Tag Archives: ISIS

The Religion of Liberalism and the ‘Killing of Innocents’

unnamedOriginally posted at American Thinker

In his primetime speech about going after ISIL (with that damned whistling S), a sibilant Barack Obama promised America that “[w]e will degrade, and ultimately destroy” the band of head-chopping thugs that, with each passing day, is growing larger and stronger.  The problem for America is that the president conveyed the message with significantly less conviction than when he promised us that with ObamaCare we could keep our own doctors.

In addition to the unconvincing delivery, Barack was wearing way too much pancake makeup, and he was positioned below drapes that, from a certain angle, created an optical illusion of the president sporting two horns that would turn Beelzebub green with envy.

In his speech Obama made “two things clear,” which, as usual, were anything but.

The first was that even though the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as ISIL, are bitter clingers clinging to armaments and the Quran, according to Obama, they are  “not Islamic,” which is sort of like saying that the Christ in “Christian” has nothing to do with Jesus.

The second, more glaring absurdity was made “clear” when America’s Muslim Apologist clarified for us that “[n]o religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIS’s victims have been Muslim.”

This is not a surprising statement, coming from a man who believes that there’s a religious “war on women” over abortion but doesn’t believe we’re at war with a group whose faith endorses beheading non-believers.

Either way, religion is loosely defined as a “body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices,” which means that a person could be religious about things other than God.

Take liberalism, for instance.  Liberalism’s basic tenets, or “particular set of beliefs and practices,” if you will, center on race-baiting, pushing illegal immigration, harping on “climate change,” and furthering unbridled promiscuity.

Adherents of the religion of liberalism evangelize proselytes to hate the U.S. Constitution, despise capitalism, and fervently revere the holy sacrament of abortion.

As defined, liberalism is a faith to which the president is wholeheartedly devoted.

The fact that high priest Barack Obama, as a central tenet of his religion, condones and even funds abortion serves to discredit the very assertion he made about religion and killing innocents.

Even Joe Biden, who practices the mutually exclusive faiths of Catholicism and liberalism, put a spiritual spin on things recently when he vowed that America “will follow [ISIS] to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice, because hell is where they will reside.”

ISIS believes that killing the innocent gains entry into paradise, and many liberals, despite favoring killing the unborn, eagerly look upward to a future in a heavenly home.

But if Joe thinks that killing the innocent results in the killer going to hell, he should really reconsider his support for the hallowed rite of abortion.

Then there’s the religiously liberal/“practicing and respectful Catholic” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who actually had the gall to say that she considers abortion “sacred ground.”

Meanwhile, although clearly appalled by the beheading of two Americans by a masked murderer with a kitchen knife, if Barack Obama were to go tit-for-tat in a “killing of innocents” competition, liberalism far out-kills ISIS.

With 700 Planned Parenthood churches funded by the government all over America, the dismembering, scalding, and suctioning of 3,000-4,000 innocents a day surely surpasses even ISIS’s busiest day of sadistic barbarism in the name of jihad.

But what Obama’s statement that “[n]o religion condones the killing of innocents” fails to acknowledge is that the fundamental religion he himself follows fanatically spills gallons of innocent blood daily.

Let’s face it – with Islam at its core, ISIS/ISIL hasn’t even come close to the 60 million babies who have been slaughtered here in America on liberalism’s bloody altar, and when it comes to killing in the name of religion, the main difference between ISIS and liberalism is that no one videotapes late-term abortions and proudly broadcasts them worldwide.

Rest assured, if abortions were public spectacles instead of private executions, James Foley’s and Steven Sotloff’s grisly murders would be just two in a daily barrage of religious sacrifices justified by equally committed zealots.

Moreover, Obama’s insistence that “the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim” means nothing, especially since his liberal religion champions the rights of minorities while simultaneously destroying those same minorities in high numbers.

According to the CDC’s latest Abortion Surveillance report:

Between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the U.S. were performed on black children, even though blacks make up only 12.8 percent of the population. Another 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and an additional seven percent on other minority races.

So the president citing Muslims killing other Muslims as evidence that ISIS is not Islamic serves only to further indict himself, because killing the offspring of racial subgroups is what liberals do best.

And which is worse: ISIS killing the enemies of their faith by exterminating the potential seed of Muslims from other sects, or liberals decrying ISIS murdering babies while they themselves terminate hundreds of thousands of future liberals every year?

So once again this president has proven that he knows nothing about a subject that he’s unequivocal about when he’s reading off a teleprompter.

Moreover, despite condemning ISIL, Barack Obama ignores its similarities to the doctrine and practices of his own faith, whose rigidly fundamentalist belief system justifies the killing of many more innocents than ISIS.

Barack Obama’s Chilly Water Dilemma

introductory-titlesOriginally posted at American Thinker

 

America’s anti-atrocity president is on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard again. This year he is a little disappointed that the water of the Atlantic, unlike Hawaii, “is still a little cold.” Regrettably, for most people in the world, the icy beach water of Martha’s Vineyard is not the most pressing problem. Why? Because while the president takes time to decry the unfriendly surf and spend “time with… seals on the beach,” in Iraq a genocide similar to the one Obama identified as evil while visiting the Holocaust Museum two years ago is currently playing out on the world stage.

Speaking of seals — the trained, clapping kind, that is — are amongst those Obama usually feels most comfortable with. That aside, while Barack Obama is participating in Summer Fun Fest 2014, children are being beheaded, young boys crucified, women raped, and Christian men hung or shot at point-blank range after witnessing all of the above.

Come to think of it, if Barack Obama responded as quickly to the ongoing genocide in Iraq as he did to Malia asking him if he “plugged the hole” in the Deep Water Horizon oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico or to the so-called atrocity of terrorists being waterboarded or to Robin Williams’ suicide, maybe thousands of Iraq’s indigenous Assyrian Christians wouldn’t be buried alive in mass graves.

Granted, it is a pity that when Obama arrived on Martha’s Vineyard the water temperature wasn’t to his liking. Add to that all the precious vacation time he’s wasted thinking about the obstinate nature of Congressional Republicans.

Yet if the president thinks he is suffering, maybe he should try imagining the misery he would feel while being forced to helplessly watch a terrorist decapitate one of his children. If the temperature-sensitive Obama wants to talk about how unbearable cold water is, how about having to witness a five-year-old little boy being sliced in half as punishment for the sin of being born to Christian parents?

Icy water is a problem for Mr. Obama? If given the choice between shivering with goose bumps or suffocating while buried alive or, God forbid, watching his wife and daughters gang-raped, which of those three would Obama be likely to choose?

Or how about, as the father of two young daughters, wrapping his head around young women having their genitals sawed away by angry Muslim terrorists wielding used razor blades in the name of Allah?

Man, that’s a vacation buzz-kill. After all, every president has a right to get away for a little down time. And to be fair, this is the man who once challenged a post-Holocaust planet with the “bitter truth” that “too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale.” Barack ‘Blame Bush’ Obama even admitted that “we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save.”

That was back in April of 2012 when Nobel Peace Prize winner, Auschwitz survivor, and author of Night, Elie Wiesel, was in attendance when America’s legendary Nobel Peace Prize winner paid a visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. The remarks made by President Obama also included denouncing the horror of human-rights atrocities and suggesting that memorializing what happened in Nazi Germany could help to ensure that similar crimes against civilization would be avoided in the future.

Obama, who has made a habit of speaking while standing silent, said that day that we — which, by definition, includes him — must “tell our children about how this evil was allowed to happen — because so many people succumbed to their darkest instincts…because so many others stood silent.”

The president even drove home the point that, “In short, we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities — because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people.”

Unfortunately, while Barack Obama is on summer break, the evil he spoke of is unaware that it should take a break too. So, maybe party-boy Obama could just sit one dance number out and spend the time he would have used doing the Electric Slide explaining the whole “never a license to slaughter” concept to those currently butchering their way through northern Syria and Iraq.

In the book Night, Elie Wiesel wrote about his chilling experiences in a death camp. Describing one horror perpetrated on a child by Nazi soldiers that he witnessed, Wiesel wrote “To hang a young boy in front of thousands of spectators was no light matter.”

On the other hand, if the one who could save blindfolded young Iraqi men from being crucified in the noonday sun chooses to spend time searching for a nice fluffy beach towel to warm himself after frolicking in chilly sea water, maybe when compared to Obama’s plight hanging boys is a “light matter.”

Sorry to be the one to have to say it but despite his recent victory lap, Obama complaining the other day about water temperatures in Martha’s Vineyard while the Yazidi starved on Mount Sinjar and innocent people were being brutally slaughtered could be likened to Franklin Delano Roosevelt publicly lamenting a missing cherry on his ice cream sundae while the Nazis were gassing the Jews.

On a smaller scale than the Holocaust, but a holocaust all the same, Barack Obama possesses the power to end the carnage. Yet thus far his effort to save lives and stop the brutality is tepid at best. Instead, as days turn into weeks and ISIS becomes a formidable threat to our homeland, Barack Obama is focused like a laser on busting dance moves at birthday parties, the threat of Republican obstructionism, photo ops, and mourning the disappointing swimming conditions on Martha’s Vineyard.

Obama’s One-sided “No victor/No vanquished” Maximalist Philosophy

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

The definition of a maximalist is a “person who holds extreme views and is not prepared to compromise.” Although he accuses others of being maximalist saboteurs, there is no one who holds more “extreme views,” or is less “prepared to compromise” than Barack Obama.

In an interview with a supporter and defender of progressive-style overreaching government Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, in a piece entitled “Obama on the World,” self-proclaimed moderate Barack Obama talked of Iraq, Putin, and Israel.

The president used the unrest in the Middle East to describe the state of American politics in the following way:

We have so many things going for us right now as a country — from new energy resources to innovation to a growing economy — but we will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.

Obama did not elaborate on whom, in America’s political system, he likens to ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas, so one can only guess.

According to Barack Obama, “societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions.” The president said, “At the end of the day… the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us.” Naturally, that “us” does not include the one issuing the warning.

So, while attempting to explain how American politics are dysfunctional, our doggedly un-self-aware president used Middle Eastern upheaval as a parallel to accuse conservatives of being the very thing that he is — a partisan maximalist.

In essence, Obama was accusing others of doing what he does, which is a classic psychological defense mechanism called projection, where a person assigns to someone else the very same thinking and motivations he himself demonstrates.

Excusing himself from his own failures and assuming zero responsibility for the barrier to political cooperation his own extreme liberal views pose, the underlying message of the interview was that extreme conservative opinions that demand “maximalist” ends are a danger to the country.

Then, after a dysfunctional president described American politics as dysfunctional, he inserted the tried and true ‘diversity’ buzzword into the conversation by contending that “the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”

While Barry pretends to be chastising ISIS in Iraq by dropping on them what equates to a couple of brightly-colored water balloons, here at home, in the name of diversity he allows gangs of tattooed Mexican hoodlums dressed in army fatigues to roam America’s streets and threaten American lives.

That sort of philosophy works on Obama’s behalf. By imposing a wide variety of illegal interlopers on a resistant public, the president can then accuse those who differ from his extreme views on immigration of xenophobic obstructionism.

Since he was elected, Barack Obama has adhered to the “I won” mentality. Now after six years of shocking ineptitude that has left everything from the economy to the healthcare system to the future of America hanging precariously in the balance the person responsible for the mess has the bald-faced audacity to label those attempting to stop that downward spiral extremists?

On the list of politically dysfunctional maximalists, both in and out of Congress, would be nation-wreckers include extremists like the diminutive governor of Arizona Jan Brewer, whose state the Obama administration sued for trying to uphold immigration law.

How dare Brewer attempt to defend Arizona citizens from a blitzkrieg of sickly, criminal, big government-dependent illegals all of whom contribute to the diversity Obama claims is incompatible with the opinions of conservatives?

Then there’s Governor Rick Perry who, as governor of a state under siege, had to call out the Texas National Guard to protect his people from the tide the president refuses to stem of diseased, lawless humans entering Texas from south of the border.

Other ideological maximalists are Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Trey ‘the pit bull’ Gowdy (R-SC). Both these so-called extremists regularly nip at the heels of the IRS scandal, and, every chance he gets, Gowdy handily eviscerates perpetrators with the skilled precision of Edward Scissorhands.

Then there’s maximalist obstructionist extraordinaire Ted Cruz (R-TX) whose The Legal Limit Report No. 4: The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power, lists 76 of the president’s “lawless” actions. It’s likely that Obama sees the outspoken Mr. Cruz as a major contributor to America’s political dysfunction and a huge part of the problem of why our nation is presently, as the president put it, a nonfunctioning society.

Alluding to Iraq and Israel, Obama reassured Friedman that in the Middle East he is only going to involve the U.S. if “different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished.”

That “no victor/no vanquished” philosophy must be the driving force behind his plans to “provide a unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work permits.” Never mind that those sorts of “inclusive politics” fly in the face of an American public that opposes executive action on amnesty and a Congressional community desperately trying to curtail the president’s repeated autocratic maneuverings.

Speaking specifically about the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the president pointed out to Freidman that “Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you.”

That sort of catch-up is precisely what Obama is about to experience himself. Because despite his delusional rhetoric, and based on his own all-time low approval ratings in the polls, this November his maximalist positions will catch up with him and the equally maximalist wing of the party he leads.

%d bloggers like this: