Posted in Agenda 21, Islamic Terrorism
Posted in Government, Islamic Terrorism
We already lose almost 10,000 American citizens per year to illegal aliens who kill them, whether by drunk drivers, robberies, rape, murder, whatever. This is according to FBI stats. So add hundreds of thousands of Muslim Syrians (not refugees) and then what will the number of dead Americans be? The politicians don’t give a damn what happens to us, and they won’t, not until it happens to one of their own, or to them.
BY TODD STARNES FOR PATRIOTPOST.US
(Click on the above link to watch the video)
The nation was forced to endure yet more pious prattling from President Obama this week who spent time berating Americans who are worried about Islamic jihadists hell-bent on blowing us all to kingdom come.
“When individuals say that we should have a religious test and that only … proven Christians should be admitted, that’s offensive and contrary to American values,” the president said, just one day after he called such behavior un-American.
What’s offensive and contrary to American values is refusing to properly investigate those wanting to come to our nation — especially those coming from regions that are hotbeds of Islamic extremism.
But the president says such prudence only further inflames the Islamic jihadists.
“ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West,” he said. “When you starting seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting that Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are — in a war-torn land — that feeds the ISIL narrative.”
It’s counterproductive and it needs to stop, he warned.
Those of us who fear that Islamic radicals might be lurking among the refugees have been called every name in the book: bigots, Islamophobes and un-American.
But the cold hard reality is that Protestants, Catholics and Jews aren’t the ones beheading people. The Lutherans and Nazarenes aren’t gunning down young folks in concert venues.
Nevertheless, the president remains steadfast. The Muslims will come.
“We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” he told journalists from high atop his soapbox.
But that’s not entirely accurate.
Last year, the Obama administration led a fierce legal battle to have a German Christian family thrown out of the United States.
The Romeikes fled their homeland in search of a nation where they could home school their children. A judge initially granted them asylum — believing they were escaping from religious persecution.
However, the Obama administration waged a fierce campaign against the Romeike family, demanding they be returned to Germany.
The family lost court battle after court battle, but at the eleventh hour the White House relented and decided begrudgingly to let them stay.
And just a few months ago a federal immigration judge ordered a dozen Iraqi Christians deported from a facility in San Diego.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson declined to tell The San Diego Union-Tribune why the Iraqi Christians were being sent back to their native land.
So the next time President Obama wants to lecture the nation about religion maybe he could explain why his administration is importing Muslims and deporting Christians.
So far, the Governors of the following states have issued statements announcing their intentions to block Syrian nationals from entering the United States:
Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama, Louisiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Maine, Arizona, and New Hampshire.
The late addition of New Hampshire, governed by a Democrat, provides additional humiliation for CAIR, which exclusively targeted Republicans with its message.
The bipartisan effort from the states comes following the Paris terror attacks that were committed last week by Syrian nationals loyal to the Islamic State terror group.
In a Press Release titled, “CAIR Decries GOP Governors’ ‘Un-American’ Refusal to Accept Syrian Refugees,” the Islamist advocacy group, which has been declared as a terrorist organization in the UAE, wrote:
“Defeating ISIS involves projecting American ideals to the world. This un-American rejection of refugees, who will face significant security checks prior to entry, sends entirely the wrong message. Governors who reject those fleeing war and persecution abandon our ideals and instead project our fears to the world.”
Simultaneously, CAIR has engaged in a social media campaign titled, “#TerrorismHasNoReligion,” with the goal of distancing Islam from the Islamic State terror group.
“CAIR is waging a campaign to stifle any reference to the Islamist ideology that drove the Islamic State attack on Paris,” read analysis from The Investigative Project On Terrorism.
The Islamic supremacist outfit is often described as a “Muslim advocacy group” or a “civil rights organization” by much of the mainstream media, but the foundation of CAIR provides for a different narrative.
Nihad Awad, A CAIR co-founder and its current leader, has substantial ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, FBI wiretaps found that Awad had instructed his employees to use coded-language when referring to Hamas, due to the group’s designation as a terrorist organization by the United States.
Separately, Republican candidate for President Dr. Ben Carson recently called for an investigation into the group’s tax-exempt status, claiming that CAIR violated non-profit laws when it campaigned to end the renowned neurosurgeon’s bid for the White House.
This message is 4 minutes and gets worse at the end. He pretty much admits they want to impose Islam and Sharia on America and everywhere.
BY EDDIE SCARRY FOR THE WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM
After the events last Friday, many lawmakers and candidates for public office both in Europe and the U.S. have expressed skepticism about taking in refugees from Syria, where the Islamic State is claiming territory, citing the possibility of terrorists using the refugee system to invade countries they want to attack. One of the Paris attackers entered the country posing as a refugee.
But the New York Times responded by saying that “Republicans on Capitol Hill” and “conservative” governments in Europe that threaten to reject migrants were engaging in “dangerous” politics.
“These responses are wrong,” the Times wrote. “Confusing refugees with terrorists is morally unacceptable and, as a matter of strategy, misguided.”
“Stemming the exodus of refugees from Syria must be an important part of any comprehensive plan to end the Syrian war,” it added. “Building new barriers to keep them out with the absurd argument that Muslims are inherently dangerous could provide propaganda benefits to the Islamic State.”
A separate column in the Times accused “the right and the extreme right” of turning the attack in Paris into anti-immigration “political fodder.”
“[I]n Germany and elsewhere, the idea that incoming refugees present a security risk is already an established meme among the anti-immigrant right online,” said the column, by Anna Sauerbrey. “They take it as fact that the attacks in Paris would not have happened had Europe shut its doors months ago.”
Fusion, the millennial-focused news and entertainment website, published a cartoon on “how to tell the difference between ISIS and Muslims.” The cartoon depicted a member of the Islamic State on the left and a Muslim woman on the right. An arrow pointed to the woman with text that said she “hopes ISIS (or right-wing nuts) don’t attack her mosque.”
Critics didn’t spare Parisians who lived through the attack. On Saturday, Marine Le Pen, a French politician, called for aggressive action against radical Islamic terrorists after the attacks that killed 129 people.
“Islamist fundamentalism must be annihilated, France must ban Islamist organizations, close radical mosques and expel foreigners who preach hatred in our country as well as illegal migrants who have nothing to do here,” Le Pen said, according to Reuters.
But the Daily Beast called Le Pen “far Right” and said she “used the horrific attacks on Paris to push her right-wing brand of politics.”
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post went a step further on Monday by using the Islamic State-led attack to remind readers that history “has shown in the recent — and not so recent — past that [Europe’s] Christians can act plenty bestiality on their own.”
The headline of that op-ed was another warning to conservatives: “In the wake of Paris, our common enemy is intolerance.”
BY ALEX NEWMAN FOR THENEWAMERICAN.COM
The Obama administration’s Department of Defense was caught training U.S. troops that Catholics, orthodox Jews, and evangelical Christians are to be considered “religious extremists,” even equating the major religions representing more than half of Americans with truly violent groups such as al-Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, and Hamas. After the explosive revelations hit the headlines, outrage promptly ensued. Now, critics are calling for an immediate public apology to the soldiers exposed to the hateful propaganda, as well as to the Christian and Jewish communities targeted in the presentation.
The latest scandal to hit the Obama administration and its handling of the military surrounds a so-called “Equal Opportunity” training course presented to U.S. Army Reserve forces in Pennsylvania. During the presentation, troops were subjected to a slideshow that included a segment on what was dubbed “religious extremism.” At the top of the list — the very first item — was “evangelical Christianity” in the United States. Also included were “ultra-Orthodox” Jews, Catholicism, fundamentalist Mormons, and “Islamophobia.”
Between evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews was the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamo-socialist group ruling over Egypt that Obama is supplying with advanced military weaponry including fighter jets and tanks — not to mention billions more in aid. Along with the Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Nation of Islam, a Filipino Islamist group, and Hamas were listed, along with Sunni Muslims in general. The U.S. government claims to be at war with some of the Islamist groups, while others are openly receiving American taxpayer dollars, weapons, and training from the administration.
The KKK, identified as a U.S. “Christian” group, was also featured on the list along with other white-supremacist movements. An Indian Hindu organization, some American militias, and the Jewish Defense League were included on the slide as well. “Extremism is a complex phenomenon,” the presentation says under the slide identifying Christians as religious extremists alongside al-Qaeda, defining it as views that are outside of the “ordinary.”
The presenter also apparently defined extremism as anyone who believes that their own religion is the correct one — including, of course, anyone who accepts the words of Jesus Christ as they are recorded in the Bible. “Every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only ‘right way’ and that all others are practicing their faith the ‘wrong way,’ seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others,” claim the notes under the slide.
Religious people were outraged. Catholics, unsurprisingly, recoiled in horror, with the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services issuing a strongly worded statement. “The archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist,” the AMS said, with multiple reports noting that Catholics make up about a fourth of the armed services. “The archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that taxpayer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.”
The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, a largely discredited outfit founded by a man that even fellow leftists describe as a con-artist, denied being responsible for the deeply controversial content in the presentation. However, the presenter later claimed to have obtained the information from the SPLC. Indeed, even the very first page of the presentation, dubbed “Extremism & Extremist Organizations,” cites the radical group as its source.
“The number of hate groups, extremists and anti-govt organizations in the U.S. has continued to grow over the past three years, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” reads the opening segment of the scandalous presentation, which sparked outrage from Christians nationwide and garnered international media attention. “They increased to 1,018 in 2011, up from 1,002 in 2010 and 602 in 2000.”
The presentation also claimed that the surge in “extremism” was due to the president’s skin color — another discredited talking point parroted by the SPLC and its dupes. For perspective, consider that among the SPLC’s “surge” in supposedly “extremist” groups are organizations such as the Granny Warriors, headed by a concerned 74-year-old patriotic grandmother with congestive heart failure.
Critics of the military training presentation blasted its reliance on the SPLC. Last year, the controversial group’s wild propaganda was even cited by a deranged shooter who attempted to slaughter innocent people at the Family Research Council, which was dubbed a “hate group” by the SPLC for supporting the traditional definition of marriage. However, even as the establishment press has slowly started exposing the SPLC’s shady antics and absurd fear-mongering, the radical group has also been exposed working closely with the Justice Department and other government agencies.
“Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups?” wondered Executive Director Ron Crews with the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, one of the many groups that spoke out after the latest scandal erupted. “It appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”
Crews, a retired colonel, also slammed the presentation itself, as well as its characterization of billions of people around the world as religious extremists. “We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” he was quoted as saying. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization…. Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States.”
Incredibly, the training scheme also claimed that “extremists” — presumably, based on the presentation, including Christians — were not welcome in the armed forces. “Extremist Organizations’ goals are inconsistent with the Army’s goals, beliefs and values with regard to equal opportunity,” states the material, which was filled with factual, spelling, and grammatical mistakes. “The Army realizes individuals do not set aside their prejudices, biases, and perceptions in favor of the Army’s values immediately upon joining the Army, however, it is vital that all Soldiers and Civilians are educated on Army Policy and what is expected of them while serving either in our ranks, or in support of our Soldiers.”
The presentation appears to conflict with American values in other ways as well. “American soldiers are supposed to be defenders of democracy,” the training program claimed. The United States and every state, according to the U.S. Constitution that all military officers take an oath to uphold, are supposed to be governed by a republican form of government based on the rule of law — not the whims of a majority. Indeed, the Founding Fathers of America wrote extensively on why democracy was not a desirable system.
In the wake of the scandal hitting the headlines, the Army promptly distanced itself from the effort to paint Christians as extremists. “After receiving a single complaint following the presentation, this person deleted the slide, and it was never again shown,” Army spokesman George Wright said in a widely quoted statement, adding that the view of Christians as extremists did not reflect official government policy or doctrine. “This person apologized for any offense it may have caused, and we consider the matter closed.”
While the Army says that demonizing Christians in front of its troops is not official policy, the Obama administration has been hard at work on what many critics view as a “war” on Christianity and religion within society and especially the military. In 2011, authorities even tried to adopt a policy stopping visitors from bringing Bibles to wounded U.S. troops at military hospitals, sparking a public outcry that eventually forced them to back down.
At the same time, the U.S. government has been caught on multiple occasions attempting to portray returning veterans as potential terrorists even as it seeks to disarm them using various pretexts. Also potential terrorist threats, according to official documents published by multiple federal agencies, are pro-life activists, supporters of individual liberty and the Constitution, opponents of illegal immigration, gun rights activists, constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters, critics of genetic engineering — virtually anyone, actually.
“I see it as the government’s complete abandonment of the ideals and principles given to us by our Founders that is a threat to our national security,” noted Pastor Roger Anghis, president of The Damascus Project aimed at getting Christians more involved in politics. “They have become the threat to our freedoms and rights and we must recognize this and use our election process to correct the problems that we ourselves have created by not paying attention to who we put into office. The choice is ours.”
The federal demonization of Christians, conservatives, and libertarians, meanwhile, has even percolated down to the state and local level. Last year, for example, the Justice Department was caught teaching police that popular political bumpers stickers supporting the Bill of Rights or national sovereignty could be potential indicators of domestic terrorism. Just last week it emerged that law enforcement in Colorado was being taught that organizations and individuals who take the Bible literally may present a danger to police officers.
“Among those groups, [Colorado State Patrol Trooper and future Homeland Security functionary Joe] Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and ‘fundamentalists’,” wrote Prowers County Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge, who attended the “training” session and became alarmed. “Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by ‘fundamentalists’ but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or ‘too seriously.’” Participants were also asked if they would seize firearms, Trowbridge reported.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Obama administration has recently been conducting military “urban warfare drills” complete with black helicopters firing blanks out of machine guns over major U.S. cities. Law enforcement was recently caught ordering targets of children and pregnant women, also fueling suspicions. The Department of Homeland Security has been under fire for months after contracting to purchase billions of bullets while deploying armored personnel carriers and other “weapons of war” for use on American streets.
Apparently, however, at least according to the administration, concern about the developments — what Obama calls his “fundamental transformation” of America — constitutes “extremism” and should be carefully monitored, if not yet criminalized. For critics of the direction the nation is heading in, though, it is time for Congress to investigate and stop the extremist policies coming from the executive branch itself.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at [email protected] .
Related articles:
Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy
Obama Administration’s War on Religion
Congress Seeks Answers on Huge Homeland Security Ammo Contracts
After D.C. Shooting, SPLC, Planned Parenthood, and the Feds Under Fire
Following Flak, Walter Reed Military Hospital Overturns Bible Ban
Radical Leftist Group Claims Right-wing Threat Growing
Homeland Security Demands “Obedience” in Message to Agents
Obama Prepares Huge Bailout for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Extremist Group Exposed Working With Obama’s Justice Department
Military Drills and Black Helicopters in U.S. Cities Spark Panic
Feds Requested Targets With Children and Pregnant Women
U.S. Military Program Arming Local Police Expands
Ammo Shortages: More Than Simple Supply and Demand?
DHS Solicits Bids for 26.1 Million Rounds of Ammo
Federal Law Enforcement Stockpiling Arms (10,000/ICE Employee)
Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror
Why is the Federal Government Disarming Veterans?
Justice Dept. Memo Refutes Obama on Guns, Calls for Gun Registration
Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law
West Point Terrorism Study Targets “Far Right” Conservatives
DHS Labels Liberty-Lovers as Potential Terrorists
Profiling and Criminalizing Political Dissent
Homeland Security: Everyone’s a Threat
Do You Fit the Terrorist Profile?
New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans
DHS Sources Prompt Calls for Ousting Napolitano
Terror War Expanding, Shifting to the Right
Russian Troops Coming to U.S. for Terror Drills, DoD Confirms
20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States
U.S. Army Brigade On Call for Domestic Emergencies
My Comments: This man continually says things that are very controversial. He sounds like a shill for the Democrats. Sunday night on 60 minutes he said that Hillary Clinton has the experience to be president. He says Terri Schiavo was much ado about nothing, and then his explanation is that his comments were taken out of context which is totally untrue. He also made the statement that both our founders and ISIS (although wrong) were/are willing to die for what they believe in. These statements tell me that this man would put his foot in his mouth more than Joe Biden. He would definitely not make a good president and Hillary Clinton would make mince meat of him.
BY STEVEN ERTELT FOR LIFENEWS.COM
Pro-life people across the country have been wondering about comments pro-life presidential hopeful Ben Carson made concerning the legislation Congress passed to help Terri Schiavo’s family try to save her life.
As LifeNews reported, Carson thinks the federal and state governments overreached when they attempted to protect Terri Schiavo from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death. Despite the best efforts of pro-life lawmakers in Congress and the Florida state legislature, where lawmakers approved pro-life laws to allow Terri’s family to take their case to federal courts and to allow then-Governor Jeb Bush to try to protect her, Terri’s estranged husband won a court order to euthanize her against her will.
In comments over the weekend, Carson said: “We face those kinds of issues all the time and while I don’t believe in euthanasia, you have to recognize that people who are in that condition do have a series of medical problems that occur that will take them out. Your job [as a doctor] is to keep them comfortable throughout that process and not to treat everything that comes up.”
About the bills Congress and the Florida legislature passed to allow Terri’s family to take their lawsuit to protect her to federal court and to give Bush more authority to protect Terri, Carson added: “I don’t think it needed to get to that level. I think it was much ado about nothing.”
Now, in an email to LifeNews.com, Carson has explained what he meant by the comments.
“I am steadfastly opposed to euthanasia. I have spent my entire career protecting life, especially the life of children. I regret that my recent comments about Terri Schiavo have been taken out of context and misinterpreted. When I used the term ‘much ado about nothing,’ my point was that the media tried to create the impression that the pro-life community was nutty and going way overboard with the support of the patient,” Carson said.
Carson’s email to LifeNews continued: “As I have said previously, it is very difficult to judge people who decide that they want to end their lives when they are afflicted with a terminal disease that is going to lead to a miserable death. There is usually a consensus between the family and the healthcare providers that treatment will be withheld—and the patient would be allowed to die naturally–when he or she develops an infection or other process that would end their life. The job of the healthcare provider would be to keep them comfortable in the meantime, and I support all measures of comfort.”
“When the patient is not terminal, as Terri Schiavo was not, the treatment plan should be determined on the basis of the consensus between the family and the healthcare providers. Terri’s case should have never been turned into the media circus that we witnessed,” he added.
Carson concluded: “I respect the emotions of the Schiavo family and know that this is a painful and difficult issue for many who defend the sanctity of life. For me, defending life is not just a political polemic, it is who I am. I opposed euthanasia long before I was in the public eye, and I continue to do so today.”
Carson’s response is curious because his comment that the legislation to save Terri’s Schiavo’s life was “much ado about nothing” came in direct response to a Tampa Bay newspaper reporter who asked him specifically about his take on the legislation. The question was not related to media bias or a false characterization the media made about the pro-life movement standing up for Terri’s right to life. There’s nothing in Carson’s original statement to make it appear he was referring to the media erroneously making a big deal about the campaign to save Terri’s life.
LifeNews.com contacted Terri’s brother Bobby Schindler for his take on Carson’s explanation.
“I know all too well how mainstream media can distort and misrepresent good faith remarks. Still, Dr. Carson’s explanation leaves the impression that he remains confused about key aspects of Terri’s situation,” Schindler said.
“Indeed, the idea that family and physician consensus alone should decide the fate of those like my sister is problematic. At the root of the issue is that starving and dehydrating someone to death is always wrong, whatever the beliefs of physicians or family members,” Schindler continued. “Every brain injured person needs unconditional love, understanding, and rehabilitation, which is what we fight for every day at the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.”
Schindler said he would appreciate the opportunity to discuss his sister’s life and death with Carson.
Pro-life voters will need to decide for themselves whether they believe Dr. Carson is truly sufficiently pro-life to warrant their primary election vote.
A New Low – Hillary Clinton Claims 9/11 is the Reason She’s Owned by Wall Street
New Poll Shows 60% of Americans Think Hillary Clinton is Untrustworthy and Dishonest
COMPROMISED – How Two of Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Received Golden Parachutes from Wall Street
How UBS Sent Millions to the Clintons After Hillary Saved the Mega Bank While Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton Blasts High Frequency Trading Ahead of Fundraiser with High Frequency Trader
Cartoons Mocking “Goldman Rats” and Hillary Clinton Appear All Over NYC
Posted in 2016 Election, Hillary Clinton, Humor
Cathy
chulai1968
Truth Prevailing
Publius Huldah
Freedom Rider
Christian Zionist
radioroger2015
revaustinmiles
Steve
