obama is why America has completely “switched sides” during the war on terrorism. America is now supporting the enemy, especially through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Lopez has been unwilling to speak in public, but has confined with a few members of the House of Representatives her serious concerns about Obama’s motivations about foreign policy decisions.

Lopez noted that the war on terrorism has always been about stopping the spread of Shariah Islamic law, until Obama started to make major changes which clearly supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadist interests.

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.

The transition was easy for Obama, who already hates American values and principles as an ideologically radical…

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.”

And,

The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”

In addition, Lopez claims that the only reason Obama approved of the killing of Osama bin Laden is he simply couldn’t ignore the chance without looking suspicious. The opportunity presented himself, and he “couldn’t delay it any longer.”

Please share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter. Every patriot should learn just what side our President is on!

Source: CIA Officer: Obama is a Muslim Agent with Brotherhood Ties to Take Down USA | Top Right News

Yet this mission continues and he remains committed to his agenda. Then came the Iran deal on top of it. His agenda has slithered along undeterred.

Hillary unfit to run

Hillary is unfit for even staging a run to the presidency let alone being a serious candidate.

5 Reasons Hillary Clinton Isn’t Fit To Be President

John Hawkins | May 21, 2016 | Townhall

Only a living, breathing Hindenburg disaster like Hillary Clinton could make a 74-year-old socialist like Bernie Sanders seem like a fresh and charismatic “new face.” All over America, people are looking at the ancient wife of Bill Clinton and wondering how out of 320 million people, the Democrats could have possibly picked her as their nominee. This is a woman who is simply not fit to be President of the United States. Why?

1) She’s responsible for Benghazi. There have been endless Benghazi investigations and if you believe the mainstream media, you’d think nothing came out of them.However, we did learn that over 600 requests were made for more security. In the end, four men died and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body was dragged through the street because Hillary Clinton never acted to safeguard their lives. Since when do we reward government officials with a promotion after their negligence has gotten people killed?

2) She hasn’t accomplished anything. Sean Hannity has a bit on his radio show where he challenges liberal callers to name Hillary’s three greatest accomplishments. Listening to them hem and haw while they try to come up with anything is hilarious. What her fans don’t want to admit is that despite her mediocre tenure in the Senate and as secretary of state, her real “accomplishments” are being married to Bill Clinton and being female. Take those two “non-accomplishments” away from her and she wouldn’t be in the top 1,000 people considered to be president.

3) She’s a liar’s liar. Merely calling Hillary Clinton a “liar” makes her sound too much like an ordinary politician. To the contrary, Hillary is what a lying liar who spent all her days working at the lie factory on a lying machine would sound like. She lies about the big stuff, the little stuff and everything in-between. This is a woman who falsely claimed that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. A roughly equivalent lie turned Brian Williams into a running joke, but there’s so much more with Hillary. After Benghazi, she told the American people that a video was responsible when she was privately telling people it was a terrorist attack. She claimed that she came out of the White House dead broke and in debt. She said she applied for the Marines in 1975 and was turned down. She claimed she was named after the explorer Sir Edmund Hillary who became famous when she was six years old. You can go on and on with the list. Yes, nobody expects politicians to be as scrupulously honest as pastors, but how can you vote for someone who’s so dishonest you can’t ever take anything she says at face value?

4) She belongs in jail. In America, no one is supposed to be “above the law.” Not you, not me, not the president of the United States. Yet, if Hillary Clinton doesn’t go to jail over having classified emails sent to her private server, it will be purely for political reasons. She knew what she was doing was highly illegal from day one. Not only are there people in jail for doing less than she has, any normal person with a government security clearance who did what she did would EXPECT to go to jail if he were caught. How can anyone be okay with voting for someone to be President who would be in jail if she weren’t married to a former president and running for office herself?

5) She is utterly corrupt. Back when Bill Clinton was in the White House, Hillary received $100,000 in bribes in return for putting $1,000 into the cattle futures market. The odds that Hillary did that honestly have been computed at 1 in 31 trillion. That was small potatoes compared to the deals Bill and Hillary appear to have cut with foreign governments. Enormous sums went directly into Bill’s pockets for doing speeches or to the scammy Clinton Foundation and next thing you know, the State Department was doing favors for those shady deep pocketed donors.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

With Obama in office, Hillary will never be investigated and prosecuted for what she’s done, but she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. She should be running for president of her cellblock, not president of the United States.

Article at Townhall

Iran from bad to worse

GOP Failure Theater: the Iran nuclear vote, Cruz-Rubio edition

By: streiff (Diary) — May 8th, 2015 | Red State

Failure Theater. When the GOP talks a good game about opposing Obama’s policies but, in fact, vote to go along with them.

Yesterday the US Senate voted 98-1 to go along with whatever Barack Obama decides to give to Iran. Though the feckless Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has portrayed it as a successful “bipartisan” bill, part of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s erotic dream of “governing”, in fact it is a huge defeat for our Constitution. By turning the treaty process on its head, by giving Obama carte-blanche to do as he will unless Congress can muster the necessary 2/3 vote to abrogate his actions, the GOP has effectively taken the Congress out of any role in shaping US foreign policy.

This bill, thanks to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s bipartisanship fetish did not even require the Iran cease supporting terrorist attacks on Americans. Nope, reasoned the addled Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and the big brain types in the GOP leadership, requiring Iran to forego terrorism before we help them get a nuke was just too much. Obama would never stand for it.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/05/08/gop-failure-theater-iran-nuclear-vote-cruz-rubio-edition/

So much for strategy. And Obama is running around complaining about the Republicans? Incomprehensible chaos. Maybe Iran could nickname its program “bipartisan”?

Camp Hillary’s offensive on Trump

Wasting no time after Trump emerged from Indiana as the presumptive nominee, John Podesta realeased a statement of what they think of Donald Trump.

Podesta: Trump is too divisive, risky to be president

By POLITICO Staff | 05/03/16 | Politico

Hillary Clinton’s campaign signaled on Tuesday that it will paint Donald Trump as an unstable, dangerous bully with no interest in helping ordinary Americans, judging from comments made by campaign chairman John Podesta.

Trump is “too divisive” and “lacks the temperament” to be president, Podesta wrote in a statement issued after the real estate mogul won the Indiana Republican presidential primary, knocking Texas Sen. Ted Cruz out of the race and claiming the GOP nomination.

“Fundamentally, our next president will need to do two things: keep our nation safe in a dangerous world and help working families get ahead here at home,” Podesta said. “Donald Trump is not prepared to do either.”

“Throughout this campaign, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he’s too divisive and lacks the temperament to lead our nation and the free world,” he continued. “With so much at stake, Donald Trump is simply too big of a risk.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/podesta-trump-is-too-divisive-risky-to-be-president-222774

Beyond their attempt to define Trump as quickly as possible, they now roll out the terms. Start with unstable, dangerous, bully and move on from there. It’s a Hillary indictment.

But Trump constructed an empire, over years, and successfully managed a corporate business employing thousands, operating internationally. Trump offers much more economically and with domestic policies than Hillary does that would benefit people — all people not just segments of voters. Progs could consider any businessman a bully.

Unstable

What is unstable is having a candidate under possible indictment as the nominee. No one in Hillary’s campaign holds that certainty in their hands. They just don’t know. She’s committed almost every infraction. She breached protocol and disgraced the [public] office she held by violating the rules of conduct that she swore to uphold. Then she makes a mockery of the entire process calling in a security review. She laughs at possible indictment saying that is not going to happen. The convenient ties of contributions to the Clinton Foundation are another issue under pending investigation. She constantly lied.

Clinton could not account for her own whereabouts during the Benghazi attack. Then she pushed the video lie, even to the victims’ grieving family members. She could not explain the lack of response to the ongoing attack. Rather she went home and slept through the 3 AM phone calls. She claimed full responsibility then never took any. Stability… not.

Keep our nation safe

Hillary champions the policy of not calling it radical Islamic terrorism. She was all aboard riding the Mo-Bro train through the Mid East and here at home, even within government. She is all for importing the refugee crisis here without concern for our safety and security. She looked the other way on Obama’s illegal executive amnesty and promised to build on it. She helped to initiate the ‘rotten to the nuclear-core’ Iran deal. She supports sanctuary cities and the other failed policies that devastated our country. Pass on safety.

Risky

What’s riskier than the author of the Benghazi adventure which led to a failed state? Or riskier than their Egypt intervention, or the arms that flowed across Libya’s shores to Syria. The entire Mid East and greater Europe is on fire, thanks to her tenure as Secretary of State. Speaking of “loose cannons.” She advocated the Libyan adventure then deserted our own ambassador who was doing her bidding, and setting up the outpost after every other embassy was fleeing the violence that followed those actions.

Hillary and the state department refused to list Boko Haram as a Terrorist group in Africa. She actually increased developmental aid instead. Only years later, after she left State, did we finally designate it a terrorist group. Of course ,with her spurious experience, imagine the divisiveness and risk inherent in her nominating judges, or other nominees.

Dangerous world

Thanks in large part to her and Obama it is a very dangerous world, more so now than when they started. Pull out of Iraq led to Isis, and possibly the fall of Iraq in the near future. But Biden was eager to claim Iraq one of their great successes at the start.

Too divisive and lacks the temperament to lead our nation

Hillary is the most divisive politician, next to Obama. She’s already talked about using executive power and rolling out gun control. Her economic and regulatory, environmental policies are as bad as Obama’s if not worse. Again, her support for sanctuary cities do not unite people. Her temperament has been highly questionable, while her distrust and dishonesty ratings are through the roof even among Democrats. A fickle leader.

Nation at risk

Our nation was never at greater risk than under Hillary’s tenure at State and in Obama’s administration. Now her advocacy for refugees and lack of concern for our border are two of the greatest risks. Then there is the budget and spending which also creates giant risk, as it did with Obama. So we already are a nation at great risk. (er greatest)

I think Hillary mitigates virtually any perceived risk of a Trump administration.

RightRing | Bullright

Force, safety, Trump and foreign policy

My position has been distilling for some time. The more we see the more reason to question current circumstances.

Our policies have been a hodgepodge of standard and all too predictable positions. A left over from all the so-called experts and interests that gave birth to it. ‘That’s just the way it is,’ rings the answer to any questions raised. The current policies have not been working.

Obama has taken an ideologue approach, on top of it, That really has no parallel. Both at home and abroad, he’s had a witch’s brew of tonics for whatever the ailment. Snake oil.

Now this will break even English rules… Because we have been in this holding pattern for so long — cruizing between bad medicine and bad results — isn’t it about time to land the plane and actually do something to make a difference in our situation? But those actions could ruffle some feathers abroad with friends, allies and enemies. So be it. Those actions may also ruffle some feathers here at home. Well, that’s okay too.

For too long our policies have been driven by all kinds of motives. It’s time we get past that. If this brings in an era of unpredictability, then that is not such a bad thing. If some want to accuse us or question our motives and actions, so be it. They already do now.

Foreign policy cannot be our only consideration, nor at this point can domestic policy be our only consideration. They are not mutually exclusive either. It may not be a zero sum game, but there are collateral effects on each. However, there are some common denominators to domestic and foreign policies. One is economics.

In a lengthy interview with NYT, Trump said:

“I’m a person that – you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money.”

Finally, the E-word is dropped. Sure we could ignore economic effects, but that doesn’t mean there are none. It is time to give economic concerns some weight and attention.

This is going to have to be a parted out subject

RightRing | Bullright

Debate summary

In NH Republican debate, they ask what would you do about Syria, ISIS, Libya, Iran?
And interesting that all are products of the Obama administration.

Dems debate, by contrast, is who is more progressive than the other socialist?

Haven’t we seen enough results and consequences of progressive government?

RightRing | Bullright

State of the nation is gross incompetence, with a strong dictatorship strain

There is an increasing consensus out there formed over years.

The State Of The Nation: A Dictatorship Without Tears

Source: John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute  | Blacklisted News

“Government incompetence, corruption and lack of accountability continue to result in the loss of vast amounts of money and weapons. A Reuters investigation revealed $8.5 trillion in “taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for.” Then there was the $500 million in Pentagon weapons, aircraft and equipment (small arms, ammunition, night-vision goggles, patrol boats, vehicles and other supplies) that the U.S. military somehow lost track of.”
\
“If this brief catalogue of our national woes proves anything at all, it is that the American experiment in liberty has failed, and as political economist Lawrence Hunter warns, it is only a matter of time before people realize it.”

Read article at: http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_State_Of_The_Nation%3A_A_Dictatorship_Without_Tears/48284/0/38/38/Y/M.html

One may not agree with the entire synopsis but it is hard to disagree with the facts. Actually, the “revolution” that some are calling for is more of the same at a faster pace. Just see the progressives’ talking points for that.

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.

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.

The invasion crisis, not a humanity crisis

The perennial “refugee” sympathizer squatting in the White House has certainly gotten the information updates. He chooses to ignore them like all the other pertinent briefings he may get from our intelligence. But most of Americans are aware of what is going on in all the countries these so-called refugees fled to. Face it, if there is one issue O-bastid is interested in other than the Climate Change one, it is the plight of the refugees he so closely identifies with. So at least they are on his attention radar — which neither Putin nor ISIS can really claim.

Still what Americans have seen unfold across Europe where refugees have invaded is not a pretty picture. And there looks to be no end in sight, especially for the places they already infiltrated. But we know it is not just Syrians, as it is not just refugees either. They are just fleeing from many places and many of them are the young males. A portion are more closely associated with the Caliphate, ISIS and Islam than they are with democracy or anything like it.

Have people learned their lesson on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to Democracy and peace? Sure, people may have but our illustrious ‘stuck in ideological mud’ leaders have not. It could be unfolding right in front of them — as it is — and they would deny and ignore any ulterior motives to Islamic transients. What better way to spread a global Caliphate than exporting hoards of thousands, millions from the region infected with it? Of course that would be doing just what they have done all along: ignoring the growing threat to the Western world. It would be just what Obama has done since the inception of the ME crisis, largely spawned and supported by the White House.

Why would he want ours or the world’s attention focused on the crisis now that the consequences became so obvious to the rest of us? He lit the Mid East ablaze, fanned the flames, exported that fire everywhere he could, then stood back and declared ‘what can we really do about it anyway?’ He says things like we cannot send thousands of troops here because what happens when something pops up elsewhere? Do we then send them there too? Yes he would know because he is involved with all those grease fires popping up everywhere. By design he is realizing his dream. He has turmoil everywhere. Funny how he can be involved in the turmoil everywhere and claim that we cannot be everywhere. And use that as an excuse not to respond to it. Does it sound like anything else, like maybe our illegal immigrant crisis? It is not Assad’s mess, it is not Iran’s mess, it is not Russia’s mess, it’s not George Bush’s mess, it is not even ISIS’s mess. It is Obama’s mess.

While the invaders flow through the free world to infect everywhere they descend, we are reaping the product of his policies and his strategies. He’s made the problem so big that we now dare not do anything but watch the world burn with radicalism as he lectures us on Climate Change. What great irony is that? Everyone will be fine if we just cut our emissions, or have our throats slit by Islamic terrorists hell bent on taking over the world and enforcing their global Caliphate. Do numbers, of them, really matter when we have seen the sinister effects from just tens of thousands of them? But then Obama doesn’t seem to care that it is growing as fast as the flames can spread it. Rather he has more respect for ISIS than he has for us. His only mission seems to be not putting it out.

But, as typical, Obama lectures us on what the Statue of Liberty says.
Well, what it does not say is:

Bring me your your rebellious insurgents and ideological warriors to wreck our peace, justice, prosperity, and undermine our Republic. Give me your suicide bombers and jihadists. Come here to take over not assimilate.

There is no country too far out of reach of the Climate Caliphate, for Obama, and there is no country or place worth saving from Islamic radicalism or their Caliphate.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama sees fear in rear view mirror

November 22, 2015 The Hill

Obama says GOP doing the terrorists’ work for them

President Obama said Sunday that the Republican running for president and in Congress continue to respond to terror attacks are doing what the terrorists want them to do.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261031-obama-criticizes-house-legislation-on-refugees

Obama says “if Republicans running for president and in Congress continue to respond to attacks by playing off fears, they are doing what the terrorists want them to do….fear.”

Of Course Obama is only consumed by the fear of Global Warming. That’s perfectly rational. Everyone should be scared to death of global warming. The more of that the better.

And The Hill

Approximately 66 percent think Obama has no clear plan for defeating the terrorist organization, according to the CBS News poll.

Obama’s fruits in the Mid-East

The Obama Intifada

Column: How coddling Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas led to terrorism in Israel

BY: Matthew Continetti
October 16, 2015  Free Beacon

More than 30 dead in Israel as Palestinians armed with knives attack innocents. What’s responsible? A campaign of incitement, which slanderously accuses Jews of intruding on the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and murdering Arab children in cold blood.

And who is legitimizing this campaign? None other than Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, whom President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have long held up as a peacemaker. “I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue,” Obama told writer Jeffrey Goldberg in 2014.

That’s a strange view of commitment. This is the same Abbas, remember, who rejected then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s absurdly generous 2008 peace offer. The same Abbas who resisted negotiations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the 10-month settlement freeze in 2010, which Obama demanded explicitly on the grounds that it would give Abbas the cover he needed to begin talks.

More http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-obama-intifada/

Well, Obama can’t exactly blame it on Boosh. Promoting Abbas as a peacemaker, what nonsense. Only in Obama’s dreamworld is there a willing partner named Palestine to make a deal with. It’s already known Obama wants to apply the same Iran formula to Korea. That doesn’t look likely. He’s desperate to apply his talents somewhere, division is his specialty.

Then Obama and his henchmen blame Israel for excessive force and say they are engaged in terrorism. Funny, terrorists don’t mind being called terrorists. Sometimes it might be a compliment. But Obama goes with saddling the label on Israel, and cries “excessive force” when there is actually an organized effort from Abbas. It’s being called another intifada. If anyone else, he would call it hate crimes.

Terrorists post videos teaching Palestinians “How to Stab a Jew”

NY Post

Terrorists have posted videos and manuals on social media to teach Palestinian supporters — even children — “how to stab a Jew.”

Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, displayed a how-to manual before a meeting of the UN Security Council on Friday.

“You can see with this picture what incitement looks like,” he said while showing a page.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/17/terrorists-post-videos-teaching-palestinians-how-to-stab-a-jew/

And Obama’s people are concerned about Israel’s use of force, in self defense?

State of the State

I am mentioning some random observations, not that they are connected with one another.

Here we are on the verge of Hillary possibly getting into the White House, with Bubba Clinton. People are projecting her into popular office. No choice but Hillary. “Hard Choices”.

Russia revised its constitution in a way for Putin to get back into office. He’s more popular than ever in the country. They seem to love the guy.

Elists are unpopular in government or elsewhere. The American people are fed up with elitists rule in government and Washington in particular. The disgruntled seem to be across the political spectrum. Trump exposes behind the scenes media manipulation regarding the debates. Who knew? People are turned off by the bias of media in general. Media doubles down on bias.

The world is on fire with radicalism and Obama takes a sigh approach. Obama administration accuses Israel of using excessive force. State Department says that Palestine and Israel are committing terrorism.

David Cameron comes out to make speeches pointing directly to Islamic terrorism. Obama can’t be forced to use the words and says ISIS is not Islamic. Obama calls Islam a religion of peace. Obama wants to put more Muslims in space and other places. But Obama tells us the Crusades are an issue.

Jerusalem is under attack and knife wielding terrorists are spreading throughout Israael. When Israel takes defensive actions it is roundly condemned or criticized. Media cannot be any more biased against Israel.

Sure its a proxy war in Syria, but the media is finally admitting it? Old news, no? Russia has gone through its proper government channels to approve its actions. Obama is flying by the seat of his pants, much the way he did things in Libya. (that worked out well) Obama claims Russia, Putin are operating out of weakness. Hmmm.

Obama says global warming is the greatest security threat. Pay no mind to all other impostors. State of the State — maddening; requires willing suspension of disbelief.

Kerry seeks no fly zone

And Obama flies by the seat of his pants on Syria.

CNN reports – 10/6/2015

Washington (CNN)Secretary of State John Kerry has raised the possibility of a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians even as President Barack Obama has consistently rejected the idea, several administration officials told CNN.

Turkey, France and the Syrian opposition have long pushed for a safe zone to protect civilians from Syrian airstrikes, but the Obama administration has repeatedly rejected the idea as too difficult to implement.

Senior administration officials said serious logistical concerns remain, including who would enforce it and the need to divert resources from the campaign against ISIS.

Senior administration officials said Russian airstrikes have repeatedly targeted CIA-backed rebels, despite Moscow’s assertion that it is only attacking ISIS targets.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/john-kerry-no-fly-zone-syria-obama/

Obama says its too difficult calling the arguments for it mumbo jumbo. Funny how mumbo jumbo, from Obama, was in fashion in Libya and on Egypt.

“When I hear people offering up half-baked ideas as if they are solutions, or trying to downplay the challenges involved in this situation — what I’d like to see people ask is, specifically, precisely, what exactly would you do, and how would you fund it, and how would you sustain it. And typically, what you get is a bunch of mumbo jumbo.”

So his position is: ‘ask everyone else questions, not me.’ We get enough mumbo jumbo from Obama. I wonder where his Muslim Brotherhood help is? Speaking of “downplaying challenges involved,” we weren’t the ones calling ISIS a JV team mocking their abilities.

Though in the trails of is adventures, Obama’s own half-baked ideas have been on the menu despite the advice against it. No-fly zones were all the rage in Libya — which worked out real well.

Barry has an excuse for every type of action mentioned, from no-fly zones to aiding the rebels to helping Kurds. He mocks any suggestions for not appreciating the complexities. Obama had approved a training program, which netted 4 or 5 trained fighters in the 500 million dollar program. Now that plan is being scrapped. Mission failure complete.

Obama said of the no fly zone proposals:

“…but my job is to make sure that whatever we do we are doing in a way that serves the national security interests of the American people, that doesn’t lead to us getting into things that we can’t get out of or that we cannot do effectively.”

His job is saving his ass from shame or embarrassment, which he seems to be getting in spades for not doing anything. Only in Obama’s utopian reality did he expect to be commended for not doing something. Now he complains about the difficulties of possibly having to do something. National security interests of American people? When has he worried about that: Benghazi, border, sanctuary cities, executive amnesty, denying the ISIS threat, illegal alien crimes, not having a strategy, enforcing the law, answers for Benghazi, Iran nuclear deal.(speaking of getting into bad deals)

Now that Russia has inserted itself in the middle of Syria, it seems Putin has again helped Obama by creating another excuse. Barry owes Vlad for the efforts. He criticizes their efforts while it creates cover.

Well, Obama already made a big mess in Libya, and gave a big assist in Egypt’s disaster a few years ago. He is now reaching for strategy on Syria, and for ISIS. He decided long ago not to do anything there. So it is a matter of condemning any suggestions.

Obama and Kerry have already applied their boilerplate explanation on what Russia is doing. They “are acting out of weakness.”

At this point maybe the military is hoping Obama doesn’t have any more half-baked ideas of his own up his sleeve. But then clearly the major security threat is climate change anyway. Never mind the climate coming from Moscow is not very hospitable — and global temps are spiking.

I got an idea. Why can’t Obama call Russia and Putin racist and tell them they are only doing this because he’s black. They would never do this if he was white.

Obama channels Rosenbergs

Now we’re talking comparisons.

Obama’s genocidal treason

Front Page

The last time left-wing radicals aided the nuclear program of an open enemy of the United States, they were put on trial for it. The sentencing judge at the time said that because “the nature of Russian terrorism is now self-evident” there was no further room for claims that no harm had been done.

These words of the Rosenberg verdict apply equally well to Obama’s betrayal on Iran. What the Rosenbergs did for Stalin, Obama did for the Ayatollah Khamenei.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260196/obamas-genocidal-treason-daniel-greenfield

Well, now that it’s settled…

An ah ha moment on Obama

In a recent conversation I had with Pepp on various topics, I came to a conclusion. I won’t speak for Pepp, she is very capable. It was surrounding Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (and little Israel thrown in) and Obama’s foreign policy. All that matters is the conclusion which even stunned myself. I’m no fan of Obama or his foreign or domestic policies.

I suddenly realized that, in this volatile world with all that is going on, from Russia to the Middle East, I cannot foresee even the worst things happening in the world, where Obama could take any kind of action, that I could ever support anything big or small that he does using our military. That is a heck of a revelation.

The rule is usually in times of crisis you support the commander-in-chief. But I can’t think of a situation bad enough or simple enough that I could fully support. I am dead serious, though it was a matter of reasoning that out. Sometimes things come out in discussion with someone you wouldn’t realize outside of having that conversation.

There are a number of reasons. I’ll try to outline some of the majors:

A) He would not be trusted and would either throw our efforts or soldiers to the wolves, or under the bus in the situation.(for whatever motives)

B) He cleansed the ranks of many good career generals with experience, knowledge and backbone loyal to their oath.

C) He would not rely on best advice of the Pentagon or those in authority to know.

D) He would change the mission once engaged to some other purpose.

E) He would intentionally change the rules of engagement to suit his ideology.

F) His loyalty to the US cannot be counted on in any situation.

G) He is influenced or led by other interests outside USA’s interest.

H) He’s sided with others, opponents or enemies, while in direct military action.

I) He’s made deals with enemies to the US against our interests and security.

J) He would not be in it to win on behalf of US; other interests take priority.

K) He won’t stand up in the end for US interests or our security.

L) He would overrule or change the plans on a dime himself, for subverted reasons. Everything is fluid, he’s flexible to himself and his political interests.

M) He could and no doubt would undermine our military’s objectives for his own personal reasons, or others. (or his ideology)

O) He does not honor his oath or uphold the Constitution in the US as it is.

P) His words are meaningless anyway, and his credibility is O.

There are probably more. That’s the point. I don’t know of a situation where he or his motives could be trusted to do the right thing if required, and if people depended on it.

So, there is my basic conclusion, tough as it is to think about. Maybe others have already gone through that process. At least some in our military should have walked through the possibilities already. Thus, it is not a matter of trusting our military to do the right thing or be successful. He intervenes in that process into the mission. Intentional failure?

When a lot of people see it the same way, that’s a problem. And when our allies and enemies read it the same way, it’s definitely a real problem

Now I can’t say it would be completely intentional, who can read the diseased mind, but I can say he just cannot be trusted. This, of course, means from the simplest of presidential actions of diplomacy, to treaties, to full-blown military action — anything. That’s mine.