by Jack
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting fed-up with the liberals in politics that are always expressing their deep, heartfelt, concerns for all Muslims… right after a terrorist incident involving a Muslim.
These politicians on the far-left practically leap over the bodies of the victims in order to tell the world how proud they are of all the wonderful law abiding Muslims in our community, and how they know this incident had absolutely nothing to do with Islam or anything in the Koran! This is usually followed by… and if ANY Muslim EVER gets harassed, they will bring down the full weight of the government on whoever is bothering them. Yes, Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch, said that!
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was assuring Muslims of her support, threatening action against any “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.” Lynch was speaking at a dinner held by the Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy group. She said the Justice Department will investigate the police department in Texas that arrested a 14-year-old Muslim boy who brought a device that looked like a bomb to school. Ahmed “Clock Boy” Mohamed was never charged, but several congressmen asked Lynch for the civil-rights investigation she promised Thursday. Her comments came just a day after the massacre in San Bernardino, California, where a Muslim man and his wife accumulated an estimated $30,000 in weapons and bombs, then launched an attack on a Christmas party for employees of the county where the man worked.
Call me crazy, but I think this kind of political pandering over non-existent Islamophobia, is completely counterproductive and shameful. Its insulting and divisive too. Makes me wonder why Obama does it? Is he stupid, infantile or prejudiced? I’ve ruled out fair and sensible.
So, why do liberals feel it’s necessary to do the Muslim appeasement speech and threaten our non-Muslim citizens to behave, when they’ve done nothing wrong?
These far left morons never ever get that tough with the anti-cop mobs, like in Ferguson or New York! In fact they’re more likely to be out there with them, protesting.
This liberal blather, which is sometimes highly racist, makes me sick because its destroying this country! Liberal politician’s are bending over to accommodate what they perceive is an oppressed underclass and damming mainstream America for having genuine concerns over terrorism.
Case in point: The Mayor in Philadelphia lost all credibility when he was giving his press release about the terrorist attack on a Philly police officer. The Muslim offender professed allegiance to ISIS and said he attacked the officer with a stolen gun, because he felt it was his duty as a Muslim. He said he following the teachings of the Koran. Now that’s what the suspect said! The Mayor said, we know this has nothing to do with Islam or the Koran, this was a purely criminal act. Thank you Mayor Laughingstock, too bad you didn’t hear the police press release earlier, but then again, it probably wouldn’t have made much difference…you had an agenda and you fulfilled it.
Everything Mayor Laughingstock said about the defendant was a lie to appease local Muslims. So, I ask you, how does this do his community or America any good? How does it help us in our fight against Islamic terrorism, which is growing faster than any liberal politician seems willing to admit? Instead of Philly, next time it could be Sacramento… oops, it already was Sacramento.
‘I don’t know about you, but I’m getting fed-up with the liberals in politics that are always expressing their deep, heartfelt, concerns for all Muslims… right after a terrorist incident involving a Muslim ‘
Jack, these days your not alone!
Jack: “non-existent Islamophobia”
One day after the deadly terror attacks in Paris, a woman in Michigan went on Twitter and threatened to “send a message to ISIS.” How? By violently targeting Dearborn, Michigan, a Detroit suburb where more than 40 percent of the population is of Arab ancestry. In response, the head of the FBI’s Detroit office announced an investigation into a string of recent threats in the city. (Sarah Beebee, the woman who sent the tweet, publicly apologized.)
Since the Paris attacks, there have been similar incidents across the United States, from vandalized mosques to threats of violence, rattling Muslim Americans.
Based on the latest FBI hate crime figures, these incidents are on the rise. The most recent FBI data, released last Monday, indicates that hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation have dropped across the board—with the exception of crimes against Muslim Americans. In 2014, even as the total number of hate crimes dipped nearly 8 percent from the year before, anti-Muslim hate crimes rose 14 percent.
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-rise
Does this answer your question?
President Bush also spoke out often against bigotry against Muslims. He was right to do so, as is Obama.
Chris, for all intents and purposes of law enforcement and tactically speaking, there is no reason for the loudmouthed responses we’ve witnessed coming from liberals championing the so-called downtrodden and oppressed Muslims in America, because there aren’t any. They are doing just fine.
The lengths you went to illustrate some minimal animosity exists proves my point! We do not live in a perfect world and we can always find the rare exception, but the exception you have are in no way comparable to the threat posed by radical Muslims engaging in acts of terrorism. There simply is no problem facing Muslim-Americans compared to the threat we face from some Muslim-Americans and Muslim immigrants. If you think there is a major problem then show it, but don’t give me some wimpy example like one lady Michigan tweeting her anger…that’s laughable! Or did you mean it to be? I never know.
Jack, I showed you a measurable rise in hate crimes against Muslims. That’s “minimal animosity?”
Do you consider George W. Bush a liberal?
“There simply is no problem facing Muslim-Americans compared to the threat we face from some Muslim-Americans and Muslim immigrants.”
I made no such comparison. Why do you need to compare? Can’t you just say that both are wrong?
I’ve said before that Islamic terrorism is obviously a bigger problem than Islamophobia. That doesn’t mean Islamophobia isn’t a problem.
Obviously, Obama agrees, since I haven’t seen him launch any drone attacks against Pamela Gellar or any mosque vandalizers. You imply that the Obama administration is more concerned with anti-Islam haters than Islamic terror, but the facts just don’t support that conclusion. In fact, given that we’re engaged in an open war against Islamic terrorists on multiple fronts, it makes that conclusion utterly ridiculous, hyperbolic to the extreme, and more of a sign of tribal/partisan loyalty than a statement of fact.
Nope Jack, you’re not alone. Just look at Trump’s and Cruz’s polls.
This is guaranteed to make you feel better.
Remember Elbert Guillory? He’s Back, And He’s Ripping Obama A New One:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/elbert-guillory-rips-into-obama-over-isis-guns-video/#ixzz3wmaukRDa
Yes Peggy, America is getting angry and its about time. We are the mainstream and we control the vote. We don’t have to put up with liberal nonsense, we can get rid of that stupid mayor and all politicians like him. And we should too! We ought to use that vote to clean up CA, clean up SF and all the sanctuary cities. Enough is enough…we’re mad and its time to make our anger known and felt!
Peggy: “Nope Jack, you’re not alone. Just look at Trump’s and Cruz’s polls.”
I think a look at Trump’s polls would prove that what Jack says doesn’t exist–Islamophobia–is actually very real. Trump has proposed registering all American Muslims in a national database (unconstitutional and Nazi-like), lied about seeing “thousands” of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey on TV (no such footage exists, and no reports corroborate that any such thing happened), and called for banning all Muslim immigrants from entering the United States (which would only give ISIS exactly what it wants). None of these policies or statements can be justified on a pragmatic or reality-based level; none of them make us safer. It’s simply bigotry. That this type of bigotry has any kind of support in our nation should shock and dismay all Americans.
It’s obvious Obama did not rise to the presidency because he wanted to serve the nation. It’s obvious he came as an activists for the black/minority community and in support of groups that serve/promote him. It’s obvious he has come to undermine/displace what he sees as white privilege. It’s obvious he has issues with our Constitution; in his mind, government is simply a means to manage, control, and seek “justice” for the less privileged. He said he came to transform America and he meant it. A obsession to appease Muslim fits into this pattern.
His associations and ties prior to entering politics give a clue to his preference for blacks and Muslims and his antipathy for whites. Information and OPINION for our consideration:
March 2008, Political Islam:
October 2008, The American Spectator:
March 2011, Examiner:
But they didn’t and don’t. Are they afraid, uninterested, what?
September 2012, Daily Odds and Ends:
When I think about the requirements and expectations for assimilation/naturalization it’s difficult for me to fit Obama, and many others, into that niche of people who love America and American values, and who would fight to defend them:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Does Obama rise to this level of allegiance? His antipathy toward American police officers and his apparent policy not to pursue prosecution for black on white crime suggest a negative. His antipathy to America’s allies and his lead from behind war posture also indicate a negative. His economic policy has meant seven years of misery for middle class and young Americans. His antipathy toward business indicates strong ties to values not typically American.
Yes I am fed up with liberals that express concern for Muslims. I’m fed up with the person they chose to lead for eight years. I’m fed up with a media that shelters and promotes his underhanded purposes.
I’m fed up and ready to move on. Hopefully American’s ahve awakened to the destructive nature and goals of the radical, liberal, progressive, socialist leadership now in control of the Democrat Party and will choose representatives that will work to restore our nation to it’s principles and greatness.
This is fabulous Tina! Thank you.
Not even close to “fabulous.” Tina, the articles you cited are full of lies and deceit.
You cite the Examiner:
“Add to that the fact that Obama was born and raised a Muslim through his childhood”
This is a lie that was debunked years ago. There is no evidence that Obama was ever raised as a Muslim. This was discussed and fact-checked thoroughly in 2008, so the notion that this part of Obama’s history was “not vetted” is absolutely ludicrous.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/was_obama_a_muslim.html
You cite the American Spectator:
“In spite of Farrakhan’s long history as a racist, bigot and anti-Semite, Obama thought favorably enough of him to join Farrakhan’s 1995 march on Washington, D.C.”
This is misleading. While the march was called by Farrakhan, it was not organized by him, and numerous mainstream African-American leaders gave attended the event. Even Rosa Parks gave a speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Denb3DwJc0
Should we condemn Parks as radical or un-American too? This is the worst type of guilt by association, as is the Gadhafi quote.
These attempts to “other” Obama as a scary foreign invader are nothing more than dogwhistle racism and highbrow birtherism. He has governed as a mainstream liberal. There is no need to look across continents or religions to explain his political philosophy; it’s the same as the philosophy of most American liberals.
Great comment Tina, I’m right there with you!
About a year or so ago Chris “laughed” at and ridiculed a comment I made about Obama having his sight set on being the leader of the UN. Being the president of the US was just a stepping stone to him to being “king” of the whole world. Well, it looks like that is exactly what he’s doing and one of the enemies he made while being president is going to try and derail his plan.
Obama Secretly Lobbying To Be President Of The WORLD:
“Now it all makes sense.
Barack Obama is privately lobbying international figures to take over as U.N. Secretary General when he leaves the presidency.
A Kuwaiti newspaper is reporting that President Obama is working behind the scenes, both globally and here in the U.S. to navigate his way into the position when Ban Ki-moon leaves his term at the end of this year. The paper Al-Jarida claims Obama has already discussed the plan with Democrats, Republicans and Jewish officials in the United States, the Jerusalem Post is reporting.”
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/obama-secretly-lobbying-to-be-president-of-the-world
Report: Netanyahu to lead effort in thwarting Obama bid for UN chief :
“According to the Kuwaiti newspaper ‘Al-Jarida,’ Israeli leader will rally moderate Arabs to sabotage Obama plan to succeed Ban Ki-moon.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remembers well just how US President Barack Obama brushed aside Israeli objections and went ahead with the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran.
Now, Netanyahu is reportedly planning some personal payback.
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida, Netanyahu will make common cause with moderate Arab governments in order to sabotage Obama’s plan to succeed Ban Ki-moon when the South Korean diplomat ends his term as United Nations secretary-general on December 31 of this year.”
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Report-Netanyahu-to-lead-effort-in-thwarting-Obama-bid-for-UN-chief-440873
Several more sources are listed on Google dating back to last year.
Side note: I just learned about Saul Alinsky’s interview with Playboy in 1972, just months before his death. I haven’t read it yet, but based on the high recommend to learn about the man who was Obama’s and Hillary’s “mentor” I plan to.
I’m not able to locate the article. It appears to have been removed. Every link I’ve tried says “error” or “page not found.” The article below is the best I could find.
Today’s Read: Playboy interviews Saul Alinsky – 1972:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/1/616642/-
The Community-Organizer-in-Chief, Part One: The Alinsky Ethics:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/07/31/the-community-organizer-in-chief-part-one-the-alinsky-ethics/
Peggy, I laughed because there is absolutely nothing scary or sinister about Obama wanting to become the UN Secretary General. It’s silly to describe that position as “king of the world” or “president of the world,” because that’s not even remotely how the UN works, and the only people who think it does are the tin foil hat crowd. The UN Secretary General doesn’t have a tenth of the power the President of the Unites States does, so even if Obama does want that position, who cares? It would be a huge step down in terms of power. Most people don’t even know who Ban Ki-moon is. So yes, I laughed, because the hysteria and paranoia over that story was funny.
I remember our exchange differently. I said with Obama’s ego being president of the US was just a stepping stone for him. His ultimate goal would be the UN sec. gen./president so he could rule the world and not just one country. Based on his record of acting like an uber president with his EOs and going around congress when they refuse to give him what he want I have no doubt he’ll do the same as head of the UN.
I hope Netanyahu is successful at blocking him. The world doesn’t need Obama and his henchmen/women any more than we did.
Peggy: “I remember our exchange differently. I said with Obama’s ego being president of the US was just a stepping stone for him. His ultimate goal would be the UN sec. gen./president so he could rule the world and not just one country.”
Which is an insane thing to say, because the UN Secretary General does not “rule the world,” as any rational and informed person knows.
“Based on his record of acting like an uber president with his EOs and going around congress when they refuse to give him what he want I have no doubt he’ll do the same as head of the UN.”
Except that the president of the United States actually has the power to issue executive orders, and the UN does not.
Good lord–did you and Tina both take crazy pills this morning? You are both smarter than this.
Naive child.
You haven’t watched the steady march toward the goal of global governance, so I guess you can be forgiven.
Consider the future, your future, your children’s futures. Consider two narcissists/socialists who believe strongly in power at the top. Consider them working together…one at the UN and the other as President. Their shared goals for a global tax structure, climate change, and the redistribution of wealth would simply take on global perspectives. Do you think it’s a “laugh” that they would have an opportunity to move the goal post in the direction of one world governance…all in the name of peace, of course? If you do you will deserve what you get. These things don’t happen with one election or even two. The push has been happening since WWII.
The UN was created to give the world’s nations a place to assemble to discuss disputes as a means of avoiding world war. It has gradually become a hotbed for fundamental transformation, redistribution of wealth, control over natural resources…also a hotbed for corruption!
Freedom and individual liberty/responsibility is the only remedy to stave off oppression and you are willing to blindly usher in those who will deny that to you, your kids, or your grandkids for a little (phony) security.
Tina, your tin foil hat is on too tight.
Yes Tina, the push has been happening since WWII and history will repeat itself because ignorant uninformed individuals will not only allow it, but will encourage it.
I have no doubt Obama and his handlers are the very individual FDR warned us about in 1940. And when he is done “transforming” America he will move on to complete the dream of a one world order. His inflated ego would not accept anything less.
Here is what FDR said in 1944 during one of his Fireside Chats. Let’s compare it to what Obama says this week in his SOTU speech. I expect them to be the complete opposite.
This is just a small part of his speech. It’s worth the time to read it all.
Fireside Chat 15: On National Defense (May 26, 1940):
Franklin D. Roosevelt
“At this moment of sadness throughout most of the world, I want to talk with you about a number of subjects that directly affect the future of the United States. We are shocked by the almost incredible eyewitness stories that come to us, stories of what is happening at this moment to the civilian populations of Norway and Holland and Belgium and Luxembourg and France.
To those who have closed their eyes for any of these many reasons, to those who would not admit the possibility of the approaching storm — to all of them the past two weeks have meant the shattering of many illusions.
They have lost the illusion that we are remote and isolated and, therefore, secure against the dangers from which no other land is free.
In some quarters, with this rude awakening has come fear, fear bordering on panic. It is said that we are defenseless. It is whispered by some that, only by abandoning our freedom, our ideals, our way of life, can we build our defenses adequately, can we match the strength of the aggressors.
I did not share those illusions. I do not share these fears.
Today we are (now) more realistic. But let us not be calamity-howlers and discount our strength. Let us have done with both fears and illusions. On this Sabbath evening, in our homes in the midst of our American families, let us calmly consider what we have done and what we must do.
Today’s threat to our national security is not a matter of military weapons alone. We know of (new) other methods, new methods of attack.
The Trojan Horse. The Fifth Column that betrays a nation unprepared for treachery. Spies, saboteurs and traitors are the actors in this new strategy. With all of these we must and will deal vigorously.
But there is an added technique for weakening a nation at its very roots, for disrupting the entire pattern of life of a people. And it is important that we understand it.
The method is simple. It is, first, discord, a dissemination of discord. A group –not too large — a group that may be sectional or racial or political — is encouraged to exploit (their) its prejudices through false slogans and emotional appeals. The aim of those who deliberately egg on these groups is to create confusion of counsel, public indecision, political paralysis and eventually, a state of panic.
Sound national policies come to be viewed with a new and unreasoning skepticism, not through the wholesome (political) debates of honest and free men, but through the clever schemes of foreign agents.
As a result of these new techniques, armament programs may be dangerously delayed. Singleness of national purpose may be undermined. Men can lose confidence in each other, and therefore lose confidence in the efficacy of their own united action. Faith and courage can yield to doubt and fear. The unity of the state (is) can be so sapped that its strength is destroyed.
All this is no idle dream. It has happened time after time, in nation after nation, (during) here in the last two years. Fortunately, American men and women are not easy dupes. Campaigns of group hatred or class struggle have never made much headway among us, and are not making headway now. But new forces are being unleashed, deliberately planned propaganda to divide and weaken us in the face of danger as other nations have been weakened before.
These dividing forces (are) I do not hesitate to call undiluted poison. They must not be allowed to spread in the New World as they have in the Old. Our moral, (and) our mental defenses must be raised up as never before against those who would cast a smoke-screen across our vision.
The development of our defense program makes it essential that each and every one of us, men and women, feel that we have some contribution to make toward the security of our (country) nation.
At this time, when the world — and the world includes our own American Hemisphere — when the world is threatened by forces of destruction, it is my resolve and yours to build up our armed defenses.
We shall build them to whatever heights the future may require.
We shall rebuild them swiftly, as the methods of warfare swiftly change.
For more than three centuries we Americans have been building on this continent a free society, a society in which the promise of the human spirit may find fulfillment. Commingled here are the blood and genius of all the peoples of the world who have sought this promise.
We have built well. We are continuing our efforts to bring the blessings of a free society, of a free and productive economic system, to every family in the land. This is the promise of America.
It is this that we must continue to build — this that we must continue to defend.
It is the task of our generation, yours and mine. But we build and defend not for our generation alone. We defend the foundations laid down by our fathers. We build a life for generations yet unborn. We defend and we build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind. Ours is a high duty, a noble task.
Day and night I pray for the restoration of peace in this mad world of ours. It is not necessary that I, the President ask the American people to pray in behalf of such a cause — for I know you are praying with me.
I am certain that out of the hearts of every man, woman and child in this land, in every waking minute, a supplication goes up to Almighty God; that all of us beg that suffering and starving, that death and destruction may end — and that peace may return to the world. In common affection for all mankind, your prayers join with mine — that God will heal the wounds and the hearts of humanity.”
http://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/speeches/speech-3316
Peggy regarding your first link, what may be more interesting than the Playboy interview is what the the lefty thinks.
These guys literally tilt at windmills and have made an industry of it. Alinsky, the dysfunctional perpetual child, leads the way!
Incredible.
You’re a hare’s breath from ranting about the New World Order and you’re gonna accuse others of “tilting at windmills?”
Oy vey.
Jack & Harold,
Pop Quiz …
Five letter word, begins with a “B”: a person who projects the behavior of a single member onto an entire group?
Oh my, this is so tempting……….
The projectionist projects…it is tempting.
It appears 2013 is the latest year available for FBI statistics on violence based on religion. The numbers show that violence based on religion harm Jews a great deal more than any other group. It’s been that way for years. why are Muslims of greater concern? In fact if you add Catholics, protestants and “other” together the number is slightly greater than incidences of violence against Muslims.
Violence/murder perpetrated on America by radical Muslim terrorists are increasing. I would expect some angry push back. When that push back rises to the level of a crime it is dealt with and it makes the news. Given the rise in the level of Muslim terrorist violence aimed at America I think Americans deserve some praise from their president for their uncommon restraint!
The pre-shaming of the American people, who are quite possibly the most tolerant nation group on earth, is a terrible disservice but it does fit right into the divisive nature of the Obama administration. It isn’t that Obama should never caution against retribution; it’s that his sense of proportion and equality is grossly messed up.
Chris I’m also fed up with your excuses for Obama and your auto-pilot dismissals, often based on left biased media reporting. These are the same reporters that refused to properly vet this man as a candidate and instead became cheerleaders in his campaign! The same reporters that went to extraordinary lengths (deceitful lies and trashy reporting) to destroy Sarah Palin and get Obama elected.
so let’s look at the reality of Obama’s formative years.
Politifact:
These are formative years in a young boys life. In American schools children learn their first lessons about American history and patriotism. In their schools, communities, and churches they learn how the values of the American culture play out socially. Obama’s formative years were spent in a Muslim country and he was surrounded by Muslim culture and values. You can’t possibly think it didn’t leave a formative and lasting impression unlike that experienced by children of the same age living in America!
There is likewise nothing misleading about the Spectator article. The following quote was included in a biography of Farrakhan at biography.com:
Obama was attending Wrights black liberation theology church at the time, he had been a community organizer, AND he was running for the Illinois Senate in Chicago…if he wasn’t involved in organizing that event in some way it would be very strange indeed! It would provide a terrific platform for his campaign.
An article in Before it’s News offers background on Chicago politics, community organizing and relationships in the black community of Chicago. You might want to read it. According to an ex-Farrakhan aid it was impossible to run for office in Chicago without Farrakhan’s support. Obama may not have been central in the organizing for the MMM but you can bet he was much more than an attendee or speaker:
You might also want to rethink who the great deceivers are in this political world. I don’t have to go out of my way to “other” Obama, he did that himself in his designs to “transform” America based on ideas he learned by hanging with black nationalists, communists and socialists.
NEWSFLASH…America was not founded by Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, or any other socialist leader. It was founded by Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al. You might do some research so you can tell the difference!
April 2011, Washington Times:
“He has governed as a mainstream liberal. ”
Mainstream liberal leadership today is made up of radical 60’s generation activists; there is nothing “mainstream” about them. They have not caught up to the reality of the times and live continually in the past. Militant blacks are in fact often hate-filled, racist liars. Obama’s social face appears pleasant and civil and yet his actions suggest something else lives behind that phony face.
Founders felt very strongly about the redistribution of wealth and limitations at the federal level.
To get back to the main point…Obama had a direct relationship with Chicago black activists…his “association” was real!
“The pre-shaming of the American people,”
No one has done this. You’re hearing things.
As for Obama’s history and associations, we’ve been over this ad nauseum, including before the election. Nothing you’re bringing up is new; all of this was well known prior to the election. Claiming Obama wasn’t vetted is an excuse for the Republicans’ failure in 2008 and 2012. The voters knew about Obama’s controversial toes. They decided they didn’t care. Get over it.
Obama does pre-shame Americans every time he lectures the people generally about Muslims. We shouldn’t use certain words, we must not display any negative emotions, like anger, about terror attacks nor are we “allowed” to correctly name the perps.
It isn’t the American people who lump all Muslims together; it IS the President. The people differentiate between those who blow up buildings and shoot people and those who live their lives peacefully among us. The President does pre-shame; he plays the radical Islamic game that its unacceptable to criticize Islam. He issues warnings, as if he were an Imam, which go beyond Bush’s diplomatic, presidential position.
And you are a complete idiot if you think this is about the previous elections. NO! This is about the future and the survival of our nation. This is about waking up a generation with it’s head firmly planted, if you get my drift! Hello! Marxism is as incompatible with our form of government as is Sharia law.
The American people don’t all agree that fundamental transformation is a great idea, so you can just “get over it”.
Please show me a direct quote where Obama said we cannot criticize Islam, said we cannot demonstrate anger over terror attacks, or lectured all Americans about Islam.
I doubt you can do so, because no such quotes exist. You hear what you want to hear.
If you don’t want the past dredged up then learn to let sleeping dogs lie. You didn’t have to challenge me and the various people I cited. You didn’t have to lecture and insult and pretend you know more than anyone else. But you couldn’t resist.
Unfortunately you accuse based on your own ignorance and blindness rather on what has been. You assume a level of radical thought that is merely observation. As in the past when you tried to label me a “birther” you fail to get what I’m saying and instead reply to the left wing cardboard cutout of a conservative. We’re back to that familiar place…you don’t communicate.
Your adolescent attempt to deny Obama’s Chicago associations and his family background and history used to be amusing. Now it’s just boring.
What have I “denied?” That Obama was born and raised as a Muslim? That wasn’t true, and you knew it wasn’t true, but you posted it anyway. Then when I pointed that out to you, you didn’t try to defend the truth of that statement, you merely said a lot of vague things about “formative experiences.” I challenged the Examiner article you cited because it lied.
I haven’t denied anything about Obama’s Chicago experiences and associations. I’ve said it’s been dealt with.
You deny that the influences in Obama’s past are an important factor when observing the way he “rules” as leader of our nation. You deny the deliberately divisive posturing, the favoritism, the smooth,silver tongued activism, the rude and destructive treatment of our allies, the bowing and bending to our enemies, the lying to the American people, the refusal to work within our system. You deny the radical nature of his socialist mentors and associations. You like to pretend he’s just an average American and that is simply not true.
So don’t bother to lecture me, Chris. So far you have proven yourself to be nothing but an apologist with an incredibly shallow understanding of the breadth and scope of damage this man, the “other,” has wrought.
You have also tried to “other” anyone who does attempt to understand what motivates and influences the uncommon and destructively radical behavior of this man.
“I’ve said it’s been dealt with.”
By the left wing spin machine that serves at the feet of this phony poser in the WH.
Tina, calling someone’s argument stupid and paranoid isn’t “othering” people. You are appropriating language you do not understand.
Oh give me a break! Your party has run it’s entire political style based on “othering” the opposition. I have been a target of your party’s othering tactics (Rules #4, 5, 8, and 12 all apply).
Assuming I was referring to opinion, “stupid or paranoid” misses the mark. You have asserted broad racism in republican/conservative ranks. You have asserted group ignorance, below the elitist level reached by democrats, in typical liberal style.
You guys are such phonies, pretending to be in the special club, railing against marginalizing or othering people, when that’s the exact method you’ve always used to “win.”
Calling people racist also isn’t “othering,” Tina, but nice try.
Yeah, pretty much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYu6qhd88_M
Excellent video RHT447.
The shallow among us can’t seem to get it. Most of us dabble a bit in the Utopian dream as adolescents, but imagine running your entire life having been led around by the nose…shudder!
I vote for sending Loretta Lynch over to Germany where she can”investigate” and experience muslim contempt and disregard for women first hand . . .
A good call. She’s another phony.
Good one, Harold. And I want you to know that, ironically, I set myself up by sparing you both the R-word, which is harsher, but more accurate, semantically speaking.
J …
And here I thought you were more or less a decent human being. Disappointed again.
And Chris is right. While the youngsters were inspired by his rhetoric, the rest of us were going: “who knows what he’ll do? … but the alternative? … not an option.”
The alternatives were at least raised as Americans and had authentic credentials.
Tina: “The alternatives were at least raised as Americans”
Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. Obama was raised as an American. He lived in Indonesia between the ages of six and eleven–the rest of his childhood was spent in America.
Your continued assertions that Obama is less American than others are racist, hateful, and ignorant. They say more about you than they say about him.
You are better than this.
“A good call.” … ????
But I have long known that Tina is a rare specimen of the genus Misogynist-X.
A specimMEN?
Don’t you mean speciperson?
It would be too much to ask Libby to move on from the hate filled bra burning era of feminism when women perceived that MEN were “the problem” and thought the remedy was forcing room on the board of directors and in the club houses for women…oh yeah, and making men pay. The irony is that blaming and clubbing men to change to accommodate women is such a weak girly position. No self respecting, strong woman would use such a silly tactic nor expect to be promoted based on her sex. The comedic aspect of this movement could be found in the commonly believed notion that men and women were exactly alike. Moments of pure giggly girl fantasy exploded on the pages of Cosmo to declare that except for oppressive parental training boys would “naturally” choose dolls and girls trucks as their toys of choice. All symbolic claptrap.
Seventies feminism also spawned the first PC rules, with all of that “himicane” and “mailperson” nonesense.
Sorry old girl that I haven’t bought into the notion that men (and parents) oppress women or that women have to become men to be equals.
I think it’s clownish to watch people like Hillary Clinton traveling the world, pretending to be a leader, when clearly she didn’t earn her esteemed title…nor once ensconced did she take the job seriously enough to protect America’s secrets by using a secure form of communication. Her way out of the scandal? Lie and play coy…just like a little girl. This is not strength. It is achievement by feminine wiles and female ploy…an insult to strong women everywhere!
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Bra-burning never happened. “Himicane” is a joke and was never seriously proposed by feminists. And that barely scratches the surface of how wrong and misinformed your understanding of feminism is.
A couple of excerpts from an article by Clarice Feldman for your consideration. the first on political correctness and the second on refugees and assimilation:
The happily hapless left sees no threat to their own survival, so focused and indoctrinated are they to the false notion that “social justice” and redistribution are superior to liberty and the rule of law.
Libby I suppose if it must give you pleasure to call people the B word, you use it so often here. Its a shame though, because it is a sniping that terminates conversation.
I’ve tried my best to be considerate with you over these jabs because I take such accusations very serious. It causes me to examine what I said and be sure it came out right and I wasn’t really being what you accuse me.
However, over the years I found that almost nobody but you makes that ugly complaint. Just the opposite. You are the extreme minority, in fact you would not believe the people who strongly agree with me about threats to security, immigration policy and such. So I must conclude that what you say is the best response you have to topic of national interest. And your response is so predictable that its boring.
I won’t try to convince you where you are wrong because #1, it wouldn’t change your opinion. You are 100% intractable, buttressed behind a stonewall of liberal ideology from which you will never escape. You are locked in and your mind is closed to new thought.
I wish it were otherwise because I would like to have an intelligent conversation with you, but it’s just never going to happen. I take all the risks of expressing myself here and you merely wait in the weeds for a change to snipe at me. Like I said, that’s really boring and its not very courageous either. At least Chris comes at me with a quiver full of responses to things he disagrees with, but you just snipe.
Jack: “Libby I suppose if it must give you pleasure to call people the B word, you use it so often here. Its a shame though, because it is a sniping that terminates conversation.”
Jack, do you think the following excerpt from Tina’s link by Clarice Feldman might also stifle conversation?
“It should be glaringly obvious that Third World Muslim men do not know how to treat women. Men from the Middle East and North Africa see women as occupying a social position just slightly above that of livestock — and, they see Western females as prostitutes.”
Note that Feldman doesn’t add the qualifier “some” or even “many” to her groups “Third World Muslim men” or “Men from the Middle East and North Africa.” She’s describing these groups as a whole (as you know, the lack of a qualifier in English signifies “all.”)
I can’t imagine a Muslim man reading this and feeling welcome to participate in a conversation.
And it is bigoted; by definition, the excerpt above generalizes about a large group of people based on the actions of some.
I understand that at times you and Tina make an effort to distinguish between radical Muslims and moderates. But other times, you say and share things like the above, which make no such distinction. This does not help conversation move forward. It’s divisive and targets the fear centers of peoples’ brains, not their more advanced logical portions. It makes people irrational. And it’s obviously going to provoke accusations of bigotry, because it is bigoted.
I don’t feel much sympathy for your exhaustion over accusations of bigotry. There are clear, easy, helpful steps you can take to avoid those accusations that would make this blog a better place and stimulate higher level conversation. If you don’t want to take them, so be it, but don’t get angry when people call a spade a spade.
I urge anyone who has trouble with generalities or discerning a good Muslim human being from a bad Muslim human being, especially with respect to Islamic treatment of women, to read an article in The Commentator titled, “A personal warning over women in Islamic countries” – In her new book, Phyllis Chesler argues that honor-related violence against women and gender apartheid cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism or religious custom, or political correctness. Western “progressives” should take note”
Excerpt:
I don’t think it is up to the average citizen in America, or anywhere for that matter, to always remember to qualify his words when speaking about the problems with terrorism and Islam today. I also think it is absurd for Chris, or anyone else, to lecture us, or the people we quote, for speaking our minds openly and honestly about these matters. Unless you’ve been living under a rock your entire life you should be aware of the worlds Islamic problem.
The phony PC sheltering of moderate Muslims simply helps to delay the inevitable which is the necessity for moderate Muslims to organize and reform their religion. While I recognize the enormity of this challenge, I also know that if moderates step up to meet the challenge a , more compassionate and humane permanent solution could be the result. The free peoples of the world will stand behind them…at least those of us who have not fallen victim to PC rules and the relativist point of view will.
Moderate Muslims can begin the journey for reform here and here.
The suggestion that moderate Muslims are so unaware of the differences between moderates and radicals that they would find generalized statements offensive is absurd. The suggestion that moderate Muslims wouldn’t be able to figure out that a person describing behaviors that happen daily in most, if not all, Islamic countries, are not directed to them personally is absurd. The belief that moderate Muslims can’t tell when people are speaking about radicals is absurd. Why, I wonder, would moderates ever bothered to come to America if not for their own disdain and discomfort with the behaviors of Muslims and Muslim laws in their former countries?
I don’t know if Chris has noticed, he might have been busy with other things, but the whole world has a Muslim problem. Radicals in the religion have risen to powerful positions to wage war on the rest of the world, including moderate Muslims. We have to be able to discuss the ramifications associated with this rise, including the horrible treatment of women, even at times by some (perceived as moderate) Muslims.
abc
telegraph
Jamie Glasov on Honor Killing – You Tube
Finally…we should all recall the remarks of neighbors and friends of lone wolf terrorists in America after they attack. So often we hear that they were quiet, polite, friendly, a good student, etc. Even people who seem moderate can at times be deceiving us. If we were discussing individual persons, we would name them. So when we discuss radical Islam, terrorists, lone wolves, or “third-world Muslim men” we are not discussing individual persons, we are discussing the problem.
Personal note to Chris: You have the skills to start your own blog with a “higher level conversation” and are welcome to move on any time.” I caution you to recall that your own comments on this blog have not always risen to the “higher level” you seem to feel the need to hold over our heads. Also take note, your arrogantly expressed opinions about what you perceive as bigotry are boring and you have shown yourself to be hopelessly married to PC rules that are so disjointed and contemptible that they have even driven comedians from America’s college campuses. Don’t be so sure you’d do a superior job.
Tina, nobody around here is justifying or condoning anything. Them nasty boys in Germany are going to jail, and then they’re going to be deported.
It is probable that this, and maybe an increased effort at integration of the new arrivals, will deter any further incidents.
The problem is that this is not enough for you. You insist on maligning all Muslim refugees with the incident, which is very uncivilized of you.
Excuse me Libby but I haven’t maligned all Muslims. You have accused me of maligning Muslims because I’m not afraid to talk about the Muslims that are harming our citizens. Muslims, Christians, Jews and others in other countries and here at home. I have been willing to discuss radicals that, less face it, are not doing much for the reputation if Islam.
I have talked about radical Muslims and radical Muslims attacks. I have talked about an alternative to bringing in refugees that makes a heck of a lot more sense. I have talked about the fact, or agreed with those who did, that attacks in America have been done by refugees or migrants that were supposedly vetted and questioned the vetting process.
I have made distinctions. You just refuse to notice or make them yourself.
Admit it…you will not make a negative statement regarding the purpose and goals of the Islamists waging war on us…and on women and gays…unless forced to…you will not discuss it except to shame those who do.
And by the way, if the man in the White House had even an ounce of ability to lead we wouldn’t be in this mess. In fact had we elected someone else we would be a lot better off not only regarding terrorists but economically and in regard to our civility and unity as well!
At the very core of this post is the grouping all people in a particular religious belief.
It was my understanding that we as Americans do not do that.
Should we ban all Christians because of extremist acts and terrorism by the few?
America was not founded on that principle. Authoritarian Dictatorships are.
This is not WW2 Germany folks.
Oxford Dictionaries:
Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself: the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry.
Webster’s 1913 Dictionary:
Big´ot
n.
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite.
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
Intolerance can be a very healthy response. Can you imagine the world tolerating the Nazis instead of fighting to defeat them? That fight, Dewey, was an expression of extreme intolerance for the beliefs of a group.
Radial Muslims who want to establish a totalitarian, world-wide Islamic state MUST NOT be tolerated. Muslim radicals who rise to form governments and laws that oppress women and people of other faiths, particularly in violent ways, MUST NOT be tolerated.
So you see Dewey, intolerance of those who have no desire to be tolerant of others is healthy, smart, and responsible.
America should never tolerate evil.
If you’d stop making assumptions we’d have an easier time communicating.
Question: ‘Aren’t you showing intolerance for groups in your comments on this blog? As far as I know none of the groups you target for intolerance want to kill people to establish a totalitarian state. So how are you different (better) from any of the rest of us?
Three paragraphs of nothing is still nothing. If your verbosity can be distilled to a single issue, that your repeated insistence that the actions of a criminal few characterize all Muslims is racist, I’m doing your readers a big favor.
And I will continue to point this out for as long as you continue to do it.
“…your repeated insistence that the actions of a criminal few characterize all Muslims”
You are a damn liar. I have NEVER used the word “all” nor have I ever intended or suggested “all” Muslims are terrorists.
In fact I have written about several prominent moderate Muslims effusively and provided links to their webpages!
And by the way, ISIS was estimated to be as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria back in 2014. They’re recruiting for lone wolf attackers across Europe and in America…we have no idea how many there are (We’re too driven by PC to find out). That doesn’t represent a few…especially when you have such weenie policies for fighting them.
You’re being a bit of a jerk and your specious accusations do no one any favors.
Tina: “You are a damn liar. I have NEVER used the word “all” nor have I ever intended or suggested “all” Muslims are terrorists.”
Again, the lack of a qualifier implies the word “all.” This is a basic rule of the English language.
If I say “Tea Partiers are racists,” I am suggesting that ALL Tea Partiers are racists, whether or not I actually use the word “all.” That’s what a reasonable listener hears. A Tea Partier would have little reason to listen to anything else I had to say after that point; I would have already revealed myself as prejudiced against them to such a degree that real conversation isn’t possible.
It doesn’t really matter if I later say “Well, I didn’t mean ALL Tea Partiers,” especially if I follow up by basically saying “And you’re being unreasonable to think so, and no I won’t apologize, stop being so sensitive you PC whiners.”
Them exact same is true of statements such as this:
““It should be glaringly obvious that Third World Muslim men do not know how to treat women. Men from the Middle East and North Africa see women as occupying a social position just slightly above that of livestock — and, they see Western females as prostitutes.”
…which you did not say, but quoted favorably, and expressed agreement with.
If “Tea Partiers are racists” is an unfair generalization, then so is the above.
You defended such generalizations it with this argument:
“The suggestion that moderate Muslims are so unaware of the differences between moderates and radicals that they would find generalized statements offensive is absurd. The suggestion that moderate Muslims wouldn’t be able to figure out that a person describing behaviors that happen daily in most, if not all, Islamic countries, are not directed to them personally is absurd. The belief that moderate Muslims can’t tell when people are speaking about radicals is absurd.”
Let’s try that with my analogy:
The suggestion that moderate Tea Partiers are so unaware of the differences between moderates and radicals that they would find generalized statements offensive is absurd. The suggestion that moderate Tea Partiers wouldn’t be able to figure out that a person describing behaviors that happen daily at most, if not all, Tea Party events, are not directed to them personally is absurd. The belief that moderate Tea Partiers can’t tell when people are speaking about radicals is absurd.
If you think the above is unconvincing, perhaps you can see why I found your argument unconvincing.
It really isn’t the responsibility of members of a group that is currently being insulted to think to themselves, “It’s OK, I’m sure they’re not talking about me.” That goes double for members of a group which is marginalized and often subjected to hate crimes. (Muslims rank only below Jews in the level of hate crimes against them.) It really is the responsibility of the speaker to avoid generalizations, not the listener to figure out whether or not they are included in those generalizations.
Both “Tea Partiers are racists” and “Foreign-born Muslim men are uncommonly violent” are unfair generalizations.
Let’s all stop using unfair generalizations.
“A Tea Partier would have little reason to listen to anything else I had to say after that point”
And yet in one form or another…sometimes directly…you, Libby, and Dewey have done just that…and amazingly, we still post your comments, engage you in conversation, and call you our friends.
So from my perspective your evaluation just doesn’t stand up.
I’ve always thought that liberals could be at times quite dim, but this really takes the cake.
I can’t recall a time, except when we’ve spoken about Dr. Zhudi Jasser, when we have ever discussed Muslims in general on Post Scripts. Our discussions have centered almost exclusively on the world-wide, decades old Muslim terror problem. We have never discussed the Quran that inspires them, except in the context of terrorism. If you have trouble knowing that we’re addressing the very real problem of terrorism, and not good kindly people or religion, you are truly dim.
Why in the world do you hang around here if we are so despicable? Or do you just get some perverse kind of pleasure in calling other people demeaning names.
I have never said that Tea Partiers, in general, are racists.
“I can’t recall a time, except when we’ve spoken about Dr. Zhudi Jasser, when we have ever discussed Muslims in general on Post Scripts.”
As I showed you, you just did.
Good try, Chris.
Thanks. It’s all I can do.
“Intolerance can be ….”
Yes, well, when ISIS proposes to invade Manhattan … but we will continue to drone the Hydra and improve our assorted counter-this-that-and-the-other … one of which would be, of course, nurturing refugees … were it not for the frightened and bigoted obstruction of parties I hardly need name.
From michael_d463@yahoo.com “From want to have a better country. kill all these motherfuckers and get this scum out of this country. what abummer has done we can undo”
Pie here: No, **** you Michael. You are not welcome here and don’t even think about returning. The FBI has your email address now. Up yours you sick ass**** troll lunatic.