They ALL Read the SAME Book. Allah IS Satan, Video Explains

Yet ANOTHER moslem terror attack overnight.  This time in Denmark.  The cancer of islam is spreading rapidly.

The response of liberal-progressives and RINOs without a spine will be the usual.

“Lone wolf…”  “Radical moslem…”  “Don’t label ALL moslems…”  etc.

Rather than condemning the attacks, the response from moslems will also be predictable.

“Woe is us…”  “Racism…”  “We’re so picked on…”

Bullcrap.  They are using civilization against civilization, and lying to buy themselves the time needed to gain sufficient strength to conquer us.  They have done this throughout history, if you care to look it up.

There is no such thing as a “moderate” moslem.  The cancer is NOT “radical” islam, or a “perversion” of islam.  The cancer is islam itself.  You must define your terms when arguing this to the idiot left.  A “good” moslem to US is one who doesn’t kill people.  A “good” moslem to a moslem is one who follows the koran.  The koran tells moslems to kill infidels (i.e. you and me) wherever they find them.  A “bad” moslem to a moslem is one who doesn’t believe the koran as written, or who leaves the faith (apostate).  As I heard it said the other day…

“A radical moslem will cut off your head while the “moderate” moslem holds your ankles.”

MAKE NO MISTAKE.  The ideology that we MUST defeat is not “radical” islam, but islam itself.  ALL of it.  We must ban it from our civilized societies because it has demonstrated since it was invented by the murdering pedophile Mohammed that islam CAN’T and WON’T coexist with any other ideology.

I often quote Sir Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, and will do so again because it explains so well the paradox that a tolerant civilization MUST confront if it wishes to survive the onslaught of the intolerant.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
–Sir Karl Popper, From The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton 1971

I will leave you with a video from Alfonso Rachel that explains all this very well.  We must eradicate islam from our midst, or we will not survive.  It is literally US or THEM.  I choose US.

Allah IS Satan, and HERE is the proof.

Why Islamic Moderates Are So Scarce

Here’s an article that asks a pretty pertinent question about the GZM imam, Rauf. Is he a “radical,” or the scarier possibility, is he REALLY the “moderate,” mainstream voice of islam that he claims to be?

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245415/why-islamic-moderates-are-so-scarce-joshua-gilder

September 2, 2010 4:00 A.M.

It goes back to a ninth-century theological dispute.

Joshua Gilder

As past statements of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf continue to surface, many Americans have concluded that the would-be builder of a mosque at Ground Zero is lying when he calls himself a “moderate” representative of his faith. The more disturbing possibility, however, is that he’s telling the truth — that Rauf is indeed the voice of mainstream Islam.

One indication is the resounding silence from the rest of the Islamic community. If that community were truly moderate — as we in the West understand the term — one might expect it to distance itself from a man who blames the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks, says we have more innocent blood on our hands than al-Qaeda, and refuses to disown the genocidal agenda of Hamas.

A few brave Muslim individuals have indeed come out against the mosque, but they are exceptions. Where are the large numbers of Muslims who find Rauf’s statements offensive? Where are their organizations and institutions? Why aren’t they weighing in to repudiate Rauf and his apparent aims?

It’s a common problem. Each time some new offense is perpetrated in the name of Islam — whether it’s the latest suicide bombing in a public square or a woman’s being beaten and mutilated by her own family — it is mostly Western leaders and the press who voice their disapproval. The more one looks for the larger Muslim community to denounce the violence, the more “moderate Islam” seems to vanish like a mirage in the desert.

(Read complete article HERE)

+

---

Obama and Liberal War on Christianity Gaining Momentum

Here is an outstanding analysis and exposition on Obama and the liberals war on Christianity. There’s very little to add to the article except this:

Obama says we (Americans) are not and never will be at war with islam. This may prove to be true, but the simple fact is that islam, or at least some percentage of it, IS and HAS BEEN at war with America and western civilization for some time. Sadly, most of our Neville Chamberlain, head-in-the-sand liberals refuse to admit this fact.

---

Obama’s Unholy War Against Christianity, Not Islam

By George Neumayr on 4.8.09 @ 6:08AM

The more illiberal a religion, the more liberals tend to like it. Western liberals who propose no place for God in the public square can usually be counted on to excuse non-western religions that impose a false and dangerous one upon it.

The explanation for this apparent contradiction goes beyond the childish and self-hating affinity of western liberals for all things non-western. The deeper reason is western liberalism’s attachment to irrationality. Having ruptured a once-harmonious relationship between reason and religion in their own culture, western liberals can’t seem to stop themselves from championing similar ruptures in alien ones.

By different routes of irrationality, western liberals and militant Muslims arrive at the same spot. Western liberals reach it by a distorted “reason” without faith, militant Muslims by a distorted “faith” without reason, with each imbalance producing its own culture of death: abortion and euthanasia in the west, jihad in the east.

An old-style liberal like Oriana Fallaci found it amazing that Enlightenment liberals could defend so enthusiastically the gross illiberal tendencies of militant Muslims and puzzled over how two seemingly different groups could turn up on the same side in debates. But it is not surprising if one considers their shared rejection of reason properly understood and the common enemy that rouses them — a lingering Christianity in the west.

But, says the day-to-day watcher of politics, who cares? What does any of this have to do with Barack Obama’s speech in Turkey earlier in the week? A lot, actually. Behind the speech is the above-mentioned phenomenon; it contained a deep sympathy for Islam that Obama would never extend to traditional Christianity.

As Obama gears up to abolish the conscience rights of Christian pro-lifers at American hospitals, as he uses executive orders to force Christians to finance abortions at home and abroad, as he places Christian opponents of gay marriage in the moral category of racists, he tells Turkey that “America is not and never will be at war with Islam” and accepts the moderation of Muslims without question.

Never mind that self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in Turkey, Sufi-Shia Muslims, have been persecuted by the Turkish government; never mind that Turkish Christians have been persecuted too, banned from opening churches or running seminaries and thrown into jail for insulting “Turkishness” after giving open witness to Jesus Christ.

No, none of this is worrisome to Obama. His enemy is not Islam abroad, but Christianity at home. Indeed, if he treated Muslims the way he treats believing Christians in America, Muslims would call it a holy war.

As far as Obama is concerned, the only religion to be “reformed” — which is to say destroyed — is not the west’s historic adversary but its progenitor. Islam is peaceful, he pronounces, while traditional Christianity is bigoted and dangerous. Islam is a friend to America, while traditional Christians are, as Obama supporter Tom Hanks described Proposition 8 supporters, “un-American.”

Obama has in effect declared to Christians in America: either bring your understanding of Christianity into line with my liberalism or don’t bother entering the public square. You want federal money? Well, then perform abortions, distribute condoms, hire homosexual activists, etc., etc. He would never dare talk to Muslims in those terms. He will give back ancestral swords to freed Muslims from Guantanamo Bay and hand forceps to Christian doctors.

If Muslims had to endure patronizing and lying secularist drivel from him like “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values,” they would riot. Cowed and secularized Christians just nod and offer him an honorary degree.

George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review.

Who is the THUG known as Rahm Emanuel?

There are many sayings you’ve heard from your parents and others while growing up that apply to Obama in this situation.

• “Show me your friends, and I’ll show you your future.”
• “The character and wisdom of a leader is reflected by those he surrounds himself with.”
• “Actions speak louder than words.”

Obama surrounds himself with:

• People who cheat on and don’t pay their taxes, yet want you to pay more.
• Millionaires who attained their wealth by inheritance or less than ethical means, few if any who actually EARNED their wealth.
• People who believe it is OK to forcibly take from those who deserve what they have because they earned it, and give it to those who have earned nothing and deserve nothing.
• People who have no morals, and thus have no limits or guidelines on how to properly and ethically treat people.
• People who think that destroying others is the way to better yourself.
• Generally thugs, criminals, socialists, terrorists, and others who make the Star Wars Cantina look like a church social.

Rahm Emanuel is a perfect example. Obama spits out his lies that sound good to those too mentally weak to understand what crap they are being fed while Emanuel uses his mafia strong arm tactics on any who get in the way of Obama’s (and by association those whom Obama has surrounded himself with) socialist/communist agenda.

Character matters. Right now there is none in the White House, and almost none in the House or Senate. Character is not a trait that often finds its way to Washington D.C. anymore.

Obama’s Enforcer

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Thursday, March 26, 2009

In Obama’s entire circle of advisers, one man rises above the pack, gaining the reputation as the most ruthless political figure in America today. This man is Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff. Instead of being an impassioned ideologue, he instead enjoys utilizing Machiavellian tactics to achieve more traditional political ends. A classic Chicago-style machine politician, Rahm will do whatever is necessary to get things done his way. With his aggressive tactics, he has earned the nickname of “Rahmbo.”

He lost a finger at the age of 17, and since then Emanuel has been a driven man. Working at an Arby’s he sliced his finger but he insisted on attending his prom and swimming in Lake Michigan before going to the hospital. His finger became badly infected, forcing him to have it amputated during a lengthy stay in Children’s Hospital. Never the same after the incident, Emanuel lives with an intense passion for life and a drive that alienates people, but achieves results.

Once a skilled and disciplined ballet dancer, he attended college on a dance scholarship. He became involved in his first campaign as an undergraduate, and his political career took off from there. His climb began while working on Richard Daley’s mayoral campaigns in the late ’80s, where he proved himself an avid fundraiser. As Emanuel called donors, if they gave less than he thought they could, he would refuse to accept their contribution. Then, he resorted to goading them by stating that he thought they were wealthier and bigger donors. Oftentimes donors would call him back, apologize, and then give Emanuel’s desired amount.

Cutting his teeth in Chicago machine politics helped him develop his no- holds- barred style of campaigning. As a member of the Daley machine, Obama’s chief of staff has been involved in his share of shady dealings. In Emanuel’s 2002 congressional race, Daley forced city patronage workers to run a get-out-the vote campaign that is still being investigated for campaign violations.

Emanuel’s exploits are legendary. Once he had a disagreement with a pollster, so he sent him a rotten fish. At a dinner party in 1992, the day after Clinton’s hard-won election, Emanuel viciously attacked those whom he called betrayers. Spouting their name and shouting, “Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!” he plunged a knife into the table after each name. Now, he is bringing these tactics along with his foul mouth to the White House.

This hardnosed political operative employs methods and tactics that would make Karl Rove blush. Rahm fights like a rooster in a cock fight. A political street fighter, he is the enforcer lurking behind Obama’s pretty words about bipartisanship and unity.

Emanuel retired from the Clinton White House in 1998 and moved to Wall Street to make his fortune. He worked for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier. Over the course of two and a half years, he milked his political connections to help broker deals, and he made $18 million. Emanuel is not ashamed to look out for number one. Once rich, he headed back to politics.

As the chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee in 2006, he is largely credited as the architect of the Democratic landslide. He did it, in large measure, by remaking the Democratic Party in his own image. He won by aggressively recruiting candidates and then relentlessly driving his candidates to raise money. With money in hand, they launched a series of negative ads that are unmatched in campaign history.

Emanuel famously said, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.They are opportunities to do big things.” He is pushing Obama’s administration to do that now. Obama is the star of the show and Rahm is the one who is directing the play. Rahm is well connected inside DC and uses his friendships with John Podesta, James Carville and Paul Begala to great effect. Obama, the inexperienced “outsider,” is being taught the ropes by Rahm, the insider. One of the best examples of this inside- and outsid- the-White House coordination is the campaign to demonize and target Rush Limbaugh. You can bet that Rahm Emanuel helped to make it happen.

Rahm has brought his aggressive attitude to work in implementing Obama’s agenda. He personally was instrumental in rounding up votes for the stimulus bill, by intensely pressuring three moderate Republican senators and threatening conservative Democrats. Now he is working hard to push through the $3.6 trillion Obama budget. Will he be successful? If the past is any indication, Rahm will shout, curse, stab and claw his way to victory no matter what the cost. Washington, D.C. has definitely gotten uglier as Rahmbo storms through it, hell-bent on taking no prisoners.

Will the “Fairness Doctrine” Apply to NPR, too?

Don’t laugh. We all know the answer to that question is likely an emphatic “heck no!” Since according to liberals like Chucky Schummer, conservative talk radio is hate speech and akin to pornography, it should be censored. Hate speech is by definition anything a liberal disagrees with.

National Public Unfairness

By Brent Bozell
March 26, 2009

There’s a huge hole in all of the public discussion about the reimposition of a “Fairness Doctrine” or a return to “localism” on the talk-radio format: What about National Public Radio (NPR)? Liberals would like to “crush Rush” and his conservative compatriots by demanding each station balance its lineup ideologically. But since when has NPR ever felt any pressure to be balanced, even when a majority of taxpayers being forced to subsidize it are center-right?

Why no Fairness Doctrine attention to NPR? It is because those preaching “fairness” on the radio are hypocrites.

Conservatives argue that the media’s liberal bias drives people to talk radio for an opposing viewpoint. Limbaugh jokes: “I am the balance.” But new numbers from NPR suggest its ratings may be nearly as imposing as Limbaugh’s: The cumulative audience for its daily news programs — “Morning Edition” and its evening counterpart, “All Things Considered” — has risen to 20.9 million per week.

It’s not just news that’s drawing listeners in. Talk-radio programs increasingly have become part of the nationally distributed NPR diet. Indeed, NPR’s developing talk-show lineup was an obvious factor in the commercial failure of competing liberal networks like Air America. One could argue that NPR’s audience gains came directly in response to liberal desires to vent about Team Bush.

Radio shows like “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” were a regular forum for Bush-bashing authors and experts, especially on the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq. Gross was memorably upbraided by NPR’s ombudsman in 2003 for showing great hostility to Bill O’Reilly, in stark contrast to her giggly rapport with liberal Al Franken. Now NPR is touting that “Fresh Air” was NPR’s “first non-drive-time show in public radio to better 5 million weekly listeners” on over 300 stations.

NPR also sounded thrilled at the news that its afternoon show “Talk of the Nation” showed “remarkable gains,” up 21 percent to 3.5 million listeners weekly. On Inauguration Day, that show featured NPR Baghdad Bureau Chief Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reporting that Iraqis wished good riddance to President Bush and hoped for change under Barack Obama. She said she had yet to find a single Iraqi who was grateful for the American defeat of Saddam Hussein. She asked many Iraqis: “Did this invasion, do you feel, give you a better life? And across the board, I didn’t find one Iraqi who said to me, actually, I’m glad this happened.”

Only on NPR does one hear journalism that calmly suspends logic.

The other talk show NPR publicists touted was “Tell Me More,” hosted by Michel Martin, a former reporter for ABC. Martin recently told NPR listeners she is far too similar to Michelle Obama to feel objectively about her, and she thinks Rush Limbaugh is racist, and explains thusly: “Some people hate the federal government because they can’t get past the fact that the government switched sides from being a weapon in the violent oppression of black and sometimes brown people, to being one of the tools creating opportunity for them, as well as other people.”

NPR regularly airs liberal commentators (like former CBS reporter Daniel Schorr), and its idea of a conservative is David Brooks of the New York Times. A few weeks ago, in one of their regular evening political roundtables with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne, “All Things Considered” anchor Robert Siegel asked Brooks if he, as a moderate, was comfortable with Obama: “Are you getting more or less comfortable or more or less moderate?” Brooks replied candidly: “I’m getting less comfortable. I don’t know about my gross ideological disposition these days.”

Neither do conservatives, and yet Brooks is the man who’s supposed to represent us.

Public broadcasting has been incredibly hostile to anyone who would dare to police it for fairness and balance. Conservatives ought not forget what happened to Kenneth Tomlinson, the former board chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Fur flew when liberals discovered Tomlinson had conducted a private study to determine if PBS and NPR shows tilted to the left. An inspector general’s report suggested Tomlinson somehow had violated CPB bylaws, and he was forced to resign.

Liberal congressman John Dingell insisted Tomlinson had “inserted politics” into public broadcasting, and yes, feel free to insert a laugh track at this point.

It’s only “inserting politics” when anyone bothers to object to the everyday liberal politics of NPR and PBS. Ever since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the nation’s taxpayer-funded news outlets have operated free of any real fear that someone would disturb their pattern of putting their big broadcasting thumb on the scale of liberalism.

If NPR’s drawing a Limbaugh-sized audience, isn’t it time someone started asking why a “Fairness Doctrine” shouldn’t apply to them?

—

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

Is There a Backbone in the House (or Senate)?

The Republican party, with few notable exceptions, is now spineless and has morphed into the Democrat Lite Party. Their insistence on “compromising” and “reaching across the aisle” is why they lost the last two elections by a large margin. Let there be no mistake. Conservatism is not dead and was not defeated in either of the last two elections. Conservatism was never used or displayed in the last two elections. When conservatives make the effort to educate the people on the differences between conservatism and liberalism, conservatism wins every time it’s tried. Hearken back to the early ‘90s and the Newt Gingrich lead congress. They educated the people on what conservative ideas could do, and how they were going to accomplish their goals. The American people supported the “conservative” Republicans until they lost their spine and caved to Democrat demands.

Unless the Republicans return to their CONSERVATIVE roots and throw out the cancerous “moderate” Republicans in their midst, I say we form a new conservative party and try to save what’s left of America.
— Gadget

Is There a Backbone in the House?

Posted By Bobby Eberle On January 16, 2009 at 2:46 pm

Apparently not, and Republicans don’t have one in the Senate either.

Come on… I know the Obama love-fest is about to begin, but can’t Republicans show just a tiny amount of political courage? Where’s the backbone???

Just look at today’s news for more examples of Republicans rolling over to play nice with Democrats. Do they really expect the same in return? Has that EVER happened?

First, we have this story in The Hill about new House Republican Whip Eric Cantor. Apparently, he’s not doing much whipping:

According to members of his conference, Cantor hasn’t done an official whip count on how members would vote on releasing the second half of the $700 billion bailout funds.

The traditional job of the whip is to twist arms to pass or defeat legislation, which Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) excelled at when Republicans controlled the House.

But Cantor is not DeLay, and doesn’t pretend to be.

The 2008 elections have been significant in changing the role of the House Republican whip.

Cantor, 45, concedes that due to the diminished numbers, Republicans are going to have to pick and choose their fights.

Come on… You always have to pick and choose fights, but it is the duty of the Republican caucus to stand up for Republican principles! Show some backbone. If the battle is lost, it is important to inform the American people on just how left-wing the Democrats really are.

Second, it appears that GOP members are jumping on the Eric Holder bandwagon. Holder is Obama’s nominee for attorney general. He is also the man responsible for the infamous Marc Rich pardon, and as Sean Hannity points out, he was connected to a “company with ties to a known terrorist organization during his years in private practice.”

These are Colombian terrorists. The AUC and FARC are responsible for kidnapping and murdering thousands of Colombians and Americans alike. But lesser known is the trail that leads from these groups to the man who may be our next attorney general.

The AP news story lists a number of Republicans such as Sen. Mel Martinez, Sen. Orrin Hatch, and Frances Townsend, who was President Bush’s homeland security advisor.

Just once, let’s stand up for something. Conservatives are begging for it, and, quite frankly, we deserve it.