Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Open border advocates, amnesty promoters, and liberals of all sorts, including our America-slamming President are expressing outrage at Arizona’s new immigration law. They are complaining that Arizona has decided to be effective in doing the job the Federal Government refuses to do: Enforcing immigration laws. They charge that the law promotes “racial profiling”. It doesn’t. They charge that a state immigration law is not the purview of the states but is the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government refuse to do its job. They charge that the a state law that allows asking for evidence of citizenship such as showing a green card is somehow akin to Nazism. Why are green cards issued if they are not required to be shown? As an aside, check out how Mexico treats illegal aliens.
Oh, and it just happens that 99% of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican, but we should not profile Mexicans.
Let’s now turn to our airport security screening. Not only do the screeners ask for several forms of identification from EVERYONE passing through the gates, but they subject EVERYONE to wanding, body searches, shoe searches, and carry-on baggage searches. They are screening EVERYONE. And somehow that is OK, despite the fact that 99% of all terrorists, and the only ones who have threatened the safety of aircraft in the last 20 years are Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 35. But we shouldn’t profile Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 35.
I’m beginning to see some parallels here. In both Arizona and in airports, there is a dire concern about the safety of people in both places due to specifically identified groups of people. In both Arizona and in airports there is a clear profile identified of who is breaking the law and threatens lives. In Arizona, it is Mexicans who have entered the country illegally. In airports, it is Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 to 35. In neither instance is it acceptable to profile for the known characteristics of the people known to be a threat.
In Arizona, they merely want to identify individuals that do not have the legal right to be in their state. So logically, they may focus on people who look Mexican, subject to demonstrable “probable cause.” At airports, they are not even focusing on Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 to 35. They are screening ALL OF US. Is this the same insanity the open borders and amnesty advocates want in Arizona: Screen everyone, even though 80% are not Mexican while 99% of the illegals ARE Mexican?
We all carry identification that we have to show someone most every day. I am asked to show ID when I charge something or if pulled over for an alleged traffic offense, whether I believe I committed an offense or not. We don’t get offended and outraged when asked to show ID. Why should we be offended when a state is trying to defend itself from a huge influx of illegal aliens and criminals?
None of this makes sense. When something doesn’t make sense, there is usually a reason that we are not yet aware of. Why doesn’t this make sense? Does the federal government have a different agenda from most Americans? Most Americans want safe communities. Most Americans want to curb drug traffic and associated violence. Most Americans want our laws to be enforced. Most Americans don’t want to have to pay taxes for services (schools, welfare, hospitalization) for illegal aliens – tax evaders, law breakers and criminals. Most Americans don’t want illegal aliens taking jobs of legal citizens, especially when we have a 10% unemployment rate.
What does the Federal government want? What is their agenda? In both the Arizona illegal immigrant scenario and the airport security scenario, the Federal government seeks social justice as they define it. They define social justice not merely in terms of equal rights for all US citizens. In fact, and this sounds bazaar but I believe the track record indicates this is true, they define “social justice” as giving preferential treatment to non-citizens, law breakers, and US haters at the expense of the rights of US citizens. This sounds so bazaar that there has to be another motive behind it. I’ve heard some suggest the motive is power – future votes - votes from a burgeoning Mexican population and potentially burgeoning Muslim population in the US. Beyond this motive, there may be this Pollyannaesque ideal that the so-called “oppressed” and “downtrodden”, whether an illegal Mexican alien or a Sharia-inspired Muslim, should be given the welcome mat and special favors, similar to the civil rights-inspired “affirmative action” the federal government enforced since the 70’s.
The federal governments direction in all this is so out of control. Affirmative action has outlived the demographics of race and inequality. And now we see the federal government exercising a “stealth affirmative action” favoring illegal aliens and Muslims. This federal behavior is promoting an exceedingly hostile “middle America.” Things are likely to turn ugly.
To paraphrase Obama, who vowed to stand with the Muslim immigrants if the political winds shift in an ugly direction, “I will stand with them – the average middle class Americans should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Monday, April 26, 2010
Yes. We have too much anti-Muslim bias. Of course, it is not because of Islam.
Three Muslim academicians got together and conjured a study entitled “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans” that resides on our Justice Department website and has gained prominence in academia. These deceivers for Islam are David Schanzezr, Charles Kurzman, and Ebrahim Moosa.
A better example of “taqiyya” (Islamic deception) I have not seen. What they wrote and what they omitted are the definition of “dissembling”: To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
The findings of this study are these, in the order presented:
- Increased Anti-Muslim Bias [since 9-11]: The authors noted the increased anti-Muslims bias since 9-11, and that such bias, if it continues, may further radicalize Muslims. Therefore, the offending non-Muslims must learn more about Islam, and embrace Muslims into our political and social institutions. Yes, 9-11 has caused many Americans to discover what the Islamic ideology is all about: an intolerant, fascist, supremacist anti-Semitic ideology that promotes Sharia law and an absolutely diametrically opposite view of morality, religion, and culture from that of the West. We are at fault for expressing such “bias” after learning what Islam is all about. So, now we need to embrace Islam. So why shouldn’t we? I don’t see any problem with that, do you?
- Low Numbers of Radicalized Muslim-Americans. The authors suggest that “although the vast majority of Muslim-Americans reject radical extremist ideology and violence, a small number of Muslim-Americans have radicalized since 9/11. They cite that only “139 Muslim-Americans committed acts or terrorism-related violence or were prosecuted” for such. They fail to mention four important things about these numbers:
- One, the nature of the attempted acts would have killed thousands of Americans.
- Two, we don’t know how many more hundreds or thousands of Muslims are “waiting in the wings” to carry out similar attacks.
- Three, we DO know that classical Islam, promoted by Saudi-funded Wahabbi and Salafi Muslims, including Islamic supremacism, hatred of the West, and methods of promoting Sharia law, is being taught in Islamic mosques and Islamic schools throughout the United States.
- Four, the ummah (the brotherhood of Muslims – the “moderate”, non-violent Muslim majority) stands in unity with those on the front lines of Islam privately cheering them on and doing whatever they can under the radar to support the cause.
- Practices of Muslim-American Communities Prevent Radicalization. This heading gets way ahead of their text which states: “Our research shows that a variety of practices of Muslim-American communities may be helping to prevent and address instances of radicalization.” [italics added] And then again, there are likely many more practices that go in the opposite direction – promoting radicalization. They claim “public and private denunciation of terrorism and violence.” Granted, there are public denunciations. That is a part of the taqiyya doctrine of Islam. However, the private denunciations are more likely in the form of “those idiots, why did they allow themselves to be caught” or “let this be a lesson that we are not ready for that kind of fight yet.” But the radicalization goes on. Do not be deceived by the grand deceivers.
- Community-building. Yes, this is a good one that brought a chuckle. The authors express satisfaction that “the creation of robust Muslim-American communities may serve as a preventative measure against radicalization by reducing social isolation of individuals who may be at risk of becoming radicalized.” Wow! In fact, the opposite will occur. Without being assimilated into the American mainstream, these “robust Muslim-American communities” will devolve into isolated purist Islamic ghettos that are will spawn radicalism in a protected environment. Take a look at the Islamic communities of Detroit. Take a look at the videos of Muslim radicals demonstrating with their anti-American and anti-Semitic signs in cities with “robust Muslim communities.” Avoidance of assimilation to avoid feeling disenfranchised? They are making themselves “disenfranschised” by prolonging the differences and isolation. And this is not due to oppression. It is by design. It is a strategic Islamic maneuver to use our insane embrace of “cultural diversity” to justify their differences, to promote their enclaves, foster divisiveness and achieve national weakness. That is the Islamic agenda and hope for this nation.
- Political Engagement. The authors state that “heightened political activity of Muslim-Americans since 9/11 is also a positive development for preventing radicalization.” That is true. The political process is a wonderful thing for accomplishing Islamic goals without the need to blow up people. Not as messy. And Muslims engaging in the political process is one of the tools of stealth Jihad, the topic Robert Spencer addresses in his book “Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs.”
- Identity Politics. The authors believe that promoting an “Islamic-American” identity is a very good thing. Muslims are piggy backing on our insane “cultural diversity” mantra that believes the opposite of our national motto of “E Pluribus Unum” - “out of many: one”. That motto is rendered meaningless by the authors praise of Muslim identity. Finally, the authors are promoting the idea that increased Muslim piety results not in increased radicalization, but will somehow “undercut the radical message that American values and practices are hostile to Islam.” That is the greatest taqiyya (dissembling) message of all and could not be further from the truth. Today’s Islam is classical Islam. Classical Islam is not merely a religion, but an all encompassing political, military, religious, and cultural ideology that is diametrically opposed to every institution that has made our country the success it is.
Islamic expert Steve Emerson shares his opinions on this study HERE. He calls the Study “flawed.” I call it “purposefully deceitful.”
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Along comes the health care bill. All US citizens must purchase health insurance or else pay a significant penalty for not doing so.
Here is the penalty:
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”
There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.
Let’s look more closely at the religious exemption:
(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by -
(A) such evidence of such individual's membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual's compliance with the preceding sentence, and
(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person, and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that -
(C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,
(D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and
(E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950.
Translated, those “exemption” provisions mean if you are a mainstream Christian, Jew, or atheist, you need not apply to opt out of this socialist legislation. The exemption will apply only to those of the following faiths who have a conscientious objection to health insurance:
- Christian Science
- Amish, and
- Islam (Note this link explaining why Muslims are exempt.)
It is interesting to note the religions that are credited with lobbying Congress to be exempted were the Christian Scientists and Amish.
How many in each of these exempted religions stand to be beneficiaries of this exemption? Common estimates are:
- Scientologists: Fewer than 80,000
- Christian Scientists: Fewer than 400,000
- Amish: Around 230,000
- Muslims: 2 to 3 million.
Who is the biggest beneficiary of this exemption? The “no establishment of religion” clause is indeed a double-edged sword! Muslims well know about double-edged swords and how to benefit, both literally and figuratively. Obama can certainly relate to that given his affinity to Islam.
Is this outcome by design or merely happenstance? Do you believe in coincidences? One thing is certain, the more government meddles in the details of life, the greater the likelihood of inequalities created by the law of unintended consequences or by the intentions of those acting behind the curtain.
Friday, April 23, 2010
This is from the “no surprise here” department.
Here they are:
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL)
President Barack Obama
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Is there any wonder why there is such rampant anger and righteous indignation among the American People? Read the reasons for these people being selected for this “outing” even democrats of good will could clearly agree with on the Judicial Watch web site.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Here are several victims of Islamic intimidation and related political correctness.
Brigitte Bardot: Did you know that Brigitte Bardot was arrested several times in France over the last several years for expressing her concerns about excessive Islamic immigration and its consequences? Here are a few details.
But that is in Europe.
Lt. Col. Allen West: Did you know that Lt. Col. Allen West was disciplined for his non-life-threatening method of extracting information from a Muslim that saved many American lives?
Franklin Graham: Did you know that Franklin Graham may be disinvited from leading a prayer service at the Pentagon for our troops because Muslims are complaining that he is critical of Islam?
Creators of South Park: Trey Parker and Matt Stone dared to create a cartoon involving Muhammad and now are receiving death notices for insulting Islam. And who is the dhimmi that said they should have kept this idea to themselves? None other than egomaniac Bill O’Reilly.
South Park Update 4-22-10: The Comedy Central Network caved in to Islamic intimidation and joined the ranks of other dhimmi networks, commentators, and politicians. What, exactly, will it take for non-Muslims to recognize the danger Islam poses to free speech?
O’Reilly is apparently willing to give up his freedom of speech over potential Islamic threats. Yup. He believes the South Park creators are asking for it when they depicted Muhammad as a Teddy Bear.
It is true - Islamists do murder people who depict Muhammad in images or who mock Islam in any manner. South Park did this very thing (in an excessively mild manner) and its creators are now the subject of Islamic revenge. These events were discussed on the O'Reilly show (video below). The good news is that O'Reilly showed it. The bad news is that he expressed his own fear and dhimmi attitude at the expense of free speech when he said "the risk [of free speech] is higher than the reward." He said "I hate to give into the intimidating forces of evil, but you got to deal with reality", which translated means: He will give into the intimidating forces of evil. This was certainly an ignorant statement to make in the face of Islamic intimidation, especially from a commentator who makes his living off of free speech. This display of fear is an admission that he will not report facts if he feels threatened. His credibility should plummet.
Here is the dhimmi score card (or Pinheads and Patriots, as O’Reilly would judge):
Proven dhimmi’s (pinheads): French government, US Military brass, Bill O’Reilly, Comedy Central Network.
Proven patriots: Brigitte Bardot, Lt. Col. Allen West, Franklin Graham, creators of South Park.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
In a word: “Truth.” I admit it. I have sacrificed “kinder and gentler” in exchange for conveying the objective reality of Islam. In fact, I am not as concerned about Islam as much as I am concerned about the obliviousness (blindness, ignorance, gullibility) of the American people (in particular) toward the history, ideology, and aspirations of that ideology.
For reasons I only partially understand, most media and commentators insist on sugar-coating the Islamic ideology. Certainly the mainstream media and most arms of our Federal Government do this. And the White House goes several steps further by embracing, supporting, promoting, and giving preference to Muslims and Islamic nations over other faiths and over our non-Islamic allies.
The great majority of voices in the media and elsewhere are only repeating the Islamic story line. So many reporters and government officials have taken the easy road by uncritically consuming the propaganda pumped out by CAIR and various Islamic leaders and promoters. Most likely they are ignorant of “taqiyya”, the sanctioned Islamic doctrine of purposeful deceit in defending or promoting Islam. You would think that many of our politicians who are so practiced in this technique themselves would see through this.
Not many voices feel obligated to reveal the negatives of Islam. Ignoring them will not make them go away. One doesn’t have to read and become expert in the Qur’an to observe the widespread hate, violence, and immorality promoted by the adherents to Islamic Holy Books and associated ideology – the rampant hate, violence, and immorality carried out “in the name of Islam.”
Whether the “radicals” are a minority of that “faith” or not is beside the point. The point is that Islamic ideology breeds quantities of hatred and terror we see occur every day we don’t see coming from any other ideology on the face of the earth. There are estimates that Islamic terrorists or “Jihadis” comprise only a small minority of all Muslims. If only 10% are terrorists, 10% of all Muslims is 120 million. So “only” 120 million Muslims are involved in terror against the infidel: Jews, Christians, and the west. And this is considered a conservative figure by many. No one knows for sure how many Muslims are in various degrees of “practicing Jihad” as a means of promoting their ideology.
While the majority of Muslims may appear benign or friendly, under that veneer lies a variety of possibilities of levels of “devoutness” toward Islam, and varying stages of promoting the ideology, such as:
The most devout tend to be:
- Jihadi leaders and masterminds of terror
- Islamic leaders: Imams, etc.
- Those who plan and stage acts of terror
- Those who fund and overtly support acts of terror
- Those who actively promote hate and distrust toward the “infidel”, “the people of the book” (Jews and Christians), and the west generally.
- Those on the sidelines cheering on this effort.
The least devout tend to be:
- Those who appear to honestly condemn Islamic violence and supremacism (how many are these?)
- Those who are Muslim “in name only” because of their heritage but who are fully integrated into our western culture (how many are these?)
- Those in predominantly Muslim countries who are preoccupied with survival and who are most susceptible to the influences, threats, and coercion of the more devout (this is probably the majority).
So, how might the percentages line up for the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world based on the above breakdown? It appears that while a minority are actual Jihadi terrorists, it is very likely a majority are supporters of their efforts against the west.
While Islam is not a monolithic faith, there is a common “brotherhood” or “umma” that is shared among Muslims. This explains in part why there was so little outcry against the acts of 9-11, even among those Muslims who are considered “moderate” by their neighbors.
I chalk up the gullibility of defenders of Islam by believing that they are simply not paying attention. And by not paying attention they remain ignorant and accuse those of us who are paying attention of being mean spirited toward Muslims and Islam. In practice, the gullible and ignorant non-Muslims have joined forces with CAIR and other Muslim deceivers in defaming those who are attempting to bring the reality of Islam to their attention.
It is interesting to note the definition of the word “bigotry”: “Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.” The “irrational” part of the definition is important. Those who are paying attention to the nature of Islam and proclaim their informed rational understanding of that ideology are called “bigots” by those who insist on maintaining an uninformed irrational ignorance of Islam. The “hatred” is maintained by the irrational against the rational.
For more on this topic, go to Islamic Threat Simplified.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Yup, that’ll do the trick alright. I’m absolutely positive that Nadal, the Islamic Fort Hood assassin, would never have brought his gun onto the military base if there was a rule against carrying your gun onto the military base, aren’t you?
Apparently the Gates report DOES NOT CONTAIN ONE SINGLE MENTION OF THE ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY BEING A THREAT – TOTAL SILENCE ON THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS AND OTHER SIMILAR INCIDENTS AND THOSE TO COME! Yes, I’m shouting! It is frustrating to see our military leaders so unresponsive, so benign, so clueless. Their political correctness and preoccupation with cultural diversity continues – at our peril.
Without his own gun, Nadal would have performed his job of counseling returnees from the Afghan war admirably, you think? Yes, with a heap of hate and subversive Islamic propaganda thrown in. Great for our mission.
Suggestion to oblivious military brass: Get a clue that the ideology practiced by most Muslims, including the “moderates”, predisposes them to abhor the mission of our military if not also resent the US – whether they exhibit these disdains outwardly or not. If certain positions require Muslims, they need to be on a “watch list” and singled out for observation of behaviors, attitudes and actions. Getting on national TV (ABC NEWS) bitching about “discrimination” is one of those behaviors that should raise a red flag as undermining the mission of our military.
This is pathetic.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The ideology most in vogue in the US today is moral relativism – the belief that no morality or value system is absolute or superior to another. Every discussion I enter into with my several liberal friends ends with their claim that nobody can know the truth or have the answers – that our sense of right and wrong should never be used to judge another person or group. And they throw the grossly misinterpreted Christian principle “do not judge” in our face to “prove” their point. We are being told not to exercise discretion or discernment or else we will appear “bigoted”, “racist”, or “unfair.”
Not only are religious denominations banned from public places and pubic discourse, but moral principles as basic and universal as the Ten Commandments are being banned. There is nothing that can be agreed on as “the truth” anymore. Every opinion, however outrageous or destructive, is required to be respected. Our nation has been thought of as “great”, a shining beacon on a hill, but the moral relativists and revisionists are declaring that we have been less than great or that our days of greatness as a nation are over.
“Moral relativism” explains a whole host of our national and political problems.
Moral relativism explains the “blame America first” mentality of liberals. It enables them to discard the moral basis for our nations greatness and declare America “evil” while embracing foreign ideologies that we’ve fought wars against.
Moral relativism explains why Islam is defended and protected in this country. Islamic defenders consider an ideology that disrespects and mutilates women, that kills gays, that is intolerant of those of other faiths, that is anti-Semitic, that wishes to impose a fascist legal system on themselves and others and which promotes terror around the world to be of equal worth to the prevailing value system of our own nation.
Moral relativism explains why Obama was elected and why he does what he does. The electorate voted for a hope that lies in the dependency on government to do things for them that they should be making an effort to do for themselves. And a President who values Islamic, Communist, and Socialist principles more than the founding principles of our nation.
Moral relativism explains the decline in the effectiveness of our schools and the dumbing down of our children. Discipline is out the window. Many parents no longer feel a moral obligation to raise their own children. Leave it to the government.
Moral relativism explains why 47% of our citizens don’t pay taxes. They feel no moral obligation to be productive individuals. They instead rationalize why they should accept government handouts.
Moral relativism explains why Presidents freely lie to further their amoral agenda and why authors distort the facts to sell books.
We could argue political philosophy and governmental policies on taxation, the economy, health care, and national defense all day. But without acknowledging and addressing the disease of moral relativism, these other discussions will be pointless.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Another Air Marshal on a United Airlines DC to Denver flight did his job. 99% of us will say “job well done” and “thank you.” But probably not Obama.
If it was “mere sarcastic jesting”, I predict Barack“kiss-the-butt-of-Muslims” Hussein Obama will chasten and intimidate the entire Air Marshal staff for “over-reacting.” It will be another shoot-from–the-hip Cambridge Police-esque loose lip Obama blunder. He may even order the Attorney General to file charges against the Air Marshal for assault and battery and committing a “hate crime” along with racial profiling.
The fact the dimwit was joking is beside the point. At best, we have a wise ass Qatari diplomat, Mohammed al Modadi, with full immunity provoking our airline security apparatus by illegally smoking in the john and then jesting to the Air Marshal that he’s trying to light his shoes on fire. His actions were indications of the worst case: Attempting to blow up the plane. In any event, he was an arrogant and stupid bas-ard. I love name-calling when it really fits. More on the story HERE. It doesn’t help his case that he went to Denver to visit a jailed Al Qaeda operative. Why wouldn’t his visit be called “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” – the crime of treason*? Oh wait, Obama does the same thing.
As it turns out, we apparently allow Islamic diplomats to visit Islamic terror convicts all the time. No wonder they communicate so well. They don’t even need cell phones, oh, except to trigger the explosives.
Another probability: Mohammad was testing airline security under the protection of diplomatic immunity.
Don’t forget what Obama (or Ayers) wrote in his Audacity book: If things turn ugly, he will stand with the Muslim immigrants. That’s like saying “to hell with the rest of you Americans. I will defend Muslims and the Islamic religion if things turn ugly. I don’t care who creates the ugliness.”
That’s just what we have to expect from this unfortunate-for-the-US Muslim-inspired president.
*Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
…the Supreme Court of the United States established that for a prosecutor to take an "aid and comfort" treason indictment to a jury he must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an overt act, (2) testified to by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from the overt act itself), (4) the act providing aid and comfort to the enemy. More…
From the Denver Post: “Maybe he slipped by while the TSA was busy with this important task…”
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14840644#ixzz0kTebXai2
Another kiss on the cheek and deep bow to Islamic nations:
CBS News reports: President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.
So, the Obama administration refuses to “view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”, hmmm? Because the ideological source of the hundreds of terror attacks per week does not wear a Nazi uniform or an Attila-the-Hun hat and cannot be precisely pointed out by Grandma, we will play blind and stupid with our verbiage. Not bright.
No, no, no. That is not the reason for failing to identify the world-wide ideology of Islam as the root of terror. The reason is the regrettable merging of Obama’s affinity for Islam with the cultural diversity-loving liberal agenda of our current crop of hallucinating pot-smoking ex-hippie leaders. Obama has demonstrated his defense and promotion of Islam in numerous speeches and writings, both here and in the many Islamic nations he visited.
What verbiage would he wish to substitute for “Islamic radicalism”, “Islamic Jihad”, and “war on terror?” Might he resort to terms such as “devout behavior”, “inner struggle”, or “exercise in international relations?” Will those phrases be sufficiently bland for our Islam-pandering president?
Here are the words we should be using to identify what we are up against:
- Islamic-inspired fascism
- Islamic-inspired terror
- Islamic-motivated violence
- Islamic-motivated intolerance
- Islamic supremacism
- Islamic anti-Semitism
- War on Islamic terror
- Refer to Islam as an “intolerant, fascist ideology”, not a “religion”
These words and phrases concisely define what the west is up against much better than the vague, misdirecting verbiage Obama is hiding behind.
Even the words “Islamic Radicalism” are inadequate. What inspires the radicalism? Which of the worlds’ religious ideologies inspire at least 10% of their adherents to directly support or commit acts of terror, with most of the rest applauding the result? Is it the Hindus? The Buddhists? The Christians? The Jews? Even the atheists? NO! It is the Islamic ideology that inspires 120 million from their 1.2 billion to wage their terror against the infidel. And worse, the majority if not nearly all Muslims support the intolerant fascist outcome of intended Islamic dominance.
We need to clearly identify the ideological inspiration for the radicalism: Islam.
Our president denies we are at war. So it follows that he ignores the only way to win a war: Know thy enemy! 9-11 with the applauding Islamic masses apparently wasn’t an adequate introduction. And our Islam-inspired President is doing his damndest to assure the real enemy remains unknown.
Monday, April 05, 2010
…even for defensive purposes. What an ass. Here is the entire NY Times article.
I don’t have much more to say about this statement. Except:
Our President has announced to the world the conditions under which we will NOT use our nukes even for defensive purposes. Consider the consequences of this public announcement. And here is Atlas Shrugs comment.
My analogy: The perverted mutha dressing up her 14 year old to look like a hooker and sending her onto the streets of Tehran. No defense. The perfect target.
Does this make YOU feel safer?
This man needs to be impeached and replaced.