Sort of like we all thought

You don’t say? Exactly what we said, knew and saw. File it under old news, as it was exposed in 2016. But the intent has no expiration date. Remember when…

LEAKED: Obama Team Kept List of Muslims For Top Jobs, Excluded Non-Muslims

Justin Caruso | 10/24/2016 | The Daily Caller

The newest batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails released by Wikileaks shows Obama’s transition team kept lists of Muslim and Asian candidates for jobs in the administration.

According to an email chain from 2008, John Podesta received lists of exclusively Muslims and Asians to be considered for jobs in the Obama administration. The email chain revealed that in this process, Middle Eastern Christians were purposefully excluded, or set aside in a separate list, with an aide writing,

In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).

Also notable, there was concern that some of the Muslims suggested would not survive media scrutiny, with one aide writing, “High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted.”

She continues, “I suspect some of the people I list would not survive such a vet — but I do personally know, at least in part, virtually all of the candidates in the 1st two categories (but I know very few of those listed for outside boards/commissions).”

Within the lists themselves, candidates were further broken down, with every candidate labeled by their nationality and sometimes race.

This follows a pattern of the Obama Administration using race and religion to determine hiring, with other leaked emails showing potential political appointees being labeled with an F for female, B for black, H for Hispanic, and M for Muslim.

Another Wikileaks release showed the Obama transition team keeping extensive lists of non-white candidates for administration posts.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/leaked-obama-team-kept-list-of-muslims-for-top-jobs-excluded-non-muslims/

So any surprise there? Only that they were so coordinated about doing it. Can anyone say litmus test? In other words, Article VI, no religious test. In this case, it was completely religious. Discrimination was the process. The left had no problem with that.

But then the results were obvious to everyone, or it should have been.

It only makes me wonder, will someone someday have the gonads to write the book on what Obama did flagrantly from the beginning to end? I kind of doubt it but like to hope so. It was as bad as we thought and then even worse. Yet it needs to be memorialized.

Any questions? All right then!

Finally someone said it

A Ban On Muslims Is An Excellent Security Option

Posted on June 20, 2017 – True Pundit

I adopted two infants from Korea and am the grandson of Italian immigrants — so why would I want to ban Muslims from immigrating to this wonderful, accepting nation? The short answer is that, “Immigration minus assimilation equals segregation and eventually invasion.” Think about it.

Let me get the obvious out of the way. Not all Muslims are terrorists, or support terrorism, but most good Muslims cannot be good Americans and still follow their beliefs.

See more at: http://truepundit.com/a-ban-on-muslims-is-an-excellent-security-option/#sthash.wkjl4Kdy.dpuf

What is the Terrorism debate about numbers?

What is this numbers game over the number of dead Muslims verses the non-Muslims?

I’ll give anyone the prize of the week if they can tell me why it matters so much that terrorists are (1)killing other Muslims and (2)that they are killing more Muslims than us — prsumably non-Muslims? Might as well watch this before it disappears.

This Georgia Professor goes off that terrorists are killing Muslims.

I confess I don’t understand her point of argument. But it is the same one even Obama uses. Since they are killing other Muslims, is that proof that they are not Muslims, Islamic or terrorists? No. Does it mean we are not a target or that they not are coming after us, as Buck Sexton said? No. Then what could it mean?

Note how the moderator, Don Lemon cuts Buck off and then proposes that maybe the terrorists are also Muslim? Of course, the only ones denying terrorists are Muslims is probably Obama and the White House. But what does that all matter?

Of course they are Muslim, Islamic Terrorists and of course they also kill other Muslims. Is anyone really disagreeing with that? I didn’t think so. But this seems to be their chief talking point, “they are killing Muslims too.” Well, duh! And this means what exactly?

They never tell us what it is supposed to mean. We are supposed to conclude that they are not just after us. Does it mean they aren’t targeting us only other Muslims? No. Whew, I feel better now because they are killing other Muslims too, not just us non-Muslims.

Terrorism, by design, has a certain randomization to it. Maybe that was frowned on at one time, by ethical terrorists, but seems to be justified now. (if there is any justification for terrorism in their minds) Come on, people, we are above this simple numbers game stuff. Why do they tell us all the time that we Americans and Westerners are their targets? Don’t you think they can rationalize killing 100 Muslims if 15 or 20 are non-Muslims? Can’t they also kill other Muslims that are in their way to prove a point and send a message to other Muslims? Of course. So this argument is almost as ridiculous as it sounds. But I am not trying to prove that they do not kill other Muslims. It should make the point that they are plenty evil enough to kill anyone. They’re terrorists, it’s what they do.

Her other point was just as bad, explaining their “lashing out” motivation. It sounds a little like John Kerry. So they kill out of weakness, out of desperation. I get it, the weaker they are the more of these attacks they do. Every time liberals try to explain terrorism they confuse the crap out of it and end up making excuses for terrorists. Like what we are doing is “a recruiting tool,” so stop it. Stop our action and the terrorists will stop? No.

This is to imply a terrorist’s mind is totally logical and rational. But Obama has been making these arguments for years and they don’t sound any better than they did then. And we’re told how logical Obama is. In fact, they are as old as the Saudi sand.

RightRing | Bullright

Muslim invasion

It’s the invasion, stupid.

Conservative says Muslim Migration West is a Planned Invasion to Destroy Western Christendom!

“This clearly is an invasion. This is a planned invasion, not only in Europe but also in the United States. I believe for the specific purpose of destroying Western Christendom.” — Former Rep. Michele Bachmann

Former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is making waves (again), for her vociferous stand against the Muslim wave of migrants heading West from the Middle East and Africa. While Bachmann’s stance against Muslim immigration has been known for some time, her latest condemnation made some specific and surprising arguments – namely, that the migration was a “planned invasion” for the “specific purpose of destroying Western Christendom.”

Read more: http://eaglerising.com/30186/conservative-says-muslim-migration-west-is-a-planned-invasion-to-destroy-western-christendom/

What other reason would they have for coming, since they hate us so much?

But under this situation, the one who receives criticism is for discussing a ban on Muslims. The invasion gets none. So they’ll attack the messenger.

Favorite one-liners and reality shuffle

One of Jeb Bush’s favorite attacks of Trump is Donald’s quote “I watch the shows.” Jeb calls Trump great at one-liners but a chaos candidate. Jeb should upgrade his material.

Oh those Sunday shows. So being it was Sunday, what did I learn from the Sunday shows? Let’s take the Fox Sunday show, for example.

First, a little review. All we hear is “you must not paint all Muslims with the same broad brush.” That wouldn’t be fair. It’s hard to find a contemporary talking point older than that one. I think it started one minute after the second plane hit the WTC. So that’s not new; the media repeats that every time the subject of Islamic terrorism or Islamic radicalism comes up.(sing a long ) Now it’s a spontaneous reflex.

To my surprise on the Sunday “Show,” the subject is ISIS and Islamic radicalism with Peter King-of House homeland security where he dispels the myth of cooperation of Mosques and Muslims on the terrorism front. So they haven’t been cooperating all along and tipping us about those rogue radicals? I guess not. King tells us of a case where the Mosque actually tipped off the terrorist’s family that cops were on to him. And in two cases radicalized Muslims joined up with terrorists and no one said a word about it.

The host asked King if he knew of any case where Muslims or clergy were hesitant or unwilling to: if they “see something say something” report it? But he already proved it. He said they don’t come forward and don’t work with authorities. It’s well-known in police circles they don’t cooperate.

They went on with their panel to explore the lack of Muslim cooperation. Then he called this a “generational war.” He asked even if we destroyed ISIS, what would fill the vacuum? Gasp. He said that is the subject no one is talking about. Oh, they mean no one on air is talking about the possibilities. But people have not overlooked it. In fact, the people have been talking about all this stuff.

So there you have the crux of the issue/problem. We’ve been paying close attention all along. We’ve been following ISIS’s rise and the bonfire in the Mid East. We were watching. And we already figured out, long ago, this was a generational battle. We knew about vacuums, too. We observed that Muslims here and abroad have not been especially helpful. Media and Muslims object to our findings and observations by crying Islamophobia.

What’s the point? The lesson here is people are out in front of the news prognosticators. I mean what did we have to do to get their attention? Of course they wouldn’t listen to us. We don’t know anything. Only the media knows. Only they are informed. Critical thinking is out of vogue. But now their subtle admissions seem to lag way behind ours. And Trump is still a “racist” for calling for a ban. How do they square that?

Islam is a problem, Muslims aren’t just innocent victims, Mosques haven’t been helping, Trump has a valid point, and political correctness is not the cure but an accelarant. The religion of peace is institutionally waist-deep in civil disobedience defending radical Islamists (who don’t seem too rogue) defying our national security concerns. And we have an Islam apologist residing in the White House running cover for them all. All that is common knowledge to most coherent people, unless they live in Obama’s state of denial.

Here is part of that Sunday exchange:

MCKELWAY: Congressman, I want to turn again to terrorism on the home front. You have said somewhat controversially that we need better surveillance of mosques in the United States, quoting you. The only way you’re going to find out this in advance is to do the same type of 24/7 surveillance that was done in the Italian-American communities when they were going after the mob, mafia, and the Irish communities, when they were going after the Westies. You look at where the terror threat is going to come from. And right now it is going to come from the Muslim community. I can hear the cries of civil libertarians and constitutionalists right now, Congressman.

KING: Yeah, listen, they can cry all they want. The fact is that’s where the threat is coming from. And we can say that 98, 99 percent – of the Muslims in this country are good people. I’m actually swearing in the first elected Muslim on Long Island. She is a good friend of mine. So, this is nothing against Muslims, but the fact is that is where the threat is coming from. And we are kidding ourselves. We have this blind political correctness, which makes no sense. For instance, in Boston, with the Boston marathon bombing, you had the older Tsarnaev brother. He was put out of a mosque because of his radical thoughts and his radical statements made in the mosque, but nobody in the mosque ever told the police, nobody ever told the FBI.

Yes, we knew. But at every step we were called Islamophobic for pointing out the truth. They said we can’t blame Islam or Muslims in general even when they are intentionally complicit in terrorists’ agenda. Reminds me of the rise of the Third Reich. Media and some politicians seem to be slowly coming around – sans Obama. Denial may be wearing off.

Islam will only be at peace when everyone has converted. And that isn’t going to happen. Now in case they still want to point blame at us or Christians for this problem, Christians evangelize and Muslims terrorize. Islamists take pride in that. We are trying to defend “true Islam” when most ignorant spectators don’t even know which is the true Islam?

So what you would have been learning from these shows, mostly, is that we are racists and/or bigoted extremists for jumping to rational conclusions that stir fear about the Islam community — incidentally, one of Islam’s chief goals. Worse, for years we were told to blame everything and everyone else in the world, namely ourselves and America, for Islamic terrorism except to blame any of it on Islam or Muslims. I don’t remember them going through that tortured, fruitless exercise on Hitler and the Third Reich. (we would still be conducting that exercise)

RightRing | Bullright

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.

TRUMPED UP BAN

So with all the flurry over Trump’s remarks it is easy to get swept away in the ensuing flood of criticisms.

But really, what was so bad about his ban proposal? Forget the Marxist Left, they call everything names and they were licking their lips at this one. But if reason prevails, then there is a lot to consider on his proposal. Religious, Islamic fascists declared war on us.

Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Not ‘Fascist,’ and Is Not Unconstitutional

by John Hayward | 8 Dec 2015
Breitbart

Because it has caused a great deal of controversy (to put it mildly), it seems appropriate to quote the “Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration” in full:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/

Great article on it. Have people realized that if we plan on screening out ISIS from our border, then that is a religious test? Why kid ourselves? That’s who is at war with us.

This all made me think that Hitler made a critical error. It was dumb that he didn’t just declare the the Third Reich a religion. Then he would have had our hands tied.

It seems that the people are ahead of the government and lawmakers. We understand what is happening. Obama loves to lecture that we just don’t understand, yet we are way ahead them. Of course they don’t listen to us which, is the second part of the problem.

When Trump makes a sensible statement that people agree with, their knee-jerk response is to blame him and all those who support him. Instead of realizing the people understand the problem, the ruling class elites stick their heads in the sand and tell us what they cannot do. Obama says, “What I will not do is…” That’s a confidence builder.

I’m offended by Muslims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

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)

Chattanooga…to the shores of Tripoli

A country legend, rock and roll icon, and a true southern gentleman with credentials, Charlie Daniels once immortalized those words “the Devil went down to Georgia.”
To play on that theme:

Well, this week a Devil went to Chattanooga with very much the same thing on his mind: he was looking for souls to steal. Not just any but proud American ones. Ones who, in the prime of their lives, had something to offer America and more than the will to serve it, giving it. Yes, a devil sneaked in there to snatch someone up and all he got was their vain assassin for the trouble.

Instead, the shooter got what he bargained for, the devil’s cauldron stew. His due for the purchase was what he meant for others, paid in full. But it cost him his soul that day, all he had — or thought he had. He played the game and got snake eyes. The men who lost their lives had something so precious he couldn’t even have dreamed of: freedom, honor and dignity, and a country who appreciated them. But the shooter met his match. No paradise of which he wrote. No glory for his cause. Just another lost, stolen and used up soul on a wasted effort. He bartered it all and lost it all that day.

He got his name in the press, the name he claimed caused security alerts. But in the end, it was not his name that caused all the damage. We know what it was. So now that name will cause nothing but grief. He staked out his lot and his plot staked him. But there was no respect and glory in what he did. Nothing in return. A failed bid to make a failed stand. Instead of hope, he got the short straw. Five lives were lost, but their immortal souls were gained, five more for the trumpet to sound. A pity the shooter will never know that honor and glory he tried to cheat. Just another wasted soul, on the road from Tripoli.

RIP now five Chattanooga heroes.

 ~~~~~~

Now for a President who always lectures on the importance of context — or the context of important matters — what Obama did after should be seen then in the light of the terrorist attack in Chattanooga and the questions it raised.

The White House released a statement later in the day to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan.

As Muslim Americans celebrate Eid across America, the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs.

Michelle and I hope today brings joy to all of your homes, both here in the U.S. and around the world. From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak!

As an article at Western Journalism framed the context, for the preoccupied White House:

“Chattanooga killings reality: The morning of Eid was marked with the sound of gunfire echoing through quiet neighborhoods across a peaceful Tennessee city forever scarred by the attacks.”

“It is a heartbreaking circumstance”, according to Obama’s WH statement:

“It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion.” He added in his statement that “we take all shootings seriously.”

(except when the shooter is an illegal in a sanctuary city, already deported 5 times.)

I couldn’t tell if that was Obama making that statement or Deepak Chopra. Apparently “heartbreaking circumstance” are the new code words for domestic terrorism.

RightRing | Bullright

Durbin, read my lips….

Sen. Durbin’s Jihad Caucus
Frank Gaffney, Jr.
May 26, 2015

It seems Congress has caucuses for every imaginable cause. Now, the Senate has an informal Jihad Caucus led by its second-ranking Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

He’s the man who wants Guantanamo Bay closed and its jihadists transferred to a prison in his state. He appears happy to rubber-stamp President Obama’s deal with Iran, that will assure its jihadists get the Bomb.

Last week, Sen. Durbin led thirteen other Democratic senators in urging the President to bring 65,000 Syrian refugees to America. If past practice is any guide, these would be almost all Muslims, from camps run by jihadists and selected by the Islamist-dominated United Nations.

The FBI told Congress recently it couldn’t vet such refugees.

Let’s tell Sen. Durbin: No more jihadists.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/05/26/sen-durbins-jihad-caucus/

Well, it’s not like they are an endangered species and we have to import them now for their own protection. The FBI “couldn’t” and probably wouldn’t “vet such refugees.”

….no new jihadists.

Obama stands with Muslims

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

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

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

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

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

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

And at the UN, Obama said:

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

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

He carefully added in that UN speech,

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Ankle flash causes Muslim outrage

In the latest celebrity absurdity, Selena Gomez is criticized for exposing her ankle in a mosque.

Selena Gomez spent at least part of New Year’s Day dealing with a controversy that sprung up in the wake of a photo she posted to Instagram. The offending picture showed Gomez flashing her ankle inside the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi. It has since been deleted by the pop star. — AOL

Makes you kind of wish these people could be as offended by what their fellow Muslims do in the name of Islam. That would be no fun… or benefit to their religion.

Grim predictions and a warning from UK

Britain Heading Towards A Civil War With Islam

Published on Jun 16, 2013

Paul Weston speaks candidly about what is in store for Britain with Islam and Islamists. It isn’t pretty, and it is also a dire warning to the US and Canada what is headed our way.

Terrorism’s Russian connections

The Russian Roots of Terrorism

Cliff Kincaid — September 30, 2014 | Accuracy in Media

I learned about the passing of former Washington Times columnist John Lofton as I was looking through an old file of clippings and found a Lofton gem entitled, “Where terrorism is rooted,” from the July 5, 1985, issue of the paper. It’s a reminder of Lofton’s important style of writing and the fact that the Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East.

At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today.

Lofton quoted from Marx and Lenin, establishing the fact that the communists were advocates of terror from the beginning. He cited evidence of Soviet sponsorship and support of terrorist groups and personalities from the PLO, to “Carlos the Jackal,” to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the African National Congress in South Africa.

What Lofton was describing was a concrete example of how the communists and the Arabs and Muslims were collaborating in terrorism.

What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-russian-roots-of-terrorism/

The trail is pretty clear. This also indicates the complexities in identifying the terrorists’ true origination. And why Obama is at a complete failure to understand these groups. But then if he does know or understand the connections, in any way, then he is in denial and probably covering up the tentacles. He always hopes we don’t understand the truth.

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

What do words tell us?

If I were a speech writer for Obama, I would have wondered, maybe highlighted a couple lines in the text either for clarification, revision, or removal. Sorry for the wordiness of this but it is unavoidable.

The line in question was about religion. Here is the text:

Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

And people like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley, and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him. … And we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg

Seal of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

“Declared their ambitions to commit genocide” … and are carrying it out. The word is ‘committing.’

Lonely phrases

“So ISIS speaks for no religion.” Was that completely necessary? On what facts does he base that? They believe they speak for Islam. In fact, they believe they are the self-declared spokesman for it. And masses of the Islam faith have not argued that point. Why was it so critically important for Obama to state that? He tries to separate ISIS from the religion of Islam, writ large. Again, why is that necessary? Others would seem more suited to make that distinction, except they don’t. He tries to put ISIS outside the parameters of Islam. We don’t need to do that. It is what it is — self-asserted. They certainly speak for some segment of it. Just declaring they don’t is a lonely phrase in there.

So he seemed more concerned that their actions are hurting Islam. If they are hurting Islam, that should not be of great importance to us. There seems to be no shortage of Islam defenders to make that case — but they don’t. It is not up to our president to explain why ISIS and the terrorists are not spokespersons for Islam. Sure it seems a simple thing and some probably see his motivation, not that I do. But why is there a need for it?

I realize there is a large world-wide population of Muslims to which it should matter, but why is it a priority to separate this violence, horror, and evil from Islam? The fact that he feels compelled to speaks for itself. Again, where are their voices? If a religion this large cannot make a case against this uber-evil, then what does that tell us?

Territorial control of ISIS

Rather, I recommend that we pose the question to Muslims: “do you realize these actions are being done in the name of your religion?” And it is not the first time — probably not the last. Had it been any other religion they would follow that tack. They’d say, “well I don’t believe they do, but others can make the case why they don’t speak for their membership.” But the majority of any other religion would beat them to it, to make that case. Not here, we don’t have that.

Of course, the real reason is his apologetics. He felt a need to separate them from the religion of Islam to defend it from this bloody stain. Again, that could be left to cleric spokesman and their academics. The ironic thing is Obama has Muslim advocates and activists all around him. I was no fan of Bush doing it either. Sometimes things are what they are. It would help if others were making the case. Instead, we see Muslims either joining ISIS-fever or registering their approval by their silence.

Someone please help Obama because if he has a heart it is sure not in this. We’ve seen his critique of Iraq politics and laying the problem at their feet. Yes. However, if ISIS is a threat to us and other countries, then how is it logical and rational to trust Iraq to solve the ISIS problem? That dependency on them places our security in their hands. Is that what we want to do? That is what Obama is doing — putting them in charge of our security and the free world’s. It would be nice if one of our generals took Obama out back and explained the food chain to him. He doesn’t seem to get the basics.

So then, I guess Obama speaks for no country either, especially not the USA.

 
RightRing | Bullright

Islamophobia ?

We got your Islamophobia right here !!!

Rabid Muslims out of control in: (to name a few)
And Christian persecution is running wild

Britain
France
Germany
Syria
Indonesia
India
Gaza
Pakistan
Iran
Libya
Iraq
Sudan
Sri Lanka
Africa et al
And in protests in the US — as perpetual “victims”

And no, I didn’t even mention China or N. Korea.

Ansar al-Sharia groups in the North Africa’s Tunisia and Libya have posted pro-ISIL propaganda online. And jihadists in Gaza are siding with al-Baghdadi. ***

*The U.S.-led incursion into Libya in 2011 emboldened a new breed of Islamist extremists—young, eager and brutal—wanting to take control. In addition they have infiltrated the Maghreb and Sahel regions in Africa, and the Middle East. Al-Qaeda’s mission of destroying western interests will continue, while the newer Islamist groups have a more territorial plan–creating Islamic states, ruled under Sharia law.

New recruits have been inspired by radical Wahhabist and Salafist clerics believing Islam has been disenfranchised and want to create a caliphate, taking the region back to the 12th century when Islam reigned under Sultan Saladin, and more recent past under the Ottoman Empire. The irrational borders created by the European powers after World War I separated tribes and religious factions, which is at the heart of the conflicts today, with everyone wanting their piece of the turf.

Christians persecuted, killed and systematic cleansing around the world. Accompanied by silence from Muslims worldwide.

And Muzzies want to cry about “Islamo-PHOBIA”? The very last, and I do mean last, problem the US or the world has is Islamophobia. Put that in your caliphate.

I got your Islam-o-phobia !

Phobia:
noun
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

a combining form meaning “fear,” occurring in loanwords from Greek ( hydrophobia ); on this model, used in the names of mental disorders that have the general sense “dread of, aversion toward” that specified by the initial element: agoraphobia.

Irrational fear based in your mind?

See related: The struggle we must understand Pt-2

RightRing | Bullright

Anti-Israel protests

Anti-Israel protesters rally across France, defying ban imposed after synagogue clash

Thousands march through French cities in protest of Israeli operation in Gaza Strip; French president says will not allow violence to spill over into France.
By Nicholas Vinocur, Joe Bavier Jul. 19, 2014

REUTERS – Thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters marched in French cities on Saturday to condemn violence in Gaza, defying a ban imposed after demonstrators marched on two synagogues in Paris last weekend and clashed with riot police.

A Reuters photographer said demonstrators in northern Paris launched projectiles at riot police, who responded by firing teargas canisters and stun grenades.

“We must show that as Muslims, we’re all united” // Shirli Sitbon reports for Haaretz from Paris

Demonstrators also climbed on top of a building and burned an Israeli flag. At least one car was set on fire.
/…

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has contributed to growing tensions between France’s Muslim and Jewish populations, both of which are the largest in Europe.

In the first three months of 2014 more Jews left France for Israel than at any other time since the Jewish state was created in 1948, with many citing rising anti-Semitism as a factor.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606036

 

Paris isn’t just for lovers anymore. One commenter dubbed it Paristan.I think that sums it up. How far from that is the US or other countries?