RFRA Hypocrisy

This whole #RFRA/Indiana kerfuffle is more blatant hypocrisy from gays and the left.   These people present themselves as paragons of tolerance and acceptance, while claiming anyone with beliefs at odds with theirs is a hater and a bigot.  Remember how the left mocked Mitt Romney and made an issue over polygamy in Mormon history?  I'll never forget the left's intolerance and bigotry toward Mormons during the last election.  That bigotry now extends to just about every religious person.  (Except Muslims, of course, which they are too cowardly to openly oppose.)  When the left gets all worked up about something like this #RFRA business, they are just exposing their hypocrisy and bigotry.

(I call the above symbol, The Utah Marriage Equality Symbol.   It strikes me as hypocritical to sanction gay marriage while discriminating against consensual adult polygamy, as the left, and most gays, currently do.  Opponents to gay marriage are at least consistent when they say "one man, one woman.")  

What does Obama know that you don't?

Turns out, Hawaii is about as far as you can get from Iran, still be dry, and remain in the Northern hemisphere.   

Would Ted Cruz have made the Bergdahl trade?

No matter your politics, I think you know the answer.

Ted Cruz is Awesome! V

Yesterday, Ted Cruz (insert lefty and pop media laugh track here) announced he is running for president.  He spoke at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (insert secularist laugh track here) and gave a rousing, conservative, (insert establishment GOP laugh track here) thirty minute off-the-cuff speech (insert teleprompter apologist laugh track here).  There was no equivocation, vague hedging, weasel words, or doubt about what he would fight for with every fiber of his being (insert special interest and lobbyist laugh track here).

I hope Ted Cruz is successful in going direct to the people.  There just may be enough serious Americans who have their eyes open and cannot be convinced by a phony laugh track.

Here are links to the other four in the series:

Ted Cruz is Awesome! I  (Cruz takes on DiFi)

Ted Cruz is Awesome! II (Cruz takes on ObamaCare)

Ted Cruz is Awesome! III (Cruz is proven right for taking on ObamaCare)

Ted Cruz is Awesome! IV  (Cruz takes on Arab bigots)



 

Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome

It's one thing for Barack Obama, peace be upon him, to deliberately misstate Netanyahu's position on a Palestinian state.  It's another thing entirely for the entire US media to fall in lock step with Obama's deception.  Today's Wall Street Journal front page story is just the latest example: "Netanyahu Reverses on Statehood Again".

Obama's reason is simple.  He's been stabbing Israel in the back all along.  By misstating Netanyahu's position, he is trying to provide cover for his upcoming treachery against Israel, with Iran and at the UN.   Why the media goes along with this is not as clear.    

EXCLUSIVE! An Open Letter to Barack Obama from Bibi Netanyahu

(I have amazing sources in Israel and have been given exclusive access to this letter from Bibi to Barack:)

Dear Mr. President,

Now that the Israeli election is behind us, there are a world of possibilities in front of us.  I believe we both agree that it is our duty as our nation's respective leaders to choose the path which best leads to peace domestically and abroad.  Towards that end, I would like to discuss an idea about which much has been made of late:  a two state solution.

As has been reported, I did indicate that a two state solution will not arise during my term.  What was not reported was that this was within the context of the last few years experience.  The Palestinians have been in a constant state of war with my country and continue to deny our right to exist.  There can be no two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians without two peaceful partners willing to coexist.

But there is another path to a two state solution.  Allow me to explain.  

I have a unique proposal that will once and for all put and end to this conflict.  I know I can trust you and the American people to hear me out and give this some careful thought.  If we agree that peace is the desired outcome, and that neither side has been able to secure it after all these years, we must try something new.  Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is the very definition of insanity, right? 

Let’s look at some of the elements we can all agree on before getting into the specifics: 

1. Both sides believe their positions are correct, justified, and worth defending. 
2. One side has the military might and the other suffers disproportionately. 
3. Both sides would like to exist and govern themselves in a manner to their liking. 
4. The international community, including the US, has long thought that “land for peace” is the appropriate solution.

In light of the above, I do recommend swapping land to allow those without a country to establish their own self-governed nation.  They would be free to establish their own government, their own bill of rights, and their own laws.   They would be free to arm and defend themselves,  trade with other nations, and produce and export what they choose. We may not agree with how they treat others, what they disseminate, or what their Sharia laws say, but it would be their country, ruled by them, sovereign, free, and independent.

The key Mr. President is you.  You've said that you've got a pen and a phone.  The American people have granted you the power to act unilaterally on whatever you choose.  Whether that be healthcare, immigration, the IRS, internet regulation, prisoner swaps, etc., you have proven you do not need bi-partisan approval to achieve your goals.  Mr. President, you can singlehandedly establish a two state solution with just your pen and your phone!

Here's my plan:

I have done some research and found that your home state of Illinois is the most Muslim state in the US.  Therefore, I believe Illinois would be the perfect place to establish the new Islamic Caliphate, or “ISIL” (The Islamic State of Illinois)!  

If ISIL (The Islamic State of Illinois) were to adopt your own immigration policies, The Palestinians, al Qaeda, ISIS, The Taliban, Ansar al-Sharia, Hezbollah, The Muslim Brotherhood, etc., would all immigrate to the new nation of ISIL.  Not only would this bring lasting peace to the Mid East, but the conflict between America and the Jihadis would finally be over.   Imagine ISIS, al Qaeda, and America living side-by-side in peace!

All it would take is a simple trade of land for peace, which you can do today with your pen and your phone.   Join me Mr. President in this elegant two state solution.  Together we can stop the unnecessary fighting between America and the Jihadis once and for all.
  

Sincerely,

Benjamin Netanyahu

Prime Minister, Israel

P.S.  A majority of The UN has already seen this proposal and endorsed it.  You must use your pen and phone quickly if the US hopes to remain among the community of nations!

P.P.S.  I also believe that Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the political prisoner currently in your custody, should be freed at once like Nelson Mandela.   KSM would then lead the new nation of ISIL!  Moreover, I have taken the liberty to nominate KSM to the Nobel Committee for consideration for the Peace Prize.  As expected, they are onboard 100%.

P.P.S.S.  My understanding is that Illinois is currently bankrupt, so this plan is actually a threefer. Not only will it bring a two state solution and peace to the world, it's also a stimulus plan for your home state!    

P5+1= Death to Israel

Who are the P5+1?  P5+1 refers to the six countries currently trying to remove sanctions on Iran, while trying not to appear like they're signing Israel's death warrant.  The US, China, Russia, UK, and France are the P5, or five permanent members of the UN Security Council.   Germany is the +1.  In Europe they are referred to as the EU3+3.  The EU3 are Germany, UK, and France.  The +3 are US, China, and Russia.

But no matter how you slice it, five of the P5+1 countries are in this for one reason and one reason only:  money.  All except the US are the major trading partners of Iran.  Moreover, all are experiencing economic challenges.  Lifting sanctions on Iran would be a guaranteed boost.  Do you think these countries are concerned that Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and is the world's number one sponsor of terrorism?  (Remember, even in the UK, the most common name for baby boys is... Muhammad.)  

So, what are the US interests in all this? Um, there are none.   Lifting sanctions on Iran and giving them legitimacy to pursue a nuclear bomb is just something Barack Hussein Obama really, really, wants to do.  Is he concerned that it would endanger Israel with an atomic holocaust?  The only thing that might concern Obama is if his party lost some votes as a result.  But Obama knows American Jews will still vote Democrat, because they are liberals first.

Kinetic Islam Déjà vu

In March of 2001, Mullah Omar and the Taliban destroyed two 1700 year-old stone Buddahs in Afghanistan.  One of them stood 165 feet tall.  At the time, few westerners understood that act.  Six months later when the twin towers of The World Trade Center were destroyed, we all got an education in how kinetic Islam feels about infidel idols and symbols. 

Fast forward to today, and the exact same thing is happening in Iraq.  Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL, is summarily destroying ancient churches, statues, artwork, and symbols of the infidels.  This time we have some perspective on why this behavior is occurring – Islam, or at least a fundamental interpretation of Islam, leads its followers to destroy these symbols.  Turns out the Quran, like the Old and New Testaments, contains a fair amount of idol destruction.  The difference is, Christians and Jews do not go about re-enacting these verses from the early days of monotheism.  Muslims do, particularly the kinetic radical fundamental type. 

What scares me is the timing of all this.  Six months after the Buddahs came down, we got 9/11.  I hope kinetic Islam has a different schedule this time.   

Why Were Cops Shot in Ferguson?

There is new blood on Barack Obama's hands as two officers were shot in Ferguson, MO last night.   Pretty harsh, right?  Does Barack Obama deserve blame for every act of violence against cops in the wake of Michael Brown's death?  Here's a brief history.  You can draw your own conclusions.    

(I put the above images together because you will not see them in the pop media.  But they are real and should be part of the record.  What they mean is up to you to decide.  Of note: neither was raised by his father, and all seem to have issues with authority.)

On 8/15/14, after Barack Obama made his first comments in the wake of the Ferguson riots, I wrote:

I have no idea what happened in Ferguson, MO, and neither do you.  And we all agree any unnecessary death is a tragedy.  But we have a judicial system to deal with bad cops, if that turns out to be the case.  Rioting, looting, Molotov cocktails, death threats, and the like, should be singled-out as inexcusable no matter what the facts turn out to be.  Justice can only be served through our judicial system and that takes time, patience, civility, and wisdom.  Instead of making that case convincingly and emphatically, as a president should,  Barack Obama spoke to the nation in bland platitudes and equivocated.
America, we have a problem.

Four days later, after he commented again, I wrote:

Obama spoke to the nation again yesterday (8/18) and again equivocated.  If he wanted to avoid further violence, looting, anger, and hate, he could have explained to those calling for "death to Darren Wilson!" that we have a judicial system and that the facts will come out as they do in every public case, especially when there are dozens of eye witnesses as there are in this case.  But this case should not be tried on TV, or in the streets,  or from the pulpit, or with molotov cocktails.  Instead he drew a moral equivalence between our judicial system and looting rioters.  Think about this America -- The President of the United States, for political reasons, does not want to prevent further violence, looting, anger, and hate.

Then on 11/24/14, the grand jury spoke and the case was closed.   The officer, Darren Wilson, was not charged with any crime because the jury believed he acted with justifiable use of force.  I wrote:

Again the president spoke and again mistook his role for that of agitator.  He accused the judicial system of racism.  He made no mention of the fact that Michael Brown would be alive today if he had obeyed officer Wilson.  He made no mention of his faith in the grand jury or the public servants who worked this case according to the law.  He made no mention of the officer whose life has also been upended by Michael Brown's belligerence.  He made no mention of the fact that moments before the incident officer Wilson had helped save the life of an infant.  And finally, he made only bland equivocal calls for peace and non-violence.

It's a shame this isn't baseball, because on Ferguson alone I count three strikes.

Finally, Obama's DOJ recently released two reports regarding Michael Brown.  The first one exonerated Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown.  There was no violation of civil rights, no racism, and certainly no crime.  Michael Brown was not surrendering, "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was a myth, and the shooting was self-defense.  The second report nevertheless, indicted the entire police force as racists.  Based on the discredited notion of "disparate impact" and some racist joke emails which were forwarded by three specific employees, the Obama administration tainted the entire Ferguson PD and stirred the anger of the community once again.

Did Obama say anything to calm tensions in Ferguson?  Did he say anything to remind people that the shooting was justified?  Did he talk about how "hands up don't shoot" was a false narrative?  Did he point out how the system worked, and justice was done?  No.  Instead, he stoked anger, hate, resentment, and reprisals by calling the Ferguson PD's alleged racism "not an isolated incident".

Why would Obama do this and risk inciting violence?   I hate to go all "Godwin" on y'all, but this has happened before.  (Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies states that any heated online discussion will eventually lead to someone making a Nazi analogy.)

The race industry and the Democrat Party need division, passion, anger, hatred, and the threat of violence to continue enacting their agenda. 

Consider the following quotes:  

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by... distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

Hate is more lasting than dislike.

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Great liars are also great magicians.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

All of the above quotes are from Adolf Hitler.

No, I'm not suggesting Barack Obama is about to annex territory, build gas chambers, kill Jews and Gypsies, or launch a World War like Adolf Hitler.   But looking back on his embrace of the politics of deception and division as personified by ACORN, Alinsky Community Organizing, Occupy Wall Street, disingenuously crying racism,  stirring hatred and violence, etc., it is hard to discern any tactical differences.   

Ready for Hillary?

Hillary Clinton will answer questions today about why she conducted all her business as Secretary of State on a secret private email server, which apparently broke several laws and has thwarted multiple congressional investigations.   No doubt the questions will be pre-screened and the reporters all hand-picked sycophants.  Nevertheless, it will be good theatre.  But Hillary's no dummy - by controlling her own email server, she was able to destroy any evidence of corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and criminal activity.  There is no way the Obama administration is going to pursue a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.  (Unless she goes all Menendez on Obama's Iran appeasment.  Not likely.) But regardless of how this latest scandal plays out, there's all the others, including the recent revelations about foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation and being traded for government favors.   The fact that Hillary still polls ahead of any other potential candidate for 2016 means two things:  fun times for bloggers like me, and sad times for America.

Here's my contribution to the Hillary mystique:  "NoMoreClintons.org" (Remember all those NFL ads about sexual abuse?)  Please watch this and explain to me why the Clintons should be back in the White House.