Sunday, August 30, 2015

The 10 New Taboos That Traumatize Our Nation…

Politicians of late have become known for avoiding, dismissing, or being downright hostile toward a number of traditional ideological preferences of Americans.  The disdain toward most of these  preferences has been adopted by many Republicans and even many so-called conservatives.  It’s as if our leaders have ceased being proud of success of our nation – and maybe even consider many of these national characteristics as excessively prideful or mean spirited.

Here is the short list of 10 taboos promoted by the political elite … 

Nationalism. A belief that we must distinguish ourselves as a distinct, successful and proud nation. 

Most of the political elite believe we need to suppress our nationalist tendencies.  That may offend someone, somewhere, somehow.  They tell us it is less important to be a nation and more important to believe we are part of the world.

PatriotismThe outward demonstration of love and celebration of our nation and what it represents. 

To political elites, patriotism is “over the top” and may be incendiary to those not so inclined.  They feel our nation has been too evil to celebrate.  Only radical patriot militias and clueless Tea Partiers do that.

Guns.  Great for self defense.

But many politicians hate guns because they kill.  They don’t distinguish between the gun and the user.  Lawbreakers kill, not guns.  They believe “guns, bad; more control over all citizens, good.”

Border security. Controlled entry based on enforced criteria that allows entry by those who are most likely to benefit our nation, and denies entry to those who are most likely to harm our nation. 

Our political elites hate border security for several reasons.  First, they are in bed with the US Chamber of Commerce, controlled by big business, who want cheaper labor and lower the wage rates across the board.  Democrat elites want the future votes that illegals promise.  Catholics are bribed by the guilt wrought by the Church and its Marxist-inspired Pope to feed and provide for the world, which, by the way, is a faulty doctrine.  Many others are of the faulty belief the most immigrants have strong family values that will strengthen our own culture.  So let them all in – no problem.

Identifying our enemies.  Understanding which nations, ideologies, or groups benefit our national interests and which ones don’t.  Enemies might be nations (Iran, Syria, even Saudi Arabia), drug cartels, street gangs, or a misguided political movement – the Black Lives Matter, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot and the “Occupy movement” come to mind. 

Our leaders, especially the Democrats, have found it impossible to call out these dividers and destroyers, both nationally and domestically.

Facts about Islam.  The fact being that Islam, the religion and ideology, is a threat to the civilized world.

This is a subcategory of “identifying our enemies” but deserves separate treatment.  The vast majority of elites in office, and most candidates, believe that Islam is just another religion.  They insist that Islamic jihadists and Islamic terrorists, either as individuals (“lone wolves”), or as coalitions like ISIS, have anything to do with Islam or, at best, are radical off-shoots of Islam.  Most do not recognize that the orthodox religion of Islam (like Nazism) informs and encourages the vile actions and promises we see Muslims engage in every day.

Defense of ChristianityDefending the right of Christians to practice their religion at home, at church, and at their workplace without fear of violence, litigation or other form of persecution, both in the United States and in other nations.

Our leaders seem oblivious to the plight of Christians in Middle East nations, especially where Islam is advancing.  At home, there is little support for Christians living their faith either as an employee or as a business owner.

Promotion of Morality. Standards of behavior based on traditional Judeo-Christian norms that are believed by many to have been the basis for and prerequisite to making our nation great.

Our elites increasingly distance themselves from this historic association of morality and success as a nation and increasingly promote not just multiculturalism, but multi-morality as well.  Traditional morality is considered bigoted and old fashioned.

Personal responsibility, initiative, perseverance, hard work. These are all personal qualities that  breed personal and national success.  Now these qualities are considered by many to be chains of oppression.  Why should people be required to be personally responsible and work if the government can develop a program for them?  Congress and the President continue to reward citizens and non-citizens alike for not working with government EBT cards, subsidized or free health, free lunches, perpetual unemployment payments, and 1,000 other welfare programs and handouts.  Additional free stuff like “free college education” is being proposed all the time.  What’s next?

Speaking truth boldly, without apologyEven if the truth offends someone. This is the essence of the reason for our First Amendment – freedom of speech.

The political elite have mastered the art of political correctness – described by one sage as the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.  Truth is avoided because it might offend someone.  People are losing jobs over expressing the truth.  Political candidates are ridiculed as buffoons or haters for speaking the truth boldly.


So, there the are, the top ten taboos of the political class.

These taboos have been raging in the Democratic party for many years.  Among Republican candidates and office holders, they have received positive lip service over the last few years.  However, note this:  Lip service only, with no energy or action behind it.  In fact, most Republican candidates and office holders have demonstrated their hostility to most of these ideological values still cherished by most Americans.

This current election cycle has demonstrated this sad and disappointing fact in spades.

Trump provides the best case study.  If you followed his campaign thus far, he has come down on the nation’s and citizens side of every one of these issues.  He either was the first to initiate discussion, or has so far been the only one to highlight the problem.  The result?  A chorus of name calling by the entrenched politicians and media, including so-called “conservatives.”

If you wonder why the proposals by Carson, Cruz, and Trump are not readily endorsed by other candidates and why they haven’t already been carried out by the current Republican office holders, look no further than their disdain toward many of these values still held true and dear by the average Joe on the street.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Conservatives in Name Only (CINOs) Against Trump…

En Masse.

Conservatives in name only (CINO), aka “C-no evil” are coming out of the woodwork.


I monitor a number of news outlets, most of them conservative.  The Weekly Standard, FOX, National Review, all have their political commentators.  It seems that a good number of those commentators have it in for Trump.

I don’t know all their names, but here are a few among the better known working for conservative news outlets I used to respect:

This is just a sampling of the names who believe Trump is barely fit for dog catcher, never mind President of the United States.

What are their reasons.  You can’t fault Trump for any of following:

  • He has been a huge success in business
  • He knows how to negotiate
  • He raised a great family
  • His thousands of employees have had nothing bad to say; most praise him as an employer
  • He has been leading a very successful campaign so far
  • His positions check off the majority of conservative issues
  • He has been an effective and highly motivated speaker and campaigner
  • He has demonstrated excellent leadership qualities

So why the great slander attacks against Trump.

Most of it, I believe, has to do with Trump’s strong “can do” position on immigration.  They C-no evil in our current open borders.  It benefits their constituencies and financial interests.  There is depressing (to me) evidence that more conservatives than most of us realized have bought into the mainstream open borders policy – the policy that erases the distinction between Democrats and Republicans – the policy that says “no can do”; more correctly, their position of “no want to do” regarding immigration enforcement.


If ever there was a “coming out” of true attitudes toward strong borders and controlled immigration, Trump revealed the insidious devils among these CINOs.

Of course, there is also a fear, jealousy, suspicion, disdain for anyone as confident of himself as Trump is.  Call it “ego.”  Call it “drive.”  Whatever.  But many people feel intimidated by it.

But all in all, there is a fear that Trump will effectively control immigration.  There are many more CINOs than I ever imagined who are NOT with the American people on this issue.  There are many more CINOs than I ever imagined who will be whining if one Mexican baby is sent back to Mexico with its parents.  Be ready for it.

This, for me, answers the question in stark relief:  Why have our elected majority Republicans – our great hope for our future - failed to be effective in Congress and against an out of control president? 

The answer:  They are full of crap.  Liars.  Deceivers.  They outdo Islamists in their mastery of deceit.  And that is saying something.

Just to be fair, there are a number of conservative news outlets that have either remained neutral or who have written positive articles about Trump.  Here are a few…

There are others.  But the shocker for me is the number of CINO outlets and CINO commentators that stand with FOX News, the Republican annointeds, and the Democrats in wanting to destroy Trump’s candidacy.

Speaking of Breitbart, HERE is a great article on “low information” callers phoning in on Breitbart News radio on Saturday.


Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Well, then, I guess I’m a “Nativist”…

What is a nativist?

Definition 1:  Those who wish to protect the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants; supporters of the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.  Those who support the political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants.

Definition 2:  What many Republicans and quite a few on the right are accusing Trump and his supporters of being.

Interestingly, I looked up antonyms for “nativist” on the web site  And there were none.

So I will make up one.  Here it is:

Definition of anti-nativist:  One who believes in open borders rather than controlled borders, believes in the law of the jungle rather than the law of the land, prefers the uncontrolled infiltration of foreign cultures and languages at the expense of their own, and promotes spending our deficit dollars on supporting those disrespecting our laws and culture.

Dang, the American Indians were nativists, and we are self-flagellating over what we’ve done to them.

Image result for nativist political cartoons

Do you find it odd, as I do, that many on the right, (it’s a given that those on the left agree), but many on the right dislike Trump for his blatant nativism.  HORRORS!  A candidate who is a nativist.  A candidate who wants to maintain the rights and privileges of citizens over those who enter the country illegally to suck out our resources.

I didn’t know that “conservatives” could be split over a variety of issues any more than they have been: fiscal vs. cultural; serious vs. unserious; talkers vs. doers, politicians vs. those that really want to do something, etc.  Now we have conservatives being accused of being, uggghhh, nativist, shhh.

And OMG, Trump is not being nice about it.

And I say, it is about damned time someone spoke up!


Diana West has an interesting column on this topic HERE.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Trumps Immigration Policies Personified… and the value of “not nice”

A wonderful thing happened during a Trump press conference in Iowa tonight.   The sequence of events during the question and answer period were amazing and very instructive of what Trump’s immigration policy will be like.

Here is the sequence of events.


Trump was introduced.  He walked onto the stage.  As soon as he took the mike, Jorge Ramos, the news anchor for Mexican and pro-illegal immigration Univision, stood up and began to filibuster the news conference – lecturing, not asking questions.  Trump repeatedly asked that he not speak until he’s called upon.  Ramos kept shouting his questions – more like a speech or rant.  Trump asked him to sit down and wait till he’s called.  Ramos would not relent.   Trump looked over to his left toward security, gave them the nod.  Security came across the room toward Ramos, and escorted him out – all the time Ramos continuing with his rant. 

After Ramos was escorted out of the room Trump said if he behaves, he can come back in.

HERE is the link to the full press conference.

Now here’s the neat part – the event that gives us a preview of Trump’s immigration policy.

20 minutes later, near the end of the presser, Ramos returned to his seat at the front of the room.  Trump recognized him and invited him to ask his questions.  There were 3 or 4 back and forths with Ramos questions, with Trump doing his characteristic “excuse me” several times.  Trump maintained control of the exchange throughout.

Here is the analogy of this exchange with our needed immigration policy which is so great:

The Mexican who promotes illegal immigration personifies the illegal alien.  He comes in and begins to try to take over the agenda of the event not following the rules – forcing his free air time to promote his agenda (substitute “illegal alien taking jobs and social services from Americans”).  Trump proclaims he is out of order – this is not his venue (substitute “country”).  Ramos, the usurper, is escorted out of the room (substitute “deported”).

When Trump is ready (substitute “selective, legal process”) Ramos, the repentant usurper (“illegal alien”), is allowed back into the room (“country”) in a more controlled environment (“legal immigration”).  He is then allowed to speak (following the rules).  Trump controls the discourse and then proclaims that he and Ramos will have many conversations over the coming years (unstated but understood, “while I am president.”)

Many RINO’s and others who see only managed snippets of this event or who don’t give a crap will suggest that Trump was “not nice.”  Funny thing.  Every one of the CNN commentators of the event – CNN mind you – saw Ramos as the offender and Trump the benefactor of this confrontation.

What we may initially perceive as “not nice”, possibly even believing it may make a candidate “unelectable”, in this case turned out as a necessary and positive event for candidate Trump.  I would not be at all surprised if Trump’s battle with FOX, Roger Ailes and Meghn Kelly continues to turn to Trump’s advantage.

We have become so accustomed to “nice” that we have lost all sense of what is worth defending and fighting for.  We have become “nice” to every perverse and evil behavior and to every nation we deal with.  The outcome is a United States in a rapid moral, fiscal, and military decline.  That strategy is not working.  A reversal of the “nice” strategy to a more serious, committed and forceful mode is a deep and growing hunger in the heart of many Americans.  Trump’s strategy satisfies that hunger.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Why the Republican Party Wants to Destroy Trump…

And why they will fail.


Do you get the sense, like I do, that the Republican Party is not happy with Donald Trump?  Not only not happy, but would actually like to destroy his candidacy.  I could link to a few dozen examples of this effort by The Party from just the last week, but I’ll spare the bandwidth and your time.  You already know.

Here are six reasons why The Party wants to destroy Donald Trump…

Immigration:  The Party luvvsss immigration, both legal and illegal.  The Party is arm and arm with the US Chamber of Commerce in ignoring our existing immigration laws so more cheap labor can enter the country.  That is their Job #1.  Neither The Party nor The Chamber cares that immigrants, both legal and illegal, take jobs away from US citizens, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian.  They don’t care that wage rates have become stagnant or declined – in fact this is their objective.

Trump is in their way.  He will be called all sorts of names to derail his immigration promises.  He is the only candidate not making excuses.  He initiated the call to arms regarding illegal immigration and he makes no bones about following through.  The Party hates it because The Party profits from the status quo.  Booo Hisss Party!

Build a wall:  The Party says a wall is evil.  It gives a bad impression.  Is mean spirited.  Is too costly.  Won’t work.  Gee, I wonder why they say this?  Could it be because The Party wants most of all to perpetuate illegal immigration? Nah.  And along comes this guy who is best known for building things, vertical things like walls, saying it’s a piece of cake.  And gosh, this guy isn’t as dumb as The Party would like to make him out to be.  Trump actually realizes that not just a wall, but triple the Border Patrol, electronic surveillance, and other monitoring measures are also necessary.  The Party hates this.  They prefer the status quo.  Boo Hiss Party!

Deportation of “babies”: The Party is aghast at the thought of throwing out the babies with the bath water.  The Honorable Judge Napolitano, the darling of anti-Trump FOX News, has decreed that the 14th amendment gives “anchor babies” automatic US citizenship.  Trumps platoon of attorneys disagree.  They and others point to the portion of the 14th that was omitted by His Honor – just a convenient oversight.

Napolitano version:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The actual version:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Did anyone catch the subtle difference?  If the parents entered illegally, neither they nor the child was subject to the jurisdiction, i.e. the state or federal government.  The Party would rather their interpretation, omitting “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, be the correct one so they can lean on it as an excuse to assure more job-sucking cheap labor for the future.  And I thought Democrats reasons for open borders to get more Democrat voters was sinister.

Here’s a tidbit worth digesting:

Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884):

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized ..."

Trump would rather try and fail.  And he has Constitutional support.  The Party would rather not try at all.  They prefer the status quo.  Boo Hiss Party!

No filter; not “nice”:  Here’s my favorite:  The Party luvvvsss political correctness.  Anyone that does not parse words a la Bill Clinton’s “is is” is not a “real” politician.  On the other hand, I’m not sure Trump even knows how to be politically correct. He’s not “nice.” He actually says what most of us are thinking.  He is a great leader.  He actually prefers the truth.  What a concept!

Not totally faithful to The Party:  Here’s my favorite (can I have two?):  The Party is a machine.  It is as dictatorial and self-serving as a Detroit union and bundled cable channels combined.  Trump doesn’t need the party AND he knows how to negotiate; two big advantages over all other Party candidates.  This really tics off The Party.  Roger That!

Spoiling “the arrangement”:  Most of us get the impression that Jeb Bush was “the chosen”, the party’s “golden boy.”  He is as much the Republican Party man as Hilliary is the Democrat Party girl – yuck, that didn’t come out right.  But Trump is spoiling the arrangement.  Oh well.

Not a politician:  OMG, Trump is not a politician.  He has no political experience.  The sky is falling.  Where is Chicken Little when we need him?  Colonel Sanders, Chick-fil-a, PDQ?  Fortunately for the people in this country who give a darn for the country, Trump is NOT a politician.  He’s a business man; a graduate of The Wharton School of Business.  Would Trump and Carson make a great ticket or what?! 

Here’s a bonus 7th reason:  Trump is not really conservative:  Well now, do we have some Republican RINO Kettle’s calling the Trump Pot Black?  Here’s what’s going on.  Trump is anything but politically correct.  He is aggressively and successfully saying what is on his mind, in spite of the consequences such frank talk usually causes.  He doesn’t care.  That translates in the mind of the average dude on the street as straight talk.  That perception of “straight talk” translates into believability that he is what he says he is:  a conservative.  Juxtapose this against the deceptive declarations and broken promises of Republicans as recently as the 2012 election and the outcome in Congress, and Trump comes across as Mother Teresa compared to el Diablo.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

It IS About Islam: The strengths and weaknesses of Beck’s latest book

This new Beck book, published August 18, 2015, is an indication of the evolution of Glenn Beck on Islam.  He’s not quite to full bloom “getting it”, but he’s a lot closer.  Several years ago Beck was more on the side of” radicals” and “terrorists” being an aberration of Islam – that most followers of Islam, Muslims, are good, decent people.  No reason not to trust them.

Now his new book paints a different picture, at least of Islam, if not of Muslims.

Beck invokes the lessons about Islam learned by Thomas Jefferson.  Sure, Jefferson owned a Qur’an which gave him a theoretical introduction to Islam.  The Marines Hymn’s reference to the halls of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli are Jefferson’s “trial by fire” introduction to the reality of Islam as practiced in real, ugly, deadly life.

This time around, Beck portrays Islam as the religion, the ideology, that promotes terror and intolerance.  But his listing of the lies promoted by Islam’s defenders fall short in several areas.  These include, most notably, the Islamic cultural practice if not beloved doctrine of taqiyya (dissimulation, lying, and deceit),  the doctrine of abrogation, cultural pressures in the Islamic communities, the continuing use of the term “radical” as a habitual and mindless modifier of “Islam”, and the reformability of Islam.  These omissions are discussed in greater detail a bit later in this overview.

But first, here are the best parts of the book, the chapters that will benefit the politically correct, brainwashed masses the most.  Beck presents these topics as a series of lies about Islam.  He devotes 4 to 8 pages to each one.  But here is the abbreviated version of each:

Lie #1: “Islam is a religion of peace, and Islamic terrorists aren’t really Muslims.”

George Bush, the Popes, and especially Barack Obama perpetrate this lie, along with most media and many in our intelligence community, the State Department, and academia.  In fact, Islam as a peaceful religion is a propaganda tool.  That notion is based on the earlier parts of the Qur’an, but which have been superseded (abrogaated) by the later passages that reveal the intolerant, militant, and political side of Islam.  These two faces of Islam are practiced at times and places when and where they serve the Muslim and Islam the best.  Both peace and violent jihad are justified by Islam.

Lie #2: “Islam is not much different than Christianity or Judaism.”

A lot of people in the US know so little about any religion that they consider them all the same.  And they defend Islam only because it is a “religion” and all religion must be defended.  Islam is, in fact, a polar opposite of Christianity in many, many ways.  So opposite, in fact, that many theologians consider Islam to be a spawn of Satan.

Lie #3: “Jihad is a peaceful, internal struggle, not a war against infidels.”

There are two forms of jihad:  “Inner struggle” and “outer struggle.”  “Inner struggle” is a personal spiritual striving to shape ones mind to become more like Muhammad.  The “outer struggle” is putting the fruit of the “inner struggle” to work physically, in the world through whatever means necessary, including, and especially, intolerance, violence, terror and conquest.  Know the life of Muhammad and you know Islam, the saying goes.

Lie #4: “Muslims don’t actually seek to live under sharia, let alone impose it on others; there are so many different interpretations of it anyway.”

To the contrary, Sharia is the preferred legal and political system of Muslims when the time is right – when there is enough of a critical mass of Muslims with enough political clout or terrorist power to impose it on the non-Muslim or apostate Muslim.

Lie #5: “America is safe from Sharia law.”

Absolutely not!  We are vulnerable to Sharia, especially if we continue to 1) deny the facts about Islam, and 2) consider the “nice” Muslim next door - those who continue to claim allegiance to Islam by calling themselves “Muslim” - as benign.  I don’t know that Beck has gone this far to be suspicious of all Muslims in the US, but he should.  If they are so moderate as to discard the violent, intolerant parts of the Qur’an  and to become bonafide apostates, then why do they still insist on being called “Muslim?”

Lie #6: “The Caliphate is a fanciful dream.”

The Caliphate is a real and achievable objective of the minds of the most devout Muslims.  And assuming a degree of momentum in Islamic conquests, a world-wide Caliphate is absolutely achievable.

Lie #7: “Islam is tolerant toward non-Muslims.”

According to the Qur’an, once a critical mass of Muslim influence and power is achieved within the region they reside, the flip of the switch toward intolerance is required.

Lie #8: Addressing frustration, poverty, and joblessness in the Muslim world-maybe even climate change – will end terrorism.”

The background of Muslims involved in most terror attacks demonstrates that these things have NOTHING to do with their motive.  It is all about being faithful to their Islamic beliefs.

Lie #9: “Critics of Islam are bigots.”

This belief is a result of political correctness going to absurd extremes.  We can’t even criticize evil anymore without being called a bigot.  Speaking the truth to the ignorant may seem bigoted to the ignorant, but it is not bigoted if it is the truth.

Lie #10: “Islam respects the rights of women.”

Of course from the perspective of devout Muslims, they are just toward women because they are following the edicts of their religion.  But from the perspective of the non-Muslim, Muslim women are abused second class citizens.

Lie #11: “Iran can be trusted with a nuclear weapon.”

Just as trustworthy as a snake can be trusted with its venom.

Lie #12: “The Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, mainstream Islamic group.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of most Islamic terror groups.  It is outlawed in Egypt for good reason and should be outlawed in the US.

Lie #13: “Islam respects freedom of speech.”

Yes, until you suggest anything against Muhammad, the Qur’an, Allah, any Islamic doctrine, or any Muslim.

The last section of the book addresses solutions – what can be done.

The key solution, before anything else can be accomplished is, according to Beck, “identify the enemy.”  This seems so obvious but is so elusive.  Our culture, our government has refused to do this first essential step.  Unfortunately, Beck only goes part way toward identifying the enemy in this book.

Beck suggests that Islam needs to be reformed.  He says non-Muslims cannot do it; Muslims are the only ones who can.

But there are Islamic experts who assert that reforming Islam is impossible.  Why?  The reasons are laid out HERE.

There are several Chapters that are missing from Beck’s book that would not have added more than 15 or 20 pages, but are essential to “knowing the enemy – knowing Islam.”Image result for taqiyya

Taqiyya: This central Islamic cultural predisposition, if not core doctrine of Islam, is not highlighted in Beck’s book.  Taqiyya is the reason why our media and politicians remain clueless of the truth of Islam.  Deception is a well honed skill set of Muslims motivated by their Islamic faith.  Taqiyya is the reason for this being an accurate depiction of “moderate” Muslims:  Today’s “moderate” is tomorrow’s headline.

“Sudden Jihad Syndrome” is what happens when a taqiyya-practicing Muslim decides to practice all Islamic doctrine.  Bill Warner explains this well in the video below:

Abrogation:  The Islamic doctrine that the later written portion of the Qur’an, the portion written in Medina, supersedes and is better than the earlier portion written in Mecca.  Unfortunately, unlike the Bible, the intolerant, violent jihad examples and admonitions are in the later Medina section and the more peace-loving examples are in the earlier Mecca section.  Violence trumps Peace in the Qur’an.  A lengthy explanation of abrogation with examples from the Qur’an is provided HERE.

“Radical” this:  Beck continues the mindless use of the word “radical” preceding “Islam” in several places in his book.  A few pages ought to be devoted to highlight the idiocy of inferring that there is a “radical” and “non-radical” version of Islam, which the use of “radical” before “Islam” implies.  There is no non-radical Islam.  Islam is radical.  Admitting Islam is radical is part of “identifying the enemy” that Beck declares is an essential first step in doing something to overcome the threat posed by Islam.

Reformable:  As stated above, Islam is not reformable.  Beck does admit that Islam is further away from being reformable than it was a decade or two ago.  But he doesn’t delve deeply enough into Islamic texts to come to the clear conclusion that a significant portion of the Islamic Trilogy and historical doctrine and jurisprudence needs to be ripped out for Islam to be reformable.


Overall, I would give this book a “B-“.  It’s good to see Beck’s progress in discovering Islam as well as one more well-known person providing at least 80% of the heretofore politically incorrect facts about Islam, and by doing so, risking being called a bigot.  This book is best suited for the person who believes that Islam has been hijacked by a few radicals who have perverted Islam.  Its reading should be supplemented by any number of books by Robert Spencer, Joel Richardson, Bill Warner, Eric Stakelbeck, or THIS one, and by THIS WEBSITE.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Impressions from attending my first Republic Club meeting: Political Correctness Reigns

I attended my first Republican Club meeting in The Villages tonight, namely, the Sumter Landing Republican Club.  My attendance was primarily motivated by the broad candidate participation in the presidential primary and the promise of getting a sense of local opinion.

I arrived early.  That gave me an opportunity to introduce myself to a couple.  As part of my introduction I mentioned that one of my interests was promoting the truth about Islam.  As I was speaking with a woman, her husband chimed in and essentially asked if I have something against all Muslims.  I responded that my issue was with Islam – that Islamic doctrine from the time of Muhammad till today is all about intolerance, conquest, terror, and deception.  He mentioned, as many ignorant of Islam do, that he knows some good Muslims.  I mentioned that in the mid-30’s there were probably some good Nazi’s before they understood what Nazism was all about.  He answered back, “so yes there are good Muslims.”    I answered that the “good Muslims” are those who are either apostate, ignorant of the essential doctrines of their own religion, or are practicing one of their cherished doctrines, “taqiyya”:  the practice of dissimulation and deception to protect or promote themselves or their religion. 

He then reminded me that “Islam is a religion ,” as if since it is a religion, it must be respected, no matter what.  He obviously had his own experiences he wanted to illogically defend, so I thanked him for our brief conversation and went on to others.  At that point I felt like I was introducing myself to a member of a Progressive or radical Democrat club rather than  to local Republicans.

If I continued my discussion, I would have asked the man if there was any point in time when the hypothetical 1935 Nazi would later have learned what Nazism was all about to the point where he would have said “I want no part of that” and disassociated himself from being identified as a Nazi.  Is there a point when the ideology one associates with becomes so well understood that he has to say “no more, I’m out – I’m no longer associating myself with that.”  I also would have asked if he believes that all religions are the same.  Are they all equally worthy of respect and protection within our country, for example those that practice cannibalism or human sacrifice – or those that promote killing unbelievers? No, that is NOT a perversion of Islam.

The same reasoning applies to those who continue to identify as “Muslim.”  Is there a point as Muslims learn the various doctrines of Islam as practiced and taught by Muhammad, promoted by Islamic leaders through the centuries, contained in sacred Islamic texts, and promoted by Islamic leaders around the world today when they have to say “I want nothing to do with that evil ideology.”  If they never reach that point, we have to understand that they understand and believe the doctrines of Islam as taught by Muhammad, contained in Islamic texts, and promoted by Muslim leaders today.  There is good reason for the expression “today’s moderate is tomorrow’s headline.”

Most who are both knowledgeable and truthful about Islam suggest that if we know the life of Muhammad, we know Islam.  After all, in the Islamic faith, Muhammad is considered “the most perfect human being and the one on which the lives and actions of all Muslims must be based.”  We know the life of Muhammad, we know what he practiced, we know his attitude toward Christians and Jews, we know of his intolerance of others, we know his practice of deception (taqiyya), we know of his terror and conquests.  We know Islam.

On to the core of the meeting.  The moderators took about an hour to solicit from the audience the issues that presidential candidates should focus on.  There were multiple discussions about how we should avoid political correctness and just say what needs to be said, however offensive it might be to some segment of the electorate.  The moderator wrote a number of suggestions on flip charts in the front of the room.  Suggestions included a balanced budget, family values, strong national defense, strong border enforcement and several others.

In the spirit of avoiding political correctness, I suggested a topic that fit under the major headings of both “national security” and “foreign policy”.   That topic is “identify your enemy.”  I elaborated that the Obama administration and most Republican candidates fail to identify that as a problem.  The “enemy” we spend billions of dollars to defend against (apparently with no intention of overcoming) is informed and motivated by Islam.  Islam is the political ideology that drives the terror attacks at home and the insurgencies and vile killings abroad.  It has been politically incorrect to identify Islam – not merely “radical Islam” – but Islam as the motivating ideology that requires that we spend billions on homeland security and foreign wars.  We have failed to do that – we have failed to identify our enemy.  This is the primary reason we continue to fail in our mission abroad and our security at home. 

Do you know what the moderator put up on the flip chart to capsulize my suggestion?  “Foreign policy.” 

Not “know your enemy.”  

Not “identify your enemy.”  

Not “admit that Islam informs and motivates worldwide terror attacks and insurgencies.” 

Perhaps we don’t want to publicly admit that Islam is the ideology that motivates those who hate our way of life and wish to destroy it.  Is it out of fear?  Is it because we don’t want to offend anyone?  Probably both.

My experience with these discussions this evening among Republicans does NOT give me any great confidence that the party will overcome their penchant for political correctness.  If they cannot admit to the ideology that triggers the need for our nation to expend billions of dollars and sacrifice hundreds of lives each year – a simple declaration of the name of the ideology that has declared war on us – then I see little real value in the Party.

The final admonition from the leaders and many present was that we dare not vote for an independent if one should run or else “we will lose.”  I’m not sure if what was meant is “the Republican Party would lose” or “the Democrats would win.”  There is a difference.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Buying the Trump “Make America Great Again” Cap

I love the idea of “Make America Great Again”.  It’s a wonderful campaign slogan and a sorely needed sentiment.  I have read an occasional distractor who said “America isn’t great already?” in his attempt to lay a revealing Michelle Obama sentiment on him – remember her quip “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country?” She never was proud of her country – she has a third world value system.

Trump is proud of his country and always has been.  But he remembers there was a time when it was GREAT.  You have to have your head buried or have a 3rd world sense of values to believe it is as great as it was a decade or two ago.

Which brings me to the cap.

Here it is, available on the Trump for President web site for $25 plus postage.  Postage is  $7.10.

Ok, so I know all proceeds are going to Donald’s campaign, but $32.10 for a cap that would bring in lots of money if it was $25.00 including postage.  Or even $15 with postage.  And his registered logo is on it that everyone knows represents Donald Trump.

So, being the cheap SOB that I am, I checked around the internet for options.  I found this:

Make America Great Again Trump 2016 Unisex-Adult One size Hat White/White

This one is $8.99 including free postage.  Order it HERE.  Granted, the $25 hat appears to have embroidered lettering.  It may be higher quality.  But hey, who cares, unless your primary purpose is to contribute $32.10 to someone who already has 1,000,000 times more money than you do, with the hat being the Cracker Jacks prize.

And HERE is a third way to get the hat, apparently using the cheaper version of the hat above as an incentive to try a trial version of Newsmax magazine.

OK, I really like The Donald.  I appreciate his frankness, his anything but political-correctness.  His nailing many of the major issues that are killing our country.  But I am not yet fully on board yet.  Don’t get me wrong.  I will vote for Trump against any Democrat that is put up.  And I would vote for Trump on the third ticket if one of several RINOs were nominated.

Here is my reservation.

Our ne’er-do-well national leaders fail to identify the ideology that informs and motivates those who wish to destroy us.   We are spending billions of dollars per year and wasting thousands of lives without identifying the ideology that we are fighting against. 

I dread this country making the same mistake in the next election.

George Bush called Islam “a great religion of peace.”  Obama sides with everything in the name of Islam and refuses to associate any terrorist act committed by Muslims in the name of Islam with Islam, Muslims, or Jihad.  Crazy!

I will quote a brief description of each Republican presidential candidates position on Islam relative the the threats we face as provided by Pamela Geller.  Whether you like Geller or not, her synopsis provides a fair indicator of their positions.

Jeb Bush, Former governor of Florida
Son of former president George H.W. Bush
“[Islam has] been hijacked by people who have an ideology that wants to destroy Western civilization, and they’re barbarians.” Bush is a weak sister, not capable of handling what’s coming.

Ben Carson, Political activist and neurosurgeon
Famous for criticizing President Obama’s healthcare plan
Sees the war with Islamic extremism as ideological in nature.

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
As governor of New Jersey, Christie has had warm relationships with known jihadists and Islamic supremacists, including an imam with ties to Hamas. Christie has called those concerned with sharia in America, “crazies.” This “sharia-law business is crap . . . and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies!”

Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
A nuclear-armed Iran is “the single greatest National security threat” today. For my money the best candidate on this issue. Cruz said the U.S. cannot defeat jihad  if it doesn’t identify it. “It is a bizarre, Orwellian double-speak that this is a president who will not utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said.

The Republican senator noted that Obama called the terror attack in Paris “a random act of violence.” “When radical Islamists go in with butcher knives to a kosher deli to murder Jews because of their Jewish faith, it’s not random,” Cruz said. “It is naked anti-Semitism.” Cruz said that Iran is America’s no. 1 security threat, while radical Islam ranks second and Russia places third.

Carly Fiorina, Former CEO of Hewlett Packard
“I believe that terrorists who kill in the name of Islam are subverting that religion.” She’s done.

Jim Gilmore, Former governor of Virginia. U.S. Army intelligence officer; served a three-year tour in West Germany as a counterintelligence agent
Gilmore endorsed an award given to Jamal Barzinji, an Islamist radical investigated for links to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Enough said.

Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, Former Congressman from South Carolina
“You’ll never have peace with radical Islam … They want a master religion for the world like the Nazis wanted a master race.”

Mike Huckabee, Former governor of Arkansas
“The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is ‘know your enemy,’ and most Americans do not know theirs.” Huckabee is a strong contender on this.

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Governor, Former Louisiana Congressman
Views the conflict as ideological and defines the enemy as ‘all forms of radical Islam’ and sharia law. Jindal is one of the best on this issue.

John Kasich, Two-term Governor of Ohio Former Ohio Congressman
U.S. should send ground forces to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group with an international coalition

George Pataki, Former governor of New York
Opposes the nuclear deal with Iran, saying the regime is ‘as trustworthy as a snake in a basket.’

Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
“We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred.” His isolationism anti-Israel positions make his a most undesirable choice.

Rick Perry, Former governor of Texas
“To every extremist, it has to be made clear: we will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance.” Any yet he instituted an embarrassing pro-Islamic curriculum in Texas public schools.

Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
“There is no greater risk to this country than the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorists … We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will take whatever it takes for however long it takes to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

Rick Santorum, Former Senator from Pennsylvania
“Terrorism is a tactic that is not an ideology. [You have to] identify the ideology … and realize that’s their motivation.”

Donald Trump, Billionaire real estate mogul and president of the Trump Organization
“I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. ” Which is nonsense. In the wake of the jihadis’ assassination attempts on my colleagues and me, Trump attacked me repeatedly over the Garland free speech event. Trump is pre-eminently unqualified to fight the gravest threat to our national security. If you don’t understand the elemental principle of free speech, you cannot properly defend this nation.

Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
“U.S. strategy against Islamism must target the radical Islamic ideology and not just the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups ”

The views represented above may not be the last word or accurately reflect the true position of each candidate.  We have much more to learn.  But this is a fair start to discerning who gets it and who doesn’t about Islam, the religion that is the catalyst of world terror and the primary reason we feel we must spend billions on national security.  Not “radical” Islam, not those who merely commit “work place violence” or “random acts of terror.”  No.  It is the toxic doctrines, leaders, and texts of orthodox Islam, strait from the pits that birthed Muhammad himself – the most perfect human being based on the teaching of the Islamic religion.

Trump oddly decided to be politically correct (very out of character) in his denunciation of the Draw Muhammad Art Contest.  How ignorant of Islam is he?  Or does he have interests in the lands of Muhammad that will distort his actions as a national leader?

Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum, Walker, and Cruz appear to be the best informed and most outspoken about identifying “radical” Islam as the threat.  Although I do wish they would all lose the modifier “radical” when they speak it.  It is Islam, period.

To “Make America Great Again”, we need to clearly and boldly identify our enemies.

Sunday, August 02, 2015

Why no national outrage over murdered Marines?

Every so often there is an article that comes along that offers a ray of hope in overcoming our blindness about Islam.

Here is one from a black pastor.  He contrasts the outrage over those murdered in a black church by a man certified “insane” with the total lack of outrage over Marines murdered by a man certified “Muslim.”

If only more pastors of every color, size, shape, and gender could overcome their blind kum-bey-Yahness enough to understand the Muslim problem as well as Pastor Massie…


Why No National Outrage Over Murdered Marines?

By Mychal Massie on July 28, 2015 in Daily Rant, Race & Politics 59

The difference between Dylan Roof who murdered nine members of a church in Charleston, SC and Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez the Muslim who murdered five Marines in Chattanooga, TN is easily explained. Roof was and is certifiably emotionally unstable, i.e., insane; Abdulazeez is certifiably Muslim – doing what Muslims do.

Roof at one point draped himself in a Confederate Flag and made disparaging statements about blacks at some point prior to going on his killing spree. Abdulazeez was raised in a cult religion that has practiced mayhem and murder since Ishmael.

The Confederate Flag did not murder the church members in Charleston, but a Muslim born and raised on a diet of Islamic hatred for all things not Muslim was responsible for murdering five Marines in Chattanooga. Roof was an anomaly whereas Abdulazeez was a continuing reality.

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Muslims are factually responsible for murdering more Americans in America, than the number of persons who can legitimately claim they had family members murdered based on a dogma to the Confederate Flag.

Those facts are undeniable, and yet I do not see anyone from politicos to NASCAR to television networks and state governments demanding Muslim mosques be closed. I do not see the same backlash against Muslims who have a history of ransacking American interests and murdering Americans that one whacked out young man who at some point in his life draped himself in a Confederate Flag caused.

Am I the only one who has missed the demands that the remains of Muslims be removed from Military Cemeteries? Or is it that there has been no such outcry even though Muslims have murdered Americans on military bases nationwide notwithstanding the murder of five Marines by Abdulazeez.

Despite Obama’s often saying that Muslims are part of American history and that Muslims helped make America the country she is nothing could be further from the truth. If Muslims helped build America it was by default pursuant to their supplying slaves to America.

What universities and colleges have Muslims founded in America? What hospitals, schools, and industries have Muslims founded in America? Terrorism is not an industry, but I digress.

Muslims cannot even boast of building neighborhoods in America, they have simply moved into squalor-ridden depressed neighborhoods and multiplied. They have laid ownership to our laws and courts with an agility typically reserved for the most agile Marxist community groups.

The politically correct wasted no time in successfully demanding the erasing of American history, calling for the elimination of our historical institutions that all Americans (and blacks are Americans) support. Why don’t we start boycotting Muslim restaurants and businesses? What will it take for the same Americans who were/are so offended by the Confederate Flag to be even tangentially offended by Muslims murdering Americans on the streets of America?

Supporters of the Confederate Flag are not calling for the death of all Americans, but not only has ISIS taken credit for the Marine murders in Chattanooga, but they have made it clear there would be more. Isn’t that enough to call for the closing of Muslim mosques?

Dylan Roof’s uncle was upset by his nephew’s actions stating, that he would execute his nephew himself if it were permitted by law. Roof’s family identified him to the police. Roof’s friends lamented that they had not taken his threats to do harm more seriously and that they hadn’t taken steps to have authorities intervene on the suspicion of what he might do. His family made no excuses for him.

The sister of Abdulazeez reportedly told a reporter, “There’s this misconception that Islam is a violent religion. Muslims are actually peaceful.” Should I ask the question on what planet that might be?

As Pamela Geller noted Abdulazeez’s family consisted of polygamy, hatred of Jews, and wife beating. (Chattanooga Jihad Murderer’s Family: Polygamy, Jew-Hatred, and Wife Beating – Wanted To Take Second Wife ‘Because It Was Allowed Under Islamic Law’; 7/18/15)

The Muslim killer’s family expressed disbelief, claiming that he was depressed, as if that were an acceptable reason for murdering five Marines. His friends called him “a quiet kid, well liked” and from an “an average Chattanooga family.” The difference is that average Chattanooga families do not preach hatred, attend mosques that preach hatred, nor do they murder five Marines.

Muslims have been at war with civilization for millenniums. Their attacks are unprovoked and unwarranted. Violent predatory murders are endemic to Islam. The idea of radical Islam is a creation of George Bush and Karl Rove, there is no such thing. There is only Islam.

Cultural Marxists have created a zeitgeist that blames white Americans for the historical ills of America. These same people, however, conveniently dispel the fact that the Americans they blame are the same Americans who had the good sense and decency to correct said ills.

I am convinced that when our Founding Fathers determined “E Pluribus Unum” they did not have in mind a political correctness that implanted the idea of it being un-American to call those who have sworn to kill our families and destroy our country – our enemies.

About Mychal Massie
Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. Read the entire Bio here

View all posts by Mychal Massie →