Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Well That's a Relief!

I have to say I feel a lot better now. President Obama just told us that "ISIL is not Islamic." He added: "No religion condones the killing of innocents." And this: "ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. It has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."

Boy, was I wrong. I thought ISIS (ISIL, IS) was named the ISLAMIC State. I thought Islam today had a problem with large numbers of radical terrorist groups, all committing their acts in the name of Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Hamas (which just summarily executed a whole bunch of people without any trial based on an allegation of providing intelligence to Israel in the recent Gaza war), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and many others.

Is every single Muslim a radical who wants to see non-Muslims killed? Of course not. But what good does it do to not admit the truth and acknowledge that Islam today has a very serious problem? How can Obama say "ISIL is not Islamic"? How can Obama say ISIL has no vision "other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way," when it tells the world it wants to establish an ISLAMIC Caliphate under Shariah law?

Obama also said this: "At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL." Yes, and what do we have throughout the Middle East and North Africa - all Muslim countries! (With the exception of Israel which fights some of these same Islamic terrorist groups.) No religion condones the killing of innocents? So why do so many Imams do that? Perhaps they define "innocents" differently.

It was extremely disappointing to hear Republican Senator Rand Paul on Fox after Obama's speech. Said Paul: "...this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world."

So what is the "true form" of Islam today? We are told it's not the numerous Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS. And it's not all those Muslim countries who have in place one form of Shariah law or another; countries where free speech and freedom of religion don't exist. And it's not in countries where Christians and Jews are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where gays are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where women are less than second class citizens, and are subject to "honor killings."

Hopefully politicians like Obama and Paul will get back to us soon on where to find "true" Islam.

Sunday, September 7, 2014


Out of Rotherham, England comes a report regarding the sexual abuse (rape) of children and teenagers, mostly girls. 1400 young people between 1997 and 2013 were apparently trafficked around the country. While the victims were described as working class white, the perpetrators were described as Pakistani Muslims. (As reported by Brendan O'Neill in the 9/3/14 Wall Street Journal, referencing a report by Alexis Jay, public policy professor and former social worker.) So why didn't the authorities act quicker to put a stop to this sex trade of minors? According to Mr. Jay, Rotherdam officials did not want to appear racist. Wait...What?! We need to let these bastards rape our young girls so we don't appear racist? It would be difficult to find a better example of Michael Savage's maxim: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

In the city of Wuppertal, Germany, the police have been patrolling the nightlife area of town. They seek to discourage people from the use of alcohol and drugs, and from gambling and attending concerts. What?! Oh, these are not the regular police, these are radical Salafist Muslims. Notwithstanding their lack of actual authority, they have not been deterred, and even wear brightly colored orange vests with the words "Shariah Police" on the back. And there are reports of Salafists doing the same in Bonn. (As reported in the 9/7/14 Jewish Press online.) Think it's a good idea to not control the number of Muslims entering this country?

Our Secretary of State recently spoke at a ceremony appointing a Muslim attorney to serve as a special representative to Muslim communities. What?! In any event, Kerry said "our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment." Kerry went on: "Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in scriptures early, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are the most vulnerable." What?! Kerry believes his biggest issue is climate change? Don't we have more immediate threats - radical Islam, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? And we have to take care of the Muslim-majority countries? Is that like the head of NASA previously saying NASA needed to reach out to the Muslim world? Did NASA's then Director and Kerry have the same boss? Hmmm. And just what are the oil rich Muslim countries doing to help the environment? (Quotes from the Washington Free Beacon.)

Obama has a plan for dealing with ISIS (or as he calls them, ISIL). At first, he did not have a plan: "We don't have a strategy yet." Then, he said: "The bottom line is this - our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL..." But then: "...if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem." What?! People not being exactly clear on his message, Obama said today: "The next phase is us going on the offensive." I guess - as long as he doesn't draw any red lines.

Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to go after State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. Said he: "With all due respect - that woman looked way out of her depth over there. Just the way she just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for that job." (That's been my feeling about Ms. Psaki.) However, another spokesperson, Marie Harf, just could not take it, O'Reilly attacking her colleague like that. Said Harf: "When the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly sexist, personally offensive language, I have an obligation and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay." Wait...What?! Sexist? How? O'Reilly has gone after both male press secretaries to the President; and pretty much everybody on both sides of the fence.

But let's be honest. Those democrats cannot tolerate criticism. Because they engage in personal attacks, they have to equate all comments by conservatives to be personal attacks on them. (Criticize Obama and you are a racist.) Notice some similarity between Harf's comments and the fear of officials in Rotherham? Act against rapists who are Muslim and you are a racist. Speak against a woman in high office and you are a sexist. Still, the democrats just love dishing it out - even though they cannot take it.

And let's not forget this comment: "Mr. Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers does not command anything like the international respect that is needed." Oh, that wasn't O'Reilly; that was the 9/3/14 editorial in the Financial Times, a paper that twice supported Obama for President. What?! Are they sexist too? I guess they're racist too, in light of this comment about Obama: "...Mr. Obama has been curiously passive. Fixing the strongest coalitions, and the best strategies, to push back Mr. Putin, ISIS and others will require the sustained engagement of America's friends and allies. But it will first require genuine leadership."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is trying to get Scott Walker's democrat opponent in the Wisconsin governor's race elected to that office. Said Schultz of Walker: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand." She then equated Republicans like Walker with "grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." What?! But this is the way it works for Democrats - ignore the issues and engage in demagoguery. So what if it's intellectually dishonest - it works. Ms. Schultz got a little feed back on those comments, equating Walker's policies with domestic abuse. But in her subsequent non-apology, she simply said she should not have used the words - but Walker is still bad for women.

Remember those poor Palestinians, the ones Israel beat up so badly in Gaza? Well, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just found that 79% of Palestinians think they won that war, and 72% think the West Bank Palestinians should engage in similar attacks on Israel. Wait...What?! Weren't those people in Gaza just innocent civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hamas and the war? 61% in the West Bank and Gaza said they would vote for the Hamas leader over PA leader Abbas for President, if the election were held now. (Stats from the 9/3/14 Investor's Business Daily.)

We can't end this post without mention of former President Jimmy Carter. Carter recently spoke to the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US). ISNA has alternately been linked with the Wahabi brand of radical Islam sponsored by Saudi Arabia, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Carter: "I look forward to continued cooperation between ISNA and the Carter Center because we share so many things in common. We're all Americans, wanting to insist upon basic human rights, peace, freedom, justice, and the treatment of each other as equals." Wait...What?! Whom are we talking about, exactly? Carter went on: "I hope that all of you will use the principles of Allah and our G-d to bring peace and justice to all." You know what, Jimmy? Let them direct the principles of Allah at you. I'll pass.