Thursday, April 28, 2011

Racism in America…

Here is food for thought about “racism in America” that is worth passing on.

Have you wondered why Whites are racists, and no other race is?  Michael Richards makes his point...and whether we like it or not, he is telling the truth. Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.

This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points. Here goes – with some slight embellishment from yours truly:

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans.. You pass me on  the street and sneer in my direction.

You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... And that's OK...

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you....

So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.

You have Black History Month.

You have Cesar Chavez Day.

You have Yom Hashoah.

You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

You have the NAACP.

You have BET....

If we had WET  (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.

If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd  be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..

Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.

If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

President Obama can spend 20 years in a church that promotes blacks and condemns whites.

But if whites had a church that promoted whites and condemned blacks, it would lose its tax exempt status and be sued by the Justice Department.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.

But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us.

But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

Via “multiculturalism”, every minority is urged to be proud – except whites.  When whites act “proud” or have an organization that promotes “white pride” they are called “racists.”

Based on demographic trends in America, whites will soon be a minority – just in time for affirmative action to be repealed.

I can’t wait for a conservative Black presidential candidate, like Alan West, to make the scene.  You will see the concept of “racism” turned on its ear by both Black and White liberals.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Hitler upset with Ann Barnhardt…

Obama, err, Hitler chastising his czars.

Watch this.  Substitute modern characters as follows:

Hitler = Obama

Hitler’s staff = Obama’s radical advisors (except the woman who started the email forwardsSmile )

Muslim Passover message? Obama out of his mind!

Obama is out of his freakin’ Islam-lovin’ mind.  Do the Islamic nation uprisings really carry the message of Passover?  Read this astonishing statement by our grasping President:

“The story of Passover…instructs each generation to remember its past, while appreciating the beauty of freedom and the responsibility it entails. This year that ancient instruction is reflected in the daily headlines as we see modern stories of social transformation and liberation unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Islamic nations becoming dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, becoming more Islamic and becoming more controlled by Sharia law and that Great Deceiver equates that with the story of the Passover?

You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding!  Arrggghhh.

Read the whole sordid story HERE.

Friday, April 15, 2011

DOJ Source: CAIR “ideological allies” with WH

You heard that the indictments of radical Muslims in the US by the Department of Justice (DOJ) were “scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House.”

But the really bad news is that DOJ insiders warn that there is an ideological alliance of the Obama White House with the Council on American-Islamic Relations:

To say things are different under Obama and Holder would be an understatement. Many of the people I work with at Justice now see CAIR not just as political allies, but ideological allies. They believe they are fighting the same revolution. It’s scary. And Congress and the American people need to know this is going on.

This is not good, but not surprising.  We should hope and pray that concerned DOJ folks out their corrupt bosses, all the way up to the White House, for their enabling Islamic sedition.

Read the whole story from Pajamas Media HERE.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

US Policy: Respect the “Holy” Qur’an; burn Bibles

The video below demonstrates how far the US has gone to hell toward Sharia.  It includes snippets of our corrupt leaders demanding respect for Islam and the Qur’an, while requiring the burning of Bibles so as not to offend Muslims.  We are ordered not to burn the Qur’an because Muslims might go on a killing spree.  At the same time we require the burning of the Bible so Muslims will not go on a killing spree.

Do you notice any problem in any of this?

For God’s sake, quit calling that piece of Satanic trash “The Holy Qur’an!”

Is silence so golden?

Listen carefully to “Silence is Golden” in the YouTube video below.  The storyline is about a guy’s still-loved ex-girlfriend who is being abused and deceived by a cad.  Should he speak up and warn her about her abuser – or is silence golden?

Think of this song on a national level.

Now switch gears and think of this song on the national level.  The “guy” is the majority of Americans who believe “Silence is Golden.”  The “still loved ex-girlfriend” is our nation, the way we remember it: pure, full of hope and promise of a better life.  Who is the abusing, deceiving cad?  Think:  Obama, radicals surrounding him, and Islam.  We know things are not right, the nation is being screwed by a cad, and we remain silent. 

don't it hurt deep inside
To see someone do something to her
don't it pain to see someone cry
Oh, especially when someone is her.
Silence is golden...
but my eyes still see.
Silence is golden, golden.
But my eyes still see.
Talkin' is cheap
People follow like sheep.
Even tho' there is nowhere to go
How could she tell, he deceived her so well
Pity she'll be the last one to know.
Silence is golden ...
but my eyes still see
Silence is golden, golden,
but my eyes still see
How many times did she fall for his line?
Should I tell her or should I keep cool
and if I tried I know she'll say I lied
Mind your business
don't hurt her you fool.
Silence is golden...
but my eyes' still see.
Silence is golden,
But my eyes' still see.
But my eyes' still see.
But my eyes' still see.

The “follow like sheep” and “How could she tell, he deceived her so well, pity she'll be the last one to know” lines really got to me. Sad smile


BTW, this “mature” Frankie Valle and the Four Seasons version caputures the essence of the song really well.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Romney’s starting to lose me…

Over the past two years I have been hoping that Mitt Romney stays strong.  We need a business-savvy President to replace the manipulated, in-over-his-head apprentice in the White House.  And Romney looked promising.

But to my increasingly-disgusted-about-the way-things-are going-in-Washington way of thinking, Mitt does not have the fire.  And the “fire” comes from a sense of urgency about how poorly things in Washington are going: with the budget, with the spending, with the deficit, and with the truth.  He doesn’t seem sufficiently fired up to motivate the electorate or Congress.

The pudding on the mashed potatoes came with Romney’s recent arbitrary declaration that Obama is eligible to be president.  This comes despite that lack of a birth certificate, the doubts of 40% of the US population that Obama is a US citizen, and the fact of millions having been spent to keep his early years records sealed.

Romney’s less than inspiring announcement of “exploratory committee.”

And who, really, was impressed with Romney’s recent performance in announcing his “exploratory committee?”  I certainly was not.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, does exhibit the fire – a palpable outrage about not only the state of the union, but also the gross absence of candor relating to Obama’s birth and eligibility to be our president.  Trump mirrors an outrage felt by a growing number of Americans.  And his portrayal has gained traction among Republicans.

Yes, there is a lot more to learn about Trump’s sincerity, substance, and conservatism.  And God help us if he runs as an independent, because we will witness another Ross Perot moment that elected Clinton.

But for now, he has energized the right and presents a promising option, who, compared to Romney, demonstrates a motivational connection with the American people.

UPDATE 4/15/11:  But with BS like this from Trump ya’ gotta wonder about his sincerity (from NY1):

While he had harsh words for the outgoing president, he had a much different opinion of President-elect Barack Obama.

"I think he has a chance to go down as a great president. Now, if he's not a great president, this country is in serious trouble," said Trump.

"I think [Obama's] going to lead through consensus," continued Trump. "It's not going to be just a bull run like Bush did. He just did whatever the hell he wanted. He'd go into a country, attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center and just do it because he wanted to do it."

Arrrgh!!  From this statement would you guess Trump is:

  • Creating a “set-up” to knock him down, e.g. “…he has a chance…”
  • Wishful-thinking about Obama
  • Waffling about Obama
  • Really ignorant about what is going on with Obama
  • Liking Obama
  • Acting like a typical politician that we don’t need.

Moderate Evil

During World War II there were Nazi’s who were not in uniform or not even in the Axis military, but who were infiltrating and subverting our government and war effort nonetheless.  Were they referred to as “moderate” Nazis by our government and media?  Were they protected from Americans who wanted to speak out against them with mocking or insulting comments?  Were the mild-mannered, “good neighbor” Nazis considered as harmless as the Presbyterians next door?

How our sense of identifying and fighting an enemy has been degraded today by comparison.

Why are those who speak out similarly against the Islamic threat today marginalized as Islamophobes?  Were there “Naziphobes” back then?

How about the wife beater who is not currently beating his wife but believes that is appropriate behavior?  Is he a “moderate” wife beater?

Is there such a thing as “moderate evil?”  Or for those of you who believe the concept of evil is excessively “black and white”, is there such a thing as a “moderate” version of an ideology that considers itself superior to all others while asserting intolerance, promoting intimidating terror, is psychotically reactionary, and requires submission to it under penalty of death?

The answer to all of the above is clearly “NO.”  Yet we have our politicians, most media, and most of academia claiming there is a “moderate” Islam.  That belief is insanely out of touch with reality.  It is incomprehensible to me that an individual can continue to claim to be Islamic if he is at all familiar with the life of Muhammad or the content if Islamic texts.

There is no such thing as “moderate Islam.”  There are Muslims who appear moderate.  The cause of that moderate appearance is either because they are ignorant of the teachings of their faith, they arbitrarily and irrationally dismiss major components of their faith, or they are  practicing “taqiyya”, the Islamic practice of lying or being deceitful to defend their faith until they gain enough critical Muslim mass to effectively exert their requirement of submission.

We need to stop falling for the deception of a “moderate Islam.”

Friday, April 08, 2011

What Islamists have in common with Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Progressives and Communists…

Curious about the characteristics held in common between Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Islamists, I prepared the table shown below as an analytical tool.

Across the top I listed several of the most important characteristics that may or may not be common denominators between the various political groups.  These included the demographic characteristics of age and growth rate of adherent populations, income and relative wealth, level of education and issue awareness, race, and religion.

Down the left column I listed the most well known political entities in the United States.  These entities include Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Islamists, Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Independents.

In each block corresponding with the characteristic in the column heading and political entity in the row heading, I described that group in the context of that characteristic.  For example, Islamists have a high growth rate in the US comprised of younger adherents.

I then highlighted the boxes with two outline patterns.  One pattern for what the Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, Islamist, and Communists hold in common, and a different pattern for what the Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers hold in common.

Here are the patterns revealed by this analysis:

  • For Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, Islamists, and Communists:
    • Age:  Democrats, Liberals, Islamists, and Communists are of a generally younger age
    • Growth rate: the population of Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, and Islamists are growing at a fast rate.
    • The income of most of these groups tend to range from poverty level to middle income, except for the elites, whose incomes tend to be upper middle and upper.
    • The education level of most of the “followers” tends to be high school level or less.  The leaders tend to be college graduates.
    • The level of awareness of the issues of most tends to be low to clueless.  Liberals and Democrats especially tend to purposely isolate themselves from knowledge of current events and tend to get their information from popular, almost exclusively liberal media.  The leadership of declared Progressives, Socialists, Islamists tend to be immersed in the issues of greatest interest to the cause.
    • The predominant racial makeup appears to be a combination of Hispanic, black, and middle eastern, with western European whites becoming a minority.
    • The predominant religions are comprised of liberal Christian, agnostic/atheist, liberal Jew, and Islamic.
  • For Republican, Conservatives and Tea Partiers:
    • Population is generally older
    • The growth rate, especially for Republicans is mostly stagnant.  The exceptions are Conservatives and Tea Partiers, whose growth in numbers have increased based on current events.
    • Income levels are generally middle and upper.  However, Tea Party incomes appear to be across the board.
    • Education appears most to be high school and college graduates
    • Level of awareness is moderate for Republicans, higher for Conservatives, and fully engaged among most Tea Partiers.
    • Race tends to be comprised mostly of white 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation US citizens from western Europe, and Asian, with a small minority of blacks, especially among Conservatives and Tea Party members.
    • Religion tends to be devout Christian, devout Jew, with smaller proportions of liberal Christians and Jews, and atheists/agnostics.

The megatrends revealed in this analysis tell us these things:

  • The Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, and Islamists share more in common with one another than Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers share among themselves.  That is, they are more likely to be united in common cause.
  • The Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, and Islamist alliance is younger and growing at a faster rate that the Republican, Conservative, Tea Party alliance.  Being younger they will have more energy and be buoyed by their numbers.
  • The Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, and Islamist alliance is more poorly educated than the Republican, Conservative, Tea Party alliance, and are more easily led around by the small minority of their leadership who are significantly more educated.  These masses are more likely to act ignorantly and reactionary.  They are more likely to be violent in their ignorance.
  • The great majority of universities, especially public ones, are churning out members of the Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, and Islamist alliance much faster than universities churn out Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers.  Their influence is likely to grow further.
  • Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers represent the founding principles of this nation while the others abhor and discount those principles as generally evil and failed.  There is likely to be a point where one group says, “no more”, and the “other says here we come.”  Actually we are in the process of seeing this now.

If there is such a thing as a “perfect storm” of ideological conflict, this analysis demonstrates the characteristics of the perfect storm that is brewing.


Remember when the left called him “BetrayUs”?

Remember when General David Petraeus was mocked by the left a year or so ago with the label of General BetrayUs?  Remember how the rest of us were so upset with that slanderous, un-American name calling?

Here is the good General today:

That is not a Photoshopped image.  It is the General himself being one of the “boys” of Islam.  This is no surprise since he is of the same mind as dhimmi Lindsey Graham in condemning our freedom of speech back home.  No, boys and girls, do not insult Islam, the “religion of peace.”  Respect those who become serial murderers because of the offense of a book burning or cartoon drawing, or for remaining non-Muslim, or for being born.

How would General Patton have dressed up for this schmoozing event?  Oh, I forgot.  This is not a war.  It is an overseas contingency opeation.  Patton was a soldier, not a stooge of an ideology that wants to destroy America – not an Islamist butt kisser.

Read Diana West’s take on our good General HERE.

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Truth and Courage about Islam: Ann Barnhardt

Plain speaking, bold and truthful, saying and doing what millions of Americans are just thinking – Ann Barnhardt.  She is one courageous lady.

The following videos were snatched from Bill Warner’s website, “Political Islam” a bold, truthful, and informative site revealing the true nature of Islam.  Ann’s videos, below, are right up there with Col. Alan West’s, and beyond.

Barnhardt skewering Senator Graham on his ignorance about Islam’s fascist manifesto…

Here are the ill-informed “jackass” comments made by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in reaction to Terry Jones Qur’an burning that are taken apart, line by line, by Ann in the above YouTube video.

I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Koran is a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder. Having said that, anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we should do it, and I look forward to working with Senators Kerry, and Reid, and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based on the name  of religion. But General Petreaus understand better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country and he was right to condemn it and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petreasus said.”

My favorite among Graham’s misguided statements is “During WWII, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”  Senator Graham, you jackass, we had all sorts of public service messages mocking and belittling Nazi Germany, Hitler, and his ideology.  Those messages were rewarded and appreciated by Americans, not condemned and ridiculed! And you want us to be quiet, and accept and respect fascist Islam and its manifesto, the Qur’an, the book that inspires the enemy and the evil he perpetrates?  Discrediting, even destroying, the book that inspires the enemy must not have limits.  If we applied your version of limits to our speech and expression to our speech and expression during WWII, we would have lost the war.   Conversely, if your version of limits to free speech was expressed by our leaders during WWII, they would have been charged and convicted of treason.  Senator Graham, you have your priorities backwards.

The video below is Ann’s coup de grace.  If only Terry Jones and our so-called political leaders could express themselves as well.  Here Ann puts the Qur’an where it belongs.  This is absolutely the correct action for a civilized society to take in defense of our own culture in the face of great evil that our politicians are demanding we condone.

Barhardt demonstrating the evil written in most of the Qur’an, and where the evil belongs.

Here is Bill Warner’s introduction to these videos:

Burning Korans

April 6, 2011

There is a link to a two-part You Tube video that features Ann Barnhardt and her comments about the recent Koran burning by Pastor Terry Jones in Florida. It is so unique that you need to watch.

Freedom of speech is a vanishing concept ever since the invention of political correctness and multiculturalism by the elites of the West. The original concept of free speech was that an individual could express any political idea. Today free speech means that you can express an idea as long as it does not offend a minority. The super minority is Islam, since out of all minorities, Islam is the "most equal". In short, your speech can be free as long as it does not offend Islam.

The right not to be offended is now the biggest part of the First Amendment, so it would seem. Free speech? No so fast, is anyone offended? Then you cannot say that. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? Well, Islam is fast becoming the protected religion in America. Freedom of press? Sure, as long as Islam is not offended.
Ann Barnhardt offends Islam and Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator.

First, she first attacks the near enemy, the apologists—a la Senator Graham, and then she attacks the far enemy, Islam. She shows us true courage by being a full-throated, uncensored, unvarnished critic of everything that the media, universities, and government have sugar-coated about Islam.
Her strategy on Koran burning is that she burns its ideas, one at a time as she explains them. Offensive? Well, that depends on what offends you. If truth offends, then, yes, it is offensive.

But the nature of political correctness is that truth is forbidden if it offends. Raw truth frequently offends, so get used to it.
Watch Ann Barnhardt if you can take the truth at full blast, no holds barred.

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Why do we need Al-Jazeera when our media already speaks for Islam?

Here is a must see video where Pamela Geller correctly identifies Al-Jazeera as the public relations and marketing arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and its deceit – the mouthpiece of the Islamic world.  And our government and media are inviting it to America when it should be banned as a subversive organization just as Joseph Goebbels would have been during WWII.

Pamela Geller of describing dangers of Al-Jazeera in America

I would argue that Al-Jazeera joining the ranks of AP, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and sometimes Fox would make little difference in what we hear about Islam.  Our own national networks and news services, generals, and many of our politicians are so smitten with Islam – or loath to tell the truth for fear of reprisal or being called a bigot or Islamophobe -  that they repeat, verbatim, the Islamic propaganda lies that are fed to them by Islamists they mistakenly label as “moderates.”

Here are two examples as brought to our attention by Diana West, author of The Death of the Grownup, from her blog site.

The first example describes General David Petraues in Afghanistan begging us in America to respect Islam’s “Holy Qur’an.”  That book is as “holy” as a pile of sludge in the bottom of a septic tank – and no – I will not respect it for dozens of reasons I have explained elsewhere.  How dare one of our military leaders call a book “holy” that condemns Christianity, Judaism and “unbelievers” to death and serves as the instruction manual for psychotic Muslims the world over.  In a sane world that man would be court martialed for promoting the propaganda of the enemy.  But it is OK in Obama’s world.

The second example describes the idiocy of the New York Times, not much different than most US news outlets, in posting a headline that reads "Afghans Avenge Koran Burning, Killing 12" as if burning a book is a worthy excuse for massacring 12 innocent people.  But of course, the Muslim “Holy” Qur’an teaches that they weren’t really innocent.

Our political correctness and suppression of the truth of Islam is emboldening rabid psychotics whose ideology is based on the Islamic books born out of the of the drug-controlled mind of a 6th century fanatic.  And the mission of Al-Jazeera is to promote that ideology.

The same oppression of free speech was felt by U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, when she proposed “everyone draw Muhammad day.”  Apparently depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden in a few hadiths.  Well folks, those God-forsaken writings do not represent my religion and I am not subject them, and neither is Molly.   Despite that fact, on the advice of the FBI, Molly Norris had to disappear from view for a time because of her proposal.

I understand many of us think it impolite to draw Muhammad or burn a book when such action may be offensive to others.  But when the offense taken becomes asymmetrical and psychotic out of all proportion to sane, civilized behavior, politeness and respect become submission.  And it is not in our interest to submit to such threats and reactionary behavior any more than giving in to the tantrums of a three-year-old.  But three-year-olds don’t behead people when they don’t get their lollipop.  Which makes it even more urgent on the part of us “infidels” not to be enablers of such intimidation.  I am among the  less cowed and more aware who believe it is more appropriate to fully exercise our right to draw Muhammad and burn what we consider to be unholy and seditious literature.  Let the psychotic Islamic ideologues dance themselves into a self-immolating frenzy – and if they must kill to release their hate, they continue to demonstrate their “holy” book – the source of their psychosis - is truly evil and worth burning. 

But how much psychotic behavior do we have to tolerate before we realize what we’re really dealing with and that our submission is suicidal?

It is clear that our leaders and much of our US population believe that the Islamic culture is more worthy of our defense than our own.  More of this thought here at Winds of Jihad by Shiek Yer’ Mami.

Here is an excerpt:

The reason we’re losing this thing is because of a lack of cultural confidence, of which the fetal cringe of this worthless husk out-parodies anything Coward could have concocted. When I’m speaking on this subject, I often get asked to reprise the words I quote in my book, from Gen. Sir Charles Napier in India explaining to the locals his position on suttee — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier was impeccably multicultural:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.