A Tale of Two Muslims

213 Views

After 9/11, Americans had to do a hard reset on our perceptions of Islam and the people who practice it. Although most Muslims aren’t looking to blow up a shopping mall or drive into a crowd of people, there are some who will. As a result, we’ve gotten jittery because the latter Muslims typically don’t walk up and introduce themselves to you as radicals before they kill you.

We keep asking for the “good Muslims” to stand up and be counted because they typically don’t. One has, but his story has gotten very little attention in favor of another Muslim. The former, Abdul Aziz, is a man who risked his life by confronting the mosque shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand recently. The latter is a woman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has been able to parlay an election to the House of Representatives into a lucrative soapbox to advance anti-Semitic ideas while claiming to be a victim of Islamophobia when she gets called out.

Why the difference in approaches? Bad news sells better than good news. It’s easier to make a woman of color a sympathetic figure than it is to make a man, of color or otherwise, into one because we are trained to see women as weaker. Although this is no longer the case by and large, it’s the way we’re “programmed” as it were. And before you Leftists start screaming about The Patriarchy, it’s not solely the work of The Man. It’s genetic and has been for a loooooooong time.

There is something else at work here, one that should make Leftists’ heads explode. Rep. Omar isn’t a poor victim here. She is a woman with a degree of power currently that most American will never have. And how is she using that power? To deceive people about her personal feelings towards Israel and Jewish people in general while pushing a narrative about hate crimes that isn’t backed up by facts from reputable sources (i.e. entities not named the Southern Poverty Law Center).

In contrast, Aziz has no power to speak of, save for the power of his resolve and bravery in confronting an active shooter and getting him to stand down. Going back to the genetic programming I mentioned earlier, men are expected to protect the weak, so there really is no story there, at least in the eyes of the media fawning over Omar. Just a little sexist there, don’t you think?

Adding to the context is American media’s attitude towards foreign news. The short version is they’re only concerned about foreign countries when there’s a tragedy, which the Christchurch shooting certainly was. Good news coming out of a tragedy isn’t always the news we hear, however, because it goes against our media’s predisposition to ignore foreign news until there’s unrest. In the media’s eyes, Omar is closer to home, so any stories about her are immediately “interesting.”

Then, there’s the narrative, or in this case narratives. Our media are Leftist stenographers, so anything they cover is done so to advance an agenda. With the Omar situation, there was an opportunity to promote the idea of rising white supremacist and anti-woman sentiments in America. With the Christchurch shooting, there was an opportunity to push a pro-gun control message. However, the fly in the ointment in the latter situation is the fact Aziz used a gun to repel the shooter, which means his story has to get buried in favor of pushing the notion guns are only used for killing. As a result, our media decided to ignore Aziz’s actions because they ruin the Left’s narrative.

It also doesn’t help matters that Aziz has been silent about President Donald Trump, while Omar has been attacking the President for a while.

At this point, the media aren’t going to stop giving Omar a platform to spew, spin, and ask forgiveness when she get called out, but the fact they aren’t giving Aziz any platform should be troubling to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Left really doesn’t care about the plight of Muslims, just about the optics and what supporting them can do for the Left’s brand. That’s right, kids. Leftists are perfectly fine with bigotry as long as they get what they want out of it. That’s why you won’t see them condemn Rep. Omar. She is a useful tool. Aziz isn’t because he doesn’t help the Left advance anything. Yet, these same Leftists will go after any conservative who even slightly criticizes Omar as Islamophobic.

Spoiler Alert: the denial of the good Muslims do is Islamophobia. Even by the Left’s definition.

I’m not denying there are still Muslims out there who want America and Israel brought down, but I don’t have any evidence that Abdul Aziz is one of them. But I do have evidence Ilham Omar is. Instead of focusing and whitewashing every single hateful “gaffe” the latter makes, we should be elevating the former and calling out when anyone deserves a pat on the back.

You may never read this, Mr. Aziz, but know there are plenty like me who say thank you for your bravery in the face of death. You have earned my respect. May others like you come forward and show the world Islam isn’t the violent religion some have made it out to be.

Withdraw from Syria

114 Views

President Trump announced this week his intention of pulling all US troops out of war torn Syria. This action has both good and bad reactions at home and abroad. I personally think this is a good move.

I never supported US Military involvement in Syria. President Obama has the US get involved in Syria’s civil war during the so-called Arab Spring movement. However our troops did not have a clear mission, objective, or goal. Nor was it clear on who the enemy was in this conflict.

Like most Arab Spring uprisings, militant hardline Leftist Islamic Fascists attempt to topple the government. In may cases this is a similar Leftist ruling totalitarian regime. But also it is generally mostly a secular government. And the Islamic fascists are deep fanatics of Shaira Law and the false religion of Islam.

Our involvement in Syria needed a review. President Trump promised one during his campaign in 2016. Under the Obama Administration US forces were assisting various rebel factions that we could not fully vet their ideology. We also were dangerously close to an open conflict with the Russian Federation who was also involved in the conflict with a clear goal of defending the al-Assad regime from any rebel forces. This placed the United States as a potential enemy in this conflict.

This was a very bad judgement call by then President Obama as it could have led to a new cold war or even a direct war with the Russian Federation. Also these Arab Spring militant Islamic Leftists are not friendly to the United State or to our only true ally in the Middle East, the state of Israel.

We are far better off with the devil we know in al-Assad in control of Syria than we are with another Islamic militant fascist state destabilizing the region. And Israel certainly doesn’t want another Arab stat with the goal of wiping Israel off the map right on her doorstep.

So as various pundits and talking heads on all sides condemn and condone the President for this action. And some will state the wrong reasons such as wanting to spread democracy or that the Russian Federation is our enemy and that the President is taking his orders from Putin and other such nonsense. I condone the action. We should have never entered the conflict in the first place.

The troops can come home and get a well deserved rest before being deployed elsewhere, such as the border. Maybe now we can consider a new deal with Israel. We should have a strong presence in the Middle East. Lets open a few bases in Israel where the mission is to defend our ally against Islamic terrorists and aggression. That is a mission I can support.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – 2 of 2

102 Views

Yep, you read that right. This week you’re getting a Leftist Lexicon two-fer, and I will make this worth your while.

Recently Women’s March organizer, Leftist activist (which is pretty much the same thing), and prominent Muslim Linda Sarsour raised a few eyebrows recently when she referenced the word “jihad” in a speech criticizing President Donald Trump in a keynote address for the Islamic Society of North America. The Right focused on her use of the word to suggest she wanted to wage holy war against the President, while the Left said she was taken out of context and that jihad has a completely peaceful meaning.

Let’s take a look at this explosive word, if you’ll pardon the pun. And if you don’t, I’ll win on appeal.

jihad

What the Left thinks it means – an internal struggle, but can also mean holy war in limited cases

What the Right thinks it means – holy war, but can also mean an internal struggle in limited cases

What it really means – holy war and an internal struggle, depending on context

Yes, there’s that little word “context” again! In the interest of making sure Sarsour’s words are put in context, here is the portion of the speech in question. I would type it out, but a) it’s better if you read the transcript in full, b) it’s too fraking long to type, and c) it’s nuttier than squirrel dung. In context, Sarsour doesn’t overtly come out and call for violent holy war, but she doesn’t overtly come out and say it’s a personal struggle, either.

Now, if this were an isolated incident, I might be inclined to agree with the Left on this one. It’s not, of course, so I’m going to disagree with the Left’s take on jihad. Reading through Sarsour’s Twitter feed brings up some interesting tidbits, including an attempt to turn Islam into a female-friendly religion. Also, she has said female critics of Islam should have their genitals removed.

And remember, kids, she’s a feminist.

Sarsour has tried to push back against the Right’s criticism of her use of “jihad” in a speech, saying she was taken out of context and would never advocate violence. Given what she said and who she was targeting, I would be hard pressed to give her the benefit of the doubt. She speaks of fascists, Islamophobes, and white supremacists in the White House, but we’re supposed to believe her call for jihad is strictly peaceful? Let’s not forget she said earlier in the section I linked earlier that those who sit on the sidelines in the fight for Muslims in America are empowering the people who she says are oppressing Muslims. So, how would Sarsour propose to peacefully stop the oppression via a personal struggle?

Well, she hasn’t really gotten to that point yet. However, I might have a hypothesis; she’s lying through her hijab. Although she likens her movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the civil rights movement didn’t behead racists en masse or force FGM on white women who didn’t see segregation as a positive step forward. Nope, those actions are supported by…Muslims. Granted, not all Muslims model this season’s bomb vests, but enough do to raise eyebrows.

Digging a bit deeper into Sarsour’s history, you find she is Palestinian. Let’s just say Palestinians may not have gotten the memo about jihad meaning personal struggle because they’ve been practicing the more violent kind of Islam. This leads me to believe Sarsour also may not have gotten the memo, or did and wants us to ignore Palestinian violence in the name of Islam while paying sole attention on her version of jihad.

Sorry, Ms. Sarsour, but that’s not how this works. Not only are you using the tired Leftist “I was taken out of context” defense, but you’re relying on people not to take your upbringing and history into account when you speak of jihad. You can say you’re following Dr. Martin Luther King’s example, and you can certainly believe that with your whole heart. I can call my dog a bird, but it doesn’t mean he can fly. Words mean things, Ms. Sarsour, and you used the word jihad purposely to elicit a response on both sides of the aisle. And you succeeded, but to what end? So you can play the victim, thus getting Leftists to run interference for you and possibly give you praise and money for your struggle?

Or is it something more sinister? Let’s be honest here. The Left has gotten more violent than an MMA fight directed by Sam Peckinpah, and they are finding ways to act on their violent natures. It’s not that far of a leap to suggest the use of jihad in Sarsour’s speech was meant to inflame the same people attacking Republican Congressmen, threatening Republican Senators, and cheering the “artistic expression” of a bloodied severed head of Donald Trump. And given what she said in her speech about Trump, it’s easy to conclude she’s a fan of the violent Left as well as the violent Muslims. Put another way, Sarsour is the perfect spokeswoman for both the Left and Islamic extremists because she speaks both of their languages.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Jihad has more than one meaning, so it’s important to keep context in mind. I know Muslims who wouldn’t hurt a fly and find radical Islam distasteful. These are good men and women whose jihads may be closer to what Linda Sarsour and her Leftist fans want us to believe it means. But we cannot ignore the definition of jihad that involves violence, death, and destruction. The two meanings cannot be separated and must be defined in the spirit in which they are used. To assume one definition or the other is the right one is to open up the possibility of being wrong.

And when it comes to Islam, we can’t afford to be wrong. If we round up all Muslims when they want nothing more than to live in peace, we deny them basic human liberties and prove Linda Sarsour right about America. If we treat all Muslims as peaceful, we run the risk of leaving ourselves vulnerable to attack from those who wish to do us harm.

Not an easy road we walk to be sure, but as Americans we owe it to ourselves not to give in to the overly optimistic or the overly pessimistic view of Islam. That means we have to do our own vetting on a personal level, but it is worth it to protect not only our country, but our liberty. After all, a government that can round up Muslims today can round up Christians tomorrow without changing their mission statement.

It’s Not a Muslim Ban

114 Views

President Trump’s Executive Order banning travel from foreign nationals from 7 of the world’s largest hotbed of terrorists is not a ban on Muslims or an attack on Islam. Despite the cry’s of the Liberals here and abroad.

The 7 nations impacted by the travel ban or Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya. All of them have very high numbers of terrorists acting freely within their borders and abroad.

If this was a ban on Muslims then the following countries would also be banned: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, China, Niger, Tanzania, Malaysia, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Chad, Tajikistan, Jordan, Palestinian Territories, and Israel.

All of the nations listed above are NOT banned, but all have equally high or higher Muslim populations than the 7 countries that are banned and/or are located in the Middle East where Islam originated.

So how is this a Muslim ban again? Seriously I want a dialog here from someone to explain how implementing a travel ban from 7 countries is a ban against all Muslims.

Mathematically it also shows that this is not a ban on Muslims. In the 7 banned nations there are 205,428,950 Muslims. While within the remaining unbanned nations that I listed there are 1,326,550,062 Muslims. For those that are mathematically challenged that’s about 640% more Muslims of the world that are not travel banned which covers the majority of the Muslim population of 1,703,146,000 world wide.

Now I will state that the ban was a bit too restrictive as it did unfortunately catch some legitimate travellers in its broad net. And that can be fixed without going crazy with false accusations and stupidity by the Left who are still upset that they lost the election.

Good Idea or Bad Idea?

124 Views

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Democrats decided to recycle an idea they introduced last year: banning people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from getting guns. (At least they believe in recycling something!) On the surface, it makes sense. We don’t want terrorists getting guns, right? Absolutely.

So, why aren’t more people on the Right on board with this idea? A little thing the kids like to call “due process.” It might be just a fad, though, if some people get their way.

Put simply (so Leftists can understand it), due process requires people not be denied their fundamental rights without there being some sort of legal action. Although the FBI is an arm of law enforcement, it is not equal to a trial where little things like evidence and sworn testimony can be used to determine guilt.

Still unclear about this concept, Leftists? Let’s try something closer to your political hearts. Due process prevents cops from throwing members of Black Lives Matter into solitary confinement before the BLM clowns get their case heard in court. After they’re found guilty, then the BLM clowns get thrown into solitary. There are no short-cuts in the process, kids.

Even if you’re not down with due process, there’s another huge (or YUGE if you’re a Trump supporter) problem with the FBI’s watch list. The way you get on the list in the first place is completely arbitrary. You don’t even need to be an actual terrorist to land on it! In fact, you could be an actual terrorist and not land on it. (See the Boston Marathon bombers for a prime example.) And if you’re a mother of three from Minneapolis with the oh-so-Muslim-sounding name of Lena Olson, you could wind up on it by mistake.

Yeah, that’s not exactly a “whoops.”

And it’s not exactly something we can gloss over, either. Since 9/11, we as a society have been willing on some level to let some rights go by the wayside. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the fear of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, to weaken the concept of due process for their own political ends. This continues today, as does the inefficiency and ineptitude of those who keep and maintain the watch list.

That, in and of itself, is not a valid enough reason to apply the watch list to whether someone should be allowed to get a gun. But I do have an idea, and I’m hoping the Left (and some people on the Right) have the intellectual courage to act on it.

If you support the Democrats’ proposal, volunteer to go on the watch list. Even if your name is Lena Olson. Report yourself to the FBI as a suspected terrorist, just to be on the safe side. If it saves just one life…

Nightclub Terror

136 Views

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, survivors, families, and the community of Orlando in the wake of the terrorist attack on Sunday.

We must keep this in focus. This was a terrorist attack by a pro-ISIS supporting Muslim. And that the Quran’s statements against homosexuality are very well documented and confirmed. This was a crime motivated by pure hatred.

The Left always ignores all other factors and starts pointing the fingers at the gun used. And starts calling for a ban on “assault weapons”.

An “assault weapon” is a misnomer. An assault is a verb, it’s an action that a person does. It is also a crime. While a weapon is any tool used to make any violent action easier. And a weapon can be anything. A gun, a knife, a rock, a screwdriver, and even a spork. So an “assault weapon” is any weapon used in an assault. It is NOT a class or type of firearm.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The gun, be it a pistol or a semi-automatic rifle is not the problem.

The problem is Muslim terrorists, home-grown or otherwise. The problem is the person pulling the trigger. Omar Mateen in this case. And since he is also among the dead we may never know all of the details in this case.

From the news articles coming out it is speculated that he was bipolar, but not diagnosed. And he was known to the FBI but not deemed a threat or under investigation, or prohibited from acquiring arms at the time of this crime.

These point to problems with our mental health system and with our vetting of potential home-grown terrorist threats. Not a problem with guns.

In fact, by state law, the nightclub was a gun-free zone. Like places of most mass shootings where law abiding citizens will be unarmed. So adding more anti-gun (gun control) laws isn’t going to help. Terrorists and criminals do not follow the law anyway. One more isn’t going to change that.

If the nightclub wasn’t part of a gun-free zone, there could have been a chance that a patron was armed. And that armed patron could have prevented this crime from from reaching the level it did.

This attack touches me deeply on several levels. For those that aren’t aware, this last weekend was a “gay pride” weekend across the country. And the Orlando nightclub was Orlando’s best gay bar.

I am a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment. So when it is unjustly attacked I do stand to defend it.

We need to see and acknowledge the dangers that Islam presents to humanity and freedom. It is not a religion like all the others, it is not a religion of peace or love. But not all Muslims practice all of its tenets.

And most importantly there are two people that I care about that could have been among the victims at the nightclub. My transgender child Jen who lives in Florida and is a strong advocate for LGBTQ rights. And my gay cousin Todd who visits Florida frequently. They are the two most important reasons this cowardly attack affects me on a personal level.

The War on Terror

111 Views

We are fighting the war on terror in the wrong way. Ever since we started the war after the events of 9/11, we have been engaged in nation building and spreading democracy.

In Iraq, we toppled Saddam Hussein, and now Iraq is in a bitter civil war were the Islamic State Caliphate is gaining ground. In Egypt, we toppled Mubarak, during the so-called Arab Spring. Only to have him replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, a known terrorist organization. Fortunately the Egyptian military removed the Brotherhood from power, but the area is far from stable. In Libya, we saw to the removal of Colonel Qaddafi. Only to have him replaced by Islamic terrorist hardliners that lead to the death of 4 Americans at the US Embassy.

Now we have Syria. Bashar al-Assad, like the other leaders of Islamic terrorist nations is a bad person. His civil rights record is abysmal and he certainly is not a friend. But we should support his government in the civil war that rages in Syria at this time.

Why? Because he is fighting against the Islamic State Caliphate and other hardline Islamic terrorist groups. And without Bashar, the power vacuum will be filled by an unknown person or group. Bashar is just the lesser of evils and he is the devil we known. Keeping him in power will help to stabilize Syria and the rest of the Middle East.

We must engage the most dangerous enemy and threat to our national security and the security of the entire world instead of going about the nation building business. And that enemy is the Islamic State (ISIS) Caliphate.

We need a ground, air, and sea plan of assault. The Caliphate must be deprived of it’s land first and foremost. This gives the Caliphate legitimacy in the eyes of Muslims. Additionally we must stop the flow of money, goods, man power, and their ability to use the internet.

I am not a tactician. I can not say HOW this all should be done. But it does need to be done or the Islamic State will continue to gain ground, funds, recruits, and power. And then it will be even harder to stop if not impossible to stop. Better learn Arabic if that happens.

Last 2015 Debate

115 Views

Last night was the last Republican presidential debate of 2015. And the last before the Iowa Caucus ends up casting the first vote in the nation on choosing who will be the Republican nominee.

In the first debate of the evening we had Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, and Pataki. Graham doesn’t listen to anyone. Most of his answers are naive at best and dangerous to our national security. He is a fool. Pataki likewise just doesn’t have it in him to be President, he was a little better than Graham. Between Santorum and Huckabee, I believe Huckabee won the day and the debate. He would be a good VP choice for whomever gets the nomination.

During the main event. Trump was attacked, just as he was attacked during the first debate. But Trump defended and clarified his positions. He has come a long way since entering the field of being an active voice in politics. He even defended Jeb. But Jed still openly attacked him and shared some of the same lack of listening skills shown by Graham in the first debate.

The Gov of Ohio, I keep forgetting his name, is just a blowhard. He likes to talk but really doesn’t say much of anything.

Rand and Jeb’s idea about not using ground troops in the Middle East is absolutely absurd. Rand will not make the US safe at all from Islamic or other terrorists.

Cruz, who seems to think he is leading in Iowa, based on a poll conducted by the Des Moines Register, also is a blowhard. He talks, he talks over the moderators. And he keeps on talking well after his time has expired. It shows lapses in his character. His father would be a better candidate but unfortunately his father was not a natural born citizen.

Rubio has a few issues as well. He has no executive experience. He is in full time campaign mode. Reminds me of Obama, who was always campaigning. Rubio was sent to the Senate to vote but misses most of them because he is out running for President. What happens if he gets to be President, will he do his job then?

Ben Carson and Trump seem to have patched things up as Trump had good things to say about Ben during the debate. And like usual, Ben didn’t have many speaking opportunities.

Carly is dangerous when it comes to freedom. She would trade freedom and several of our Bill of Rights for safety. This cannot be allowed. The NSA spying on Americans and the collection of metadata and other data needs to stop.

Trump has the right ideas when it comes to national security issues. With the right Congress and the right advisors in place. His ideas would be implemented with great care and ease.

The Root Cause

94 Views

The Islamic terrorist attacks in France and elsewhere around the world is the direct result of the decline of Western Civilization. Our civilization, like it or not, was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and ethics. Although earlier movements played a part it was Christendom that spurred our civilization forward to all corners of the earth and into space beyond.

Through Christianity we bring about the end of feudalism, the rise of science, and the beginnings of true freedom. Nowhere on Earth have these blessings of Christendom been so expressed than in the United States. The first and only nation that at one time was the exception to all of history.

The founding of a civilization on the Holy Bible is what makes Western Culture superior to anything the world has ever known. Although cultures can border with other cultures, and have trade with other cultures, they cannot co-exist in the same areas. One must give out to the other.

Islamic Culture is founded on the teachings in the Quran. The Quran and the Holy Bible represent two different, distinct, and incompatible worldviews. Within the Quran, the holy book of all Muslims, Allah never came to Earth as a man and to believe so is blasphemy, with death as the punishment. Within the Holy Bible, the Word of God. God came to Earth, born of man, died for all of mankind’s sins, and rose again. This is the foundation and cornerstone of Christian belief.

When Western Civilization in Europe embraced Socialism after the end of World War II, they changed and moved away from the Culture that caused them to rise to power in the first place.

They opened the door to multiculturalism. Where immigrants do not integrate or assimilate into the mainstream Western Culture. This leads eventually to strife and conflict. And that is what Europe has seen in the attacks in Paris and the Russian jet that was shot down.

Islamic Culture and Western Culture are virtual opposites of one another. The advantage of Islamic Culture is they do fight for what they believe in against any opposition. Western Culture has lost its way and no longer fights for its survival.

If this continues, Western Civilization will be conquered and replaced by another. One that does not represent freedom, one that has no salvation other than death, one that does not celebrate life or champions good over evil, one that encourages wars between its factions. This is and has been the Culture of Islam for over 1400 years. It isn’t going to change.

Obama’s Citizenship and Muslim Roots

70 Views

President Obama is not a follower of Muhamad. He does not practice Islam. And he is not a Muslim. He is however also not a Christian. His form of “Christianity” is that of a “Sunday Christian”. A person who goes to church on Sunday’s and thinks that they are Christians without following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

President Obama is pro-Muslim however in his outlook. The facts speak for themselves on this issue. President Obama refuses to refer to the terrorist as Islamic Terrorists which is exactly what who and what they are. President Obama under his childhood name of Barry Soetoro attended an Islamic school in Indonesia during his impressionable years. His religion was listed as Muslim on his school papers. This would prevent him from being in a minority but it also leds him to being influenced by Islam.

As to President Obama’s US Citizenship and place of birth. It is time to put to bed the “birthers”. President Obama was born in the United States in the State of Hawaii. But there is a question of who really is his father. And why is he Barack Obama II and not Barack Obama Jr.

The African people are very traditional. The designation of Jr is used to distinguish the father from the son when they have the same name. The designation of the II is used if someone has the same name as a previous distant relative or perhaps even named after someone who is not a relative. So this is a clear indication that Barack Obama of Kenya is not his birth father.

There are other issues to consider as well. Comparing various photos of Obama when he was a young man with ones when he was running for office show a distinct change in the shape of his nose. Did he have a nose job? Was it looking too much like that of his birth father?

These are all just theories but they have yet to be disproven. Some cannot be disproven such as the invluence of Islam on this President given the cultural impact during his formative years. But he is, unfortunately, an American.