Tag Archives: terrorism

Obama Says Climate Change Contributes Terrorism…But What About THIS?

Barack Obama has definitively stated that he is of the opinion that climate change contributes to terrorism. But thus far, what the president has failed to address is whether the cause and effect relationship between climate change and terrorism works both ways

And who better to marry the topics of terrorism and weather than the one who implied he had the Messianic ability to “slow the rising oceans” and “heal the planet?”

In the wake of the COP21 the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, one can’t help but wonder why the president didn’t address the carbon footprint that results from ISIS incinerating humans beings for sport.

In fact, while the president was in France blaming terrorism on global warming, jihadists were in Syria hanging people upside down on spits and roasting them like pigs.

Here the president was center stage at an international climate change conference in a city that, after being attacked by ISIS, has barely buried their dead. That’s why; Paris was a fitting place for Obama to explore whether ISIS burning people alive in metal cages pollutes the air.

Before jumping headlong into the subject of human bonfires, the president could have begun by examining more benign topics such as exploding metal implants and hot ash, both of which are spectator safety concerns affecting curious bystanders at public executions.

Granted, when broaching the subject of environmentally friendly killings, even crucifixion and beheading can get a little tricky.

For example, who would have thought that there’s an ecological downside to beheading dozens of people on a beach? Clearly, ISIS is unaware that once the blood starts flowing, pristine oceans are polluted with human blood that contains concentrations of environmentally hazardous chemicals.

That’s why, because blood kills wildlife, and makes the ocean unhealthy for swimming in full burqua; it’s always a bad idea to spill rivers of blood on a beach.

Nonetheless, right before discussing how cremating Christians in a furnace with properly ventilated flue benefits the environment; the president could have said that, as a group, terrorists really could be ecologically savvier and a little more green-minded.

For example, because it takes a couple of hours to turn a 150-pound person, made up of 65% water, into a pile of ash, in the future, ISIS should really look for more efficient ways of disposing of Shia spies and Jordanian pilots.

Another point ISIS is probably unaware of is that when you place an adult male into a cage with the intent to burn him alive, after the flame licks its way up the gasoline trail, and after the victim is fully engulfed in flames, the compounds that are present quickly decompose and calcify.

For that reason the president had a moral obligation to explore the topic of crematory science.

If America’s green president surmises that ISIS is even remotely concerned about leaving a carbon footprint, short of granting them carbon credits, his duty was to apprise the terror group that after a person is fully ignited, and the gut wrenching screams start to wan, air quality is quickly compromised by human cremains blowing into the atmosphere.

According to a faculty research source at the University of Virginia: “Both the fumes expelled during cremation and the mineralized remains of the skeleton … are possible sources of toxic waste.” Not to mention the carbon footprint produced by the noxious ash that results when a dyed flame-resistant orange jump suit goes up in flames.

Looking back, Obama squandered an opportunity to convey in a dispassionate, non-judgmental manner, details about some of the more offensive contaminants that are spewed into the atmosphere when human flesh is exposed to extreme heat.

For instance, whenever a body is burning, things like lead, lithium, and arsenic all waft into the air. In turn, the residue from charred flesh ends up leaving a footprint larger than the late Jihadi John’s lace-up boot on the back of a person he’s about to behead.

By not broaching the subject of gaseous emissions that form during cremation, Obama missed an opening to scare ISIS green.

Unfortunately, the president is no longer in Paris. Therefore, his chance to warn the Islamic state about some of the more troublesome secretions that come from incinerated corpses, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride gas, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury, has vanished like dissipating vapor.

Barack also muffed the chance to fulfill his prophetic calling to “heal the planet.”

Instead of talking about how contaminants from barbequed bodies react with volatile acids to form, please God no, carcinogenic polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), the president chose instead to dine on a menu “fit for a king” at L’Ambroisie’s.

By failing to give equal time to how extremist ideology impacts climate change, and by not presenting a contrasting view, the ecologically-sensitive guy whose flight to France expended enough fuel to gas up 72 cars for a year, wasted an opening to “level the eco-friendly playing field.”

In the end, when the smoke clears and the toxic dust settles, it’s likely that Barack Obama will continue to blame climate deniers for worldwide jihad, and secretly applaud anyone, including ISIS, for helping curtail air pollution by eliminating humans who exhale CO2.

Is Tashfeen Malik Any Different Than a Pro-Choice Woman?

Originally posted at American Thinker

ht_malik_farook_airport_BUGGED_BG_lf_151206_4x3_992156901047.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-largeRecently, Barack Obama mocked Republicans when he said that those opposing his refugee resettlement plans are “scared of widows and orphans.” The president’s comment was in response to GOP presidential hopefuls who, out of fear of ISIS infiltration, expressed concern in the last debate about Obama’s reckless plans to transport busloads of Syrian refugees into America.

The implication of the president’s  ‘widows and orphans’ comment was that the female gender is less likely to exploit the refugee crisis on behalf of ISIS.

Then, just when deranged hermit Robert Lewis Dear had effectively diverted America’s attention from the women of Planned Parenthood who were dismembering and marketing baby body parts, along comes female Pakistani soldier of the Caliphate, Tashfeen Malik.

Described by family lawyers as a “90-pound… soft-spoken… caring… housewife,” one would expect Tashfeen, whose name means ‘sympathetic’ in Arabic, to exude “sugar and spice and everything nice.” Sadly, she was anything but nice. Although a member of the “fairer sex,” Tashfeen built IEDs in her garage.

Together with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, the radicalized mommy had amassed things like Sippy Cups, diapers, and 5,000 rounds of ammunition inside her home. Furthermore, leaving aside more traditional hobbies for women such as macramé and quilting, judging from the stockpile of weapons, it appears as if Tashfeen expended most of her spare time training to inflict “unspeakable carnage” on infidels.

And here, all along, most people thought women fainted at the sight of blood.

After pledging her allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook and erasing her family’s digital footprint, the jihadi bride dropped off her 6-month-old baby girl with her mother-in-law, and then hurried off to help her husband murder his coworkers.

For the sin of standing around a buffet table eating Christmas cookies at a center for people with developmental disabilities, the radicalized extremists killed fourteen people, and wounded twenty-one more. Soon after the attack, the duo led the police on a high-speed chase with Malik behind the wheel that ended with the couple dying in a hail of bullets.

In a December 5, 2015 article in the Washington Times author Kellan Howell points out that according to a report from George Washington University’s Program on Extremism: “Ten of the 71 recruits for the Islamic State arrested in the U.S. since 2014 have been women… [and that]… women in the militant group’s ranks [are] increasing.”

So much for Barack Obama’s ‘don’t be worried about the widows and orphans’ theory.

Even still, despite public disbelief, the most astounding thing about the rabid killer Malik hanging her body armor in the closet next to her party burka is that some people are surprised a woman would do such despicable things.

Female stereotypes like to portray women as loving, gentle, selfless, and peaceful. Yet the truth is, many are hateful, vicious, and self-centered.

Think about it; if the feminine segment of American society were really what some falsely perceive them to be, 60 million additional human beings — 86% of whom were aborted for convenience — might still be alive today.

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Tashfeen’s behavior is not the exception to the rule. In fact, this jihadi bride’s blatant disregard for human life only confirms the type of wanton terror some women are capable of.

Tasheen travelled to the U.S. on a K1 fiancée visa.  Once here, the young woman’s sole intent was not to marry, settle down, and raise her baby girl, but to build pipe bombs, amass a cache of weapons, and then use them to ambush and kill as many vulnerable people as possible. The Mommy Terrorist’s life’s goal was jihad and false convictions took precedence over raising her child.

Sound familiar? After funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500 million per year, Americans should not be surprised that a diminutive woman, driven by a perverted ideology, blew 14 people away.

Now, the obvious question that needs to be answered is whether Tashfeen’s murderous tirade is any different than the evil exhibited every day by 4,000 self-absorbed women who, rather than head toward a Christmas party with an AK-47, seek out an abortion clinic with the sole intent of ambushing a vulnerable child in the womb?

After witnessing the religious zealotry of those who support full access to abortion, and after hearing the “fairer sex” defend carving up and selling baby parts while calling it a “war on women,” Americans should not be surprised that someone like Tashfeen is capable of doing such a brutally horrific thing.

That’s why; rather than be appalled at the jihadi bride, Americans should recognize that women can be more vicious then men.

In this case, the only difference between pro-choice and ISIS womenfolk is that the latter dress up in vastly different attire. In addition, unlike the more reservedright-to-choose crowd, womanly soldiers to the Caliphate take their directives from a revered manual, and prefer executing their victims in a more public setting.

Either way, whether a jihadi bride or not, women who murder their babies are just as devoted to the slaughter of the defenseless as was Tashfeen Malik.

NUKES AND PIZZA! How Obama can Help ISIS Be More Politically Correct

pizza-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Barack Obama is negotiating with Iran and moving America toward an agreement that allows the terrorist state to obtain a nuke on a “phased plan.” A “phased plan” with Tehran is like reassuring potential victims that a psychopathic murderer is on the loose in their neighborhood with a Nerf gun, but not to worry because cops have a “phased plan” to provide the killer with a machete.

In other words, with the help of Barack Obama, Iran will graduate from being unable to annihilate Israel or do serious damage to the US, to being a formidable danger. And while that will certainly be disastrous in some ways, if Iran does lob a nuke at America, while widespread radiation poisoning will stress the system, all the dead people will lead to huge savings on healthcare.

Meanwhile, with Iran under control, ISIS still remains somewhat of a threat to the world.
In fact, right now ISIS’s attention seems to be directed toward Syrian Christians, 90 of whom they just kidnapped and will likely either decapitate or set ablaze, which, based on Barack Obama’s lackadaisical reaction to such atrocities, falls under the Hillary Clinton motto of “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

However, based on some of the dangers ISIS is broadcasting via Twitter, there do seem to be a few things the president can do to quell the problem, such as a kinder, gentler application of outreach and social justice.

At the recent “Solution to Violent Extremism” summit, Obama pointed out that he’s of the opinion that terrorists have genuine complaints and believes “legitimate grievances” can be addressed by communicating, engaging, mentoring, educating, partnering with, and supporting genocidal jihadists.

In an ironic twist, ISIS actually validated Obama’s strategy, indicating that remediation of the reprobate does have some credibility.

Take for instance ISIS’s recent vow to conquer Rome and “throw homosexuals off of [the] leaning tower of PIZZA.” In some circles such a proclamation might be disturbing, but to Obama, threats are often just desperate cries for help that need to be responded to in thoughtful ways.

Clearly, ISIS confusing Pisa (or pizza) with Rome indicates the group has members who are geographically challenged. But with Obama in charge, ISIS could be marching in the right direction once and for all. Besides, who better than the president who traveled to 57 states – not counting Hawaii and Alaska – to inform the terrorist group that the Tower of Pisa is located in the city of Pisa, which is four hours from the city they are threatening to conquer and pillage?

Moreover, promising to throw gays off an ancient south-leaning building may require specific intervention that, in lieu of an appropriate jobs program, includes things like architectural diversity, how to grasp geographic whereabouts, sensitivity training, education, and healthy eating.

Another red flag is that ISIS has chosen a building that falls into the disabled/handicapped category, which indicates the group is exploiting a structure that has already suffered 822 years of being the butt of jokes. Insensitive cartoonists have mocked architect Bonanno Pisano for eons, saying that he either had one short leg or a crooked neck.

Either way, the bottom line is that if ISIS wants to grow in respectability, they can’t give preferential treatment to members of the exclusive LGBT community.

ISIS singling out gays and lesbians as recipients of special treatment could be interpreted as favoritism. Choosing only one group over other historically underrepresented groups of people lacks the type of fairness Barack Obama specializes in.

It’s unclear what ISIS is eating, but it’s a dead giveaway that by mistaking Pisa for pizza, ISIS has pizza on the brain. Thankfully, after addressing ISIS’s tactlessness, helping them to get their geographic bearings, and schooling them on how to be more inclusive, there’s still education and healthy living.

Threatening to throw homosexuals off the “leaning tower of PIZZA” is sort of like ISIS threatening to throw adulteresses off the 47th floor of the Waldorf Salad Hotel.

Still, there’s a good chance that Michelle Obama, maven of healthy school lunches and superintendent of America’s “culture of health”, could address the ISIS pizza issue and make respectful and culturally-sensitive food suggestions to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on how to steer his soldiers toward healthier choices.

Last but certainly not least is the misspelling of Pisa, which indicates that Abu Abdulla Britani, also known by his twitter handle @abu_britani2, who tweeted out:

tweet

…may very well be a hapless victim of educational inequality.

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf has already informed America that “we can’t kill our way” out of war against ISIS. That’s why free community college may be the answer to steering enthusiastic young men like Abu Britani away from career goals that include “conquering Rome and establishing the justice of shariah.”

And what better way to shore up our reputation with the terrorist state of Iran than to suggest giving ISIS combatants refugee status in America with the promise of free community college?

So there you have it. Barack Obama’s War on Terror includes a bomb for Tehran and some politically-correct suggestions on how to school ISIS on civility.

ISIS — ‘If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit’

SimpsonOriginally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama steadfastly refuses to identify radical Islam as the driving force behind the mayhem massacring its way through the Middle East and nearing Europe with an eye toward America. With shovels in hand, blades sharpened, and petrol cans filled to the brim, it feels as if the enemies of all that is good and holy have been given an unspoken approbation to accomplish their malevolent ends.

The most disturbing thing about that scenario is that approval to do so has been subtly granted by a malicious president whose lack of outspoken condemnation can only be interpreted as unspoken commendation.

The only way to describe how infuriating and confusing the current state of affairs is in America is to imagine how it would feel to be in a courtroom with a serial killer who murdered someone you love. Then imagine hearing the judge, without explanation, slam down the gavel, drop all the charges, and allow the killer to go free. After hearing the judge’s verdict, then imagine the psychopath turning, locking eyes with you, winking, and giving the stunned courtroom an evil grin.

Although a harsh comparison, it’s not so far-fetched when discussing the lack of castigation Barack Obama has expressed for serial killers such as Kermit Gosnell, the late-term abortion doctor who snipped the spinal cords of full-term, born-alive babies in his Philadelphia clinic.

In Obama’s world, beheading whimpering babies’ in the name of choice is apparently an acceptable activity.

On the international level, the president, no fan of Israel, has also refused to condemn Palestinian terrorists who threw a Molotov cocktail at a car full of Israelis merely because they were Jewish. Sitting in a seat of self-exalted judgment, Obama is also perversely tepid in his criticism of Iran, a nation that has made it clear that once secret negotiations with the White House are complete and they have the bomb they’ve been dreaming of, they will immediately commence attempting to wipe the Jewish nation off the face of the earth.

If one observes closely, Obama’s opinion is made evident not only in what he says, but in what he doesn’t say.

Already proving that if he can sully the reputations of political enemies, law enforcement officials, crusading right-wing extremist “bitter clinger” Christians, or land-grabbing Israeli Jews, Obama is more than willing to have his gavel come down on the side of the guilty.

Yet if the opportunity arises to condemn the alleged killer of innocent Muslims or to presume innocence based solely on race or ethnicity, Obama can be counted on to seize it.

Meanwhile, 21 Coptic Christians were martyred on a Libyan beach and Barack Hussein took almost four days, $2.5 million, and a completed golf trip to acknowledge that the blood that seeped into the sand and sea flowed from the headless bodies of ‘People of the Cross.’

As for the Jews killed in a Paris market, Obama referred to them as a “bunch of folks in a deli in Paris… randomly” shot to death by “a bunch of violent vicious zealots.”

For most, it’s disheartening that the President of the United States reduces murdered Jews to “a bunch of folks in a deli” and turns their executioners, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” into “a bunch of violent vicious zealots.”

Therefore, irate would be a mild term to describe the indignation many Americans feel as injustices are meted out over and over again by a president whose philosophical leaning seems to be to exonerate the guilty at the expense of the innocent.

And as inexplicable an attitude as that might be to some, while referring to another famous murder trial in a 2008 interview on ABC Barack Obama gave a glimpse into the reason he refuses to condemn the likes of genocidal jihadists and instead chooses to disparage our ally Israel and write friendly letters to the Ayatollah of Iran.

On ABC’s “Nightline”, then-candidate Obama spoke to Terry Moran about race relations and said this:

You remember when, during the O.J. trial… black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I’m somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty.

So the president thought it was “pretty clear that O.J. was guilty.”

But then Obama admitted:

And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory.

How’s that for insight into why President Obama, in the name of fair-mindedness, has habitually been on the side of unfairness for the last six years?

The president seemed to say that although shameful, the black community’s reaction to the O.J. verdict was justified and his acquittal was some kind of recompense for a justice system that has been “historically biased.” So according to Barack Obama’s twisted sense of social justice, a butcher who nearly beheaded two people successfully beating the justice system and getting away with murder is a victory against profound historical bias.

So when Barack Obama writes in an op-ed regarding the White House Summit on Violent Extremism that terrorists whose religion he refuses to name have “legitimate grievances” against those he views as oppressors, his shameful non-reaction to beheading, shooting, burning, and threatening to unleash a nuclear bomb on Israel starts to make sense.

It also explains why, just like irrelevant shrunken gloves took center stage at the O.J. trial, while Islamic terrorists burn 45 Kurds alive in cages, domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists are being talked about at yet another useless White House “summit.”

Clearly, what’s at work here is that, in Barack Obama’s mind, Judaism and Christendom, in all their white and oftentimes European glory, have always been biased against Islam.  Therefore, regardless of how much barbarism and blood is required to defeat those powerful institutions, with a wink and an evil grin an arrogant Barack Obama believes that ISIS, like O.J., merits a belated victory.

 

WHAT’S THE STORY? The Truth Behind Obama’s Defense of Islam

Ob-Islam-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Regardless of what Muslim adherents say, every time a terrorist beheads, shoots, or blows up civilized human beings, an unsolicited handful of world leaders feel it’s their duty to step forward to clarify that those doing the terrorizing aren’t really Muslims. That’s why someone should really find out who is convincing non-Muslim terrorists to pretend to be Muslim, because if ever there was cause for confusion, the “terrorists aren’t Muslim” issue is it.

From France’s President François Hollande to America’s very own President Barack Obama, apologists simply refuse to agree that those who openly admit dedication to the prophet Mohammed are fervent followers of the Islamic faith.

Although with great regularity Islamic extremists begin and end their bloodbaths by shouting “Allahu Akbar” and go enthusiastically to their deaths proud to be “avenging the prophet” Mohammed, for some strange reason President Obama feels it is his obligation to repudiate the testimony of martyrs.

Not only that, but a contradiction arises, because as the president has already proven with his “bitter clinger” remark, if a shooter were to shout “Praise Jesus” instead of “Allahu Akbar”, it’s highly unlikely similar PR would be offered on behalf of Christians.

Let’s face it – in the ongoing effort to place Christians in the crosshairs of progressive criticism, those on the left cannot afford to have Muslims out-evil the “right wing extremists” and Bible-thumpers. That’s why, regardless of how many body bags jihadists fill, Obama will always be at the ready to remediate the reputation of Islam in the eyes of those who see it for what it is.

So what if Muslims blow away political cartoonists for exercising the right to free expression. As evidenced by the Ferguson, Missouri street riots and the tacitly government-approved animosity directed toward police officers, here in Obama’s America, lack of tolerance exhibited by one group no longer justifies refusal to tolerate the intolerable in the other.

Yet the question here is why does Barack Obama refuse to take Muslim jihadists at their word?

Could it be because terrorism places Mohammed in a bad light, and according to a politically pragmatic president attempting to cultivate cultural and religious diversity, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam?”

Also, according to Barack Obama, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Therefore, by his insistence on portraying Islam in a light contrary to reality, what the president is actually doing is ensuring tolerance be extended to the intolerant.

As the body count continues to rise, Barack Obama continues to assert that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

Huh?

Who cares if three individuals declaring vengeance for Allah wreak bloody havoc on an iconic European city? If Barack Obama decides that Islamic “rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings,” then even if what he says is contradicted by what is actually happening, one way or another his complicated rhetoric will twist the truth and blatant lies will eventually be accepted.

Let’s not forget, this is Barack Obama, the man who has redefined everything from Hope and Change to what constitutes police “acting stupidly.” Therefore, why shouldn’t he also redefine Islam, even if doing so controverts the profession of faith by those willing to be die for their beliefs?

What’s odd is that this defense of Islam is coming from a man who claims to be a Christian. Then again, it’s probably easy for Obama to disavow the claims of terrorists who call themselves Muslims because, despite admitting belief in Jesus, the president lives a life alien to the creed Christ lays out for His followers.

By his own example, Barack Obama has shed much-needed light on individuals who identify with a religious dogma and then act in a way contrary to their stated beliefs. Whether the president realizes it or not, the benchmarks he’s put forth in defense of Islam are standards that can also be applied to his own dubious relationship with God of the New Testament.

In truth, when it comes to liberal social edicts that support abortion on demand, gay marriage and free contraceptives, the president of the United States is nothing more than another radical extremist who, instead of an AK-47 or a machete, uses a phone and a pen. Moreover, everything that is “honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely” has already been dumbed down and ascribed a new meaning, so why not Islam?

Even still, notwithstanding the president’s effort to whitewash the “religion of peace,” in addition to Obama’s dogged assertion that disciples of Mohammed blowing away shoppers in a deli merely for being Jewish has nothing to do with the faith they proclaim, there may be other, more useful benefits that can result from the president reinventing reality.

Maybe what Obama is doing has little to do with Islam. The same way basic concepts of freedom and fairness have been redefined, mischaracterizing Islam may be just another example of the world’s most dedicated cultural Marxist assigning different meanings to conventional perceptions in order to skew the truth and control the opinion of the masses.

After all, the president’s socialist vision hinges on framing a make-believe world. That’s why the left’s most valuable tool is still propaganda. So, although initially the president’s “terrorists aren’t Muslim” posturing seemed confusing, on second thought it may not be confusing at all.

Barack Obama’s attempt to redefine a 1,400-year-old religion to suit his political agenda may have nothing to do with protecting Islam. Instead, shielding Muslims from condemnation may be part of an ongoing effort to remake, redefine, and impact reality so dramatically that what will finally take hold is unquestioning compliance.

Dianne Feinstein, Friend of Terrorists

6a00d8341c730253ef01910260efff970cOriginally posted at American Thinker

If you close your eyes and listen, you’ll probably hear the sound of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), moral, upstanding person that she is, wringing her hands.  Thanks to Dianne and her insistence that a report exposing the CIA’s overseas handling of 119 terrorists be released, America is getting a good dose of absurd liberal reasoning.

Dianne Feinstein is among those who have the audacity to point the finger of accusation at CIA operatives for splashing water in the face of the confessed architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but have no problem with the paper-thin skin of an unborn baby being peeled away from its fragile bones while still in the womb.

Neither is she, nor many of her Executive Amnesty cohorts who are sympathetic to fiends like Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who helped plan the bombing of the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans and injuring 39, worried about the helpless infants and small children being exposed to deadly Third World diseases.

Instead, the woman who said it was “morally correct” to force pro-life taxpayers to fund abortion took to the Senate floor to bemoan CIA operatives causing discomfort to terrorists who view American and Jewish lives much like pro-abortion women view preborn humans: worthless.

Leaving aside Dianne’s personal gripe with the Central Intelligence Agency, isn’t it a tad hypocritical for a person who has no problem burning fetuses with saline, dismembering them with suction apparatus, and using a scalpel to remove the brain of a partially born human being to lecture anyone about the inhumanity of subjecting terrorists to sleep deprivation and loud music?

Suddenly, the woman who voted “No” on banning partial-birth abortion is concerned about the “fundamental principles of right and wrong?” What is Dianne, with her 100%-NARAL-rating, saying?  That if unborn babies were “tummy-slapped” or waterboarded to death she would oppose the “ugly, visceral” procedure called abortion?

Moreover, if exposing rogue government agencies is what Ms. Feinstein is so passionate about, maybe she should encourage her colleagues in the Democratic Party to investigate the political torture visited upon innocent US citizens by the government agency known as the IRS.

Or better yet, how about exploring Obama’s possible connection to supplying Mexican cartels with the guns that killed Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata?

In her pious comments pertaining to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the senator from California lamented the treatment of high-ranking al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah at the hands of an agency that worked tirelessly to shield the American people from another 9/11.

According to the report, Abu Zubaydah was “stripped naked and diapered, physically struck, and put in various painful stress positions for long periods of time” which, by comparison, was probably an experience far less terrifying than choking on jet fuel while being burned alive.

The 6,700 page study on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program revealed that Mr. Zubaydah, as well as other fiendish terrorist types, was “deprived of sleep for days” and forced, the poor dears, to stand in “stress positions… with their hands tied together over their heads, chained to the ceiling.”

As uncomfortable and humiliating as that might be for an extremist used to having the upper hand in most situations, the sleepless-in-Guantanamo/chained-to-the-ceiling routine is probably a discomfort that murdered Americans would have happily endured if given a choice between that and being crushed by millions of pounds of concrete and steel.

Still, Dianne Feinstein is very distressed that interrogators and guards employed “rough takedowns,” where a terrorist was hooded, stripped naked, and “dragged up and down a dirt hallway while being slapped and punched.”

Maybe über-tenderhearted Feinstein should spend a couple of hours with a fetus born alive in a botched abortion when, in the name of the kind of choice she and President Obama support, a helpless newborn is forced to endure the anguish of being denied oxygen, hydration, and warmth.

Quite frankly, instead of the liberal belief that enhanced interrogation is sadistic, Feinstein’s sentiment about “fac[ing] an ugly truth and say[ing] ‘never again’” would serve humanity a whole lot better if she were exposing the sadistic procedure called abortion.

Mrs. Feinstein also seemed to be disgusted by the notion that several detainees were led to believe “they would …leave in a coffin-shaped box.” Maybe someone should remind the senator that most of those who died on 9/11 did not have the luxury of being laid to rest in a coffin.  Instead, of the 2,800 victims, fewer than 300 whole bodies were recovered.  The other 2,500 were blown apart, incinerated, or pulverized.

Attempting to head off the bloodshed that is sure to follow the release of a report former Vice President Dick Cheney said was “full of crap,” as well as making an effort to soften the impending blowback, Feinstein predicted terrorists will “try to use [the report] to justify evil actions or to incite more violence.”

Come what may, I hope that Dianne Feinstein feels better about herself after confessing to the world that the CIA placed mass murderers in confined spaces with scary caterpillars.

Whether the sanctimonious senator feels vindicated or not matters little, because despite getting a reprieve from “rectal rehydration,” radical Islamic terrorists will continue to search for ways to smuggle a dirty bomb into an American city where, when it goes off, hundreds of thousands of people will die excruciating deaths.

In the end, the best America can hope for is that ISIS will be impressed by America’s commitment to treating terrorists humanely.  Then, as a reciprocal gesture toward the Senate Intelligence Committee, the next time Jihadi John beheads an American maybe he’ll ditch the rusty kitchen knife and switch to an ax.

Jah’Keem Yisrael and Protecting Muslim Sensibilities

10458013_732887180102611_1745111527179385972_nOriginally posted at American Thinker

In Moore, Oklahoma a Muslim convert shouting Islamic utterances, on a rampage following getting fired, expressed his displeasure by beheading an innocent woman in a meatpacking plant.

This wasn’t Jihadi John in Syria, or south of the border where drug cartels remove heads with great regularity; this took place late afternoon in Oklahoma.

And as shocking as a woman being beheaded in broad daylight is, what’s more horrifying is the fact that after she arrived in the morning in one piece and left in the afternoon zipped into a body bag, as usual the politically correct types seem to be more concerned with protecting Muslim sensibilities than acknowledging bloody jihad.

After reporting about the Oklahoma decapitation, some news reporters are taking time to reassure Americans that even though beheading is done in the name of Islam, beheading isn’t something all Muslims do.

By and large, the same people calling blatant terrorism “workplace violence” are the ones who insist that a black youth being shot by a cop after robbing a convenience store is usually “racism.”

Here we have a suspect named Alton Alexander Nolen who, after he converted to Islam in prison in 2011, changed his name to Jah’Keem Yisrael.  Jah’Keem already sported a Jesus tattoo, and after his conversation added “AS-SALAAMU ALAIKUM” to his abdomen.

Jah’Keem Yisrael’s Facebook page reveals a confused youth that clearly morphed from a hip-hop fan who wrote things like: “GETN READY ANOTHA WEEK DAT DA LRD HAS BLESSED ME WIT” into a devout follower of the Prophet Mohammed, dressed in full Muslim regalia and calling for jihad.

Judging from things he says on his Facebook page, Jah’Keem Yisrael was raised in a Christian home where, while getting ready to  go to church, his mama sang along with the O’Jays to “Stairway to Heaven” (no, not that “Stairway to Heaven”).

Since coming out of prison, he spent his time offering Dawah to kids in Old Navy t-shirts and proselytizing on behalf of Islam while working at Vaughan Foods.

Nolen’s Facebook rants include preaching against non-Muslims, especially Jews, and features gun-toting Taliban fighters as his cover photo and a picture justifying beheading infidels, complete with a severed head.  In addition, Jah’Keem lauds Osama Bin Laden, displays the smoking Twin Towers, and has numerous photos starring himself as was a proud member of the Islamic Mosque community in Oklahoma City.

As reported, at work Nolen argued on behalf of stoning women, and that evangelistic crusade cost him his job.  That’s why, after he was fired, the disgruntled ex-employee decided to substitute stoning women for beheading one woman and stabbing with intent to behead another.

After all, in the Quran 8:12 it does say:

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

In the process of stabbing the second woman, Alton Alexander Nolen was shot and wounded by the COO of Vaughan Foods, Mark Vaughan, who thankfully was also a Sheriff’s Office reserve deputy carrying a concealed handgun.  If Muslim Apologist Barack Obama, who has chosen to remain silent on the matter, had his way, Mr. Vaughan would not have been armed, a second woman would be missing a head, and much more bloodshed would have followed.

Speaking of Barack Obama, after the beheading the president, who thought it was appropriate to bring up Ferguson, Missouri in his speech to the General Assembly of the UN, chose not to step forward to extend his condolences, or to point out that the deceased woman could have been his mother, sister, or aunt.

Instead, in response to Colleen Hufford leaving work in a hearse without a head, the White House issued a “no comment,” and for now, has deferred to the FBI.

Apparently, the Obama administration has decided that the day of the first terrorist beheading in the U.S. is not the time to formally acknowledge that the brutality James Foley and Stephen Sotloff suffered in Syria has officially arrived here in America.

In the next few days, it will be interesting to see how much attention will be shifted from Jah’Keem Yisrael removing Colleen Hufford’s head to shielding peace-loving Muslims from criticism. While the left eagerly accuses most white cops of racism, it’s highly unlikely Jah’Keem Yisrael’s brand of Islam will be painted with the broad brush it deserves.

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.

Barack Obama: Waging Bio Warfare Against the United States?

bio-405x227In December 2008, just one month after Barack Obama was elected, a bipartisan commission study briefed Vice President-elect Joe Biden and warned him that “The United States can expect a terror attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013.”

The 112-page study was entitled A World at Risk and alerted the newly-elected “fundamental transformer” that efforts needed to be stepped up to counter the inevitable terrorism threats headed America’s way. The report stated that “Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.”

The “At Risk” report was the work of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism of the United States Congress also known as the Graham/Talent WMD Commission, led by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jim Talent (R-MO).

More concerned about a biological threat, the commission’s report warned:

The biological threat is greater than the nuclear; the acquisition of deadly pathogens, and their weaponization and dissemination in aerosol form, would entail fewer technical hurdles than the theft or production of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and its assembly into an improvised nuclear device.

At the time, Senator Graham cautioned that “anthrax remains the most likely biological weapon.” However, the senator also advised that “contagious diseases, such as the influenza strain that killed 40 million early in the 20th century, are looming threats.”

Read more at The Clash Daily

%d bloggers like this: