The Organic Food Scam

Organic food is a waste of money and a scam

By P.D. Mangan

organic
So-called “organic” food is everywhere now, as the striking success of Whole Foods shows; even major chain supermarkets have organic sections. All the hip people eat organic, and even plenty of not-so-hip people.

But why? Do they know something I don’t know or is it just possible they are the victims of a giant scam? Somehow I’m thinking it’s the latter…

Let’s get one thing out of the way first: “organic”, as science uses the word, means something that is composed mainly of the element carbon, as are virtually all molecules in any living creature. (Exceptions would be minerals such as sodium and potassium.) “Organic”, as Whole Foods and others use it, means free of artificial chemicals such as pesticides or fertilizers.

The idea behind eating organic food seems to be that pesticide residues in food cause harm to health. The idea makes some sort of sense; after all, pesticides are used to kill pests, so they must be toxic. But there are a few problems with this logic.

One is that conventional food doesn’t have enough pesticide residue to be of concern:

Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, inasmuch as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional ones, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins.

The average consumer of organic food would, I suppose, say that they’re going to be extra cautious, just in case. If they want to spend their money paying double the price of regular food, and if Whole Foods is willing to take their money, fine by me.

What makes the case against paying more for organic food more damning is the fact that our natural, human diet is loaded with pesticides, natural ones. All those dietary phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables that are so good for us are composed largely of chemicals made by plants to defend themselves from predators. It may be surprising for some to learn that plants do not want to be eaten.

Animals defend themselves either by fight or by flight. Plants cannot flee, literally rooted to the ground as they are, so they fight using the only means possible: chemical warfare. Coffee plants don’t produce caffeine in order to satisfy human consumers; they do it to poison animals and insects that want to eat them. The sulforaphanes in cruciferous vegetables, the solanine in potatoes, the epicatechins in tea: none of those were put there for our benefit. The difference between an edible and an unedible plant lies merely in our ability to tolerate the toxins of an edible plant.

This was spelled out in a classic paper by Bruce Ames, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) (PDF). The abstract:

The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested [as of 1990] in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant

Nearly all of the pesticide chemicals that humans are exposed to are natural, produced by the plants themselves, and the fact that there’s little if any difference between natural and synthetic pesticides can be seen in the fact that half of the natural pesticides tested caused cancer in rodents.

Furthermore, the quantity of natural pesticides that humans ingest daily is many orders of magnitude greater than the amount of synthetic pesticides:

Concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are usually measured in parts per thousand or million rather than parts per billion, the usual concentration of synthetic pesticide residues or of water pollutants. We estimate that humans ingest roughly 5000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products.

The natural pesticides that are known to cause cancer are present in the most common foods ingested too.

…the 27 natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are present in the following foods: anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapefruit juice, grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lentils, lettuce, mango, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rosemary, sesame seeds, tarragon, tea, tomato, and turnip. Thus, it is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural
plant pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. The levels of these 27 rodent carcinogens in the above plants are commonly thousands of times higher than the levels of synthetic pesticides.

Science, real actual science, shows that virtually every plant food we eat contains large amounts of natural pesticides, some of which are known to cause cancer in lab animals.

The conclusion must be that organic food is a waste of money, and to the extent that some people and corporations profit from the ignorance of the public, and even feed that ignorance, a scam.

From Rogue Health and Fitness: http://roguehealthandfitness.com/organic-food-waste-money-scam/

Only Whites Can Be Racists…and Other Bullshit that Liberals Believe

 

 

Nonwhites Can’t Be Racist Cuz My Teacher Told Me So

by Jim Goad

March 09, 2015

Although it was released over three years ago, there were audible sounds of indigestion online recently at the discovery of a textbook called Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. The book is intended for all students of high school age and above. From a cursory glance of the book’s advertising materials, it appears to be roughly as full of shit as its title would imply.

At issue recently was this specific passage:

There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of oppression). While women can be just as prejudiced as men, women cannot be “just as sexist as men” because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.

Some would agree that there is indeed no such thing as “reverse racism,” but they’d argue so for different reasons than the authors. They’d say racism is racism no matter who’s practicing it. Unlike the authors of Is Everyone Really Equal?, at least they’re being consistent.

But sensible citizens such as you and I realize that the voodoo term “racism” is purely a social construct and thus has no innate meaning. That’s why different groups are always fighting one another to define it. The ability to define words is the root of cultural power. In my lifetime, the word’s definition has expanded with the ravenousness of a malignant tumor. Nowadays, everything white is racist. Even pointing that out is racist. And it’s racist of me for making fun of the fact that pointing this out is racist. And every word I keep saying from hereon out merely compounds the racism.

“The ability to define words is the root of cultural power.”

Will this tired conga beat never end? “Nonwhites cannot be racist” is a transparently nonsensical statement. It’s a freeze-dried and vacuum-sealed bag of pure bullshit, one of those innately fraudulent Newspeak mantras that bother me more every time I hear them—you know, obvious lies such as “alcoholism is a disease,” “rape has nothing to do with sex,” and “race doesn’t exist, but racism is rampant.” It’s an idea that makes no sense, which may be why its proponents feel compelled to constantly hammer you in the head with it until you finally relent merely because your head hurts.

More importantly, it’s a blatant act of moving the goalposts. It’s an attempt to redefine the term “racism” in a way that effectively silences whites and cripples their ability to address the topic with any level of meaning, honesty, or emotion.

Read it all at Taki Mag:

http://takimag.com/article/nonwhites_cant_be_racist_cuz_my_teacher_told_me_so_jim_goad/print#ixzz3U5KVPyvs

The Cancer of islamic sharia law Explained

ISIS is the Syndrome, Sharia the Real Malignancy

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/isis_is_the_syndrome_sharia_the_real_malignancy_.html#ixzz3TzNcIEEz

Obama’s Selma Speech. More of the same Marxist Propaganda spewing out of a filthy fountain.

Obama’s Unscrupulous Selma Speech

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obamas_unscrupulous_selma_speech.html#ixzz3TzKJXvWj

Enviro-fascism

green_armageddon.jpg

“Green Alarmism does not derive from science. It comes from a religion, the faux pagan worship of Gaia, the earth goddess. She is angry and must be propitiated by the sacrifice of human babies. The white liberals who are votaries of this religion have chosen brown and black babies to be the victims of the rituals of “population control”, “zero population growth” and “reproductive choice”.

“Why has this bizarre cult arisen among what are supposed to be our most intelligent and skeptical class?

“First we must observe the collapse of Christian belief in this class.

“They are all Marxists now, not industrial grade Stalinists, but cultural Marxists theorized by Adorno, and Gramisci, and the French lumpen-philosopes such as Foucault and Derrida. But, even those variants of Marxism demands atheism.

“Also atheism, especially, the nasty anti-intellectual atheism of Dawkins et. al., allows them to indulge their favorite passion — Contempt for the unwashed masses of Americans — the obese bitter clingers who inhabit fly-over country and cling to their guns and religion.

“Having chosen atheism does not mean that they believe nothing. As Umberto Eco wrote:

“G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: “When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He believes in anything.” Whoever said it – he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

“The “death of God”, or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church …”

— Posted by: Fat Man in comments on The Top 40: The Green Left’s Fascist Roots

From AD: http://americandigest.org/

Civil Rights: The Only Thing Still Marching on is White Guilt

Selma to Ferguson, Ferguson to Selma: What Happened After the Reporters Left

The real story of Selma, Alabama isn’t what Hollywood put on the screen. It’s about what happened after theprotesters got what they wanted and the reporters left.

Selma is back in the news because of the eponymous film, very looselybased on Martin Luther King’s 1965voting rights marches, the latest installment in the burgeoning cinematic genre of “hate porn.” It just bombed at the Golden Globes, prompting the usual charges of racism. [‘Selma didn’t win much at the Golden Globes. Are politics to blame? By Nia-Malika Henderson,Washington Post, January 12, 2015]. As Rachel Maddow impersonatorChristopher Hayes put it,
But Hollywood has a bigger problem if it wants to continue its reliance on anti-white agitprop. Curiously, while most Hollywood blockbusters rely on the foreign market to bring in the bulk of the gross receipts, hate porn is almost entirely dependent on the American market. To look at some examples:

  • 2011’s The Help made 78 percent of its lifetime gross ($216 million) in the domestic market.
  • 2012’s Red Tails was a box office bomb, grossing only $50 million worldwide, with an astonishing 99 percent of the share coming from the domestic market. A paltry $489,000 was grossed in the worldwide market
  • 2013’s The Butler made 66 percent of its lifetimes gross ($176 million) in the domestic market.

One exception: 2013’s 12 Years a Slave, which despite massive marketing and industry backing made only 30 percent of its worldwide gross ($187 million) from the American market. This may indicate a law of diminishing returns in the American market, as audiences weary of what is essentially the same movie over and over again.

Still, the film industry seems determined to double down on hate porn. Selma was produced by Brad Pitt and Oprah Winfrey for an estimated $20 million [Oprah Winfrey Joins Brad Pitt as Producer of MLK Drama ‘Selma,’ by Lucas Shaw, The Wrap, January 19, 2014]. It was directed by black female director Ava DuVernay, a diversity twofer duly celebrated by the Main Stream Media [Making History,by Manohla Dargis, New York Times, December 3, 2014]. But Selmaonly opened to just over $11 million, managing to lose to Liam Neeson once again losing his family in Taken 3. [Selma’ Movie Opening Weekend Bested by ‘Taken 3’ Despite Critical Acclaim, by Aaron Morrison, International Business Times, January 12, 2015]

Of course, it’s not really about making money. It’s about imposing apermanent sense of white guilt of the historic American nation. And those older whites who may be tainted by “prejudice and racism” “just have to die,” to use Oprah’s notorious words. [Oprah: Racists Have to Die for Racism to End, by Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters, November 15, 2013] The object: to train young whites to willfully ignore racial reality and not “read, say, or think” anything PC, to use John Derbyshire’s phrase.

But both American blacks and whites will eventually have to face the consequences of what happened in Selma after the reporters left. Just as Birmingham, Alabama became a failed city after theachieving of black political power, so is present day Selma a reminder that Hollywood’s history seldom resembles the real thing.

Selma in 1965 was roughly half-white and half-black. But in the years since King’s march, the white population has declined by roughly 10,000 people and the city lost 30 percent of its total population [As ‘Selma’ wow Hollywood critics, white flight and poverty haunt Selma, by Jeremy Gray, AL.com, January 7, 2015] Today, the 80% black city is a ruin.

According to Public School Review, Selma High School and its 982 students is almost entirely black. Some 80 percent of students get a free lunch.

As recent as twenty years ago, there was still a small white population. However, Southern Changes magazine complained,

The student body has been majority African American since 1975, four years after integration. Currently, more than eighty percent of the students are black. Until very recently, the school had never been governed by a school board with a black majority. In all of the years since integration, there has been one black valedictorian and one black salutatorian.

[Selma: What Has Changed?, Southern Changes Volume 12, Number 4, 1991]

They and other “diversity campaigners” got what they wanted. In 2000, majority-black Selma finally elected its first black mayor, James Perkins Jr. This event was heralded as the “biggest news to hit Selma since slavery fell”:

“His victory gives many people a sign of hope, not just in Selma, but in Alabama and the rest of the world,” says the Rev. Frederick Douglas “F.D.”

Reese, Perkins’s pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church. “Selma, as I see it, has been chosen to be … a beacon of a brighter tomorrow.”

[Selma steps away from its troubled past, by Robin Demonia,Christian Science Monitor, October 2, 200]

But how did that play out? Under the “brighter tomorrow” of Third World leadership, Selma couldn’t even maintain a movie theater. The “Walton Theater,” once a famous landmark that hosted “talking pictures” as far back as 1932 and amateur talent shows, was eventually closed because there were no private investors to back the project, even after heavy investment by the city government.

Saturday marked the end of an era at the Walton Theater.

After two years of operation, the Jackson family showed its last movie Saturday — “A Madea Christmas.”

Sharon and David Jackson decided to end management of the city-owned facility after the Selma City Council’s Public Building’s Committee decided not to approve a transition proposal or present a counter offer…

The Walton Theater originally opened in 1914… In the 1970s, the theater fell into a state of disrepair and was closed.

Selmians helped to raise more than $1 million to reopen the theater. It reopened in May 1985 after five years of planning and construction, spearheaded by local residents Larry Striplin and Anita Bryant.

The theater stopped showing feature films in the 1990s.

In October 2011 David and Sharon Jackson partnered with the City of Selma to reopen the Walton as a first-run movie theater. The city helped by purchasing new state-of-the-art digital and sound systems. The first film shown in the Jackson’s Walton Theater was “Mission Impossible IV,” according to the theater’s website.

[Movies come to a close at Selma’s Walton Theater, by Josh Bergeron, Selma Times Journal, December 21, 2013]

Naturally, this led to an awkward situation when it came time to screen Selma in the town that inspired the movie. The Walton Theater was reopened just for the movie. Once the show is over, a ruined city where more than 40 percent of the people live in poverty will remain. [Fear and joy as Alabama town readies for screenings of film ‘Selma,’ by Jonathan Kaminsky, Reuters, January 3, 2015]

And this serves as a metaphor for whole sad story of Selma. Oprah Winfrey and Hollywood will continue to roll out Civil Rights pornography, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will continue their extortion rackets, and the great passion plays of the Civil Rights Movement will be re-enacted again and again. Whites will be called racist for leaving black run cities, and if they don’t flee, they will becalled racist for staying.

The Civil Rights Movement got exactly what it wanted. Its leading figures, like Martin Luther King Jr., have been enshrined as American saints. Black power reigns in what were some of the leading cities of the Old Confederacy.

But formerly First World cities like Selma, Birmingham, and Detroit will still be Third World slums, no matter how many Hollywood movies are made about the evils of Whites. And no amount of white guilt will comfort those who have to live in the ruins.

Like Shelley’s Ozymandias, of the colossus that was the American Civil Rights Movement, nothing beside remains.

Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface andEscape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.

From V-Dare: http://www.vdare.com/articles/selma-to-ferguson-ferguson-to-selma-what-happened-after-the-reporters-left

This is What Really Happens when The White People leave and Blacks Take Over

What is it they want? The Only Article You’ll Ever Need to Read about now 80 percent black Selma…

It’s a black city. As the Washington Post notes about 80 percent black Selma in 2015, a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a re-opening Sonic restaurant is cause for celebration in a city where the Visible Black Hand of Economic has otherwise chased away commercial interests:

80 percent black Selma: can they keep a Sonic open?

…a ribbon-cutting at the local Sonic drive-up restaurant. In the past few months, Selma has lost two of its biggest department stores: J.C. Penney and Goody’s. The restaurant event offered a rare bit of good economic news.

“Technically it’s more of a reopening than an opening,” KimbroughBallard said. “The place looked terrible. Thank God Sonic saw fit to invest thousands of dollars in it instead of picking up and leaving.” The restaurant was festooned with balloons and a big red ribbon.

Today, almost all the top elected officials in Selma and surrounding Dallas County are black. Ballard, who is white, stood next to Mayor George Evans, who was elected in 2008 as the second black mayor in Selma’s history. Also in the ribbon-cutting line was Benny Lee Tucker, a City Council member and one of the heroes of the Bloody Sunday march. The mayor snipped the ribbon, and a Sonic regional marketing executive handed out raspberry and lime sodas.

It should be noted this is the second time since 2009 the Sonic in Selma has re-opened (in 2009, the Selma Times-Journal reported there were 533 job applications to work there), with the building torn down in late 2014 for the latest incarnation of the outpost for civilization in the heart of darkness that is 80 percent black Selma.

It’s a black city, dominated by black elected officials and a government seemingly run for black people, of the black people, and by black people. Yet businesses continue to flee across the famed Edmund Pettus Bridge, which attracts a few out-of-towners every March to walk across it like an American version of Hajj.

A holy pilgrimage to bathe in the eternal waters of white guilt pumped continuously by images of “Bloody Sunday” from Selma in 1965…

One day those waters will stop flowing.

Perhaps it will be the day when the celebrated Sonic closes, another business fleeing 80 percent Selma…

Or, perhaps one day it will become illegal for a business to close up shop in 80 percent Selma… [Selma, 50 years after march, remains a city divided, Los Angeles Time, 3-6-15]:

“Some people have a need to not be satisfied,” said Jamie Wallace, who in 1965 was an editor at the Selma Times-Journal. He stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge with civil right marchers when they were attacked on Bloody Sunday. He and other newspaper staffers resisted enormous pressure from advertisers, subscribers and the Selma elite to ignore the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the marchers.

This weekend, he will be presented a Living Legend Award by Selma’s mayor, a black man. Things were bad in 1965, Wallace said. They are still bad.

“But I dispute anyone who claims we didn’t change anything,” he said. “We went from an all-white power structure to all black. That means something.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson sat nearby on a wicker sofa, watching Sanders and her volunteers work. “People coming to Selma in a celebration mood should be in a protest mood,” he said. Sanders agreed.

“Sixty percent of Selma’s children live in poverty,” she told him. Jackson nodded.

“People assume there is a correlation between political power and economic power,” he said. But a black power structure — mayor, city council, police force — is not enough.

“You change the political power, and the white business owners just move outside the city. So you have power over a doughnut hole. We need help to climb out of the doughnut hole,” he said.

He went on to describe a plan in which the government would intervene to stop people from relocating their businesses. “It’s the only way,” Jackson said.

A black power structure is Selma, an 80 percent black city, has represented the equivalent of an EMP-blast over the city only allowing one or two days of outside coverage of the city to exist: those days happen to correspond with the anniversary of the famed march across the bridge in 1965; what happens in the city when blacks are in charge the other 364 days of the years means absolutely nothing, unless it can be used to transmit a message of continued white oppression and persecution of defenseless, powerless blacks.

But blacks have all the power in Selma, and the city lights are going out. One wonders if there is even a working public water fountain in the 80 percent black city of Selma in 2015, obviously knowing that when the city was controlled by evil whites in 1965, at least a “colored” water fountain worked…

So now the black power structure wants to consider putting in place a plan to prevent individuals from closing the doors of their privately-held businesses, if they plan to relocate them outside the 80 percent black city of Selma…

After 38 years of being in business, J.C. Penny left the Selma Mall in early January of 2015; of the 33  J.C. Penny locations in Alabama, it was the only one to close… the closing was part of “a strategic priority to improve the profitability of our stores and position J. C. Penney for future success”:

“Wow, that’s a surprise. It’s like one of the two anchor stores for the mall and Belk is the other,” said Mary Johnson, who was shopping at J. C. Penney on Wednesday. “With one of the anchors gone, I don’t know how the mall can stay open.”

The 80 percent black population of Selma, the historic American city birthing the ‘March Across the Pettus Bridge” (an event more important to the American narrative than Washington Crossing the Delaware), no longer has the ability to sustain a J.C. Penny…

An editorial in the Selma Times-Journal bemoaned the closing of stores in 80 percent black Selma, without noting how these stores are no longer capable of producing the profits required to keep them open; a true testament to the type of community and social capital black people create (hey, Sonic has had to have grand re-openings TWICE in the past six years in Selma…). [Selma Mall can still succeed, even after closure of Goody’s and J.C. Penney, Selma Times-Journal, 3-3-15]:

Like J.C. Penney in 2014, Goody’s is closing its location at the Selma Mall at the end of March.

At this point, it’s not clear what the mall’s future plans are when it comes to attracting new businesses to replace the vacant buildings left by the major retailers that once called it home.

The closings are crippling to a city whose leaders echo the message “Shop local” at every given opportunity. Leaders in Selma understand how important it is that those in Selma try to shop here first, creating extra tax dollars and more opportunities for growth within the city.

That’s why it’s so disheartening when stores the caliber and size of Goody’s and J.C. Penney close in Selma. That’s not to say that lack of support is the reason the stores closed. Business could always be better, but J.C. Penney closed dozens of stores as part of company wide decision and Goody’s has not made any formal announcement about its reasoning from the corporate level.

Selma needs its mall to succeed, which is why the next few months are so important. We’re optimistic that the mall can be a vibrant shopping center with options for shoppers for all ages, but it’s going to take some work. Whatever the mall’s future holds, it will need the investment of the community in order to succeed.

80 percent black Selma doesn’t have the population capable of keeping J.C. Penny or Goody’s open; it does, however, have an 80 percent black population capable of requiring Sonic to close twice in six years for grand re-openings…
The Visible Black Hand of Economics has struck the city of 80 percent black Selma.

Again, blacks secure control of the city of Selma, and yet no one wants to be there save a few politicians and white journalists every March when the annual pilgrimage to this religious icon commences…

Selma is 80 percent black; by 2020, the city will likely be 90 percent black.

They control the city’s present and will determine it’s future, free of white people obstructing individual black people’s collective drive… and yet the city celebrates the opening of a Sonic as if its a favored son returning from war a great hero.

Selma.

The perfect embodiment of what individual black potential collectively manifests in America

From http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-is-it-they-want-only-article-youll.html

Obama Really Believes He is a god.

A Question of Personality

By Richard Fernandez

Excerpts from this article below.

A charismatic leader derives authority from himself;  from an astounding life story, from attributes possessed by no other man.

Obama’s chosen model for greatness was to become a charismatic leader.

…the Legend is Obama’s Achilles Heel.  It’s Obama’s weakness and it is growing all the time.  The president has been doubling down on his charismatic leadership model. When the president decided to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote;  by vowing to veto any attempts to amend his ‘signature’ legislation;  by announcing he was going to throw open the borders to illegal aliens by executive action; by suggesting he would conclude an agreement with Iran without necessarily seeking Congressional approval — with each step he was progressively narrowing his basis for governance.  He was isolating himself on the lonely rock that was his life-story…

The authority for his actions is increasingly himself…

 …questions are all off limits even though they are interrogatories of the most ordinary kind.  And they are off limits for a reason.  They undermine the root of the legend…

No republic, especially one as great as the United States, should ever be based on the such a fragile thing as the biography of a single man…

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/02/22/a-question-of-personality/#ixzz3Tl9GfBkr

ISIS is islam.

European Colonialism is the Only Thing That Modernized Islam

Islam never became enlightened. It never stopped being ‘medieval’. Whatever enlightenment it received was imposed on it by European colonialism. It’s a second-hand enlightenment that never went under the skin.

ISIS isn’t just seventh century Islam. It’s also much more recent than that. It’s Islam before the French and the English came. It’s what the Muslim world was like before it was forced to have presidents and constitutions, before it was forced to at least pay lip service to the alien notion of equal rights for all.

The media reported the burning of the Jordanian pilot as if it were some horrifying and unprecedented aberration. But Muslim heretics, as well as Jews and Christians accused of blasphemy, were burned alive for their crimes against Islam. Numerous accounts of this remain, not from the seventh century, but from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Those who weren’t burned, might be beheaded.

These were not the practices of some apocalyptic death cult. They were the Islamic law in the “cosmopolitan” parts of North Africa. The only reason they aren’t the law now is that the French left behind some of their own laws.

Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that were never truly colonized still behead men and women for “witchcraft and sorcery.” Not in the seventh century or even in the nineteenth century. Last year.

The problem isn’t that ISIS is ‘medieval’. The problem is that Islam is…

Read it all at Sultan Knish:  http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Violent muslim Immigrants taking over Minnesota. Obama hopes they will take over the entire country.

As Barack Hussein Obama continues to flood the country with mostly illiterate, unskilled and violent Somali Muslims, Minneapolis will soon become a NO-GO zone for non-Muslims

images-22Growing Somali Muslim mall in Minneapolis now boasts one of the state’s largest mosques. But where are they getting the money since more than half of Somali Muslims in America live on welfare?

Star Tribune Developer Basim Sabri says setting out to build one of Minnesota’s largest mosques at his Karmel Square mall wasn’t a vanity project. Instead, the space — part of a major expansion at Karmel — was meant as a goodwill gesture to the local Somalis who rent and shop at the south Minneapolis mall.

SOMALI MUSLIM immigrants demand more funding for the halal-compliant free food bank in Minneapolis

The expansion has tested Sabri’s famously tense relationships with the city and the mall’s neighbors, who have voiced concerns over parking and traffic issues. Part of the construction collapsed in May, cutting off electricity to the neighborhood and briefly stalling the project.

Read it all at BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

“Swishing Faggotry” and Evil Men. It is too Late Now.

Ann Barnhardt lays it all out in easy to understand terms.

Laboravi clamans…

1.) I start writing, and while I certainly could comment on everything, I simply have no drive to do so. I warned and warned, screamed and screamed. It’s too late now.

I wrote a piece for AmericanThinker.com nearly four years ago titled, “We the Stupid”. And people are STILL convinced, after all of this, that their government is legitimate, and that this can all be undone and fixed peacefully, through elections and the extant paradigm. It can’t. Someone told me just a few weeks ago that “there isn’t going to be any war, and you are crazy to think that there will be.” And you know, he may be right. War involves fighting. At this point, I don’t think there will be any real resistance. And I’m not just saying that as some sort of reverse psychology trick in order to get people riled up. This culture, even the “good” part, is so far gone and so effeminate (more on this below), that it is incapable of even the most mild act of resistance or self-defense.

This is what I wrote four years ago.

Finally, I do not understand how it can possibly be that conservative writers are still addressing Obama as if he is actually trying to help the economy, but his well-intentioned policies are failing.

Obama is the enemy. Obama is a Marxist-Communist usurper and puppet front for a cabal of Marxist-Communists who are actively trying to destroy the United States of America. Everything they have done, are doing, and will do has the single goal of collapsing and destroying the U.S. economy, military, constitutional government and culture. What part of “Marxist Revolution” do you not understand?

The Obama regime is not a failure. The Obama regime is not incompetent. The Obama regime has achieved more in two and a half years than anyone could have possibly foreseen. It has debased the currency by 50% of the GDP and guaranteed that our economy will collapse. It has looted the Treasury for more than the size of a top-ten economy and embezzled that wealth into the hands of their fellow Marxists in preparation for the final collapse of the United States. It has ground the economy of the United States to a screeching halt. It has destabilized the entire Muslim world and ensured that there will be a nuclear war centered around Israel within the decade.

The Obama regime has no interest whatsoever in “stimulus” or “getting folks back to work.” How can you not understand this? How can we possibly win this war if we refuse to come to terms with the fact that we are, in fact, fighting a war?

God save the United States of America, because the people are far too stupid to do it themselves.

2. I want to make a distinction between effeminacy and, for the sake of clarity, “swishing faggotry”. Most men today are still, in fact, heterosexual. But they are extremely effeminate. Whilst being sexually oriented towards heteronormative acts (simply put, they “like girls”), their mode of being, of addressing the world, is almost completely feminized. When confronted with a problem, their method of dealing with it is to first DENY THAT THE PROBLEM EXISTS. Eyes down. Look away. DON’T TALK ABOUT IT. Pretend nothing is wrong, and eventually the problem will either go away, fix itself, or someone else (namely “a man”), will solve the problem for us, out of sight, and then we won’t ever actually have to deal with it. This is how females are generally wired, because women are physically weaker than men, and the best way for a woman to keep from getting raped and murdered is to AVOID combat situations in the first place. This is what today’s post-Christian western man has been trained to do and be since infancy.

The other profoundly feminine mode of avoidance is something I observe on a near-daily basis. It is the strategy that says, “Let’s wait to do anything until it is too late to do anything. Then it won’t be our fault, because it will have been too late to do anything.” This is such transparent cowardice, but oh, so attractive to the effeminized men of today. It is painted not as the abject cowardice and impotence that it is, but rather as “prudence”. It is now believed that the prudent man is not the man who discerns and does the right, but rather the man who does NOTHING.

I am reminded of Bonhoeffer’s quote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

No, the hallmark gesture of today’s effeminized man is not the limp wrist and swishing hips of the “faggot”. The hallmark gesture of today’s effeminized post-Christian western man is the SHRUGGING OF THE SHOULDERS. Devoid of virility, devoid of potency, and at its core, devoid of CHARITY, today’s man, when confronted with evil, turns his head away to the side, shrugs his shoulders, and bleats out his twin mottoes:

THERE’S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT.

I DON’T CARE – IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM.

And so, many people look at the oligarch class, these nefarious characters infecting every corner of society, from the halls of academia, to the corporate boardrooms, to the halls of government, to the halls of the Church, and they see, generally, drooling imbeciles. And they then think that surely these drooling imbeciles will do themselves in – all we need do is wait for them to trip over their own thingamajigs and beat themselves. But that isn’t going to happen. They will continue to roll. They will continue to march down the field, because not only are we not mounting an effective defense – MUCH LESS any sort of counter-offense, WE AREN’T EVEN FIELDING A TEAM.

If two teams are playing, and one team is the “NFL Dream Team of All Time” and the other team is comprised of a blind, mentally retarded three year old, the blind, mentally retarded three year old, ALONE, can beat the NFL Dream Team of All Time IF the Dream Team never comes out of the locker room. The blind, retarded three year old can literally run up and down the gridiron, scoring at will, so long as the Dream Team remains in the locker room, watching the blind, mentally retarded three year old cross the goal line time after time, shrugging their shoulders, declaring, “There’s nothing we can do about it. Whatever. It’s not my problem.”

And what is never shown on camera or discussed is the “coach” (satan) and “assistant coaches” (demons) on the sidelines, coaxing and calling the mentally retarded three year old down the field to uncontested score after uncontested score.

Here, also from Ann is how we should be praying:

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee, highest King,
Redeemer of all,
do we lift up our eyes
in weeping:
Hear, O Christ, the prayers
of your servants.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Right hand of the Father,
corner-stone,
way of salvation,
gate of heaven,
wash away our
stains of sin.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

We beseech Thee, God,
in Thy great majesty:
Hear our groans
with Thy holy ears:
calmly forgive
our crimes.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee we confess
our sins admitted
with a contrite heart
We reveal the things hidden:
By Thy kindness, O Redeemer,
overlook them.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

The Innocent, seized,
not refusing to be led;
condemned by false witnesses
because of impious men
O Christ, keep safe those
whom Thou hast redeemed.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/

We are not as Good as we Think we are

This Just In: Humans Are Bad at Everything That’s Important

A minority of our news stories cover what’s truly new: scientific discoveries, thriving business startups, or groundbreaking legislation. But most of our news stories are about some human being (or group of human beings) failing, in a very familiar way, to be kind, fair, or honest. Politician caught lying! Violence erupts between Group A and Group B! Company misleads customers for profit! Details at 6.

If we sat down to think about what’s really important to us, we might come up with qualities like fairness, kindness, responsibility, loyalty, and mutual respect. It seems like all of the major problems in the world are caused by a small contingent of bad apples, who simply shun these important qualities and ruin it for kind, responsible, honest and fair people like ourselves.

I think this is wishful thinking. The truth is that all of us — even those of us who feel like good people — are almost comically terrible at achieving these qualities, yet we expect them as a matter of course from each other and ourselves. Our incredulous response to scandal and selfishness suggests that we believe any of us could, at any moment, snap out of our self-interest and dysfunction, and make the world the place it should have been all along.

What makes us distinct from other species, more than anything, is that we’re able to move beyond being impulse-driven, self-interested animals, at least a little bit. We can reflect, we can refrain, we can empathize, we can plan. We can feel our impulses while at the same time understanding that they aren’t always leading us to good things.

In the relatively short time we’ve been able to explore this higher territory, we’ve come to really value these lofty qualities, and we’ve become preoccupied with public figures failing to achieve them. After all, we know it is virtues like fairness, honesty, discipline and kindness that are going to make it easier to be human, to deal with suffering and loss and all the stark realities that come with knowing you’re a vulnerable, animated bag of meat. We desperately want to get ourselves (but especially others) to embody these higher human qualities, which promise to save us from cruelty and misery. But as much as we covet them, we forget that these new capacities are in fact skills, and that as a species we’re generally not very good at them.

Essentially, this higher territory is what we call morality, and I think we tend to greatly overestimate how good we are at it. We’re a species who, as I point out frequently, can barely uphold our New Year’s commitments to ourselves, yet we seem to expect everyone else to be more or less upstanding and incorruptible. Why am I so frequently appalled by how thoughtlessly other people park their cars, when I don’t think twice about spending thirty dollars on beer instead of feeding the starving?

You can make up excuses for this kind of behavior — cognitive dissonance, meritocratic economics, drop-in-the-bucket syndrome — but I think all of that is avoiding the truth about human beings, which is that we are pitifully underdeveloped when it comes to morality. We just happen to be living in that awkward and painful stage where we recognize its supreme importance to our well-being, yet we’re so bad at it we can barely stand ourselves.

So what am I suggesting we do about this? Two things:

1) That we recognize how hard it is for human beings to be what they aspire to be.

Why are we so shocked that a politician would lie? That a company puts profits ahead of compassion? That everyday people harbor prejudices? That we have such a hard time saving enough for retirement, or giving enough to charity, or not eating too much?

For one thing, it’s so much easier to identify the right thing to do than to actually do it, and when we’re assessing the behavior of others, we only have to do the former. But even with our own selves, we trivialize the difficulty of living up to our moral standards.

To quit smoking, you only have to do one simple thing: avoid putting cigarettes in your mouth. How hard is that? Somehow, very.

How hard is it to treat others as yourself? So incredibly difficult we are bound to spend our lives failing at it.

I’m not suggesting we downplay or deny the harm that our moral failings cause, but to become more accepting of human failing in general, particularly our own. We are too quick to condemn people for not living up to what are actually extremely lofty standards, at least for a creature whose motivations are still largely reptilian.

You might think, “Well, I know I should give more to charity than I do, but I would never lie to my spouse! Only a monster could do that!” That much may be true; you may have the wherewithal to succeed (so far) at Lofty Moral Standard X, but not at Lofty Moral Standard Y. And perhaps you would argue that the standards you meet are more important than the ones you don’t — but maybe you are just lucky in that regard, and can’t really explain why something is straightforward for you that seems nearly impossible for someone else. We should be grateful for the moral wherewithal we do have, and never lose sight of how easy it is to fall short of Complete Moral Upstandingness, and how often we do so ourselves.

The name for this particular combination of empathy and gratitude is forgiveness, which is itself another lofty aspiration of human beings that we are generally terrible at. One crucial understanding we must come to, as a species that is struggling to transcend its amoral animal past, is that we can’t expect our progress to be evenly distributed across individuals of our species. That means you may know how to do the right thing at times others don’t, and for that you should be grateful instead of vindictive.

Read it all at: Raptitude.Com – http://www.raptitude.com/2015/03/this-just-in-humans-are-bad-at-everything-thats-important/

Those Who Know The Obvious, Dangerous Truth about islam Must Speak Up.

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?

No.

It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories. There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

  • Upon what do you base your assertion?
  • Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?
  • Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?
  • Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapiro did, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

They need to learn the truth.

Who will tell them?

That would be us.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/islams_dangerous_degrees_of_devotion.html#ixzz3SJr9Fn3G

No Wonder America is Doomed

Panromantic Gray-Asexual

By: Z Man

Kathy Shaidle linked to this today.

It’s Friday afternoon during finals week, and two undergrads at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville are lounging together on a battered couch in the student center, watching cartoons. They’ve only met twice before, but they’re all over each other. Rae, a tiny pixie of a sophomore wearing a newsboy cap, nuzzles up against Sean, a handsome freshman. He’s got his arm draped across her. They giggle and tease each other, and she sprawls into his lap. Their friend Genevieve, perched on the arm of the couch, smiles and rolls her eyes.

It looks like a standard collegiate prelude to a one-night stand. But there will be no kissing, no fondling, and definitely no Saturday morning walk of shame. Sean and Rae do not have the hots for each other—or anyone else, for that matter. In fact, they’re here hanging out at the campus outreach center, a haven for all who question their sexuality and gender identity, because they’re exploring an unconventional idea: life without sex. Or mostly without sex. They’re pioneers of an emerging sexual identity, one with its own nomenclature and subcategories of romance and desire, all revolving around the novel concept that having little to no interest in sex is itself a valid sexual orientation. Rae tells me she’s an aromantic asexual, Sean identifies as a heteroromantic demisexual, and Genevieve sees herself as a panromantic gray-asexual.

Not sure what these terms mean? You’re not alone. The definitions are still in flux, but most people who describe themselves as demisexual say they only rarely feel desire, and only in the context of a close relationship. Gray-­asexuals (or gray-aces) roam the gray area between absolute asexuality and a more typical level of interest. Then there are the host of qualifiers that describe how much romantic attraction you might feel toward other people: Genevieve says she could theoretically develop a nonsexual crush on just about any type of person, so she is “panromantic”; Sean is drawn to women, so he calls himself “heteroromantic.”

The jargon is all nonsense, lifted conceptually from the managerial elite’s fetish for taxonomy, with a healthy dose of the therapeutic culture sprinkled on top. Asexuality is nothing new and it has been with us since forever. Some percentage of humans lack the normal sex drive, just as some people have a hyper-active sex drive.

There’s also the fact that societies in decline have lower fertility rates. This has been understood for a long time. In good times, people have more fun and that results in more babies. In bad times, there’s less fun and fewer babies. It’s not just material good times or bad times either. Periods of material wealth, but spiritual decline can push down fertility rates. Iran is the an interesting example of a society with a very low fertility rate, despite modestly improving material wealth.

Japan is the classic example. It turns out that a people without a unifying purpose, regardless of their material wealth, are just not all that enthusiastic about the procreative acts. David Goldman, in his book How Civilizations Die, notes how fertility rates track church attendance in the West, while the reverse seems to be true in Islam. In America, a transactional, materialistic society is probably not inspiring to young people coming into a world without purpose. In Islam, a world ruled by lunatics who believe in flying carpets and magic inspires little in the way of optimism.

From The Z Man Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Is “Freakism” the New “Feminism” run Amuck?

An Infinite Rainbow of Oppression

Posted on | February 18, 2015

Sarah Deragon (@identityproj) is a feminist and a lesbian, but I repeat myself. Tuesday, I posted a series of “Queer Feminism” headlines from EverydayFeminism.com to illustrate the extent to which the feminist movement has become obsessed with perverse sexuality. One of the headlines I included was this:

Powerful Photos Fearlessly Redefine
What It Means to Be LGBTQIA+

Because I was just linking headlines, I didn’t click to see the “Powerful Photos” until after I’d posted the article and commenters began pointing out what a weird series of photographs Sarah Deragon (who labels herself “Queer Femme”) had compiled there. A few of the labels:

“Fat Fierce Queer Femme”
“Queer Femme Jock”
“Trans Femme Genderqueer”
“Plus Sized Polyamorous Pansexual”
“Old School Dyke Leather Butch”
“Fat Queer Indigenous Femme”
“Poly Fag Queermo”
“Sassy Switch Femmeboi”
“Fierce Queer Xicana Femme”
“Queer Femme Psychic”

Go take a look at this collection of weirdness, which inspires the question, Is “Carnival Sideshow Freak” a gender identity yet?

This is “Everyday Feminism” in 2015. Welcome to the Obama Age, where “normal” is the problem and “queer” is the solution.

The What????

‘The True Peaceful Nature of Islam’

Posted on | February 18, 2015

That phrase appears in an op-ed column President Obama published in the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps our president hasn’t been paying close attention for the past 30 or 40 years, but it seems to me that the Muslims who want to kill or enslave us all might disagree about the “true peaceful nature” of their religion. More wisdom from our president:

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.

Katie Pavlich:

What, exactly, does Obama mean when he says “legitimate grievances”? The grievances Al Qaeda and ISIS hold are against infidels and Muslims who don’t go far enough to wage jihad on the West.

Muslims want to kill or enslave us all. This is the “true nature” of Islam. It’s in the Koran. That’s their “grievance.” Period.

From TOM: http://theothermccain.com/

Follow the links in This Article to Send Your Senator a Letter Objecting to the ATF Banning AR-15 AMMO

ATF Seeks to Suppress AR-15’s by Banning Common AR-15 Ammo


Not a GOA member yet? Make sure to join Gun Owners of America!


ACTION: Urge your Senators to “defund” the ban on AR-15 ammunition, and urge them to put a “hold” on the nomination of Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch until the ATF backs down from its unlawful gun ban.

Obama/Holder Exact Revenge on Gun Owners

In the winter of 2012-13, Barack Obama went to war against the AR-15. Every liberal establishment ally in the country was mobilized to ban the rifle and destroy what they dismissively called “the gun manufacturers’ lobby.”

In the end, fewer than 40 senators (in a Democrat-controlled Senate) voted to ban semi-automatics.

So what do you do when even a Democrat-controlled Senate will not support your lunatic agenda? What do you do when your agenda runs contrary to the law and the Constitution?

You just ignore your opposition and go on the offensive, which is exactly what the Obama Administration did within the past week.

ATF Violates the Law in Proposing New Ammo Ban

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is proposing to illegally suppress the AR-15 by banning M855 ammunition for that rifle as “armor piercing ammunition” under a 1986 statute banning certain types of ammunition — a statute which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968.

GOA’s Legislative Counsel fought this law as a staffer in the U.S. Senate, arguing that it was a “camel’s nose under the tent.” Sadly, a “compromise” which was struck by some short-sighted pro-gunners in 1986, and the bill was allowed to pass.

Thus, the ammo ban applies to:

(1) Ammunition constructed entirely of “tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium” or,

(2) Certain “full jacketed projectile[s] larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun…” [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)]

Obviously, SS109 and M855 ammunition — with a traditional lead core and a steel tip — is neither. Rather, this is an illegal attempt to ban or limit AR-15’s by banning types of AR-15 ammunition.

Moreover, any particular ammunition can be, and has been, exempted if it has a sporting purpose. Well, according to surveys, the AR-15 is used for target shooting or hunting over 50% of the time — thereby, making its ammunition easily fit within the “sporting purpose” test, no matter what the composition of the ammunition.

Hunters Beware!

The AR-15 is one of the most popular guns in America. But even if you don’t own one — hence, you may be thinking you don’t have a “dog in this fight” — realize that this ban DOES AFFECT YOU.

If the ATF can get away with illegally banning a popular ammo round (because it can penetrate body armor), how long do you think it will be before it’s banning other popular hunting rounds — which, by the way, can also penetrate body armor!

The ATF is accepting comments on this proposal until March 16.

GOA is working on submitting its own comments, and we certainly don’t discourage others from submitting theirs as well.

Most importantly, however, GOA will be working with Senators to “defund” or overturn this ammunition ban.

ACTION: Urge your Senators to support the following measures:

(1) Ask that the nomination of Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch (dubbed “Eric Holder in a skirt”) be put on hold until the ATF backs down from its unlawful gun ban; and,

(2) Urge Senators to support an amendment to the DHS appropriations bill which would forbid the ATF from going forward with its lawless proposal.