Media double standards: unfair on CAIR

The CAIR-pandering media does not want to cover something as divisive as say moderate Muslims talking about radical Islamists. Who cares about that?

C-SPAN Accused of ‘Mainstreaming Islamist Organizations While Willfully Marginalizing’ Reformists

By Patrick Goodenough | December 23, 2015 | CNS News

( – The leader of an umbrella group of moderate Islamic organizations is troubled by C-SPAN’s decision not to cover its launch event at the National Press Club earlier this month, when on Monday the public affairs network provided live coverage to another Muslim event – highlighting “Islamophobia” – at the same venue.

Attempts to get C-SPAN to cover the launch of the Muslim Reform Movement on December 4 were unsuccessful, said M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a key figure in the establishment of the MRM.

On Monday, C-SPAN covered a press conference by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies in the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) at which 2016 political candidates were warned that anti-Muslim sentiment would carry a cost at the ballot box.

“They are mainstreaming Islamist organizations while willfully marginalizing us,” Jasser said. “At least show both!”

Read more at CNC News


CAIR and Co. Warn 2016 Candidates: Spew ‘Islamophobia’ at Your Political Peril

By Patrick Goodenough | December 21, 2015 | CNS News

( – Leaders of several American Muslim organizations warned Donald Trump and other presidential candidates Monday that if they engage in bigotry and “Islamophobia” they will pay a political price because Muslim voters – in the words of one – will mobilize and “make sure you are out of there.”

“Let it be heard, and clear, to all political candidates, be it Donald Trump or whoever else, that indeed, if you engage in Islamophobia, if you engage in demagoguery and bigotry, you will pay a political price,” American Muslim Alliance director Mahdi Bray said at the National Press Club.

“Because we’re going to register our people and we’re going to use our ballot and we’re going to ‘take our souls to the polls’ and make sure you are out of there,” he continued.

Read more at CNS News

They don’t even attempt to hide their bias. I guess CAIR has them wrapped around their little finger, for safe keeping. C-SPAN should be ashamed.

Structural Radicalism: the new description

Since the progressives are obsessed with “structural racism,” I thought it was time for another term to describe the reality of what we have. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. A H/T to Pepp for the inspiration from our discussion.

The new term is Structural Radicalism. So now I am saddled with defining it. But that should not be easy because of our current state of affairs, or is it current affairs of state? (Merriam-Webster)

: relating to the way something is built or organized
: relating to the structure of something

: the opinions and behavior of people who favor extreme changes especially in government
: radical political ideas and behavior

The integrated structure of radical political ideas and behavior. Now we have it. I suppose one could substitute ideology for opinions, and actions for behavior.

It amuses me how the word “reform” pops up related to government or even political parties. It probably ranks right up there with the most used words by politicians, though probably has as many meanings. In the context used it usually refers to change for good. That’s what they mean or imply anyway.

The problem is that we have already had de facto reform over decades now. Schools, government, culture, society in general. That’s what caused most of our problems. Their reform has percolated since the 60’s. But that reform hasn’t been necessarily good. Roe v Wade, Obamacare, EPA, Kelo decision, education, amnesty, border security, homeland security, housing, sanctuary cities, Bipartisan Campaign Reform, same-sex mariage.

Oh change has come and has people calling for a change back. Remember Obama’s mantra was “Hope and Change”. But the part no one quotes is “change you can believe in” — a faith-based campaign theme. Or the belief in nothingness, as exhibited in his record.

Of course what we got was not what you believed or even wanted. What we got was the invasion of radical mindset in all corners of the government. An infestation Over the years, the same radical ideology has invaded many state and local governments. Chicago, Detroit, San Fran, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, NYC and Universities. Now that seeing is believing, what can you do about it? We are a nation under siege of radicals. Everyone else can see it. And how do you deal with this radicalization of our system? That is a brain buster.

So do you reason with it? That is a foreign language to them. They care as much about reason and logic as nothing. They have no credibility. Emotions are king and activism is their means. They want decisions and law based on ideology and mob activism.

We need an updated strategy

You see, many people believe that the good ideas just win but that is not the nature of radicalism. Is it enough to be right about the issue or issues? Do radicals recoil and pull back all their weapons because “yea, you are right”? So the problem is much bigger than ideas. A certain amount of these radicals will never be converted, and they ill not admit they are wrong and won’t quit. The thing is we need a radical approach to radicalism.

Someone would say but the founders were radicals. Yes, but a different kind of radical. I would call that fundamental radicalism, contrary to what we see here. They are statists, big-government radicals that infiltrated our system at the highest levels.

How do we deal with this progressive radicalism?I admit it will take a tough approach. One might say a radical opposition of the fundamental type. Where that foundational radicalism had some integrity with patriots pledging their lives and fortunes on foundational principles. That kind of unwavering devotion is needed to defeat this Marxist, statist radicalism. So there is no standard political approach with them that will be successful. Might as well talk to a wall. Power and force is all it understands. And don’t expect to reason with it to win it over.

That is why we are at a loss to combat it with any success.They don’t care about due process (Hello Obama & Harry Reid), by their radical nature. They are capable of using and twisting the process to serve their ends. Yet we see how outraged everyone got at Rand Paul or Ted Cruz when they took a tough stand. None of the outraged can tell us what to do. The common ways don’t work.

That also opens the door for economic radicalism interwoven in their activism. We see that rolling out all the time. CEO for Mozilla, gay wedding cakes, Dr. Laura I presume. But those holding the reins of power share the same ideological agenda, which is how we get to a Mayor of Baltimore issuing a stand down order to police during riots and looting. It’s how we get government agencies locking down private bank accounts of individuals, or get the IRS and every alphabet agency jumping on Tea Party organizers. Private property being seized in eminent domain. K-Street lobbyists and government spending. Foreign policy, same thing: negotiating with terrorists, demonstrating lack of will to defend the country and our posterity. It’s structural.

One proposed answer is an Article V Convention — complete with its own hazards — but we still have to deal with the systemic radicalism embedded in our system. But enough of the people have to see it as the real structural radicalism it is, first.

PS: Happy Fourth of July, Independence Day, too.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s middle name is ruin

Never mind that Hussein is Obama’s middle name, his default name is RUIN.

If you take Obama’s campaign example, which is now his lobbying, BrownShirt Society, it uses the same message his campaign used all along.

We know his emphasis was on media and social networking, coupled with fundraising. They projected it as grassroots organizing but that is another deceiving footnote to Obama.

On the website, the central theme starts with a simple question, “Are you In?
When you translate that to chat lingo, you come up with (R-U-IN) RUIN.

It’s pretty funny that his big presence on the web, still his ‘campaign” organization, makes such a revealing statement about his plans.

Just ask Obama supporters if they support Obama and RUIN?

clip_ob site image
Are you in? Well, are you in RUIN yet? No? Give it time. You will be.

Organizing for Action quotes Obama about Climate Change:

If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.

Planned Parenthood and Abortion anyone? Future posterity?

Website:  July 11th 2013

Make a donation today to support this grassroots movement. — [what a laugh]
Whether it’s the NRA trying to stop progress on gun safety legislation that 90% of Americans support, or conservatives in a state legislature trying to ram through radical rollbacks of women’s rights, they are banking on you not paying attention.
They’re hoping you won’t jump in to the fight.
This week should have made it clearer than ever why you need to. / (donate button)

More like Obama just hopes you won’t join the fight against him.

And OFA very much needs you to donate to RUIN. Won’t you support ruin?

On so-called “immigration reform” they suggest:

Supporters across the country were out in force this week, urging their representatives to move immigration reform forward. In anticipation of yesterday’s House Republican Caucus meeting with Speaker John Boehner, they were out in their communities making their voices heard. /…
This fight isn’t over yet. Following the House Republicans’ meeting, OFA volunteers are determined to keep up the pressure and make reform a reality. Until there is a comprehensive immigration reform bill headed to President Obama’s desk, our work continues. Say you’ll join the fight.
/… The fight for immigration reform is on its way through the House, and OFA volunteers are at the forefront of efforts to get it passed.

Oh goody, another “fight” — as everything always is to Liberals.
Here they come, conjuring up the sentiments of the Battle hymn of the Republic :

“He is trampling out the vintage
where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He hath loosed his fateful lightning
of His terrible swift sword,” (sorry, it’s Obama’s choreography)

So I have to ask ….RUIN? Yes, more ruin he proposes: more big government, top-down tyranny everyone can get behind, or under, right? It makes me sick.

OFA events received plenty of attention from local media:[blah, blah, blah] /…
It’s not too late to throw your support behind immigration reform and keep this momentum going into the House. Add your name today.

So people, will you show them it’s not too late for RUIN?

Fight, Fight, Fight…for ruin! “Are you in?”

And if he is going to use executive orders to force his agenda, what does he need them for?
Oh, the BrownShirts are coming. (that’s what he needs them for)
Won’t you be a brownshirt for Obama?

... his RUIN is marching on!


President Barack Obama’s got a volunteer army — and all their marching orders come from carefully organized paid generals back at headquarters.

Obama won two terms by harnessing a grassroots movement through a tightly controlled, top-down campaign organization. Now the group formed out of Organizing for America is now bringing that approach to Organizing for Action.

This really is Obama ruin. Are you in?

Essay on Reform

A little long but I hope you will read it.

It’s an often-used word in politics. It’s a simple word with various meanings. Basically, in most contexts, it is used as an alternative to abolish or remove. So if one does not want to abolish something they say they are going to reform it or fix it.

The dictionary says, Reform:
a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.
2. : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
4: a : to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking b : to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking

 Since it is used so much today in various contexts I thought it was worth a closer look. It is commonly used in politics to refer to any kind of change, especially toward problems or failures, and often as a cure-all. I mention only some applications of the term.

The word conjures up another meaning also used in education, reform school. Decades ago this was a term for school dealing with behavior problems or problem students. Hence, a student was sent to reform school. It was not generally considered a good thing. But it was thought of as a place that might straighten out kids with problems. There were no guarantees though it was hailed as a possibility. (…when other attempts fail)

And there is the religious use of the root word in Christianity, referring to Luther and Protestants in the reformation. Some religious institutions use the word in their name.

 And there is a broader social use of the term “reform movement”:

A reform movement is a kind of social movement that aims to make gradual change, or change in certain aspects of society, rather than rapid or fundamental changes. A reform movement is distinguished from more radical social movements such as revolutionary movements.

Reformists’ ideas are often grounded in liberalism, although they may be rooted in socialist (specifically, Social democratic) or religious concepts. Some rely on personal transformation; others rely on small collectives, such as Mahatma Gandhi’s spinning wheel and the self sustaining village economy, as a mode of social change. Reactionary movements, which can arise against any of these, attempt to put things back the way they were before any successes the new reform movement(s) enjoyed, or to prevent any such successes.  (Wikipedia)

(note – its a softer approach than revolution)

So there is a lot of talk about reform. Politically, the word has been loosely used (overused) to suggest change needed or necessary. It is used as a blanket description for change, to improve or tweak something. So far, the overuse of the word has not ruined the idea behind it, completely. It still carries popularity and high regards to some folks. But politically, I’m sure many people roll their eyes when they hear the word, as I do. And there has been a good amount of reform done already, which many people disagree with.

Sometimes reforming a bad idea is not the right solution. Often “reform” of something with inherent problems, and plagued from the beginning, is not the best solution. But it still gets used in those contexts as the cure. Strange how liberals who tout “pro-choice” claim that abortions are a solution in dealing with life; but when dealing with federal Government will only go as far as to call for “reform” – and usually dragged kicking and screaming to that position.

To abolish an agency seems to be against their nature. But in dealing with life, they contend abortion should always be an available option – for any and all reasons. In fact, don’t ask why. To abolish a failed agency or program is much tougher. Yet they want a streamlined, simple process to get an abortion. To abolish a program is a monumental task, nothing steam-lined about it, if it can be done– “Let the objections begin.”  And liberals like it that way. Even reforming is a challenge. They want the bar set very high to abolish a program or agency, but set very low to get an abortion. But aren’t they based on the same principle, getting rid of something unwanted and a burden to the greater whole? (sorry ….)

Then there are those politicians who take on the banner as “a reformer” politically. You’ve heard them say, “vote for the reformer… vote for the true reformer”.  Few seem to want to campaign as the abolitionist. (I know, except for the congressman from Texas)  Yet there is something to be said for adopting the abolitionist banner, or at least making it a philosophy that is not so stigmatized and ridiculed a position as it is now.  “Reform” must sound better to people. (proabably poll tested)

The Declaration of Independence was a more than a reform philosophy. They tried the reforms. They pleaded to the King, and they got no relief. In fact, the King made things harder and more difficult for them. “Such” was the “patient sufferance” of their colonies. No, it called for more than reform; it demanded some drastic steps. And it was not easy.

Leftists want it easy to have an abortion on demand but want it difficult to rein in out of control, encroaching bureaucracy. Such is our “patient sufferance” today. Yet they want abortion to be as available as possible; any restrictions on it is a restriction too many to them.  Liberals will hold rallies or protests to “keep abortion legal”…”save a woman’s right to choose” … and protect women’s right to an abortion. (hailed as a civil right) Then the same folks trot out signs to say “No, you cannot cut this program, spending, or end this government agency. It’s not fair.” Fairness…

So there we have it

Scissors to the back of the head and a suction hose to abort babies; but no technique is painless enough or “necessary” to eliminate an agency that outlived its usefulness.  And the stage of development is of no concern for babies. In fact, we even have a Secretary of Heath and Human Services  who very much advocates for that ‘scissors to the head’ treatment of babies.  How does she feel about a ‘badly conceived idea’ that should be stopped in its tracks? (…like ObamaCare) 

You know the answer…

Leave your comments on reform (or anything else) or the way it is used? Your thoughts…