Tag Archive for: Democrats

No, Women Are Not Obliged to Vote for Hillary by Sarah Skwire

/in , , /by

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

It’s one of Madeline Albright’s most famous lines, and she’s brought it out on any number of occasions. Starbucks even put it on a coffee cup. I understand why. It’s eminently quotable and suggests a kind of tough-minded sisterhood that can be appealing. I can see its ready application, for example, when helping a drunk friend get home safely from a party or when holding another mom’s infant so she can use the restroom in peace.

But Albright should have been a lot more careful before she applied her signature line to what she sees as an obligation for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries. Because the minute that you take her line out of the context of relationships among people and move it to the political context it loses whatever tough-minded charm it has, and it becomes a bullying, sexist, prescriptivist piece of obnoxious nonsense.

I don’t believe in hell, so threatening me with it has never had much purchase. But to the best of my understanding, for religions that do believe in hell, the things that get people sent there are sins against God or against other people. Taking a political action that someone doesn’t agree with (voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton) doesn’t seem to fit that bill in any way. Suggesting that it does mingles church and state in ways that sit uncomfortably with long American traditions.

And even if voting in a way that Albright thinks is wrong is a sin that leads to damnation, if Albright really is a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she should probably be led by the many New Testament verses that counsel believers to use gentle correction and instruction toward those who have gone astray.

If Albright isn’t a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she might be well advised to keep theology out of her politics entirely.

But even if we leave aside the myriad objections that arise when a bullying and inaccurate theology is dragged into the political realm, Albright’s insistence that women have a duty to vote for Clinton because she is also a woman remains moronic.

It is sexism of the oldest and most annoying type. With one comment, Albright managed to suggest the following:

  1. Women should shut up and vote the way they are told to vote.
  2. All women should vote the same way.
  3. All women have the same interests and objectives.
  4. Women who have made choices others disagree with have chosen incorrectly and must be brought back into line.
  5. Women cannot be trusted to recognize (and vote in favor of) their best interests.

Women have, over the centuries, gotten quite practiced at responding to these particular bits of idiocy. So while it’s disconcerting, at best, to hear this tosh from a woman of Albright’s stature and experience, it’s not particularly challenging to formulate an intelligent response. In fact, one thing that makes Albright’s comment so maddening is that, to many women, it seems so incredibly retrograde when applied to politics. It ignores the very real progress made by 21st century feminist thinkers in recognizing the different kinds of lives lived by different kinds of women — from different classes, of different colors, with different religions, of different sexualities, and in different bodies. By shouting right over that kind of nuance, Albright’s comment sounds like it’s stuck in the feminism of the 1960s.

But it’s worse than that. In its gender essentialism — its insistence that women are all women and therefore all alike — Albright’s comment could have been ripped right out of the first years of the 20th century. Or the 19th century. Or the 18th.

Happily, we have had Mary Wollstonecraft around for the past nearly 225 years to respond to that kind of nonsense. Albright would do better if, like Wollstonecraft, she would “consider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties.”

Telling a woman how she should vote because she is a woman is no less insulting than telling her that she shouldn’t vote because she is a woman. Both approaches deny an individual the opportunity to unfold her unique faculties as she sees fit. Both approaches reduce a complex individual to a single characteristic. Politics routinely does this to all sorts of groups — women, people of color, people of faith, gun owners — and it is in every case an insult to the dignity of the individual.

But Albright’s comment does something even worse. Or perhaps, for our purposes, it does something even better. Albright’s comment reveals the truth about politics. And that truth is that Clinton’s run for the White House, like Sanders’s run, or Trump’s, or Bush’s, or Cruz’s, or anyone’s, is not about serving the people.

We are told to vote for Clinton because we have a special duty to help other women. But Albright and Clinton do not mean that we have a special duty to the women standing next to us in line at the grocery store, or to the women who are suffering from poverty, or out of work, or abused by their spouses, or harassed by their bosses. They mean that we have a special duty to one woman: Hillary Clinton. It is our duty, as women, to help her to a spot in the White House, because no woman has done that before. Seeing her up there proves … something. And it will make us all feel … something.

That’s pretty weak tea, Albright.

But it is, at least, weak tea that exposes the fundamental truth about politics. It’s not about helping women. Or men. Or people of color. Or the unemployed. Or whomever we are told it is about helping.

It’s about helping the politician.

And I’ll be damned if I’m going to do that.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

VIDEO: Terrorists to Register 1 Million U.S. Muslim Voters

/in , , , /by

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), calls for Muslims to use their mosques for Voter Registration and Polling Stations with the aim of registering 1,000,000 Muslim Voters!

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Nihad Awad is among the founders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and serves as its executive director. In that role, he has attained a degree of political clout, invited to stand beside President George W. Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington days after the 9/11 attacks. Before that, Vice President Al Gore appointed Awad to a civil rights advisory panel for the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

These are influential recognitions for a man with past ties to Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States in 1995. In fact, Awad publicly declared “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” during a March 1994 symposium at Barry University.

 

The aim of CAIR is to CHANGE the way AMERICA looks.

Click here to read the full dossier on CAIR.

Robbie Travers: No Home on the Left for Opponents of Islamism

/in , , , /by

A journalist and law student explains his feeling the British left has ostracized opponents of Islamism after Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.

Robbie Travers is the executive director at Agora, non-partisan think tank for young people aged of 15-28 and junior media management at the Human Security Centre, a non-profit foreign policy think tank based in London. He is a second year student of law at Edinburgh University.

He graciously agreed to speak with Clarion Project Dialogue Coordinator Elliot Friedland about the struggle against Islamism on the British left.

Clarion Project: Why do you think certain sections of the left have struggled to robustly combat the problems of Islamism? 

Robbie Travers: There are a variety of reasons for the left’s troubling inability to combat Islamism or enter an honest dialogue on problems amongst Islamic groups.

These include the racism of low expectations, which is sadly a regular feature of the left’s discussions surrounding Islam.

Because Islamic people face prejudice in the West, many on the left often adopt an approached best simplified by the following formula: “since they must protect or defend minorities, and Muslims are a minority in the west, they consequently must protect Muslims.” This regressive trend of supporting and apologizing for the regressive elements of the religion of a minority is common.

This line of argument fails to wash though, as not discussing issues and failing to challenge authoritarian and theocratic views and individuals is not “protecting Muslims,” it’s eroding their relations with wider society and undermining the platform that moderate Muslims and Islamic reformers have to stay upon.

Many argue that since these people are oppressed, their terrorism may not be justifiable, but it is understandable. This, however, stands at odds with their mantra that Islamism isn’t properly part of Islam. So oppressing Muslims, apparently, enrages groups that aren’t “true Muslims” (note the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy) who then often kill Muslims, all to oppose the killing of Muslims?

If you are confused by the left’s complex and heavily contradictory narrative, don’t worry most voters are, and hence they no longer consider the left’s opinion as accurate or viable on Islamism.

Stop The War Gaza March, London (Photo: © Creative Commons, David Holt)

Stop The War Gaza March, London (Photo: © Creative Commons, David Holt)

Another reason is that because Islamism stands against the (western) patriarchy and the current system of capitalist and free societies, many feel that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, even when their friends tend to be theocratic totalitarian cults that despise many of the freedoms these individuals take for granted. The deployment of this argument can be seen as particularly prevalent amongst young activists and intersectionalists often chanting that since the West, which symbolizes the dominance of Western White-Cis-Hetero-Male ruling classes, and patriarchy, is the ultimate evil.

Anything which challenges this dastardly hegemony, since the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, must be cheered and rooted for.

Cheering for movements and ideology despite not thinking of the consequences and full beliefs of these consequences has seen pro-LGBT groups defend IS and apologize for Hamas, women’s groups turning their back on democrats and Islamic feminists across the MENA in favor of apologizing for regimes that abuse them like Iran, and defending symbols of misogyny like the Burqa.

Senses of self-loathing and “white guilt” created by identify politics can be blamed for this inability to tackle Islamism too. Often when discussing Islam, you will encounter those who say “But Christianity is bad too,” and trade in various platitudes about Islam, such as “If all Muslims are terrorists, why aren’t we dead yet.” No-one of any credibility is asserting this, and to fight against straw men rather than the actual argument is a tactic of those unable to answer the decent, fair questions about problems with radicalization.

And if the left refuse to answer those questions coherently, the far right most certainly will answer the questions. And nobody of any substantial reason wants to see the far right with the exclusive ability to answer any questions.

The left have lost their way, large chunks of the Left no longer represent the working classes they purport to represent, and actually employ snobbery – being repulsed by the anti-immigration, socially conservative, anti-welfare working person who despises terrorism and is suspicious of Islamism. Most working class people have little time for those arguing about how the West is just as evil or IS, or that we have significant issues or problems that are comparable to the genocides committed by IS.

Hence the left risk drifting onto obscurity on the issue as their perceived base no longer sees the left as representative of their stance against terror.

Following from this, there is a determined arrogance amongst Progressives that an Islamist is just like them and isn’t actually motivated by the Koran, but rather has legitimate grievances with the West and current global order, and this somehow means we should understand that they are victims.

This fetishization of victimhood and diminishment of actual victims means that the left have no compelling ability to simply, and crisply condemn the terror attack and the ideology that motivated it, rather than blaming the victims for the attacks.

McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University. (Photo: © Creative Commons Dun_Deagh)

McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University. (Photo: © Creative Commons Dun_Deagh)

Clarion: You are currently a second year student at the University of Edinburgh. How do people on campus relate to the issue of Islamist extremism?

Travers: Edinburgh has seriously improved, but has a long way to progress. It must be stated that the majority of students are tired of flailing narratives, and we are seeing a desire for dialogue. Edinburgh now has an official “Israeli Engagement Society,” which aims to engage people in dialogue over such important topics. This would not have happened in previous years.

However, there was an attempt to stop the society from forming by voting individually, in which many members of Student Justice for Palestine tried to stop our group from existing. It is a worrying trend that some members of said group would seek to limit the rights of pro-Israeli students to recognition. They want one rule for themselves and another rule for others.

Often there is a bizarre position encountered on campus which argues Islamist extremism should not be seen as a threat, going along with anti-semitism, and the idea that Islamism is caused by the Western world. There is a worrying trend that somehow the 2003 invasion of Iraq is seen as a Pandora’s Box and the root of all subsequent evil, like the creation of IS. It is seen as a symbol of colonialism, and how the West needles in affairs of others too often. Many occupying this position however, when challenged, provide no answers on how to challenge either Islamic theocracies or terrorist organizations.

There is an idea that somehow Islamism and Islam are completely unconnected. There is also an incredibly paternalistic attitude that Islam must be protected from criticism. Students who will criticize the Vatican, or Judaism freely, will often feel scared to criticize Islam. There are also concerns about the “Safe space” policy which is designed to protect people from harmful and offensive speech. The problem, however, is when you exist in an environment in which people cannot discuss Islam or issues with the faith without others taking offence, and often taking offence because someone may take offence, you shut down the discussion.

Secular activist Maryam Namazie speaks at Goldsmiths University in London. She was heckled at the talk by opponents from the Islamic society who sought to prevent her from speaking in a speech widely reported in the British media. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Secular activist Maryam Namazie speaks at Goldsmiths University in London. She was heckled at the talk by opponents from the Islamic society who sought to prevent her from speaking in a speech widely reported in the British media. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Clarion: Why do you support UK airstrikes against targets in Syria?

Travers: UK airstrikes in Iraq and Syria still have a remarkable 0 civilian casualties figure, which is a tribute to the precision strikes of our RAF and Brimstone missile technology. We are not slaughtering people as often posited, we are saving lives by striking strategic targets and ensuring civilians are not killed. This is what an accurate and precise military operation does and is not comparable to ISIS tactics. It’s also having a real effect, reducing IS territory in Iraq and Syria and hence reducing their ability to spread their genocidal rule.

The longer we allow their state to thrive in Iraq and Syria, the longer we allow a hostile terrorist training facility, which areas of Iraq and Syria function as, we endanger our civilians, and put the lives of Iraqis at risk. We are also providing essential support for groups fighting for our values on the ground, like Kurds.

Striking against ISIS also helps us tackle a group complicating the Syrian Civil War, so that if we can begin reducing IS territory dramatically; we can also highlight the crimes of Assad, and works towards the removal of the butcher of 85% of Syria’s population!

An RAF tornado fighter-bomber.

An RAF tornado fighter-bomber.

Clarion: You’ve spoken before about the need to revive liberalism to adequately tackle Islamism? What do you mean by that and why is it necessary?

Travers: We need to be as passionate about fundamental freedoms, about education, and discussion as Islamists are about spreading their theocracy. We need to start defeating fascism with freedom, for example educating women and empowering them across the globe to run businesses, control their reproductive cycles, and countering radicalization with education.

We also should continue cross faith and international partnerships with schools, to show that Muslims, Christians and Jews that other faiths are not the enemy, and work on reducing the ability for an extremist narrative to take hold at a young age.

Clarion: You left the Labour party after the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Where do you see a political home for left wingers who oppose Islamism? 

Travers: Nowhere. Isn’t that genuinely such a sad statement to have to make?

But we are homeless, politically homeless due to the right and left spectrum both having flaws.  The only people that are aided by the left failing to have a decent discussion on Islam is the right, and that includes the far right, and Islamists, as Muslims will be alienated by society and driven to extremism as the far right offer answers that are based on simplistic hatred and prejudice.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mohammed Nazam: Music Does What Talking Can’t

Hassan Radwan: From Faith to Faithless and Back Again

Free Speech Forever: Ex-Al Jazeera Bureau Chief Mohamed Fahmy

Omer Aziz: Why I am Offended by the Saudi Grant to Yale

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Robbie Travers. (Photo: © Robbie Travers)

U.S. Senate Democrats kill the Syrian Refugee SAFE Act — use Trump as excuse

/in , , , , , , /by

Senate Democrats showed their abject fear of Donald Trump by bringing him into the debate as they did.

As we told you a couple of days ago, the federal refugee resettlement contractors were whipping their forces to tell their Senators to oppose a bill that had passed the House in November with broad bipartisan support.  The contractors were so afraid of losing their Muslim ‘clients’ (a large portion of those for which they are paid by the head to bring to your towns).

 

Yesterday, the Senate failed to get cloture and move the bill with enough votes to assure Obama would not veto it.  From insiders we learned that the bill, if it ever passed and was signed by Obama, would have been a fig leaf and not done much to keep us safe from terrorists getting into your neighborhoods from places like Syria and Iraq.

The vote, however, was informative.  All Democrats except Bernie Sanders who missed the vote, and two brave souls, voted to kill the bill. Republicans including the three US Senators running for President voted to move the bill.

The two Dems who bucked the party (and the grassroots working for contractors) were West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

Here is the roll call vote.

This is what Reuters says about the vote:

U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday narrowly blocked legislation that would slow the entry of refugees from Syria and Iraq to the United States in a contentious vote cloaked in presidential election-year politics.

Manchin and Heitkamp

Democratic Senators Manchin and Heitkamp.

The vote was 55-43, with “yes” votes falling short of the 60 needed to advance the Republican-backed measure in the 100-member Senate. No Republicans voted against the bill, and only two Democrats backed it.

Among other things, the bill would halt the admission of refugees and require high-level U.S. officials to verify that each refugee from Iraq and Syria posed no security risk before being allowed into the United States.  [This is the part of the bill that was so weak because the Obama Administration (and a Hillary one too) would simply verify that screening was adequate.—ed]

Republicans said the tighter screening was essential to ensure the safety of Americans and prevent attacks within the country by Islamic State and other militant groups.

“This bipartisan bill would allow Washington to step back, take a breath and ensure it has the correct policies and security screenings in place,” Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in the Senate before the vote.

[….]

All three Senate Republican 2016 presidential hopefuls, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, backed the bill. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders missed the vote.

Dems tried and failed to bring Donald Trump into the debate.  Who in their right mind would have gone along with this trick!

Democrats also sought to play politics. They tried and failed to reach a deal with Republicans to set up a vote on an amendment establishing a religious test for would-be immigrants.

That vote was planned to see if Republicans would side against presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has advocated barring Muslims from entering the United States.

The Syria refugee bill passed the House by a large margin days after the Nov. 13 Islamic State attacks in Paris. The bill was supported by dozens of Democrats who defied Democratic President Barack Obama’s veto threat.

There is mention in the story that refugees are screened for 18-24 months which is a joke.  They are briefly screened, then they wait for their plane tickets and their assignments to your towns!

Conclusion!  Democrats, except those in West Virginia and North Dakota, are on the side of flooding America with refugees from terror-producing countries.  That is pretty clear.

And, it is also pretty clear that there is much work ahead (Congress is not going to save us!) during Election 2016 to educate the public through whatever means possible about the Refugee Admissions Program which is being effectively directed by the United Nations choosing America’s refugees.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays Will Impact the Immigration Debate

New Biological Data Measures Issues that Divide American Voters

/in , , , , , , /by

CHICAGO. IL /PRNewswire/ — Obamacare and immigration are the two issues on which Republicans and Democrats are the most divided, according to research by research and insights agency Shapiro+Raj, the company announced. Republican and Democratic respondents differed in their reactions to different candidates’ positions on these issues.

Researchers at Shapiro+Raj, led by Associate Manager Mike Winograd, Ph.D., used traditional survey methods complemented by biometrics to better measure respondents’ in-the-moment opinions about eight issues using video statements by some of the leading candidates from both parties in the 2016 presidential race.

Of the eight issues covered—abortion, climate change, gay marriage, gun control, immigration, Obamacare, Social Security and taxes—Obamacare, gun control and abortion elicited the strongest responses from both sides in terms of support or opposition. The majority of respondents also ranked gay marriage and climate change among the least important issues in the upcoming election.

For each issue, Shapiro+Raj used five video clips of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and undeclared candidate Joe Biden. Republican candidates included Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. All of the clips lasted between 10 and 33 seconds. Clips for each issue were shown in serial with 15-second blank screens between each video clip.

In this study, Shapiro+Raj used a biometric measure known as galvanic skin response (GSR), to measure respondents’ perspiration levels, which are an indicator of arousal and emotional reactivity, and applied the results alongside facial coding to determine not only the strength of viewers’ responses, but also their comparative reactions.

The findings overall showed that the biometric analysis did not fully align with the survey responses.

“Biometrics have huge implications for the ad-marketing industry because they can be applied to extract more detailed and actionable consumer insights on behalf of brands,” Winograd said. “Traditional researchers have known for a long time that what people say doesn’t always align with their true beliefs or how they might behave.”

For example, aside from his image as Washington outsider, Trump has more moderate, or even liberal, views on some issues. While Democratic voters’ ratings of Trump were strongly negative, the biometric findings indicated that when the content of his messages aligned with their beliefs, Democratic voters do not necessarily dislike Trump.

A 2013 clip of Ben Carson referring to Obamacare as, “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” evoked the strongest negative reaction among some Democratic respondents, according to the biometric analysis. By contrast, Republicans’ responses to the Carson clip indicated that they did not find his statement provocative.

“Using biometrics, we can get nuanced perspectives on the emotions of voters and consumers,” Winograd added.

For more information about these findings, click here.

ABOUT SHAPIRO+RAJ

Shapiro+Raj is a new strategy and research company for the Insight Economy™, connecting Shapiro’s 60-year leadership in research, insights and analytics with new world brand strategy, innovation and ideation capabilities. Shapiro+Raj delivers deep, enduring insights and inspired ideas to help its Fortune 500 clients improve the value of their brands while driving profitable growth of their business. Headquartered in Chicago, the independent firm also has an office in New York.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Carolina: Craven County considering resolution to block some refugees from the county

VIDEO: Florida Democrat Wasserman-Schultz defends Muslim raping mannequin – Bill Clinton responds

/in , /by

The below video shows a Muslim man sexually assaulting a mannequin (hat tip to PamelaGeller.com for this breaking news story).

Local sources report the sexual assault occurred after the Muslim rapist couldn’t find a suitable non-Muslim woman to rape.

debbie wasserman schultz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, FL District 23

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, defended the assault. Wasserman-Schultz said:

It is better to submit and take it like a mannequin, than to resist!

All women can learn a lesson from this mannequin. She was passive throughout the assault and survived the attack without incident.

We will be introducing legislation that will disarm women so that they do not shoot inadvertently a Muslim trying to rape them. With many Syrian Muslims migrants registering as Democrats, every refugee vote will count in November.

The bill will be called the Muslim Mannequin and Fire Arms Protection Act of 2016 HB 69.

According to the Council of American Islamic Relations, “His libido just got the better of him. It is un-Islamic to rape a mannequin. However, it is permitted, under Muslim laws, to rape a Christian or Jew or other non-Muslim. We understand that the mannequin in question was made by Christians. We have asked our Islamic scholars to study this new form of sexual jihad. We will issue further guidance to the American Muslim ummah (community) next week.”

Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin based Mondo Mannequins President Bob Rosean in a press release noted:

We are concerned that Muslims are sexually attacking mannequins. We have partnered with the Feminist Majority Foundation to allow those Muslim men thinking of raping a mannequin, who wish to seek help for their sexual addiction, to call a new hotline 1-800-MANIRAPE.

This hotline will have Arabic speakers for those who recently arrived in the United States under President Obama’s Syrian refugee initiative.

We are considering a new line of female mannequins that have fully function sexual organs. We see this incident as a emerging new market in America and Europe. We are looking at a series of mannequins that appear to be under the age of 9-years old. We plan on calling this line “Aisha”, in honor of the underage wife of Mohammed.

We can help reduce rapes of real women by providing mannequins that function as well as or better than real Christians and provide jobs at the same time.

All of our mannequins are proudly made in America.

The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), which was founded in 1987, notes, “This is new and uncharted territory for our organization. We will do what we can to protect mannequins in Wisconsin and beyond from such assaults.”

Bill Clinton, while in Iowa campaigning for Hillary, stated:

I am sure Hillary will institute a national program for the protection of Muslims who wish to rape mannequins. We cannot allow Islamophobes, such as Donald Trump, to make an issue of this video and call for the banning of Muslims coming to America, the land of milk, honey and mannequins.

I have on occasion been attracted to mannequins. I understand my Muslim brothers pain, especially in their loins.  It is something that must be addressed by our government sooner rather than later.

Hillary understands the plight of Muslims who can’t seem to find enough women to rape. She has first hand knowledge of men who can’t get enough. Who better to address this issue than a President Clinton, I mean Hillary of course?

HRC logoThe Gay Pride, LGBT community and Human Rights Campaign issued a joint statement:

We believe that Muslims who are attracted by the same sex should have gay mannequins to abuse. It is sexist to deny those Muslims who are questioning their sexuality to not have a choice in which mannequins to assault.

We ask that the producers of mannequins consider a gay line for the sexually diverse. We would suggest calling this line “Q”, for obvious reasons.

The Donald Trump campaign issued the following short statement, “You have got to be kidding me? Muslims raping mannequins? Is this the new M&Ms?”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

13-Year-Old Schoolgirl Kidnapped by 3 Muslim Migrants, Raped for 30 Hours

Anti-pedophilia bill quickly rejected in Pakistan; considered ‘anti-Islamic’

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire appeared in Playboy and the Islamic State Inspire magazines.

A Democratic Death Wish

/in , , , , , /by

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, two Muslim terrorists, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife,  Tashfeen Malik, walked into an afternoon Christmas party at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, and opened fire on the assembled guests.  Fourteen innocent people were killed and 22 injured.  Two of the injured remain in critical condition.

Then, late in the evening of Thursday, January 7, 2016, Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett was on routine patrol in his squad car at 60th and Spruce Streets in west Philadelphia.  Without warning and without provocation, black Muslim Edward Archer stepped from the shadows, ran across the street, and fired 13 close-range shots at Officer Hartnett from a 9mm Glock pistol… a handgun stolen from a Philadelphia police officer in an October 2013 home burglary.  Although Officer Hartnett was gravely wounded, he stepped from his vehicle and gave chase.  The officer drew his sidearm and fired three shots at Archer, striking him in the buttocks.  (For my Democrat readers, that means Officer Hartnett shot Archer in the ass.)

Captain James Clark, commander of the Philadelphia police homicide unit, said Archer told detectives, “I follow Allah.  I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS).  He told police investigators that he did what he did because police “defend laws that are contrary to Islam.”

Moments later, newly-elected Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney stepped to the microphones and parroted to a stunned television audience what has become a standard Democrat Party talking point.  He said, “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teachings of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.  That is abhorrent.  It’s just terrible and it does not represent this religion in any way shape or form or any of its teachings.  And this is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers.  It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

In between those two atrocities, on December 17, 2015, seventy-three members of Congress, all Democrats, introduced House Resolution 569, subtitled, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in the United States.”  The resolution calls upon local and federal law enforcement authorities to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who perpetrate “hate crimes” against-Muslims.  The 73 co-sponsors of HR 569 are as follows:

Don Beyer (D-VA); Mike Honda (D-CA); Keith Ellison, a Muslim  (D-MN); Joseph Crowley (D-NY); Andre Carson, a Muslim (D-IN); Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC); Betty McCollum (D-MN): Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY); Daniel Kildee (D-MI); Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); Charles Rangel (D-NY); Scott Peters (D-CA); Brad Ashford (D-NE); Alan Grayson (D-FL); Mark Takai (D-HI); Brian Higgins (D-NY); William Keating (D-MA); Raul Grijalva (D-AZ); Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL); G.K. Butterfield (D-NC); Gerald Connolly (D-VA); Ruben Gallego (D-AZ); Cheri Bustos (D-IL); John Delaney (D-MD); Kathy Castor (D-FL); Luis Gutierrez (D-IL); Mike Quigley (D-IL); Elizabeth Esty (D-CT); Joseph P. Kennedy (D-RI); Robin Kelly (D-IL); Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX); Gregory Meeks (D-NY); Grace Meng (D-NY); Al Green (D-TX); Katherine Clark (D-MA); Adam Schiff (D-CA); Alcee Hastings (D-FL); Sam Farr (D-CA); Frank Pallone (D-NJ); Jim McDermott (D-WA); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Donna Edwards (D-MD); Robert Brady (D-PA); Frederica Wilson (D-FL); Michael Doyle (D-PA); Albio Sires (D-NJ); Susan DelBene (D-WA); Judy Chu (D-CA); Jared Polis (D-CO); David Loebsack (D-IA); Bill Pascrell (D-NJ); Debbie Dingell (D-MI); Janice Schakowsky (D-IL); Steve Cohen (D-TN); Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX); John Yarmuth (D-KY); Niki Tsongas (D-MA); James Langevin (D-RI); Mark Pocan (D-WI); John Conyers (D-MI); Mark Takano (D-CA), Tim Ryan (D-OH); Jose Serrano (D-NY); Hank Johnson (D-GA); Paul Tonko (D-NY); Zoe Lofgren (D-CA); Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Lois Capps (D-CA); David Price (D-NC); Doris Matsui (D-CA); Gwen Moore (D-WI); and Denny Heck (D-WA).  The resolution reads as follows:

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslims or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native born citizens;

Whereas the Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances, and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:  Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the House of Representatives –

  1. Expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
  2. Steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
  3. Denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those  perceived to be Muslim;
  4. Recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
  5. Declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
  6. Urges local and federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes, and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes, and
  7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.         

In other words, nearly four out of ten Democratic members of Congress feel as though Muslims are so terribly abused in our country… physically, verbally, and emotionally… that those of us who warn our countrymen of the danger posed by radical Islam must be deprived of our First Amendment rights.  What HR 569 tells us is not that Democrats really care about Muslims, Mexicans, or any other ethnic group seeking refuge in America.  They don’t.  What HR 569 tells us is that there are literally no limits to the pandering that Democrats will resort to in order to gain access to yet another voting constituency.

In building their national political coalition, Democrats have extended a welcoming embrace to unionized blue collar workers, teachers, and public employees; trial lawyers; radical feminists; radical environmentalists; gays; lesbians; and ethnic minorities… any identifiable special interest group seeking to gain special treatment or to avoid competition in our competitive enterprise system.  The only two things that Democratic special interests share in common are their numbers and the huge sums of political money they bring to the table.

But now it appears they are throwing caution to the winds as Barack Obama, a man with strong Islamic sympathies, announces plans to import hundreds of thousands of future Democrat voters from the Muslim world.  They appear to take no notice of the fact that Muslims are incapable of assimilating into western cultures.  Instead, they come with sharp knives, suicide belts, and the announced intention of either killing all non-Muslims, or forcing us to convert to Islam.

Meanwhile, Democrats appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that, when the time comes, the Muslim executioners will first separate Democrats from Republicans before proceeding with their genocidal cleansing.  Although to do so is a pure death-wish, Democrats apparently see no downside whatsoever in snuggling up to Muslims who might be their friends and neighbors one day and their executioners the next… a stark reality that they will have to confront firsthand when Islamic terrorism comes to their neighborhood.

But let’s not wait for the radical Islamists to deliver a moment of truth to our Democrat friends.  Let’s do our best to see to it that the 73 cosponsors of HR 569 are not returned to Congress in January 2017.  Or better yet, let’s provide each of them and their families with a year-long all-expense-paid junket to the Muslim country of their choice.  They have a few things to learn.    

EXPOSED: Big Business is Driving Muslim Refugee Resettlement in America

/in , , , , , , /by

Update:  Be sure to learn more about what you should do about this during Election 2016 at American Resistance 2016!

The so-called ‘religious’ charities that resettle refugees in America and those in the UN/US State Department administering the refugee admissions program that is bringing tens of thousands of Muslim (and other) refugees to your towns want you to think this is all about ‘humanitarianism.’  It is not!

The do-gooders bringing refugees to America are shills for big business whether they know it or not!

It is about globalization and multi-national corporations’ need for cheap migrant laborers!

Did you read our post about BIG MEAT and Amarillo, TX just this week? It went viral and has brought thousands upon thousands of readers to RRW!  The business model is that companies, often times companies in the food industry, encourage (lobby for!) more refugees to be admitted to the US (or for amnesty for illegal aliens).

They get the slave laborers, your town gets the social/cultural tension, and taxpayers at all levels of government supplement the meager wages with WELFARE!  

Chobani Twin Falls Idaho

Cobani Twin Falls plant. As a driver of refugee resettlement, Chobani Yogurt is changing Idaho by changing the people.

Dems get reliable Leftwing voters!

(See also our post on foreign operatives changing America with refugee labor, here.)

Rich people going to Davos to make plans for your town!

This is what got me started this morning.  The Financial Times tells us that the founder of Chobani Yogurt will be making a pitch at Davos this week at the World Economic Forum for more companies to adopt that ‘business model’ and hire (read IMPORT) more refugees to small and medium-sized American cities!

Financial Times:

Last year Hamdi Ulukaya, a Kurdish entrepreneur who created the billion-dollar US-based Chobani yoghurt empire, travelled to Greece to see the swelling refugee crisis with his own eyes. Unsurprisingly, he was horrified by the human suffering that he witnessed, particularly as he shares a cultural affinity with many of the refugees — he grew up near the Syrian border in Turkey, before moving to the US as a student.

But Ulukaya was also appalled by something else: the hopelessly bureaucratic and old-fashioned nature of the organisations running the aid efforts. “The refugee issue is being dealt with using [methods from] the 1940s and it’s in the hands of the UN and mostly government and you don’t see a lot of private sector and entrepreneurs involved,” he told me last week. “I decided we have got to hack this — we have got to bring another perspective into this issue, there are technologies that can be used.”

So Ulukaya decided to act. Last year he established a foundation, Tent, to channel financial aid and innovation efforts into refugee work.

[….]

And he has stepped up efforts to hire as many refugees as he can at his yoghurt plants, where they currently account for 30 per cent of the total workforce, or 600 people. “There are 11 or 12 languages spoken in our factories,” says Ulukaya. “We have translators 24 hours a day.”

[….]

At next week’s World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, he will call on other CEOs to join a campaign to channel corporate money, lobbying initiatives, services and jobs to refugees. Five companies have already signed up: Ikea, MasterCard, Airbnb, LinkedIn and UPS — and Ulukaya says more are poised to join.

Continue reading!  Reporter Gillian Tett quotes me, and mentions protests in Idaho and New York where Chobani is bringing in the refugee laborers.

See our complete archive on Twin Falls, Idaho and the ‘pocket of resistance’ that has formed there.

P.S. When I first learned about what Chobani Yogurt was doing to rural America (here), I never again bought any Chobani Yogurt!  I go down that dairy aisle and give them a mental finger (sorry to our more proper and polite readers).

Nine major federal contractors which like to call themselves VOLAGs (Voluntary agencies) which is such a joke considering how much federal money they receive:

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim Immigration is What ISIS Wants

EDITORS NOTE: Chobani Yogurt CEO pursuing Syrian immigrants for employment in the United States. If you disagree readers may click here to send an email urging Chobani, Inc. officials to make national security, public safety and jobs for Americans the priority in Chobani hiring practices.

America Is Broken

/in , , , /by

Despite whatever President Obama said during his state of the union address, America the beautiful is broken.  Obama’s state of the union speech reminded me of his 2004 Democrat convention oratory.  His address was filled with socialist idealistic imagery, with attempts at igniting a passionate and mindless following by a misled and ill-informed sea of people willing to help him shove America over the cliff and unto the ash heap of history.

There were the typical political style utilization of numerous half-truths, hyperbole and non-sequiturs to make mostly non-existent and partisan points, while forging ahead with politics as usual.  To sum it up, it was a speech that became the hallmark of Barack Hussein Obama’s progressive political career.  There are some who believe he has retreated to his anti-American roots as a community organizer.

President Obama’s final presidential state of the union address provided a huge supply of sop to his far left anti-liberty political base.  It was also creatively molded to seem like a motivational speech of encouragement to a nation that in reality he disdains.  I am sure that Mr. Obama hoped that his speech would hoodwink  Americans into believing his presidency to be one of optimism, humanism, statesmanship and bi-partisan outreach.  Sure, if one is ignorant and totally void of understanding, Obama achieved that goal.  Taken in a vacuum, Obama’s speech probably secured that goal.

However, as time will reveal, it may quite likely be as ineffectual as using one of the “first black president” Bill Clinton’s state of the union speeches to characterize his presidency in isolation from Monica Lewinski.  “We the People” of America must refuse to accept the dregs of political leadership and raise our expectations.

Perhaps Americans should take a remedial course on civics, the constitutionally mandated role government and elected officials, including the president.  It has been said that knowledge is power.  As long as the people of America are either indoctrinated against the truth or simply not taught it in the first place, our rights will continue to be trampled away by big government.  At the same time, our republic as a whole s diminished in stature, power and wealth.

If president Obama truly desired to bring about a healing of the wounds his seven years has inflicted upon our republic, he could have done so during his state of the union address.  But rather, he remained on his long traveled path of promoting his doctrine of failed and wicked social, moral and political destruction.  Unfortunately, over 40 percent of the American people agree with Obama along with millions of illegal immigrants, Obama is emboldened in his gruesome goal to fundamentally change America into a land of muck, mire and misery.

The United States of America was envisioned as a blessed republic of “We the People” where the government was to be a servant of the sovereign citizens of our nation.  The government was also meant to be a mighty sword against evildoers and enemies of our republic, not a brutal beast of tyranny against law abiding sovereigns like you and I.  My Dad used to tell me that our nation and the government are both a reflection of the people of America.  Right now that is not a pretty picture ethically, morally, spiritually, or economically.

Throughout the duration of the president’s fifty nine minute state of the union speech he told half-truths and outright lies as well.  One major fib was his description of ISIS enemies as people riding around on pickup trucks and that they are not a threat to America’s existence.  The fact that he could say that with a straight face is jaw dropping.  Mr. Obama either forgot or chose not to mention that many murdering ISIS terrorists are cruising around in well fortified armored vehicles left behind by United States forces.  The Muslim ISIS are also heavily armed and with firearms and are plundering all whom they encounter, especially Black Africans and Christians.

I find it very interesting and telling how the president took people to task for daring to complain about or promote standing up to Muslims, who have come into America with a stated mission to change her.  But not once during Obama’s state of the union speech did he address the horrendous treatment of Christians or the millions of Black Africans who exist under the boot heel of Muslim abuse and humiliation.  Dear reader, it is put up or shut up time for us.  The status quo no longer has the ability to maintain or more importantly contain the forces of evil that are continuing to unite and attempt to beat America into submission to the will of enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Despite the fact that our nation’s standard of living is now lower than any time since the Korean War, or that the military is not the powerhouse it still was, even under the George W. Bush administration, or that the government schools are aiding our enemies by indoctrinating students against America and all that is good etc. etc. it is not yet over for our great republic.  All we have to do is seek providential guidance, reestablish real education and God’s forgiveness for allowing the destruction being heaped upon this country.  Then establish and stick to the political will to conduct the nation’s business in a manner that benefits our republics best interest.  Will it be difficult? Absolutely, but more importantly it will be well worth the effort.

God Bless You, God Bless America and May America Bess God.

The Left’s Embrace of Islamic Rape by Jamie Glazov [+Videos]

/in , , , , , /by

As the disturbing reports pour in about the New Year’s Eve Muslim sex assaults in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and other European countries, it has become clear that the new Utopian Multicultural Europe that the Left has worked so hard to build is now here. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker’s response to the assaults under her watch has been to reprimand the victims, suggesting that they had asked for it. She has vowed to make sure that women will change their behavior, so that they don’t provoke Muslims to sexually assault them again. There will now be published “online guidelines” for women to read so they can prepare themselves. One wonders if it will be the burqa or the niqab that will be the solution of choice.

These eerie developments are, of course, completely in line with why Naomi Wolf finds the hijab “sexy” and why Oslo Professor of Anthropology Dr. Unni Wikan’s solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women is not for the rapists to be punished, but for Norwegian women to “take their share of responsibility” for the rapes because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. Norwegian women, she has counseled, “must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

We are also now aware that German police fired water cannons at German protesters in Cologne who gathered to protest the rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Muslim refugees. Right, it is not the Muslim migrants who committed sex assaults that are being shot at with water cannons, but those who feel that what they did violates women’s rights and western values.

In response to this new horrifying European reality, in which if you are a kuffar female who is raped it means you asked for it, Frontpagemag.com is running my article “How Vittorio Arrigoni Went to Gaza Hoping to Die” from PJMedia’s April 18, 2011 issue. The article unveils the death wish in the heart of the Left and in the impulses of its fellow travelers. In so doing, it crystallizes the pathological mindset of the progressive elites running Western Europe today and why they have created the toxic and suicidal circumstances in which their own women are now victims of mass sexual assaults by followers of a totalitarian and misogynist ideology — and why they, the elites, are shaming the victims and taking the side of the perpetrators.

When one grasps that the yearnings of Western Europe’s rulers today are the same yearnings that Vittorio Arrigoni indulged, the whole picture becomes transparently clear.

Read the article HERE.

RELATED ARTICLE: Daniel Greenfield Moment: The Muslim Brotherhood is a Bigger Threat than ISIS

RELATED VIDEOS:

Woman being Dragged Screaming into Subway by Muslims (via PamelaGeller.com):

Muslim hits woman near subway station (via PamelaGeller.com):

VIDEO: The Democrat’s ‘War Against Free Speech’

/in , , , , /by

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Robert Spencer Moment with Robert Spencer, the Director of JihadWatch.org and the author of the new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS.

I discussed: House Democrats Go to War Against Free Speech, unveiling why H. Res. 569 is so dangerous.

And make sure to watch the very special Robert Spencer Moment: The Criminalization of Dissent, in which Robert reveals how those who reject establishment views are coming under increased law enforcement scrutiny: Click Here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Doctors who joined the Islamic State expected to return and work for National Health Service

France: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” who drove at troops not charged with terrorism

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Readers my donate through their Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook.

Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam

/in , , , , , /by

In FrontPage today I explain how lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech:

clinton-oic

December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”

Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.

And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!

Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egypt: Salafi party bans Muslims from greeting Christians during Christmas

Hugh Fitzgerald: The “Ask A Muslim” Girl

VIDEO: Who are the Biggest Crooks in America?

/in , , , , /by

Dinesh D’Souza spoke to the Park Cities Women’s Republican Club about the progressive heist of America on December 1st in Dallas, and the conversation was broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN Book TV. During the talk, D’Souza shows that progressive politics is nothing but a series of scams and cons aimed at stealing the wealth of America.

Watch now:

In Stealing America, D’Souza shows that the biggest crooks in America are the progressives perpetrating this con. Andrew McCarthy’s review of the book in National Review shows that despite Obama’s best efforts, D’Souza is intent on exposing their crimes:

“America flourished because it was an anti-theft society: freedom inextricably linked to the protection of private property, unleashing creativity, entrepreneurship, and unprecedented prosperity. The progressive critique of that society is not advanced in good faith; it is, as D’Souza portrays it, a “con.” Its purpose — not its unintended consequence but its aim — is to seize the wealth and power of achievers. The con is systematized by the Democratic party now under Obama’s leadership, with Hillary waiting in the wings.

Dinesh D’Souza implores us to recognize the con for what it is, and work, as he works, to expose it, rather than dignify it as an alternative political philosophy. America, he contends, is well on the way to being stolen. We will lose our country if we fail to reaffirm our anti-theft roots.”

To use Schlonged or not to use Schlonged, that is not the question!

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump stated after the December 21st CNN Democratic debate, “Even a race to Obama, she was gonna beat Obama. I don’t know who would be worse, I don’t know, how could it be worse? But she was going to beat — she was favored to win — and she got schlonged, she lost, I mean she lost.”

The media went ballistic over Trump’s use of the word schlonged. 

Jeremy Diamond, from CNN wrote:

Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton in vulgar terms Monday night, saying that her bathroom break during the last Democratic debate was just too “disgusting” to talk about and then stating she “got schlonged” by Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

It appears that Trump was referring to the 2008 Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida, where Hillary was denied delegate votes. The 2008 Democratic presidential primary turned from a quest for the popular vote, which Clinton claimed she won, to a race for delegate and super delegate votes, which Obama won.

Lee S. Gliddon, Jr. in an email points out the definition of the verb “shalong” in the Unencyclopedia as:

Schlong (sve), to, verb, derived from the Swedish “Slöngga” (to mow one´s lawn at great pace with extreme tenacity in a Stockholm-style pattern). First used by Leslie A. McGaffiter in the (June 5th) 1816 congregation of the Scottish National Parliament: “[…]now let´s all schlong together!”.

So who is mowing Hillary’s lawn now?

Bill Curry in his October 2013 SALON article titled, “The DNC screwed Hillary — now get ready for a Bernie Sanders earthquake” believes that the same thing is happening in the 2016 Democratic primary. Curry notes:

The Democratic National Committee delayed the debates as long as it could and limited their total number to six. By way of comparison, there were 26 debates in 2008. The first was held in April 2007; by this point in the cycle there had already been 13. To enforce its new limit the party threatens a drastic sanction: anyone caught participating in a rogue debate will be locked out of all party debates.

The phrase ‘Democratic National Committee’ is imprecise. When DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced the schedule last August she didn’t say who made the decision or how. Nor did anyone ask. It seems like an awfully closed system for an outfit with the word ‘democratic’ right there in its name. I wondered how the party picked it. Did its national committee hold a meeting? If so, was it public? Was there a notice, agenda, or minutes? Was there even a vote?

It is interesting that the media seems to have forgotten what Hillary Clinton said about Southern working class whites In 1995 – “Screw ‘Em!” Sam Stein from the Huffington Post reported:

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

“Screw ’em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

So much for white working class voters across America.

Remember that it was Hillary, who in 2014, said that President Obama has “No hand on the f***ing tiller.” Francesca Chambers writer for the DailyMail.com wrote:

Hillary Clinton berated President Barack Obama as ‘incompetent and feckless’ and said he had become ‘a joke’ after having one too many glasses of wine at a reunion dinner last year with friends from college, a new tell-all book reveals.

‘When her friends asked Hillary to tell them what she thought — really thought — about the president she had served for four draining years, she lit into Obama with a passion that surprised them all,’ former Newsweek editor Edward Klein writes in his book Blood Feud.

‘”The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time,”‘ Clinton is said to have barked in her boozy rant. ‘That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f***ing tiller.’

Read more.

The issue is not to use the word schlonged or not. The issue is are the Democratic Party primaries fair or not. That is the real question! Will Hillary pay the price of calling the President incompetent? Who is the schlonger and who will be the schlongee?

Will Hillary get schlonged by the DNC in 2016? Only time and the Democratic primaries will tell.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Schools Rivals on ‘The Art of the Schlong’

Donald Trump says Clinton’s bathroom break during the debate is ‘too disgusting’ to talk about – Washington Post

Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean: Screw you. – The Daily Kos

‘Democrats seem determined to defend Islam more than America’

/in , , , , , , /by

Republican presidential candidates respond to the ridiculous Democratic National Committee ad you can see here. Huckabee’s comment is most apposite, and is true not just of the DNC, but of the Obama Administration and the mainstream media — as well as much of the Republican establishment.

“EXCLUSIVE: Republicans Slam DNC Ad Attacking Them for Using Term ‘Radical Islam,’” by Patrick Howley, Breitbart, November 21, 2015:

WASHINGTON -Republicans are slamming the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) new attack ad criticizing the GOP for using the term “radical Islam.”

After radical Islamists carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, the DNC released an ad hitting Republicans from George W. Bush to Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for even using the word “Islam” while talking about terrorism.

The GOP is outraged.

“Democrats seem determined to defend Islam more than America,” Gov. Mike Huckabee told Breitbart News. “No one in the GOP blames all Muslims but no one in the DNC blames any Muslims, even the ones who shout Allah Akbar just before cutting off the head of a person who professes being a Christian.”

“You can’t defeat the enemy if you are unwilling to even call it by name,” Jeb Bush campaign spokesman Tim Miller told Breitbart News.

“The Democrat ad is a poignant reminder of why the world has become less safe under an Obama administration: denial and political correctness have become the default strategies. That’s not how you lead, that’s not how you win and that’s not how we are going to keep America free and safe,” said Ben Carson spokesman Doug Watts….

RELATED ARTICLE: Sharia UK: London police dive into canal to rescue Qur’ans