Entrepreneurs for Hillary are both puzzling and troubling

I spoke with a Realtor friend today who owns her own very successful real estate business.  Among other things, we briefly discussed the presidential election.

Understanding that she runs her own small business, I offered what I thought was a safe comment when speaking to an entrepreneur when I said "I guess you like Trump for president."  She surprised me when she said "No, actually I'll be voting for Hillary."

My misdiagnosis surprised me.  We continued a brief dialogue agreeing about the dangers of out of control and unvetted mass immigration that is currently taking place and which is certain to continue under a Hillary presidency.

Needless to say, this friendly exchange with a successful small business owner inspired this blog.

So, here is what I would ask a small business owner about their choice of presidents:

Clinton will continue Obama's out of control immigration policies.  Trump will reverse them or slow immigration until we can get a handle on who is coming in and how the current immigration rate affects our higher than average unemployment rate.  Which policy is better for both national security and for the American worker?

Clinton will continue Obama's policies that relinquish our nation's sovereignty and legal system to international agreements and control.  Trump wants to bring control back to our nation and enhance our sovereignty.  Whose policies will be better for business?

Clinton wants to increase environmental regulations which stunt our energy sector making it more difficult for the U.S. to become energy independent.  Trump wants to reduce and simplify regulations to enable our businesses to become more competitive and for the U.S. to become energy independent.  Which candidate will be better for business?

Clinton, like Obama, surrounds herself with Muslim advisers, several of whom have ties to Islamic terror groups.  She, like Obama, ignores any connection between Islamic terror committed by Muslims with Islam and Islamic doctrine.  Trump recognizes there is a connection and a problem and proposes to act to address what is obvious to most of us.  The continuing threat of Islamic terror is not good for business or our national security.  Which candidates policies are most likely to be better for business and national security?

Clinton policies reward an entitlement spirit and dependence on government.  Trump policies will reward an entrepreneurial spirit, independence, and strong work ethic.  Which is better for business?

I thought a small business entrepreneur would naturally prefer a Trump presidency for the above reasons.  But I was wrong.  There must be something else at play.  Is it gender?  Is it personality?

I shudder to think that gender or personality is more important to our electorate than what is best for our workers, our businesses, our competitiveness, and our national security.

AND, the differences above don't even begin to address the corruption, lying, and poor performance in office associated with Hillary Clinton.  How can she possibly be "the best candidate" in the mind of any entrepreneur, unless they base their opinion solely on gender or have a low opinion of the rule of law of our nation?  Such support reflects POORLY on the judgment of any entrepreneur who so superficially considers their favorite candidates.  So many among our electorate are just like that.  God help us.

It’s Islam! Quit pretending - Quit denying

Denial that Islam is the cause of Islamic terror (not “mad at your boss”; not run of the mill “insanity”; not “guns”; not “radical” Islam) has much in common with the five stages of grief:  denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

There are also five stages of Islamo-Ignorance.

These stages can be described as…

Stage 1. Denial that Islamic terror and murder by Muslims has anything whatsoever to do with Islam or Muslims.  Not the doctrine, not the “radicals”.  In fact they blame it on guns, poverty, insanity or being offended by just about anything they dislike.  But not on Islam.  Certainly not.  This is Obama’s position, along with most other Muslims.  Of course, this is more likely  “cover-up” rather than ignorance.

Stage 2.  Anger that Islamic terror might have something to do with some non-Islamic Muslims who don’t understand Islam.  These continue to be in denial that Islamic terror has much if anything to do with Islam.  Most media are of this opinion.

Stage 3.   Bargaining in an attempt to dismiss the growing thought that Islamic terror might have something to do with a division of Islam called “radicals”, but not yet accepting that it reflects “true Islam.”  Some conservatives are at this stage.

Stage 4.  Depression at the thought that Islamic terror is definitely a tool of  “radical Islam” but are still in denial that orthodox Islamic doctrine, including their beloved “moderates” have anything tangible to do with Islamic terror cheered on, supported, or committed by anyone other than “radical Muslims.”  They make a big deal of Obama being in Stage 1 denial but don’t yet realize that they are in Stage 4 denial, not yet having accepted reality.  The commentator in the video below, along with most conservatives, are of this opinion.

Stage 5.  Acceptance of the fact that Islamic doctrine, not “radical doctrine”, not “moderate doctrine”, not ancient doctrine, but orthodox Islamic doctrine as taught and exemplified by Muhammad and as promoted by the vast majority of Islamic leaders today is behind and promotes Islamic terror.  Not all moderates overtly condone it, but they certainly don’t protest against it which speaks volumes.  And we can be certain that many “moderates” privately promote it.  Islamic doctrine about gays, Jews, women, infidels, sharia, the caliphate, and jihad are well-known and widespread throughout Islamic communities both here and abroad. 

Stages 1 through 4 of Islamo-Ignorance deny this reality.  It’s about time they finally reach the 5th stage and accept the fact of what Islam is all about.  It is only when we accept the fact of what Islam is, what it teaches, and what it promotes will we finally be motivated to take effective action to protect ourselves against its purposeful, eradication of our freedoms and culture.

The latest evidence (out of thousands of tidbits that reveal the same unapologetic Islam) is this quote of the words of a representative of the Muslim cemetery where the Orlando shooter was buried:

[A] cemetery official, Bilal Karakira…defended the decision to accept his [Mateen’s] remains, saying, "Everybody deserves a place and we don't know his side of the story so he is entitled to be buried like anyone else."

Yes indeed, we don’t know “his side of the story.”  Right.  His side of the story is that Islam condones and praises what Mateen did.  That is the unspoken “his side of the story.”  Most Muslims inwardly praise the killing done by their fellow Muslim based on his faithfulness to Islamic doctrine.  That is Islam.  It is not “radical Islam.

From Pam Geller:

Doctors, surgeons, affluent and Western educated, leave everything to join the Islamic State, blowing up Obama’s and every other Western leader’s delusional narrative about poverty, disaffection and illiteracy driving Muslims to jihad.

It’s Islam. Period.

Herdsmen in Nigeria, rappers in Germany, doctors in Glasgow, chemical engineering students in Canada, heart surgeons in Saudi Arabia, university students in Britain, imams in America and so forth – what brings these wildly different people together? Jihad. From the Sahara to the Kalahari, London to Lisbon, Manhattan to Madrid, Bali to Boston, Tiananmen Square to Thailand, Myanmar to Malaysia, Nairobi to Nigeria ….. no matter what the background, upbringing, schooling, wealth or poverty, color, what have you, it doesn’t matter. The understanding of Islam and jihad is the same, and it is the motive, the incitement to this monstrous war on the West and and the East and all points in between.

And Muslim cemetery workers.

It’s Islam, Period.

For my 3 readers in Great Britain: Brexit!

EU is like giving away your national adulthood to your SuperMum.
Fifty years ago universities in the United States promoted the concept of “regionalism”   Regionalism was a way to create cost-effective and comprehensive administration over resources and systems.  Resources like watersheds, like the South Florida Water Management District.  Systems like a regional transportation system that covers an entire county or several counties or cities in a region.  In most cases, these function-specific regional governments worked well and were generally accepted.

Fast forward 50 years.  Today the elite (in universities and in government) are hell bent to super-size regionalism.  In North America the  “progressives” (leftists, liberals, socialists and communists, along with big government and big business) want to jettison our national sovereignty for the North American Union – “…a theoretical economic and political union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The concept is loosely based on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the Amero or the North AmericanDollar.” 

Open borders, anyone?  Unbridled immigration, eh?  Loss of national sovereignty?  Can’t wait!

No, no, that’s not enough.  Many want to give away our jobs and manufacturing to other nations – and give up our own legal system, including our courts, to the United Nations.  These policies have already destroyed manufacturing and not just a few freedoms in the US.

That’s exactly what we DON’T need: Another layer of government that exacts crippling taxes and fees that imposes regulations we don’t want and don’t have any control over.

This sounds exactly like what Great Britain is fighting against with their chance to vote against the European Union.

The choice is between national sovereignty and another layer of costly government that imposes more controls on you in exchange for lower cost for a few things that people in a distant country believe are best for you.
What price freedom, indeed.

For those in Britain – and the United States – here is a great eye opener that warns about out of control, often oppressive, super-sized regionalism – Brexit, the movie.
See it, below…

We love you, Brits.  My wife even faithfully reads Majesty Magazine.  Don’t let your freedoms, autonomy, culture, and nationhood slip away forever.  You have way too much to lose.

Obama is imposing his losing pro-Islam foreign policy on US citizens at home…

Sanitizing Islam-inspired Muslim attacks of Islamic doctrine

Obama’s (and Bush’s) failed Middle East policies lack one key ingredient:  Islam – the Islamic ideology and the culture of hate, inbreeding,  and psychosis that Islam has cultivated over 1,400 years.  As many military leaders well versed in the art of war have pleaded, we can’t win a war fighting against a “tactic.”  Terrorism is a tactic.  Wars are won against an ideology.  The enemy ideology needs to be known, understood, feared and hated for us to prevail against it.  For a decade after we won WWII, “Nazis” were still portrayed as evil even by the children of the ‘50’s.

To the contrary, today we dare not identify the enemy ideology.  Today our Federal government portrays anyone who dares speak the truth about Islamic doctrine and terror as not just “evil”, but bigoted and intolerant.  We are undergoing a massive barrage of disinformation about Islam from our Federal government.  The reason given?  There are too many Muslims.  We don’t dare offend them.  God forbid if there were 1.4 billion Nazis.  We would have dared not piss any of them off.  Do numbers make the problem go away?  Hardly.

Our multi-front, prolonged wars in the Middle East have failed and continue to fail because we coddle the ideology, Islam, and fail to properly identify it as the evil ideology we are battling.

Today our Attorney General blatantly imposed that same losing strategy at home by purging the transcript of the 9-11 calls from the Orlando Muslim jihadist of any verbiage containing any reference to Islam, Muslims, jihad, caliphate, or any other words providing an accurate Islam/terror connection.

Here’s an excerpt from a Breitbart article called See No Sharia:

“The FBI released today a partial transcript of the Orlando shooter’s mid-massacre calls to 911. It was sanitized to conform to the Obama party line: The attack has no connection to the Islamic State or, for that matter, to Islam.

“As Attorney General Loretta Lynch Lynch put it: “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda.””

To our administration, guns are the problem, not Islam, not Muslims.  Republicans or Trump are the problem, not the hateful, anti-gay doctrine of Islam that is practiced in over a dozen Islamic nations via its beloved sharia.  Infidels are the problem, not the intolerant, supremacist ideology that Muhammad exemplified and the vast majority of Muslim leaders promote today.

Until our government accepts reality and faces that reality with words and actions that accurately identifies the ideology that wishes our destruction, we will continue to fail – Islamic terror will grow and drain our lifeblood as a nation by a thousand cuts.

It’s nice to hear the words “Boston strong” or “Orlando strong.”  A nice, but hollow platitude based on blindly ignoring the Islamic elephant in the room.

UPDATE:  Obama’s Justice Department relented and released an almost complete, unredacted transcript HERE.  One fatal flaw remains:  The word “God” replaces the Islamic “Allah” as if there is no difference.  In fact, the differences, as understood by each religion, are striking and quite opposite.  The Islamic “Allah” is an impersonal, unknowable, vengeful god that encourages violence and hate.  Merciful?  Only to those who submit in a manner approved by the local Imam.  The Judeo-Christian “God” is opposite in every respect.

Things that incite Muslims to violence and related psychotic behaviors…

Think about it. Those who defend Islam want all of us to be tolerant of Islam and Muslims.  Yet Muslims themselves, based on 1,400 years of Islamic tradition, the example of the life of Muhammad, and Islamic doctrine, are among the least tolerant group of people on the planet.

In thinking about Muslim sensitivities, I’ve compiled a partial list of the things that incite and provoke Muslims the world over to violence, killing, and other psychotic behaviors.  So here goes…

• Cartoons or drawings of Muhammad
• Cartoons or drawings of Allah
• Bacon and pork products
• Alcohol carried in taxicabs
• Women not covered in black garbage bags
• Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders – these they behead or shoot
• Freedom and liberty
• Western democracies
• Dogs, they hate dogs
• Donald Trump, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Andrew McCarthy and anyone else who reveals the truth about Islam
• Music
• Dance
• People who don’t lie and deceive as well as they do
• Those who refuse to accept copies of the Qur’an
• People who don’t pray toward Mecca 5 times a day
• Sexy advertisements – ask the Muslim mayor of London
• Anyone who disbelieves Islam (infidels)
• Anyone who disbelieves the most militant forms of Islam
• Women who don’t submit to sharia
• Anyone else who doesn’t submit to sharia

Beyond Islamic doctrine that requires intolerance of all the above, there is a natural tendency for Muslims to engage in their psychotic behavior because of their inbreeding.

We had a Cocker Spaniel that had an aggressive, psychotic personality – he snarled and bit at the least provocation.  He was inbred, with the same psychotic manifestations much of the Muslim population appears to suffer from.

And yet our government, most media, and academia insist we be tolerant toward these, the least tolerant of all people on the face of the earth.

Go figure.

Too many covet a large audience over the truth of Islamic doctrine that promotes terror

I had a recent email exchange with Wayne Allen Root.  Root is a promoter and super-salesman who has a blog site giving conservative commentary.  He is a big cheerleader for Trump and I agree with most of what he says.

However, like many conservative commentators, and virtually all on the left, he refuses to identify the Islamic ideology, the beliefs and actions practiced and enforced by Muhammad, the doctrines ensconced in the Qur’an, and the beliefs promoted by the vast majority of Islamic leaders today as “the problem.”  They insist on the modifier “radical” in front of “Islam” as if they are two separate religions.  They are not.  They are the same.  ISIS and the rest of the the Islamic terror groups mimic the teachings of Muhammed and the doctrines in the Qur’an to a “T”.

So, here is the simple verbiage that I find such a distraction from the core problem, Islam, that Wayne used in his latest and most previous posts:

“We are under attack by radical Islam…”

This is my response to Wayne…

No, Wayne.  We are not under attack by "radical Islam."  We are under attack by "Islam" period.  No modifier required.  Your and the media's "radical Islam" is the exact same Islam as is in the Qur'an, as practiced by Muhammad and as promoted by the huge majority of Imams in the world today.  We need to all quit kidding ourselves about the mainstream Islamic ideology.  The nice "moderate" Muslims that we believe make up the majority (of which the Orlando jihadist was one) are not what we think they are.  At least not those who are faithful to their cherished Islamic doctrine and who attend their Islamic indoctrination sessions at local mosques, Islamic Centers, and Middle East Studies classes in many of our universities funded by Saudi Arabia.  We all have a lot of waking up to do - you included, perpetuating the "radical Islam" myth.

Here is Wayne’s reply back to me…

I understand it all.  You do NOT understand how to get in media.  I take it to line- as far as I can go.  My opinions are all over media.  Go one inch further...and I'm blackballed, banned, my opinions reach no one.

Here is my reply back to Wayne…

Yes, where I am and where you are are two different worlds and two different philosophies of communication.  Media savvy folks like you express less than the full truth in order not to offend and lose audience.  Others of us believe the entire truth is necessary.  The former leads to an incomplete or misleading understanding of the problem among a large audience.  The latter leads to a fuller, more accurate understanding of the problem by a much smaller audience.  Hopefully the combination of both methods of communication will reap success and not conflict to the extent that your style inoculates the masses from grasping reality.

Here is Wayne’s reply back to me, referring to his most recent post…

you can't get much more real than this...and ever be allowed in mainstream media... http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/13/mr-president-disgust/

Here is my reply back to Wayne…

It is easy to criticize Barack Obama. 

Yes, the majority of Americans are able to be critical about Obama without much flak.  What is difficult for most people, including Wayne, is  identifying the Islamic ideology as the motivator and perpetrator of terror.  He and way too many others use the cop-out term “radical Islam”.   They know the truth but are afraid to express it for fear of losing audience, and I suspect, ad revenue.  They covet audience over truth.  Most mainstream media is the same.   That is a low grade personal standard.

Truthfully, that man’s attitude disgusts me.

What good is a large audience if the whole truth is missing?  Avoiding the truth is not essential to maintaining a large audience.  Pat Buchannan does it all the time, as in THIS EXAMPLE. 

An apt famous quote capsulizes this human foible:

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

While the Biblical application of this saying refers to the truths that Jesus taught, it has wider practical application, and specifically to knowing and telling the truth about Islam.  The longer we fail to speak the truth about what Islam is , what it promotes, and its consequences, the less free we will become.

Diversity of ideologies cloud solutions: Perspectives on the Orlando massacre

Example of moral un-equivalency:  Devout Christians are prosecuted for refusing to participate in gay ceremonies.  Devout Muslims feel they must kill gays to be merciful to them.

Here is a recent news story about an Islamic scholar who spoke at an Islamic center in Sanford, FL, who believes that very thing:

His audience said this speaker was well-received and don’t consider any of his ideas to be controversial.  Why?  Because his ideas are based on well-known, well-understood standard Islamic doctrine.

The Muslim assassin in Orlando was just another “moderate Muslim.”  That’s why the FBI took him off any watch list – TWICE.

What are some other comments from various groups and individuals we will hear from about this massacre motivated by Islamic doctrine:

From local Muslim leaders:

We are compassionate people.  (Absolutely – view video above).  We condemn violence of any kind (sure you do).  People are wrong to think this has anything to do with religion (sure they are).  Islam is all about promoting peace. (Right.  That’s what George Bush said.)

From Barack Obama:

(Refer to comments from local Muslim leaders.)  “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”  Implied:  We will do everything we can to further regulate accessibility to guns and ammunition in this country.

Note to Obama:  Don’t expunge from national security training  and SOP lexicon everything that relates to Islamic doctrine and Islamic terror.  Orlando Muslim terrorist would have been flagged.  But that would be contrary to your pro-Muslim agenda, wouldn’t it.

Obama failed to mention one word about Islam, radical Islam, Muslims, Islamic doctrine, and Islamic hatred of homosexuals.  Obama is quick to condemn cops for doing their job.  But he will take months, if ever, to say anything about terror committed in the name of his believed Islam.

From the gay community:

It’s all about how awful guns are.  They say NOTHING about the ideology that motivates Muslims against homosexuals.  They remain with their collective heads stuck up one another’s butts.  Most homosexuals relate to leftists and progressives who also happen to be allied with Muslims and blind to Islamic doctrine.  Consequently they both share their disdain for guns, whether they are used for good or evil.  This behavior may be one reason why gays have earned the label “pansy” which is defined by Dictionary.com as “a. Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a contemptuous term used to refer to a male homosexual, and b. Offensive. a weak, effeminate, and often cowardly man.”  How can we expect them to defend themselves against a much more perverse and evil ideology that commands their death?  For their sake, I hope they grow a pair.

From Hillary Clinton:

See Obama’s comments.

From most media:

See Obama’s comments.

From Donald Trump:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago

What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban.  Must be tough.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5h5 hours ago

Reporting that Orlando killer shouted "Allah hu Akbar!" as he slaughtered clubgoers. 2nd man arrested in LA with rifles near Gay parade.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn't he should immediately resign in disgrace!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 8h8 hours ago

Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

HERE is an excellent web site that lays out the facts about Islam:  How many are radicals; how Islamic is ISIS and other essential things to understand about Islam and its agenda.

No, the Muslim assassin, Omar Mateen, was not “unhinged” as some claim.  Yes, he beat his ex-wife.  Yes, he terrorized and assassinated scores of homosexuals.  In both cases he was doing exactly what Islamic doctrine requires of the faithful.  A merciful belief system, indeed.  Remember, what they do is in the name of “mercy” and is all for our own good.  Allah commands it.

And, as we finger point at everything BUT the problem so as not to offend anyone, we have become an infiltrated nation of pansies.

Speaking of  “infiltration”, HERE is evidence that the Department of Homeland Security has been infiltrated by Muslims with unfathomable ill-intent toward our nation.

From a local activist that understands the Islamic problem better than most, he writes this:

Subject: We Are At War

To: Senators: Rubio and Nelson, Congressman Nugent, Governor Scott, State Senator Hays, State Representative O’Toole, Sumter County Sheriff Farmer, Sumter County Commissioners: Hahnsfeldt, Burgess, Gilpin, Breeden, and Butler

Only one hour away from where I write this letter a Muslim Terrorist attack occurred today killing 5o people and injuring 53. No matter how you look at these brutal killings we the American People are at war with the Muslim people. We can no longer turn our heads and hide from the facts they are here to either kill us unless we submit to their beliefs. This same type of incident could have happened any place in the USA, a nearby church, restaurant, dance, recreation center, ball game, and so forth. They have absolutely zero respect for those not believing in their Koran.

It is obvious to most people, there is an Islamic worldwide movement taking place to convert or kill all non-believers in their religion and laws. Sad to say, our Federal Government has allowed this country to be invaded by Islamic terrorists through legal and illegal immigration, overstaying visas, political asylum, and sneaking across our open borders. For downplaying the seriousness of the Islamic threats our politicians (both parties) and the media are guilty of high crimes against the American people. On this issue only Donald Trump stood up for the American people. Both parties and the media called Donald Trump a racist. Now each of you are responsible for the death of 50 and the injury of 53 Americans.

It is time:

a. For the American people to hold each of you responsible for your action

b. For our Federal Government to declare war against Islamic terrorism.

c. For President Obama to take action against the Muslims or be impeached by Congress.

d. To immediately close all Mosques in the USA.

e. To send all Muslims back to the Middle East.

f. For our local, county, and state officials to take action to protect the lives of Florida residents.

How many Islamic terrorists do we have in our country? A good guess would be at least one million. Until all Muslims are out of America WE THE PEOPLE must live in fear of being killed. Until our government takes these actions, more terrorist are on the way.

Gingrich doesn’t get it… and Ryan is a lost cause…

I couldn’t believe what I heard from Newt Gingrich on Hannity radio this afternoon.

After 6 months of campaigns where it was made abundantly clear over and over again that the Republican establishment has been the villain, that the Republican Party screwed things up in Washington, that the leadership seemed to support the Obama agenda more than any conservative agenda, that we need an outsider, that Trump is that outsider that we need, blah blah blah…

We then get this from Gingrich – who has apparently been out to lunch -  this afternoon…   (this is the paraphrased essence of what he said)

“Trump needs to realize that he’s playing two different games.  He played the primaries, did a fabulous job.  But now he has to play with the team.  This is a different game now.  He has the Republican team.  He has to learn how to play with his fellow Republicans.”

Newt, what you just said is insane if you’ve been paying attention.  The Republican “team” is the problem.  Trump is the new team manager.  The manager isn’t the problem.  A number of members of the TEAM are the problem.  The team has been screwing up.  They’ve lost their credibility.  And now members of the discredited team, Gingrich, Ryan and others, are telling the new Manager that he needs to work with the crappy team?

Gingrich stated that what Trump said about the La Raza loving judge of Mexican heritage was “inappropriate.”  Ryan went even further and called Trump’s remarks “racist.”  This falls in the same category as calling those “racist” who disagree with Obamas progressive, socialist, pro-Muslim policies.  No, policies are not a race.  Progressivism is not a race.  And Islam is not a race.

Trump correctly labelled Gingrich’s comment “inappropriate” as indeed it was.

Trump is right: Friend of Mexican heritage versus a Judge of Mexican heritage: There is a difference.

What do you suppose is the reason why our judicial system is set up so that we are judged by a jury of our peers?  What is a “peer”, anyway?

A peer is “a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.” Dictionary.com

Basically, a peer is a person like us.  A quality of a “peer” might include race, gender, nationality and religion.  Would you want a jury comprised of devout Muslims to judge a devout Christian?  Or a jury of devout Christians judging a homosexual queer?  Or worse, a jury of queers judging a devout Christian?   Of course not. 

Why do you believe this jury-of-peers thing is set up like this?  Because our judicial system recognizes that people who have differences also have preferences and prejudices.  To deny humans of every sort have prejudices for or against certain other individuals is to be blind to reality.

Donald Trump expressed his sincere concern that a judge of Mexican heritage would not treat him fairly.  Why not?  Donald knows he has taken political positions, that, while best for our country, are offensive to certain segments of our society, most particularly, offensive to a progressive judge of Mexican heritage who is in a position to impose a legal verdict on him.

This does not mean Trump dislikes Mexicans or those of Mexican heritage. Trump has many Mexican friends and employees.  It is one thing to have a friend who doesn’t believe everything that you do.  Most people have that sort of relationship every day.  It is quite another thing to allow yourself to be judged and legally bound by someone who you are certain has significant disagreements with you because of his heritage and related biases. 

That judge is not a peer of Trump.  If a jury is supposed to be comprised of a jury of your peers, why shouldn’t a judge be held to the same standard?

Trump also has Muslim friends and employees.  But should he allow himself to be judged by a Muslim when he knows darn well that Muslims were generally offended by his statements about Muslim immigration (in fact Muslims seem to be offended by most things our culture represents except the freedoms they have to impose their Islamic-inspired will on the rest of the population.)  Hell no!

Yet the media, liberals, and even many so-called Republican allies are jumping on Trumps’ comments about the judge as if what he said is racist or worse.  Give it some rational thought.  What Trump has said should make perfect sense to anyone who understands our legal system, human nature, and seeks justice.

Those who criticize Trump for his  statements either have a hidden agenda or are simply being idiots regarding Trumps rational concerns.

Even our so-called political allies are so brainwashed in “political correctness” and “fear of offending anyone for any reason” and false belief that “we all are supposed to think alike” that they can’t recognize a real life situations when personal bias is certain to cloud a legal process.

More food for thought demonstrating biases favored by the media:

Obama favors Muslims

La Raza favors Mexicans

Hillary favors women

Rev. Wright favors Blacks

Lesbians prefer other lesbians

Why shouldn’t Trump favor Americans who aren’t biased against other Americans?

HERE is Patrick Buchannan's’ view on the subject which parallel’s my own.

And HERE is how Breitbart covers it.

MORE EVIDENCE that Trump is right…

• Law Firm and Judge bringing Trump U case both tied to La Raza...
• FLASHBACK: Sotomayor said ethnicity 'will make difference in our judging'...
• LORD: Race-driven association exactly what's wrong with legal system...

Is ISIS the be-all and end-all of the Islamic threat?

Recent headlines and commentary warn us about ISIS.  They report that ISIS did this and ISIS did that and we have to confront ISIS as if it is the only aspect of Islam that is a threat that we need to be concerned about. 

Over the last decade our concerns were focused on al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and Al-shabaab.  What do all of these terrorist organizations have in common?  Wikipedia has a page listing well over 150 terrorist groups designated by the nations of the world HERE.  The great majority are led and populated by Muslims based on their Islamic faith.  Yet recently only ISIS is reported as “the problem.”

This myopic view of the Islamic threat was highlighted by a recent article I read that focused only on ISIS as our current threat.  I wrote to the author to challenge that view as follows:

“…we are too focused on ISIS at the expense of ignoring Islam.   ISIS is all about Islamic doctrine, faithfully.  Islamic doctrine has spawned hundreds of other "ISISs" under different names.  Islamic doctrine has spawned millions of other one-man ISISs to do similar work.  The day that government officials, the media and others identify Islamic doctrine as the engine behind terror and subversion will be the FIRST day we really begin to identify the enemy we face.”

The reply to my comment was essentially this:

“Islam, as one of the world's leading religions/cultures, will never be attacked directly by any free world government…[because] among its adherents are millions of good, peaceful people the world over who don't favor radical Islamist doctrine, but are too afraid to stand up to terrorism... not even to the extent that you and I do in our newsletters. To have these peaceful Muslims turn against us is not a good idea. We shouldn't add hundreds of millions more Muslims to the ranks of the tens of millions of Islamist radicals who hate us now. “

The italicized, underlined text is our biggest problem.  We misunderstand the believers of Islam, including Islamic history and doctrine.  We mistakenly believe that the “millions of good, peaceful [Muslim] people the world over” don’t favor “radical Islamic doctrine.”  Newsflash:  The doctrine of ISIS is the doctrine of Islam.  Much of the West has not accepted and acknowledged this fact.  Consequently we have this misinformed fear that we will turn “good, peaceful Muslims” against us.”  We fail to admit that the chosen belief system of those good, peaceful Muslims, Islam, is endowed with built in hatred of the West, our culture, our form of governance and our faith.  The doctrine of Islam, as believed, taught, and practiced by most of today’s Islamic leaders would like nothing less than the annihilation of the US, Israel and the West, generally.

"Radical" Islamic doctrine is Islamic doctrine.  That is the problem that he and others are disillusioned by:  It is not "radical" Islamic doctrine.  It is simply "Islamic doctrine."  It is a big mistake to divide Islam into two parts:  Radical and non-radical.  They cannot be separated.

Believers in the Islamic ideology/religion/belief system almost universally believe in Sharia, the caliphate, and some form of jihad/supremacism/intolerance of other beliefs.   The "radicals" are the front line terrorists and their direct support system.  A huge number of other "moderate" Muslims support the radicals in numerous ways:  Financially, politically, logistically, socially and spiritually.  Check out recent surveys.  But also bear in mind that a core tenant of Islam is taqiyya.  Consequently surveys will not reveal true beliefs.   And remember that many Muslims that had been reported by our naïve media as "moderates" turned out to be some of the greatest promoters of ISIS, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

He did acknowledge that… 

“The big problem with Islam today is that the free world is doing almost nothing to stop groups like ISIS, and not just ISIS, but all Islamic terrorist organizations.

“ISIS spreads because no one capable of obliterating them has engaged them with the overwhelming force necessary to do the job. ISIS grows because its record of horrific accomplishments attracts the sickos of the world, who will cease to be drawn to ISIS only when it and its leadership are finally annihilated...ditto for all the other Islamist terrorist organizations.

“Few American understand that the defeat of Islamic terrorism and the Islamic Caliphate will soon require an effort not unlike the one undertaken to win World War II.”

This is all true.  I added the following to his comments:

Islam is a seditious ideology, just as Fascism was during WWII.  Were there "moderate" and "radical" Fascists during WWII.  I guess, sure.  The "radical" Fascists were the leaders, the politicians, the planners, the protectors, most of the military. The "moderate" Fascists were many of the rest who believed in the Fascist vision and supported the "radical Fascists" in any way they could.  Not all Germans were Fascist just like not all Middle Easterners are Muslim.  But all Fascists were Fascist and a danger to our existence at the time.  All Muslims are Muslims because they believe in the Islamic doctrine and have demonstrated general agreement with Islamic goals and methods:  Sharia, some form of jihad, supremacism, the Caliphate, etc.

He asked me, “what do we do about it?”  I replied,

The first thing we "do about it" is acknowledge the existence of the seditious belief system, Islam, just as we acknowledged the seditious belief system, Fascism.  But if we/you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the belief system, there is nothing effective that we WILL do.  Required action will not make sense and will be off limits.  If we DO acknowledge the reality of the belief system, the rest will take care of itself.  Taking effective action (whether it be cutting Muslim immigration, some deportations, monitoring mosques, whatever) will continue to be "off limits" as long as we continue to deny the reality of the Islamic doctrine, history and promises of today's majority Muslim leaders to ultimately force our submission to Islam.  Refusing to acknowledge the reality of what we are up against will not magically make the threat any less.  Know the life of Muhammad and you will know what Islam has in store.

I added,

A few years ago I pointedly asked Zudhi Jasser if he is willing to disregard the 60% of the Islamic Trilogy (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira) that calls for jihad, conversion, submission or elimination of the infidel, an Islamic Caliphate, Jew hatred, Sharia (which mandate treatment of women and homosexuals in ways we consider a crime).  He did not respond.  If he is such a motivated defender of "moderate" Islam, he could have at least made an attempt to explain.  If we disregarded 60% of the Bible, we would not be Christians. 

But unlike Christianity, Islam mandates that nothing in their doctrine that Muhammad took literally and that most Muslims have practiced for 1,400 years can be "spiritualized" as we have done in Christianity.  Islam celebrates terror and conquest because Muhammad practiced terror and conquest.  Muslims who preach otherwise are either the exception, or doing it to protect themselves or Islam.  Christianity celebrates peace and forgiveness.  Christians who preach otherwise are the exception or doing it for defensive purposes.  That is the essence of the differences.

Most experts do not believe Islam is reformable, as we understand reform, given its history, established doctrine and momentum.  We understand "reform" as getting us back to our roots, the way we believed it was intended in the beginning.  Yes Islam is being "reformed" from what it was in the prior century, from a relatively benign feeling religion in the background, back to what it has been during most of its history and especially during its early growth and conquests under Muhammad and his offshoots.  It has been reformed back to its violent, supremacist roots.  Today's Islamic leaders are urging reform back to Islam's roots, the way Muhammad intended.  Muhammad was no Jesus.

Either way we are in for some tough times.  Like any looming and growing problem, first we have to identify it honestly.  Then we have to decide whether to take painful actions sooner, or suffer even greater pain later.

The writer then posited a supposition and a few rather provocative, extreme assumptions about possible actions given the realities of Islam as follows:

Here is his supposition: 

“Even if the entire nation came to understand the horrific threat embodied in Islamic doctrine what would such an understanding cause us to do about it? 

Here are his extreme assumptions of necessary actions that keep him and others from accepting reality:

• Would we demonize Zudhi Jasser and his followers and throw them in jail as imminent threats to the America people? 
• Would we attempt to deport every Muslim from America?
• Would we speak out against, and sever all relations with Muslim nations around the world simply because they believe in, and support, Islamic doctrine? 
• Would we wage war on those whose religion and culture are anti-American, and because the founder of that religion wanted to eliminate all infidels? Should we attempt to punish every Muslim for the murderous thoughts and actions of a few, even a lot of, crazies?”

He concludes,

“In light of this, how in heaven's name could the U.S. ever reach the conviction that Islam itself, the religion and the culture, should be denounced as the nation's number one enemy?” 

In other words, he apparently believes Islam is too big, too widespread to admit that Islamic doctrine is threatening and evil, even if in truth it really does pose an existential threat to the West.  Therefore we shouldn’t even consider Islam as an enemy.

Here is my reply to his supposition and related provocative assumptions…

"Would we demonize Zudhi Jasser and his followers and throw them in jail as imminent threats to the America people?"

No.  There is no reason to jump to the worst possible measures in the case of Muslims who appear to be supporting Western values like Jasser does.  In cases like his we simply need to recognize that he is "wishing" what Islam could be.  We need to recognize that he does not speak of what Islam is.  We just need to know that his "wish" does not reflect Islam, either its orthodox doctrine or the manner most Islamic leaders today interpret and implement Islamic doctrine.   Right now we fawn over the Jassers of the the world believing they speak for the real Islam.  Wrong!  This is one of those steps that would be a no brainer once we correctly acknowledged the motives and methods of Islamic doctrine and history.  But until then, we will continue to self-deceive.

"Would we attempt to deport every Muslim from America?"

Again, suggesting only the most extreme action (intended to suggest how mean spirited we are?) is the only action is not helpful. How about developing a more deliberative and effective vetting process to only admit those who disavow sharia, jihad, the Caliphate in its literal sense, and other aspects of Islam that would warn of seditious activity?  How about a temporary ban of anyone from predominantly Islamic countries, or those who have recently traveled from those countries, with exceptions, until an effective vetting system is developed?  How about deporting Muslims who don't have valid US citizenship and whose actions (public writings, associations, postings, etc.) indicate a seditious belief and intent?  Again, none of these steps seem "American" unless we correctly acknowledged the motives and methods of Islamic doctrine and history.  Once acknowledged, these steps, and more, would seem perfectly reasonable.

Would we speak out against, and sever all relations with Muslim nations around the world simply because they believe in, and support, Islamic doctrine?

To the extent that their leadership has proclaimed hatred and doom to the West or our allies (tantamount to a declaration of war), absolutely.  I would think that Iran and territories controlled by ISIS, al Qaeda, and others who have made similar declarations, would be candidates.  We should reconsider our support of Turkey due to the Erdogan government's current policies.  Libya is another candidate along with a few other African nations.  Saudi Arabia is a big question mark, if you are familiar with the likely content of the redacted "28 pages" of the 9-11 Commission report as well as Saudi Arabia's massive contributions to Middle Eastern Studies Departments of dozens of American universities that are nothing more than Islamic propaganda and recruitment centers.

Would we wage war on those whose religion and culture are anti-American, and because the founder of that religion wanted to eliminate all infidels?

Again, an exaggerated extreme.  But we would be right to oppose their propaganda and effectively counter it in numerous ways.  Right now we are embracing or excusing these rants in the spirit of tolerance, multiculturalism, and our refusal to acknowledge the truth of Islamic doctrine.  We've lost the will to believe and announce that we have a superior culture, form of governance and moral code.  We consider all ideologies universally equal.  We tell each other there is no such thing as evil anymore.  We need to get over that mistake.

Should we attempt to punish every Muslim for the murderous thoughts and actions of a few, even a lot of, crazies?  This is another exaggerated extreme.  But not far off.  We mistakenly assume that just because a declared Muslim isn’t currently in the act of a mass shooting, beheading, or detonation that he is benign.  The fact that he believes at least most of what Islam teaches should be a red flag.  We would be right to monitor mosques in the same manner we monitored Nazi meeting places and cells during WWII.   We would be right to put down demonstrations promoting Islamic doctrine as we would do regarding any other seditious demonstration and ideology.  Again, these will seem unreasonable, un-American, and mean-spirited actions UNLESS we truthfully acknowledge the reality of Islamic doctrine, history and intent.

Yes, we are divided in our desire to commit troops to the battles in the Middle East to destroy the worst elements of a vile ideology that promises destruction of our way of life.  And the reason we are divided is because our government, much of academia, and most of the media fail to acknowledge the reality of Islamic doctrine.  As Allen West accurately observed, we are fighting a "tactic", terrorism.  We need to be fighting an ideology, Islam, in its full orthodox, Muhammadan bloom.  Until we acknowledge that orthodox (call it "fundamentalist" if you wish) Islam is what principally motivates Muslims to engage in their anti-Western fervor, we will fail. 

We fight "the radicals" in the Middle East as if they are the only ones who believe what they believe that motivates them to do what they do.  Wrong!  The majority Muslim populations believe most of the same things "the radicals" believe, especially the Islamic vision, as well as most of the tactics.  THIS is a helpful article that was recently brought to my attention titled "Mohammed, Islamic History, and the Bloody Future of the West."

I am one example of those who feel we have no business militarily in the Middle East at the present time.  I say "at the present time" because until we acknowledge the political components of Islamic doctrine and the widespread belief and support of those doctrines by those populations, we will continue to fail with the type of military action we have engaged in.  And again I say, once we accurately acknowledge Islamic doctrine and its widespread belief, we will unshackle our military in ways that will bring victory instead of being mired in a perpetual and losing battle as we have done now for over a decade.  I commend the website Political Islam to you which reveals the overarching political component of Islamic texts and doctrine.

I commended the following web site for a variety of “solutions” to our current ineffective policies: Islamic Threat Simplified website that focuses on actions we could or should take - gathered from a variety of sources, HERE.

Finally, in answer to his last question,

“In light of this, how in heaven's name could the U.S. ever reach the conviction that Islam itself, the religion and the culture, should be denounced as the nation's number one enemy?”

Because if we don’t, we are screwed.  Denying reality will not save us.