Traitor Or Idiot: You Decide–Bob asked a simple question.
Traitor Or Idiot: You Decide–Bob asked a simple question.
What is Barak Obama?–In early 2010, I took a look at the philosophical underpinnings of the messiah.
The political and religious “identity” of Barak Obama is a contentious and much debated topic these days. Claims of, “He’s a Muslim,” and “ he’s a socialist,” abound. The left, as well as the MSM are able to field these claims, and contradict them, at least partially. They are able to do this because he’s neither of these things.
Religion: While Obama may have a soft spot for Islam, he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years. While Wright’s teachings are radical, they are clearly not Islamic. Like the rest of us, the radical wing of Islam would cut his head off, unless he converted.
It is well documented that he attended an Islamic school while he lived in Indonesia. That, in and of itself, does not mean that he is a Muslim, but unlike other Presidents, he has a depth of knowledge into Islam that unparalleled. That might bias him, and blind him to the potential dangers that we face. Either way, he does not appear to be Muslim, or, for that matter, Christian (or at least any Christianity with which we would be familiar).
Politics: You can call Obama a socialist. It seems to fit his model of wealth redistribution rather nicely. You might also call him a fascist, as his tampering in the banking, auto, and health care industries closely matches the actions of Mussolini and Hitler, for example, “Corporatism.” You can also call him a “progressive,” as they believed that the state, run by an “intellectual” elite, can/should wield power to shape society into something more equitable and structured. The common threads between all three are statism and elitism. The idea that the state has primacy over all human activity seems a common thread though all of Obama’s policies. And, of course, the idea of elitism; that a small group of “really smart people that know way better than you,” have the right and obligation to instruct everyone on how to live is central to any totalitarian view.
Some will say that the political theories and backgrounds conflict. They do… and they don’t. While that might come off as a contradictory statement, there is a case for stating it. To draw the comparisons and contrasts, a brief look at history is required.
During the mid to late 19th century, new political ideologies were emerging. Communism and socialism were taking root in Europe, and to a lesser degree, her in the US as well. Also, the progressive movement was emerging in the US. The leading minds of these movements were aware of each other, and followed each other’s writings and actions closely. It is safe to assume that they influenced each other.
When it became apparent that Europe was going to explode into war (WWI), there was much excitement among the socialists/communists. They had been predicting that if war came, the proletariat would rise, and there would be a vast, international communist revolution. They thought that under the stress, death, and deprivation that would come with a war, that the people would grow weary with their governments and economic systems, and “throw off their oppressors.”
It didn’t happen. With the exception of Russia, there were no successful communist revolutions. Communists certainly did make a nuisance of themselves, but the established order in the West held. More surprising was the fact that many socialists were patriotic and supported their nations in the war.
This is a crucial point in history for the socialist movement, as schisms were created by their differing reactions and ideas about the failure of the international revolution. The hard-core communists decided to use the USSR as a “base” from which to spread communism throughout the world. A smaller group of communists in Germany decided to examine what caused the failure of the international. Working from the “Frankfort School,” they tagged Western Culture as the culprit. Since Western Culture promoted patriotism, individualism, religious faith, capitalism, and self-reliance, they argued, communism couldn’t take root. Their mission, therefore, was to find ways to negate Western Culture, and allow communism to take over. We’ll get back to the Cultural Marxists in a bit.
However, it doesn’t end there. There was yet another wing. Some socialists, particularly Mussolini, decided that rather than reject national pride and western culture, that they would embrace it and use it to justify their socialism. The terms, “National Socialism and totalitarianism,” were, if memory serves, coined by Mussolini. Since the international revolution failed, he postulated that they could be done in single nations instead-hence, National Socialism. He proved that assumption in his takeover of Italy. Franco (of Spain) and Hitler followed suit.
The fascists, you see, were socialists. They used socialist rhetoric and policies. While they didn’t take over the means of production, they controlled it completely via regulation. They did redistribute wealth. They did tax heavily. They did institute massive levels of government intervention; like heavy regulation of industry, gun control, socialized medicine, and so on. They simply used the individual cultures and histories of their nations as a “wrapper” for their policies, corrupting the culture to serve their ends. Even Hitler himself suggested that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks had more in common than what separated them. He simply saw them as a competing ideology, NOT an antithetical one. From the opposite perspective, Lenin was said to lament the “loss” of Mussolini, as early in his career, Mussolini was a powerful and well thought of advocate of socialism.
At this point, it is also important to note that there was no “pure” versions of either communism or fascism. In each nation or movement, there were wide variations in doctrine and application. For example, fascist Italy did not rely on antisemitism to forward it’s goals. While Mussolini wanted to restore an “Roman Empire,” Hitler espoused the superiority of the “Aryan Race.” All had variations, just as Leninism was different from Stalinism.
Meanwhile, the progressives continued to grow in strength in the US as well. While they never seemed to gain a doctrinal type of theory or organization, they did press foreword with all sorts of governmental controls, such as eugenics (forced sterilization), increased government control over banking, labor, industry, and so on. Many prominent progressives were also were great admirers of both Mussolini and Hitler (until Hitler’s anti-Semitism became too inconvenient to ignore). In turn, the Nazis took some pages out of the progressive’s playbook in terms of media manipulation and eugenics.
So, we see that the Socialists and fascists are not antithetical, but “brothers.” They were separated by their differing opinions on how to spread socialism. Progressivism was a cousin, or at least a fellow traveler of Socialism and fascism. They all knew about each other, often spoke kindly of each other, and seem to have “cross pollinated” each other’s ideas.
But what happened to the Cultural Marxists? They were booted from Germany when Hitler came to power, and they migrated to here, eventually settling at Columbia University, where they continued their work. They proposed a “long march through the institutions” in order to destroy western culture. They made good on that idea, and now, education, media, law, and even theology have all been “infected” with cultural Marxism. Here is an excerpt from an article that I quoted in a previous post on Cultural Marxism.
The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
Does that sound familiar? Or what about this?
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.
I would say that this is a correct assessment.
Needless to say, Cultural Marxism has infected all of our institutions. When Obama said he associated with the “radical professors,” he was being steeped in Cultural Marxism. The idea that it is somehow “unfair” that the US is so powerful and prosperous is part of that equation. Think about many of Obama’s policies and actions, and you will see Cultural Marxism.
So, as a “progressive,” Obama stands on an intellectual base that has as its foundation, elements of fascism and Marxism. Then, it’s finished off with a thick coat of Cultural Marxism. It is safe to say that he is a fascist, socialist, and a “progressive.” While none are exclusive, all are part of the foundation of his beliefs; and therefore, his actions.
Disclaimer: As usual, I could have wrote a book on this. Kindly consider this post an outline. However, Jonah Goldberg covered much of it in his fantastic book Liberal Fascism.
I have watched the proceedings in Baltimore, Maryland with some interest, but I have been silent about what I have thought about what has transpired. Suffice it to say, I think they speak poorly about the state of affairs in America. Take away all the whitewash and we are a country that is seriously divided. This division is due, in large part, to a President who has built his legacy on dividing we the people. Years from now, when Obama and his administration is written about in the history books, the only way it will be favorable is if the liberal left is still engaged in writing their own version of history, instead of the truth. But, I digress. I wish not to talk about Obama’s legacy, but something else that struck me as remarkable about the riots in Baltimore.
One of the topics I have written about extensively on Political Realities is Islam. Specifically, the radical version that uses violence to further the ideology that refuses to coexist with any other. I have caught more than my fair share of flak over my refusal to call Islam anything other than what it is; an ideology that thrives on the aforementioned violence and terror. It is ingrained in its teachings, no matter what its supporters would like us to believe. I will never believe otherwise.
There is one thing that has always stuck out to me about radical Islam. The people who are followers of this nonsense have a strange way of showing their displeasure with those who would dare to disagree with them. They seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to blow disbelievers to kingdom come and back. That belief lets me know that Islam is not the religion of peace its supporters like to declare it is. If that isn’t enough idiocy for you, think on this. Some followers of Islam believe it is perfectly logical to blow themselves up, as long as they can take a few infidels with them. One of their favorite methods of operation is the suicide bomb. Does that make a lot of sense or what? That’s like saying I hate you because you believe a different way than I do, so I’ll just blow both of us up to prove my point. Where’s the logic or common sense in that? Both are sadly lacking in a religion that encourages parents to allow their children to become suicide bombers.
Now, before you think I’ve gone off the deep end and forgotten all about the riots in Baltimore, let’s look at what has transpired in the last few weeks. I’m not even going to discuss Freddie Gray and what happened to him. That still has to be sorted out by further investigation and possible court proceedings. Instead, I want to highlight what the protesters have done with their actions. Because of their dislike of what happened to Freddie Gray and the perception that the police was at fault, well before the investigation was close to being finished, the protesters have burned their own neighborhoods. They have torched houses and cars. They have looted merchandise from stores, which is just a fancy word for stealing, and have burned the stores. These are businesses that were providing valuable goods and services to the community. The thanks they received was fire and brimstone from the heat of the hate that was on display.
Tell me again where the logic is in these actions. How does it even come close to being common sense to burn down your own neighborhood because you are upset over the death of someone you didn’t even know? We have a saying around here that describes this lunacy to a tee. These people are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Tell me how that is different from many of the actions taken by those who subscribe to Islam. Try to deny the remarkable resemblance between the Baltimore riots and radical Islam.
Come to think of it, the resemblance exists between more than just the Baltimore riots and radical Islam. Remember what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, after Michael Brown was shot and killed after attacking Darren Wilson? The riots in Baltimore were just and extension of that. In fact, many of the actions of the radical left bear a striking resemblance to Islam. Those who are in positions of prominence on the left, ie. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the list goes on and on, are openly advocating for many of the actions taken by the foot soldiers who have recently burned Ferguson and Baltimore. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.
Two would be Muslim terrorists made to disrupt the free speech event held in Garland, Texas last night. The pair drove up to the event and started shooting at police stationed outside. One officer was slightly injured but the two Muslims were instantly put down in the attack.
As of last night police were still investigating to see whether there was a bomb inside the car in which the pair drove to the event.
The event held at The Curtis Culwell Center in Garland was the “Mohammad Art Exhibit and Contest” sponsored by Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Geller has been planning the event for months and has said that she is talking a stand for free speech over vociferous whining from some Muslims that images of Mohammad violate their radical, Islamist teachings.
WFAA reports: “The Garland ISD officer, identified as Bruce Joiner, was shot in the lower leg and suffered non-life threatening injuries, according to a spokesman for Garland Police. He was in stable condition at a local hospital.”
The officer was already released from the hospital by late evening.
The Curtis Culwell Center was quickly put on lockdown and the security perimeter extended to 1,000 yards around the building meaning that some nearby businesses had to be temporarily evacuated as a precaution in case the shooters had a bomb in the car.
— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) May 4, 2015
No confirmation of this has been made.
Just before 11PM Garland time, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force had joined the investigation and detained all participants of the event to interview them about what they witnessed.
This is a clash of freedom and the terroristic tenets of Islam and nothing less. If our freedoms survive it will only be because we didn’t knuckle under to the threat of Islam.
One of the would be terrorists has been identified…
From Breitbart: “ABC News reports one of the shooters has been identified as Elton Simpson, who an FBI official stated had been investigated for terrorism in the past. Court records from 2011 show Simpson identified as an ‘American Muslim.’”
Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.
Maybe she’s a fan of President Obama’s. If you’ll remember he won’t put his heart over his hand to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance or when the National Anthem is playing.
An Assistant Police Chief in Miami, Florida has decided that she cannot put her hand over her heart and pledge allegiance to the flag during official government events because she is a practicing Muslim and her religion prohibits her from doing it.
In a video Asst. Chief Anita Najiy is seen refusing to place her hand over her heart during the pledge…
Now some are calling for her to be fired for refusing to observe her respect for Old Glory.
“Since she clearly has no respect for the flag or the United States, on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am requesting that Assistant Chief Najiy is removed as the commander of the MPD Honor Guard Detail,” Fraternal Order of Police President Javier Ortiz said in a letter Monday to Police Chief Rodolfo Llanes.
That’s not likely to happen. Though the police department’s code of conduct allows for a reprimand if an officer doesn’t salute the flag, it makes no mention of covering your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. And not a single member of the command staff standing next to Najiy last week saluted the flag during the ceremony.
What do you think? Should this woman be fired?
Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.
A great piece on the Father of our Country.
With the talk of how bad Islam is for civilization and the question of just what to do about it, we are seeing those lightly informed about American history claiming that our founders–in particular George Washington–warned us to stay out of “foreign entanglements.” In fact, however, Washington neither said this, nor meant for such a policy to be enacted.
Many on the left and the isolationist right try to use the father of our country to support their ideas against the GOP and to justify their hope that the USA will pull out of the Middle East. Specifically they cite Washington’s farewell address where a retiring president supposedly warned Americans against getting involved with foreign nations and getting caught up in those evil “foreign entanglements.”
On one hand, it is quite amusing to see lefties in love with a founding father or American history and principles for the first time in their lives, certainly, but it isn’t just the left revealing a sudden respect for a founding father with citation of Washington’s address. On the other hand those Ron Paulites and his isolationist wing on the right have for years been bandying about Washington’s farewell address as some sort of “proof” that one of our “first principles” was to stay away from foreign nations.
So, what was Washington really saying? Did he warn us against “foreign entanglements”? Did he think the U.S. should steer clear of all outside political situations and relegate ourselves only to trade with foreigners?
We have to point out, that Washington never used the exact words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”
That dispensed with, we move on to the assumed isolationism of George Washington’s address. What did he mean and did he mean it to be a permanent principle from which the U.S. should never stray?
First of all we must realize that the U.S. had been up to its neck in “foreign entanglements” before it had even become a nation. With wars against the French decades earlier, then the rebellion against Britain with help from the French, pleas to the Dutch for loans, not to mention intrigues in Canada and clashes with Spanish holdings in the new world, the progenitors to the United States, with all that our nascent nation was already a key player on the international stage.
Further the United States had envoys in most of the major European nations long before Washington’s farewell address. So, to say that the U.S. was isolated from the rest of the world and that Washington’s entreaty meant for us to stay that way, to say that this was some axiomatic delineation of American foreign policy is a wrong headed claim. The U.S. was already so “entangled” that it couldn’t be untangled.
One of the important goals of Washington’s letter was to shore up his own foreign policy decisions. Washington had angered the Jefferson/Madison wing of the federal government when he decided not to side with France against England after our revolution ended. In fact, while leaning toward being an anglophile, Washington tried to tread a fine line of “neutrality” between France and England. His farewell address was in part meant to justify a policy choice he had made as president. It was less a doctrine for the ages and more an immediate act of politics.
There was also an important bit of reality that caused Washington and Alexander Hamilton to eschew full support of France and lean toward England. We didn’t have the naval power to back up any major involvement in Europe. In fact, if we had decided to jump in with France, there was no way at all we could have escaped major damage from the extensive and powerful British Navy if we sided too directly with France.
Washington’s idea of neutrality was based in part on the complete inability of the U.S. to back up its foreign policy. But even in that case he did not say in his address that we should forever stay away from any foreign involvement.
Here is the key section of his address:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
To warn Americans against “permanent alliances” really should go without saying. Decades later a fast friend of the United States basically said the same thing when he, Winston Churchill, said there are “no eternal allies” and “no perpetual enemies” for any nation.
Washington went on to say, though, that sometimes we must form alliances. “Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,” he wrote, “we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Obviously he understood that always staying neutral–as Paulites and liberals maintain–is not possible.
It should also be realized that this was Washington’s (and Hamilton’s) vision. The farewell address was not an explication of standard practice even when it was written, but Washington’s ideals. Many founders disagreed with this vision. So to act as if an isolationist policy was a singular founding principle is a horrible misread of history.
In To the Farewell Address, the seminal book about Washington’s document and the era in which it was given, Felix Gilbert warned us all not to accept these flawed misconstructions we are discussing here as an explanation what was going on with Washington’s farewell address.
In the conclusion to his essay, Gilbert wrote:
Because the Farewell Address comprises various aspects of American political thinking, it reaches beyond any period limited in time and reveals the basic issue of the American attitude toward foreign policy: the tension between Idealism and Realism. Settled by men who looked for gain and by men who sought freedom, born into independence in a century of enlightened thinking and of power politics, America has wavered in her foreign policy between Idealism and Realism, and her great historical moments have occurred when both were combined.
In other words, today’s neo-isolationist view of America’s “real” foreign policy ideals is woefully incorrect. The U.S. was never isolationist as a first principle. Ron Paul and his isolationists are wrong and so are the liberals who have a sudden and uncharacteristic respect for a founding father.
Finally, it must be noted that this article of mine is discussing only one thing and that is the purpose of Washington’s farewell address when it was delivered in 1796 and what it means to American first principles. I have no interest in using this piece to excuse or justify anything that happened after Washington left the scene. This article is not meant to ascertain what amount of foreign policy is optimal, only that isolationism is not an American first principle.
If WWI or WWII were wrong or our Middle East policy is misguided, those are discussions for other articles, not this one.
Hat/Tip to Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit.
I’m guessing the Obama Administration is preparing a statement labeling this as workplace violence…
GERMAN REPORT —HE WAS RADICALIZED!
GERMAN CO-PILOT WAS MUSLIM CONVERT–
— STAYED AT Bremen Mosque
A German news website claims Andreas Lubitz was a Muslim convert.
According to Michael Mannheimer, a writer for German PI-News, Germany now has its own 9/11, thanks to the convert to Islam, Andreas Lubitz.
Translation from German:
All evidence indicates that the copilot of Airbus machine in his six-months break during his training as a pilot in Germanwings, converted to Islam and subsequently either by the order of “radical”, ie. devout Muslims , or received the order from the book of terror, the Quran, on his own accord decided to carry out this mass murder. As a radical mosque in Bremen is in the center of the investigation, in which the convert was staying often, it can be assumed that he – as Mohammed Atta, in the attack against New York – received his instructions directly from the immediate vicinity of the mosque.
Converts are the most important weapon of Islam. Because their resume do not suggests that they often are particularly violent Muslims. Thus Germany now has its own 9/11, but in a reduced form. And so it is clear that Islam is a terrorist organization that are in accordance with §129a of the Criminal Code to prohibit it and to investigate its followers. But nothing will happen. One can bet that the apologists (media, politics, “Islamic Scholars”) will agree to assign this an act of a “mentally unstable” man, and you can bet that now, once again the mantra of how supposedly peaceful Islam is will continue. And worse still, the attacks by the left against those who have always warned against Islam, will be angrier and merciless.
For now the German Islam supporters like never before have their backs against the wall.
“Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” Barack Obama, 2015
Really, Mr. President? How so?
President Obama has continually asserted that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of the United States since its founding. Obama claims that Muslims have made significant contributions to building of this nation. The claim is laughable to anyone who has studied US history. Historian David Barton spoke to Glenn Beck and tore the president’s claims apart.
Barton found the first real contribution any Muslim made was in 1856 (80 years after the founding) when then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis hired one Muslim to help train camels in Arizona. Not exactly a resounding contribution, since the plan to fight Native Americans via camelback was soon dismissed.
But Muslims did have an influence on early America, and that influence was one of a foe. After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.
After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.
“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible.
Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”
John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”
By the time Jefferson became president the Barbary coast was extorting 25% of US GDP and attacks were still occurring. Jefferson wasted no time in signing a war powers request which launched the US’s entire naval fleet to wage war on the Barbary pirates. The US Marines were born. Jefferson saw the fleet off, ordering the US sailors to chase the pirates all the way to Tripoli, giving rise to the famed verse from the US Marines’ anthem.
President Obama is correct when he says that Muslims shaped this country, just not in how he means. They provided the context and need for the US Marines and provided our first lesson in battling extremism: It cannot be appeased. Extremism must be routed out through force.
Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.
Before there was a Bush “Jr”, there was another famous son in the White House. Our sixth president, John Quincy Adams had a VERY famous father, but don’t underestimate him. For example, he had a perfect grasp of the dangers of Islam.
John Quincy Adams isn’t as famous as his father, although he rightly deserves to be. In addition to serving as our sixth president, he also distinguished himself as an abolitionist congressman and a lawyer for the slaves in the mutiny trial of the Amistad.
He was also a man of strong opinions about the religion of Islam, especially since most of the African slaves that made it to America’s shores were abducted and sold by Muslims.
“The natural hatred of the Mussulmen (Muslims) towards the infidels is in accordance with the precepts of the Koran,” Quincy Adams wrote.
He contrasted this with Christianity.
“The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart,” Quincy Adams wrote. “It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies.”
Contrast this with Islam, which was founded by a warlord.
“In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab … spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth,” Quincy Adams said. “He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion.”
“The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature,” the sixth president concluded. (H/TWND)
This is instructive in these days when we’re constantly told how our founding fathers loved Islam and how the religion has made great early contributions to American culture.
The “early contributions,” such as they were, involved the selling of slaves and the Barbary Wars, incidents I think they’d rather we not remember them for.
And the sixth president did not believe these to be aberrations. Rather, he found these defects to be part and parcel of the Muslim religion.
These days, with political correctness and the constant appeasement of Islamists, it’s helpful to remember what a real president did in the face of Islamic extremism.
Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius Forum.
This is the kind of top quality public servants brought to you via our President, Barack Obama.
Obama’s Chicago terrorist has been sentenced to 18 months in prison, authorities in the Windy City announced late last week. No, not his old terrorist, Bill Ayers, his newer terrorist, Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, the woman he hired to work as an ObamaCare “navigator” in Illinois.
Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, a terrorist from Jordan, was convicted in Israel for her part in several bombings including one from way back in 1969 that killed two students in a grocery store.
Despite her murderous past, the Illinois Department of Insurance hired this killer Muslim as an ObamaCare “navigator” to push the President’s odious healthcare take over onto citizens in that state.
So, Obama had a terrorist pushing his ObamaCare law on citizens in his own home state.
Great work if you can get it.
Yup, that’s our President for ya. He cares so much about us that he has convicted terrorists helping choose the authoritarian, top-down, central government, socialistic health care that he shoved down our throats.
When Odeh came to the USA and became a citizen she did not note her past convictions on her paper work. This lie could see her citizenship revoked.
Then, she has been arrested for her lies and faced ten years in prison.
After only two hours a jury convicted Odeh and she was sentenced to an 18-month prison sentence for lying about her role in Muslim terror and not telling US officials of her history.
So, there you have it. Obama’s other Chicago terrorist has been convicted and sentenced in his home town.
Hat/Tip to Cardigan at IOTWReport.com.
Once again our President proves how ignorant he is of the facts of history.
Obama Says That “Islam Has Been Woven Into The Fabric Of Our Country Since Its Founding”. Yes, Its Called The Barbary Pirate Wars, The First War America Ever Fought Against Jihad. It Is Because Of Islamic Jihad That America Founded The US Marines.
Shoebat—Islam, is in fact, a part of America’s founding, but not in the sense that Obama wants to convey to us. Islam did a very good job in deceiving some of our Founding Fathers, and once that deception lost its touch, it compelled the United States to launch its first international war that would ultimately lead to the formation of the United States Marine Corps. This international war was the Barbary Pirate Wars.
Joshua E. London wrote a very detailed on article on the Barbary Pirate Wars and I would like to convey some of the things that he has written.
It has been stated that around 1 million European Christian sailors from France, Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland, were captured by Muslim pirates in between 1500 and 1800. What happened many times was that the sailors would be stripped of all their belongings, including the clothes on their backs, and forced to go into North Africa where they would be slaves to Muslims.
When we finally did engage the enemy in war, in usual American fashion, we kicked ass.
When war was commenced against the Barbary pirates, there were many great and illustrious acts of valor done by the American warriors. For example, in 1803 Commodore Edward Preble defeated the Muslims and retook the USS Philadelphia with muskets, swords and tomahawks, thus rescuing hundreds the Americans were taken into captivity. Even Pope Pius VII said the Americans, after gaining such a victory, “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.”
The author has this final message for Obama.
So yes, Islam is part of America’s fabric, from its founding: it introduced to America the deception of Islam, and the nature of Jihad.
Read the full story here.
Hat/Tip to BFH at IOTWReport.com.
Adm. (Ret) Lyon is a man who isn’t afraid to name his enemy. He nails our troubles with radical Islam by explaining that there is no radical Islam. There is only Islam – NO modifiers. It isn’t a religion, it is a political movement pretending to be a religion.
Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.
I know, this isn’t terrorism, it’s a case of Bus Stop Violence…
A Detroit man stabbed two people at a suburban bus stop after asking his victims whether or not they were Muslim, according to police. Federal authorities are now looking at the case as a potential hate crime, police said on Tuesday.
Both of the victims were standing at the bus stop outside of Detroit with the suspect on Saturday, Southfield Police Chief Eric Hawkins said. Several people there “engaged in conversation” until the suspect, identified by Hawkins as 39-year-old Terrence Lavaron Thomas, “asked some of the folks there if they were Muslims.”
Two of them answered, the chief told The Post on Tuesday: They were not Muslims.
“[Thomas] was not not happy with that answer,” Hawkins said. Shortly after, “without provocation,” Thomas pulled out a 3-inch folding knife “and attacked one of them,” Hawkins said. […]
Although authorities have not made a statement on the suspect’s motive, Hawkins added that “we do know that he was not happy that [the victims] indicated that they were not Muslims.” Thomas “said that he was a Muslim,” Hawkins said.
Read the full story here.
“For the last six years, Obama has acted as if the biggest threat to American security in that part of the world is the Israeli government…” – Charles Krauthammer
“Obama followed up his recent probing and informative interviews with YouTube celebrities by granting an interview to liberal blog Vox, during which he claimed the terror attack on a Paris kosher deli was “random.” It isn’t clear what the president means by calling the attacks “random.” The deli shooter, Amedy Coulibaly, had previously pledged support for ISIS, and his wife even recently filmed a propaganda video for the group calling for more terror attacks on France. Furthermore, the choice of target was far from random. Porte de Vincennes was a kosher deli servicing the local Jewish community. All four of Coulibaly’s murdered hostages were French Jews…“ — Yahoo Finance
“Obama has sparked some widespread fury over his recent comments to Vox about the Jewish individuals who were brutally killed by terrorists in Paris — specifically, he labeled them “a bunch of folks” who were randomly shot … Obama went on, seeming to place the blame for terrorist attacks at the feet of the United States.” —Washington Times
“Amedy Coulibaly said openly and proudly that he was targeting Jews. No one disputes this, except for Barack Obama … And we know he’s perfectly comfortable denouncing crimes committed in “in the name of Christ” no matter how ancient they may be. But crimes in the name of Allah must not be named as such — or at all.” — Jonah Goldberg
Had the Bataan Death March been orchestrated by Muslims instead of the Imperial Japanese Army, Barack Obama would have labeled it a random act of hiking.
Hat/Tip to Claudia at IOTWReport.com.
Sometimes it just takes looking at something from the other side of the issue to really clarify things. Such is the case with this short video, watch and enjoy.
What an excellent way to explain the hell of being an infidel in an islamic country:
“For 1400 years Islam has subjugated all other religions. What if, for the first time, Islam found out what it meant to be treated like a dhimmi?”
Learn more by going here.
Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at LibertyNews.
This is how it started in the United Kingdom and other nations that have knuckled under and allowed this sickness to infect their countries.
It has now been confirmed that a Muslim community in Dallas, Texas has somehow been allowed to set up their own extralegal sharia court to pass judgement on members of their community. It’s all quite outside the real court system in Texas. This is the first step toward destroying our own culture and allowing Islamization to begin.
The Imam’s who claim to be “judges” in this extralegal “court” say that they only created a “tribunal” not a “court” but this is just semantics. Tribunal, court, they both mean the same thing.
Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges.”
Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”
El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.
In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.
We’d better sit up and take notice folks. Look at all the problems in Europe because of bowing down to these savages. And yes, I consider all Muslims savages because they condone beheading, stoning, honor-killing and the rest of the barbaric thuggery known as Islam. Make no mistake, Sharia and barbarism go hand-in-hand.
– Don King Managing Editor of Conservative Hideout 2.0
Some of the biggest debates we have engaged in on Political Realities have been around a handful of issues. Gun control is a sure way to get the hackles raised up on many conservatives. (You can count me in that group.) Mention homosexuality in anything that resembles a disparaging manner and the fur starts to fly. Dare to call Islam out for the evil it really is and the woodwork starts crawling with people who try to tell us how wrong we are. They do their best to explain how we are misreading the Koran, how true Islam has nothing to do with the violence taking place in the world today.
Try telling that to the 12 people who are dead in France. Two radical Muslims decided it was their destiny to defend the honor of their perverted prophet by killing those who dared draw cartoons that showed that prophet in a less than glowing light. That attack has Europe in an uproar, as the masses are finally realizing the danger they are in. Look at Islam in the wrong way and you risk being killed. That’s a simplistic way of describing it, but it really is that simple. It’s too bad that the leaders of the various countries in Europe have ignored the danger, to the point of letting Islam take over entire segments of some of their cities.
For decades, America has been on a path of removing Christianity from all parts of public life. No references are allowed in most public school systems. The Ten Commandments can not be displayed. Christian prayers are not allowed, even on a voluntary basis, lest an atheist be offended. Christian values are discouraged, with many Americans believing business owners are required to leave those values at home. Business owners are threatened with discrimination lawsuits because they refuse to conduct their business in a manner that would go against their religious beliefs. Over and over, Christians are told we have to sit down and shut up.
On the other hand, Islam seems to be growing in its influence. Certainly, the current administration wants nothing to do with telling the truth about the religion of peace. Journalists are discouraged from writing stories that show Islam in a negative way. In spite of the violence associated with Islam, President Obama has went out of his way to make sure the entire world knows America is not at war with Islam. It’s not a clash of civilizations, or so he says. If we are to believe his rhetoric, Islam played a major role in the founding of America.
News flash to President Bozo! It is time to stand our ground and call Islam what it really is. No matter how hard Obama and the slew of hacks that make up his administration try to convince us that we have it all wrong about Islam, the truth is something else entirely. Islam caused the horrific tragedy that was 9/11. Islam caused the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. India suffered the wrath of Islam in 2008 when Muslim extremists attacked its financial district in Mumbai. The shooter at Fort Hood was a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” while he was killing 13 innocent victims. The Christian Crusades came about as a way to defeat the invading Muslims. Must I continue on? All across the globe, Islamic violence is everywhere.
I suppose no religion is perfect. Each has always had its radical elements, even Christianity. Arguing that as a way to absolve Islam of the violence it has perpetrated around the world is nothing more than a straw man argument. Jesus did not teach his followers to kill those who did not convert to Christianity. As far a I can tell, no other religion does that, except for Islam. If that doesn’t raise a red flag to us all, then we are truly blind.
It is time to call out Islam for the evil it really is. It is a religion that seeks to take over the entire world. The Koran calls for that to happen and for its followers to kill those who do not submit. Yeah, that really sounds like a religion of peace to me.