Friday, February 27, 2015

Arguing with Liberals

“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” (Psalm 29:9)

“It’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious.”
Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist! They will always ignore your facts and counter them with emotive feelings and anecdotes.
The state education leftist propaganda indoctrination system teaches abuses kids with the false notion that they’re entitled to unearned self-esteem, and to not be offended by having their feelings hurt by the often-painful truth. Cause and effect are ignored, because it’s always someone or some thing else’s fault: enforced predeterminism excuses are at the root of all their favorite victimology sales scenarios.
When “self-esteem” (like “respect!”) is demanded but not earned, the demanders are insisting they are entitled to have rights without the concomitant corollary responsibility for having to earn them – exactly like ALL criminals always assert!
Criminal Marxists insist: “You earned stuff I didn’t bother to, SO YOU OWE ME!
The criminal negligents in the ‘education system’ only indoctrinate children in how to be better criminals!
And criminality retards children, because it keeps them dependent on others.
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens.”—Leo Tolstoy
Here’s an obvious difference between the left and right: remember the old adage about “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime!“?
Right-thinking, civilized and law-abiding folk are all for promoting individual self-reliant responsibility, and so want to teach people how to fish (fend) for them selves, while leftist proglodytes really only want their victims to become dependent on them, as slaves are to a masteri.e:
Vote for us again, or you won’t get tomorrow’s fish – CAPISCE!?”
Liberalism is extortion, bribery, and blackmail all in one! Whee!
Criminals are infantile delinquents (worse than juvenile delinquents) because by imitating children and acting childishly, by posing as perpetually demanding infants, they can often play on their victims’ instincts to defend and educate children. Children are the only people in society who really are – at least temporarily – entitled to have rights without responsibilities. Criminals like to bask in the false perpetual extension of their pretended childhoods, routinely and slanderously accusing their victims of being “unfair!” to them.
In short, criminals only ‘teach’ victimology and how to be better extortionists, to children.
So, to liberals, there really are no evil crimes nor evil criminals, because everyone’s really only a helpless victim – of “society,” “products of their environments” (what’d Karl Marx himself call it – ‘Historical Predeterminism’ or something?) and/or “Slaves of Allah!”
And besides, to them, life’s too complex for anyone to ever really understand cause and effect, so, “since” all facts are therefore really only opinions anyway, any given liberals’ entirely fact-free opinion is the diversely opposite equal of any of those silly conservatives’ objective facts!
And THAT’S why everyone is equally entitled to unearned self-esteem! Whee!
(And remember, kids: “There’s No Wrong Answers”)!
Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist!
They’ve really only declared a confession of non-compus-mentis!
And their favorite deflection is the childish critical thinking logical fallacy called the Argumentum Tu Quoque, which only amounts to trying to compare two unrelated wrongs in order to pretend to make one of them into a right. “Two Wrongs Make a Right”:
There’s no evil crime nor evil criminals because we (i.e: you) all do it, too!Whee!”
Beyond that, their crime is all about the objectification: victim-blaming “defensively pre-emptive” slander.
They embrace the slanderous victim-blaming attack-first criminal “philosophy” that the best “defense” is a good offense, to keep their opponents on the defensive so they will remain emotionally off-balance and so never be able to (counter-)attack ‘first!’
Only lying thieves (fraud being the most basic form of criminal theft, the theft of the Truth) slanderously pretend their victims are too dumb to be educated!
The “elites” – including the “education” elites – are cowardly masochist traitors to rationality and civilization, who always want to form ever-larger gangs to protect them selves; they are all about the double-standards of subjectivism, and so oppose universal objectivity; they want rights without responsibilities, and so must offload their responsibilities onto their victims.
The reason they embrace might-made group “rights,” is both offensive and defensive: they can always assert they are “defensively protecting” others if and when they can make even a tenuous connection between some others at least somewhat similar to them selves who,  somewhere else, at some other time, were oppressed by some other people who were sort of like YOU; in which case, YOU OWE THEM!
The corollary is that if and when they get caught for their crimes, they can always use the group idol as an alibi-excuse to dilute their own culpability:
“I didn’t do it! ONLY ‘the GROUP’ did it! Whee!”
(Substitute “The System,” &/or “The Procedures” or your choice of idolatry for “The Group!”)
I’m pretty sure the main strategy AND subsequent tactics of liberals is to always generalize to dilute personal responsibility. It’s why they endorse group rights and responsibilities and absolutely hate factual cause-and-effect specifics. Generalizations are lies and exaggerations used to hide all the specific details of their individual criminal culpability. And they also get to blame specific victims for general group membership responsibilities, too!
They are criminals.
And, as such liberals like to assert that:
Criminals have rights, too!”
Well, actually: - NO, they don’t.
See, the Law is a social contract, where people agree to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first.
From agreeing to this, we get our only real right (to not be attacked first) and we have our only real concomitant, corollary responsibility (to not attack others first).
But when one chooses to break that contract and avoid one’s contracted responsibility BY attacking others first, one also thereby gives up one’s own right to not therefore be defensively (counter-)attacked by one’s attempted victims, second.
That counter-attacking second bit, was formerly known as “JUSTICE.” Criminals also used to be known as “Out-Laws” because their own choices had placed them outside the protections of the Law; it was therefore open season on them.
And even the courts do it, sometimes years later, when the perp is no longer a clear and present danger, because, as even the falsely divided civil and criminal laws agree, one must pay for what one takes.
The only job of any court or judge is to determine who started it, and to punish the instigating aggressors for their (even if failed) attempts; after all, it’s the thought (intent) which counts! And even “only attempted” crimes, are still crimes.
Any court or judge which refuses to do so, has abdicated their position of authority, and have become criminally negligent.
Basically, liberals are masochists: always trying to pretend to “control” their fears, BY causing the most worst-case-scenario pains they fear.
There’s no perversion or crime a liberal won’t Submit to or at least try to “compromise” with first. They seem to believe that it’s prudent, shrewd, realistic ‘realpolitik’ to rush in first, before some other fools beat them to it!
I believe even the most willfully self-blinded, obtuse criminal negligent (muslim, liberal) is almost NEVER really focused on chasing nebulous “hope and change” (say, via dopamine output stimulation) as they so-often pretend to others, so much as they are avoiding pain (or, in their cases, more specifically avoiding the fear of pain – including the fear of having to face those fears to actually discover and cancel the root causes of the mistakes and unsolved problems which cause the pains they fear).
Even the most hardened drug addicts quickly become acclimatized to their drug of choice, and so require more and more and more of it to reach the same state of obliviousness, just as people who choose the relief from work tedium of a beach vacation quickly tire of the scene, as their minds automatically prioritize information by level of potential danger, and can be counted on to instinctively cast about for more problems to solve, more pains to avoid.
Such is the nature of the thought process itself, whether they want to honestly admit it or dishonestly try to avoid it and distract and deflect others into not-noticing they are doing so; they find millenniae of hard-wired evolutionary learning isn’t so easily avoided by even the stupidest monkey.
So basically, everything liberals do is a deliberate attempt to pretend to ‘prove’ themselves to be mentally incompetent, so they won’t have any responsibility to think for them selves about anything. We should simply let them ‘prove’ their point, declare them non-compus mentis, and move on to other problems, while striving to improve the education system for all future generations.
He that is good at making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”
-Benjamin Franklin-
(But there’s some good news, too: People are born tabula rasa - as blank slates – so it’s plain to see that liberals have actually been trained to be stupid and evil, by other people who were also trained to be stupid and evil; each generation trying to outdo the previous ones in the depths of evil stupidity to which they sink)! Criminality is nurtured not nature.
And so, when arguing with liberals, please always remember this simple rule of thumb, kids:
Truth welcomes scrutiny. Falsehood demands tolerance.
In fact, lefties always sound retarded (hence, the accuracy of such terms as “leftardation,” “libtarded,” etc.) BECAUSE all they’re ever really doing is trying to think up alibi-EXCUSES FOR THEFT, so of course their language has to employ all the critical thinking logical fallacy evasions, distractions, deflections, euphemisms, and metaphors (i.e: lies) in order to sell it to sane people, (and all crimes are forms of theft); i.e: “Wealth Redistribution” and that of course requires lies, like I just said, most often in the form of evasive metaphors and euphemisms (like for the best instance example, the term “Wealth Redistribution” itself)!
Openly, honestly endorsing stating one’s “Theft is Good!” assertions usually won’t work, when trying to sell it to sane people.
If they were just plain stupid, they’d have to get some things right every now and then, just by random chance – but they don’t, because they have to know what’s right, in order to so perfectly oppose it all the time!
Since evil leftist masochists are always hell-bent on becoming victims of worst-case scenarios, they “project” onto and slander-blame their victims, because their first emotion is fear of getting caught for their crimes.
So subjective double-standards are what they’re all about! Deliberately! For them, No objective Truth allowed!
Most of their sub-sequent forced predeterminism and group-rights idolatry is also only an excuse to “defensively” either do nothing, or to enjoy a perpetual excuse to attack others first, even if only by having the false right to delinquently force their own self-reliant responsibilities onto groups of “privileged/guilty” (innocent) others.
And of course they’ll always try to co-opt the largest gang, the government, into helping them with their wealth redistribution theft schemes.
As Thomas Jefferson noted:
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors?
And yet deliberate “error” (i.e: willfully intended, criminal negligence) isn’t really ‘error’ at all, is it?
The motto of criminally negligent leftists everywhere must be: “There’s No Money In Solutions!” (So: Please Give Generously – AGAIN!)
They will always refuse to solve temporary problems with easy, simple and permanent solutions, in favor of not-solving them, spinning and pretending they are “eternal crises” with only temporary, band-aid “management therapies” available, in order to exploit the almost infinite number of symptoms unsolved problems generate.
Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of The Golden Rule of Law (which simply defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First!”) one can address with lesser, circumstantial “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.n.

Who's Behind WWIII?

I think the banksters want another war, because since they fund both sides, whoever wins, owes them, and whoever loses, owes the winner (who owes them). And they also not only get to increase their profits by it, but they also get to reduce the world's populations while suckering the survivors into demanding the banksters cement their own control by taking over as a world government. It's win/win for them, and a very scary lose/lose scenario for us.

And their bought-and-paid for pawns, our so-called "leaders," will never lift a finger to stop them.


Because it's always all about the money, and the illusion of control over others it brings.

Banksters are criminal frauds, operating on a global scale.

Banksters "own" all the deeds and debts of all the other false idolatrous entities OFFICIALLY called "the legal fictions of the corporate persons."

Not only do these vile sales-masters sell money (which obviously instantly devalues not only that money, but the labour and goods it re-presents as well) but they have also "allowed" them selves, through the last two centuries of bribing their political sales-puppets, the luxurious indulgence in outright FRAUD called "fractional reserves," whereby their mouths literally write checks their pockets can't cash; they literally print money out of thin air; up to 50 times (5,000%) what they actually have in their reserves. "Fractional Reserves" = criminal COUNTERFEITING, people!

Repeat endlessly, compounding this crime, year after year, and century after century. And, unlike real-world, cause-and-effect investments, they charge idolatrous interest regardless of real economic activity; interest IS inflation. Fraud IS theft, and, so far as I know, theft is still a crime. In fact, all crimes are forms of theft.

The banksters always finance BOTH sides of EVERY conflict, because then the winners still owe them AND so do the losers; THEY never lose, and the only frontiers left are the destruction and "reconstruction" of all existing countries!

America didn't fare so well under its own "reconstruction" costs, so why should we help the foreign banksters to inflict the same on anyone - much less on everyone - else, too?!

Bottom line:

Banksters ARE evil (because they sell money, which obviously and instantly dilutes the value of that money, the labour used to earn it, and the worth of the goods it can buy; interest IS inflation).

Just picture a political leader telling the banks they are out of business. They would quickly round up an army of unemployed assassins and offer ridiculously huge bribes to the leaders' own staff to betray him and leave him open to assassination. The only way the banks can be removed is AFTER they've already fallen and their money is completely worthless.

Now, let's also examine what the banksters are telling their complicit minions and all-too-willing accessory stooges:




Liberals have been taught the fallacy that the idea of "nations" is what has always caused all past wars - the simple and "jealous" struggle for other's territory.

Furthermore, they think that only all the white people, including the Jews, invented the idea of property and territory; that innocent nomadic savages who believe in tribal collectivism are better than greedy individualists who want to horde (and improve!) personal property! To them, nationalism began during the Enlightenment.

But the simple truth is, nations were all formed naturally and organically from families, clans, and tribes, and eventually become states and empires over time.

So, naturally (being tool-blaming idolaters) leftists then decided to destroy all sovereign nations, to prevent all futue wars: "no nations = no wars for same!"

It's like saying people will fight over diamonds, or food - so the liberals' "solution" is do destroy all the diamonds and poison all the food, FIRST.


Exactly like with islam, which pretends all hope is fraud, (since the future cannot be known for sure), so destroy the hope and Submit to fear, and there will be the certainty of eternal, static "PEACE!"


And also exactly like islam, the liberals want to destroy the "idols" - people's ties to their families, gods, and past, in order to prevent circumstantial "jealousy!"

i.e: If people don't live in "houses" (nations) then some criminally lazy people won't be jealous of all the work other, "privileged" people put into fixing theirs up!



Like their globalist bankster donors, owners and sponsors, they are against all sovereign national governments!

And, as such, their curriculums should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb ASAP! Sedition/treason is still a CRIME, as far as I know, (delinquent governmental notice and enforcement against it notwithstanding).

Further, they plan to eliminate "RACISM" by blending all the "races" (especially the Whites) into ONE RACE!
And, far from really believing in "Diversity," they only use that cry as a temporary bludgeon, to make sure all the 'races' which are currently minorities IN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE, become the majority there. Note how liberals don't attack the Chinese or Japanese for being isolationist "racists" (which they proudly are) or demand hordes of negroes emigrate to Japan of China? Do they demand that the Blacks in Africa self-dilute with Asians?

Liberals want to eradicate "greed" by destroying property rights, and to do that, they must destroy individualism, human dignity and self-reliance, and make people into infantile dependants.

This is what their fear-focused, self-defeating masochism and the desire to ignore all cause-and-effect who-started-it free-will choice, to make it all stop, leads to!


i.e: "If you didn't live in such a nice house, then I wouldnt be jealous of it! So, since you bothered to earn that house and I didn't, you have to either let me live in it with you for free, or destroy it because it hurts my feelings and I have a right to not be offended by the painful truth that I'm a lazy criminal! It's your fault!

This of course blames the victim's property (and the fact that the criminal's victim actually owns property) for the criminal's own desire to steal or destroy it.

But of course, no amount of force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT - or will not - govern themselves.


The problem lies with the "liberal" (criminal's) fears of others being "better than them," and their "jealousy," not with other people being able to own things.



" ... er ... we meant to say: "If you didn't have any guns or the "nations" from which to launch the wars we know you'll launch against us, you couldn't do it, SO we must attack you and take your guns and nations away from you first, before you can inevitably do the same to us!

The "Historical Predeterminism" made us do it to you before you could inevitably do it to us, you evil criminals!"





Thursday, February 26, 2015

Race to the bottom: Obama takes over the Internet


Obama's "net neutering" scheme just got passed by the unelected FCC* in America.


*I think it stands for "Fascist Control Cabal."

Anyway, president Hussein just got his wish - the end of the free market of ideas, to be quickly replaced with - if you know anything about liberals, you've already guessed it - a race to the bottom by catering to the lowest common denominator.

Do you (OK, did you) like being able to pay a bit more for a faster Internet connection to stream videos?

Did you care that the RantingLesbians website, which had a whole 13 subscribers, ran a bit slow?


Because now your video-streaming will run a LOT slower, so RantingLesbians sites can be "equal!"

Oh, and BTW: Obama's FCC now has control of the internet in the U.S. and can shut down sites whose content it doesn't like - exactly like China and Iran and North Korea. So: Thanks, liberals!

From the L.A Times, via here:

net neutrality conceptWASHINGTON (TNS) — In a landmark decision for the future of the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved tough net neutrality regulations to oversee online traffic.

The new rules prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against legal content flowing through their wired or wireless networks, such as by charging websites for faster delivery of video and other data to consumers.

In an expected 3-2 party-line vote, the agency’s Democrat majority approved a plan by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that puts broadband providers in the same legal category as more highly regulated conventional telephone companies.

Wheeler has promised a modernized, light-touch regulatory approach that would exempt Internet service from many of the tougher provisions of that designation under Title 2 of the telecommunications law, particularly rate regulation.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” Wheeler said in voting for the proposal. “The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
He said the new rules and classification were “no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.”

FCC member Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted for the regulations, said: “We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind.”
“We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online,” she said.

Ajit Pai, one of two Republicans on the FCC, said the new regulatory proposal abandoned 20 years of bipartisan consensus “to let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation.”

“It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public,” he said.

The FCC’s vote culminates a decade of efforts by Internet companies such as Inc. and Google Inc., public interest groups, digital rights advocates and key Democrats, including President Barack Obama, to enact the toughest possible rules to protect consumers.

Chad Dickerson, chief executive of Etsy, an online marketplace for handmade and vintage goods, said his company would never have grown from a start-up had it not been for an open Internet. Many of the people who sell items on Etsy urged the FCC to enact tough regulations.

“Without strong rules to prevent discrimination online, the innovation economy would suffer,” he told the commissioners at the meeting. “Thank you for voting to protect the Internet as an engine of opportunity the likes of which we have never seen.”

However, Republicans, free-market advocates and telecommunications companies, including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., have called the rules a solution in search of a problem that risks damaging the Internet economy.

They said that the Internet has thrived outside of strict government oversight, and they warned that burdensome regulations could hinder online innovation and investment in expanded broadband networks.

“While I see no need for net neutrality rules, I am far more troubled by the dangerous course that the commission is now charting on Title 2 and the consequences it will have for broadband investment, edge providers and consumers,” said FCC member Michael O’Rielly, who voted against the measure.
Pai saw the White House behind Wheeler’s proposal.

“Put simply, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is not the solution to a problem. His plan is the problem,” said Pai, who accused Obama of improperly influencing the actions of the independent FCC.

Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, criticized the vote. He warned of legal challenges but stopped short of saying the company would sue.

“We have never argued there should be no regulation in this area, simply that there should be smart regulation,” Cicconi said.

“What doesn’t make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great-grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of 80 years ago, live under it,” he said.

Telecom firms said they support the principle of net neutrality but not the FCC’s approach, and they have promised to sue to overturn the regulations.

Legal challenges led federal judges to toss out two earlier FCC attempts to enact net neutrality rules, and new lawsuits could leave the matter unsettled for three years or more.

The FCC said it chose to take the controversial step of reclassifying broadband providers for utility-like regulation — reversing a 2002 agency decision — because the move stood the best chance of withstanding a legal challenge to the net neutrality rules themselves.

–Jim Puzzanghera
Los Angeles Times
(c)2015 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Liberals are proud of being mentally incompetent

A Liberals' favorite bludgeon, Political Correctness, is really only attempted thought control by threatening extortion.

The first thing humans do when confronted with strange new ideas is to emotionally deny them (to act "offended" with "hurt feelings").

It's all nothing more or less than the first part of the natural thought process, as first noticed by Aristotle, and most recently expanded on by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and others.

We all prioritize fear of pain, before we can get to having a hope of less or no pain.

Ancient Greek Logic describes this as a three-step process, where our hypo-thesis is countered by the anti-thesis (where we throw everything we can imagine might go wrong, at our new idea) and whatever survives is called the syn-thesis. The whole speculative idea is called the thesis.

But idolatrously static, hidebound and fear-focused liberal masochists want to short-circuit the rest of that natural thinking process, and insist nobody has a responsibility to become right (as in factually correct) but only a false right to remain irresponsibly wrong.

To accomplish this crime, they have no facts, and so must rely on emotion - on all the critical-thinking logical fallacy distractions, deflections and evasions (like their favorite, the argumentum tu quoque, where they pretend they can ignore crimes by merely comparing two or more unrelated wrongs, and so somehow magically turn one of them into a right, like this):

"Islam isn't an evil crime because we (i.e: you) all do or did it, too! Whee!"

Most small children realize that two unrelated wrongs won't make one of them right, but liberals never seem able to bring themselves to figure this out.

Barring that, they will resort to gutter insults ("hateful racist bigot!") to keep up the illusion of their false right to not be offended or have their feelings hurt by the often-painful Truth.

Liberals are criminally negligent infantile delinquents, who, since they like to pretend that "Life is so complex that we can never really understand cause and effect, so since all facts are really only opinions anyway, my subjective fact-free opinion is the diversely-opposite equal to your silly Conservative objective facts! Whee!" - have really only in public declared them selves to be non-compus-mentis (proudly, mentally incompetent) and so should be banished, due to their self-exile choice, from the public exchange of ideas.

Their latest attempted thought-control crime is in trying to take over the entire Internet, to silence the open discussion of ideas:

Liberals, like all criminals, are basically masochists, always trying to "control" their fears BY causing the worst-case scenario problems and mistakes which cause the pains they fear the most. Their motto (beyond the basic "There's No Money In Solutions!") always seems to be "If we don't rush in first, some other fools might beat us to it!"

Bottom line: Dear Liberals: If it isn't broken, don't try to "fix" it!

Monday, February 23, 2015

Islam Exposed: Deliaring the Violent Extremism Summit Statement

Islam Exposed: Deliaring the Violent Extremism Summit Statement: Deliaring the Violent Extremism Summit Statement

In reading  The White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism Ministerial Meeting Statement, I found a target rich spew of camel excrement.  This post is dedicated to exposing two chunks of turd which can not be ignored. 

Camel excrement!

  • [...]"the term “violent extremism” like “terrorism,” should not be associated with any religion"[...]

  • [...]"deprive radical groups and individuals of any justification for violent extremism on the grounds of ethno-religious stigmatization and discrimination."

    "Violent extremism" is used as a euphemism for terrorism because they are trying to insulate Islam from its consequences. Denial of terrorism's association with Islam flows from a boiler plate statement found in many United Nazi resolutions. 

A/RES/69/174 passed by the U.N. General Assembly December 18 '14 trots out the well worn boiler plate expressions combating 
"stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief ". 

Reaffirming that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group,

    When we hear of an act of terrorism, we automatically think of Islam because since 09/11/'01. we have heard "Allaha Akbar"  too many times Muslims shout the Takbir when they slaugter hadi as well as when the slit captive throats. They sacrifice victims to Satan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed boasted that they acted in service to Allah, as an act of worship in accord with the doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an. Mohammad Atta ordered the hijackers to shout the Takbir because it strikes fear. 

    The Motoons were cited as justification for riots. "Fitna" was condemned by the Secretary General of the United Nazis as hate speech inciting violence. "The Innocence of Muslims" was blamed, unjustly, for the Benghazi Massacre.  

    The root cause of Islamic terrorism is Islamic doctrine: 3:151,8:12,39,57,60,65,679:5,29,3839,111,120,12333:26,27,47:4,49:1559:2,13, 61:10-13; Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. 

    Exposure of the fatal facts of Islam can not justify terror attacks. Eliminating Islam is neccesary to put an end to Islamic terror attacks because they are motivated by belief in Allah's imperatives, threat & promise. Go to war and go to paradise; sit at home and burn in Hell.  The attcks continue until Muslims cease believing and apostatize. 

    The first amendment's free speech clause secures our right to free and open discussion of public issues, including attacks and infiltration by inimical ideologies disguised as religions. We can not and must not tolerate infringement of that right!  

    HRC RES 16/18, cited in the statement, must be resisted because its intent is to silence critics of Islam. It is an unconstitutional infringement on  our liberty.

Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, liberal expert says

From Imam Andrew Coyne's latest fatwah:

Andrew Coyne: The case for watching our language on Islamism

| | Last Updated: Feb 20 9:14 PM ET
More from Andrew Coyne | @acoyne
Al-Shabab fighters near Mogadishu, Somalia. All we really need to know, as a practical matter, is that the terrorists themselves believe that they are commanded by their Islamic faith to take up arms in its defence, Andrew Coyne writes.
AP Photo/Mohamed Sheikh Nor, FileAl-Shabab fighters near Mogadishu, Somalia. All we really need to know, as a practical matter, is that the terrorists themselves believe that they are commanded by their Islamic faith to take up arms in its defence, Andrew Coyne writes.

The contrast has been noted between the language the Obama government uses to describe the target of its anti-terrorism efforts (“violent extremism”) and the language of the Harper government (“jihadism”). And indeed, the habit of each is consistent in this regard, such as to suggest it is in either case deliberate.

What should be read into this apparent discrepancy in approaches, the one as scrupulous to avoid mentioning Islam in the context of terrorism as the other is to mention it? Is the Obama government, as its conservative critics charge, blind to the reality that al-Qaida, ISIS and other terrorist groups are avowedly Islamic in inspiration and Islamist in their objectives? Is the Harper government, as its liberal critics charge, pandering to anti-Islamic sentiment? Both? Neither?

There are, it would seem, three questions to be answered: what is in fact the relationship, if any, between Islam and terrorism; what do authorities believe is the relationship; and what do they say they believe. The peculiar insistence on the right that politicians insert the word “Islamic” before “terrorism” would appear to stem from a belief that anything else is an abdication from the “truth,” that there is “something about Islam” that explains the proliferation of terrorist groups claiming to act in its name.

This takes us into murky waters indeed. You can try to make a case that the particular origins of Islam, as a persecuted faith led by a warrior prophet, might predispose it to a certain militancy, or that certain passages of the Koran seem to endorse the use of violence against unbelievers and apostates, but you very soon run up against the reality (is) that the practice of Islam, the tenets of the faith, its demands upon its followers and its place in society, differs markedly from country to country, if not from mosque to mosque. 

Certainly a belief in the legitimacy of violence as an aid to proselytizing would not apply to more than a tiny minority of Muslims in this country.

Given this diversity, it is simply not possible to state with finality what “Islam is…” or “Islam means…,” certainly not on such a vexed question as whether the religion itself has something to do with the willingness of some of its followers to commit mass murder on its behalf.

Much of what are commonly described as Islamic teachings, by followers and critics alike, turns out to be more related to the particular culture of a given locale, and while there is undoubtedly some causal interchange between religion and culture, it is exceedingly difficult to sort out which is the chicken and which the egg.


But then, we do not need to. It is not necessary to know whether there is “something about Islam” that explains Islamist terrorism. All we really need to know, as a practical matter, is that the terrorists themselves believe there is: that they are commanded by their faith to take up arms in its defence. Of this there can be no doubt: they have said so, on a hundred different occasions, and we would be wise to take them at their word. They wish to establish a caliphate, an Islamic dictatorship based on seventh-century legal principles, and while that is usually confined to a relatively circumscribed area stretching from Spain to Western Russia, in their more ambitious pronouncements it extends to the whole world.

It is a common mistake to assume these groups are motivated by some more rational or achievable goal, something we ourselves might believe or at least comprehend, like “U.S. out of the Middle East” or “Palestine for the Palestinians” —  a phenomenon known in intelligence circles as “mirroring.” Were those in charge of our security to believe such a thing, they would not merely have failed wholly to understand the terrorists’ objectives, but also their strategy and tactics. It seems unlikely that they do, however, and we should not mistake what they say in this regard for what they actually believe.
On the surface, the insistence of Obama and other leaders that “this has nothing to do with Islam,” would seem as odd as that of their critics, that it has everything to do with Islam.

As David Frum writes on the Atlantic website, “it seems a strange use of authority for an American president to take it upon himself to determine which interpretations of Islam are orthodox and which are heretical.” But there is a strong case for saying such things, even if you don’t believe them — especially if you don’t believe them — precisely in the service of fighting terrorism.

The one thing that could be predicted to cause more Muslims, here and abroad, to believe that violence against the West was justified would be if they were to become convinced that, indeed, there is “a clash of civilizations,” that Islam was under attack, and that they themselves, as practitioners of the religion, were objects of suspicion and hostility. The phenomenon is often observed in other social groups that, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves besieged: they will close ranks, even with those with whom they might otherwise have no sympathy.

That would be a calamitous setback to efforts, largely successful, to win the cooperation of the Muslim community in rooting out the few radicals in their midst. Which takes us to the rhetoric of the Harper government. Merely referring to “Islamic extremism” or “jihadism” would be unobjectionable in itself.

But when coupled with recent, needless interventions in such volatile debates as whether the niqab may be worn at citizenship ceremonies, it suggests at best a troubling indifference to the importance of symbols and the need for those in power to go out of their way to reassure those in minority groups that they have not been targeted.

It may be good politics. But they are playing with fire.


National Post

Don’t Worry: If You Like Your Internet, You Can Keep Your Internet.

"President Obama And The Federal Communications Commission Are Going To Take Over The Internet On February 26th If We Don't Do Everything We Can Do To Stop Them Right Now." -Senator Rand Paul

       We wish we could tell you that Senator Paul is exaggerating... but we can't. To quote political pundit Dick Morris: Obama will "do something that all of the despots in the world have tried to do but failed to do and he's going to do it by executive action."

       And we wish we could tell you what is in the 332-page document that outlines exactly how Barack Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is going to go about taking over your Internet... but we can't... because Obama's FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is keeping that document under lock and key. No... Really... The public is not allowed to even see the document.

       There is no time to waste... In a matter of days, the FCC will vote on the implementation of this master plan, even though no one will have seen it, unless we do everything in our power to stop it now.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternatively, send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

Send My Blast Faxes

Don’t Worry: If You Like Your Internet, You Can Keep Your Internet.

       Chairman Wheeler would only release a four-page summary of the plan. Under the guise of something dubiously called "net neutrality," Barack Obama's FCC is promising to use its heavy hand to "regulate" the Internet so that its use is "fair."

       We're being told not to worry... nothing in the secret 332-page plan should be a cause for alarm and if you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.

       Fortunately, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has actually seen the 332-page edict and we'll let his warning speak for itself:

       - First, President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It's an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.

       - Second, President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers' monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money.

       - Third, President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds.

       - Fourth, President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we'll get. We shouldn't bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

       - Fifth, President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC's attempts at Internet regulation. There's no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

       - And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan's massive intrusion into the Internet economy.

       You read that right. New taxes... Less choice... Slower Internet speeds... and that's just for starters, because once the federal government has control over the Internet, it's just a small hop, skip and jump from the government regulating what you can say or do while you're online.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternatively, send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

Send My Blast Faxes

"Socialism For The Internet."

       That's what Seton Motley, the president of Less Government and an expert on the subject, calls it.

       Motley adds: "It's an assault on the industry to effect an ideological outcome" so "the government will be able to pick winners and losers."

       Washington Times columnist and syndicated radio talk show host Tammy Bruce goes a step further and claims: "The Internet must be killed because it dares to keep turning on the light in a room the left prefers remain dark."

       Bruce goes on: "This would be done to make the Internet more 'fair,' of course. But the truth of the matter is it's an excuse to essentially nationalize the Internet. The moment that's accepted, all bets are off...."

       Senator John Thune says: "It is a power grab for the federal government by the chairman of a supposedly independent agency who finally succumbed to the bully tactics of political activists and the president himself."

       But radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have said it best: "[D]o you want the people who gave you Obamacare running your Internet service? Do you want them in charge of what you can get and when you can get it and how much it's gonna cost you?"

       We might add, do you want the people who brought you the failed website running your Internet.

       There is only one way to stop this government power grab. Congress has the authority to stop it. Congress has the duty to stop it and Congress needs to hear from you right now before the FCC votes to take control of the Internet on February 26.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternatively, send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

Send My Blast Faxes

Yours In Freedom
Center For Individual Freedom

Center for Individual Freedom
815 King Street
Suite 303
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-535-5836
Fax: 703-535-5838

CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Contributions to CFIF are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.