POTUS SOTU Translation

I’ve read many different reviews and opinions of the State of the Union speech over the past week, and have seen some of the clips from said speech.  Frankly, I’m not impressed with what our wannabe Emperor had to say.  However, the John Stossel translation of eight statements in his Twitter Feed summarizes it best:

Stossel1

Stossel2

Stossel3

Stossel4

Stossel5

Stossel6

Stossel7

Stossel8

I just can’t add to it…I really can’t…

Just A Rant

Folks, I first want to say that I am proud of my country.  Of my President and his Administration, not so much.  As a matter of face, I am downright furious & ashamed.

Following the Radical Islamic terrorist (words that our President refuses to say) attack in France on a satirical newspaper that killed 12, world leaders gathered in a show of solidarity against Radical Islamic terrorism.  Representatives from the United States were nowhere to be found, although the US Ambassador was somewhere in the back (which is appropriate since our President favors leading from behind).

The reasons that were given for the President not showing up (or anyone else from his Cabinet) were lamer that the excuse of the dog eating your homework.  What I heard included:

  • The President was putting the final touches on his State of the Union speech, and couldn’t be bothered.
  • The President couldn’t miss the NFL playoff games.
  • Secretary of State Kerry couldn’t break away from his visit to India.
  • The President didn’t want to antagonize the Muslim world.
  • Security for the President or the appropriate representative could not be guaranteed or organized fast enough.
  • AG Holder was attending a security summit and couldn’t work it into his schedule.
  • VP Biden was at home and couldn’t be bothered.
  • An invitation was not extended to the United States to attend.

Instead of showing a backbone and seizing the moment to show that he is the President of United States, President Barack Insane Obama sends Secretary of State John “Not So Swift(boat)” Kerry to give France a symbolic hug and James Taylor to serenade various dignitaries with “You’ve Got a Friend.”

It is no wonder that the United States is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of the world…

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.  I was in Germany at the time that then candidate Obama swung through Europe and other places giving speeches which essentially states that the United States was not exceptional, was to blame for a multitude of sins, and apologized to various countries.  Anyone paying attention to what he was saying should have known that this clown was all talk and no substance.  And that is what we elected (twice!) for a President, and worse.

By his words and actions (or lack thereof), our President and his minions are working against the United States and it’s people.  From immigration reform to ignoring terrorism to health care takeover to job-destroying policies to infringement upon various rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the net result is the degradation of our country and of the people.

We have a new crop of Representatives and Senators in Congress.  We need to encourage them and hold their feet to the fire to oppose the President who would be King.

More Islamic Terror

I’m going to start out this post with an excerpt from a post written back in 2010:

Do I have a problem with people worshipping Mohammed?  No, I don’t.  I have worked with Moslems, Hindus, Atheists, Christians of all different denominations, and Wiccans.  I’ve probably have worked with someone who is a member of the Church of Bob for all I know.  But here’s where I have problems with Islam.

Any religion that states that it is the duty of each follower to slay and/or oppress the infidel (non-follower of their belief) automatically has my opposition to the religion (not the people).  A religion that allows “honor” killings of women, and demands punishments of any that criticize the faith is definitely not the tolerant “Religion of Peace” that they promote their faith to be.  The version of peace that they offer is an all-Islam world ruled from a religious/political government via Sharia law, but I also wonder about that too.  Shiite and Sunni factions have been killing each other since Mohammed’s death over who Mohammed’s successor should be!  I wonder how “peaceful” that world would be…

Now I realize that Christian history is not as clean as we would all like it to be.  The Crusades, and the Catholic & Protestant conflicts don’t promote the message of the New Testament.  But Christianity has evolved to embrace the diversity of the denominations.  Islam, on the other hand, has stayed much the same – violent and intolerant.

…Supporters of Islam, whether they are Moslem or not, ask (or rather, demand) tolerance, empathy, sensitivity, and understanding for their religion.  However, it doesn’t seem to be a two-way street…

The horror in France this past week only serves to illustrate the intolerance of the so-called “Religion of Peace.”  It also shows that appeasement will not hold the radical Islamic terrorist at bay – France has allowed various Muslim communities to form their own Sharia courts, superseding French law as well as declaring those same areas “off-limits” to their own police.

Obviously, all this has done is encourage more and more concessions from the French, i.e., insult the Prophet and you will die.  From The Daily Telegraph (which is an excellent read):

EVERY attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists is an attack against freedom of speech — whether they’re terrorising journalists and cartoonists at a magazine in Paris or bystanders having a quiet coffee in Sydney.

These callous cowards seek to silence dissenting voices by waging a war of terror against anyone who dares question their twisted, totalitarian world view.

All one has to do is look across the world at the violent conflicts in the Middle East and Africa perpetuated by groups such as Boko Haram, al Quada, and ISIS to understand that intolerance of other religions or of criticism is not part of the Islamic faith.  Again, from The Daily Telegraph:

It is worth noting that, while the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo poked fun at Islam, it also regularly satirised Christianity and Judaism. And yet there have been no attacks by enraged Catholics or Jews.

This reveals the lie that all religions are equally bloodthirsty; in the 21st century only one religion is at the centre of terror attacks around the world.

We have followers of one religion who think they are entitled to butcher those who offend their prophet?

Frankly, if your all powerful deity is so fragile a cartoon poses a threat then you may want to reconsider your belief system.

From an earlier post:

A religion that goes ballistic over cartoons and cannot stand scrutiny is a religion that doesn’t need excuses, but accountability for it’s actions and justification for its existence. To state that it is a religion of peace and yet foment violence against non-believers is hypocritical in the extreme.

And this from The American Thinker’s Selwyn Duke:

Many interesting lessons on tolerance could be learned from the Muslim world. Note that when pious Muslims perceive something as negative (this isn’t to imply that all their perceptions are accurate), they often stop at nothing to wipe it out. Just consider the tens of thousands of non-Muslims killed and thousands of churches burned by jihadists during the last decade, the enforcement of Sharia law, and the Muslim-conquered parts of European cities euphemistically known as no-go zones.

Folks, what is happening in Europe is only a precursor to what will happen here in the United States should this nonsense continue.  Already, there are numerous reports of “honor” killings, requests for Sharia-based courts in Moslem communities, and multiple lawsuits brought by Muslims to force zoning law changes and restaurant menus to “conform” to the Islamic belief system in the United States!

It also doesn’t help that we have a President that states in a 2012 speech to the Useless Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  May I remind the President of the First Amendment to the Constitution that he has sworn twice to uphold:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Freedom of Speech is fundamental to our system of government, and part of our society.  If the press and various artists throughout the country have the right to lampoon, criticize, and otherwise mock Christianity and other religions, then the same applies to Islam – you cannot have it both ways.

And this is exactly why the Islamic faith as practiced by the “faithful” Muslim is incompatible with the United States Constitution – Islam combines government and religion into one package.  For instance, Saudi blogger Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes for blasphemy, i.e., writing non-conforming views on Islam.

And yet, our Media self-censors itself out of fear of an Islamic backlash.  C.S. Lewis wrote this 70 years ago about the Media’s inexorable march toward political correctness with words:

“It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by an unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to produce her…It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.” —C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”

The Progressive/Liberals in the Media and in Politics have been making excuses for the violent actions of the Islamic Radicals long enough.  “Workplace violence” when a person shouts “Allahu Akbar” needs to be reclassified as “Domestic Terrorism By Islamic Radicals” to get it back on the radar as the threat it needs to be. There is a need to treat terrorist actions by Islamic Radicals the same way as Thomas Jefferson did with the Barbary Pirates instead of the First Lady tweeting out a hashtag with a sad face.

Finally, one last excerpt from a previous post:

Whether we like it or not, I believe that the Islamic terrorists are going to do their damnest to make this into a religious war from whatever it can be called now. They will use the classic good vs. evil argument, an us-vs.-them conflict in the name of a jihad (religious war, for those of you in Rio Linda). They will plot, plan, and execute attacks that will cause large numbers of casualties. And the elites idiots among us will wring their hands crying, “We don’t understand! We were talking!” Understand this, you Brie-eaters – there are people in the world that want to kill you just for the reason that you exist!! And we still seem to pursue the idiotic mantra of appeasement to those who wish nothing more than to destroy our country and subjugate us to their religion.

To otherwise ignore a threat, internal as well as external, is suicide by neglect.  And that, my friends, is not the legacy I would want to leave behind.

What Lives Do Matter?

I’m going to make something perfectly clear before I start on this post:

I am not a racist.  I do not believe that any one race is superior to another.  I also don’t care what race, sex, gender or religion you are; no one deserves to be discriminated against.  A person also does not deserve any special privileges depending on what race, gender, sexual preference, or religion they may be.  I also do not believe that anyone should enjoy special “privileges” in getting a leg up on any other race or group to equalize a perceived “social injustice.”

The continued protests of various groups over the holiday season sickens me.  The protests, violent or not, illustrate to me that these groups cherry pick the topics and facts to fit their agenda or agendas.  For instance:

“Black Lives Matter” – shouldn’t it be “All Lives Matter?”  Not to the groups with an agenda.  Instead of focusing on what the facts of the case are, it’s blame the cops for the death of a person committing a criminal act.  If black lives really do matter, shouldn’t the protests occur in neighborhoods where black on black crime (robberies, rapes, and murders) happen at an alarming rate far above the national average?  Furthermore, black on white crime is hardly mentioned in the news, while white on black crime is over-reported.

Let’s look at some actual crime statistics from the FBI:

image

Looks like black on white murder happens a little over twice as much as white on black murder.  Wouldn’t be able to tell that from the news reports…but it is mentioned in the following article from the Minneapolis StarTribune.

Today, after a civil-rights revolution (culminating in the election of the nation’s first African-American president) and $15 trillion spent on a feckless war on poverty (the official poverty rate hasn’t budged), more than 70 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Consequently, unemployment and poverty remain far higher for blacks than for the rest of Americans. More disturbing, however, is the elephant in the living room that no one in the public eye seems interesting in addressing — appalling levels of crime committed by young African-American males.

One reason the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair garnered so much attention was the unusual nature of a white man (“white Hispanic” according to CNN) allegedly accosting a black teen. Sadly, when it comes to interracial crime, the reverse is anything but rare. To wit:

  • New York City law enforcement confirms that a 62-year-old man has died from injuries suffered at the hands of a suspect who declared he was “going to punch the first white man that I see.”
  • Two women, aged 24 and 32, are gang-raped by a dozen youths in a Delaware park known for such brazen crimes.
  • An 88-year-old veteran of World War II is brutally beaten to death with flashlights outside a Spokane, Wash., lodge by two men between 16 and 19 years of age.
  • Three wannabe gang members, two of whom were black, shoot down Australian college student Chris Lane “for the fun of it.”
  • St. Paul resident Ray Widstrand is nearly beaten to death via flash mob-style violence on the city’s chaotic East Side.
  • A 13-year-old boy is brutally beaten by three other teens on a Florida school bus, all captured on video.
  • Another 13-year-old is doused in gasoline and set on fire by perpetrators in Kansas City telling him, “You get what you deserve, white boy.”
  • 22-year-old Jody Patzner is murdered in cold blood by three teens for his bicycle in north Minneapolis — with hardly a mention of the suspects’ race by authorities or local media.

These acts of unspeakable violence perpetrated by black offenders on white victims rarely get much media attention, for fear of “subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion,” as one well-known newspaper editor recently put it.

Yet they are no statistical anomaly. While most violent crime is indeed intra-racial, 26.7 percent of homicides where the victim is a stranger are interracial. And in 2008, the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was seven times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000), according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Accounting for population differences, whites are simply far more likely to be victims of interracial crime than blacks. That, of course, didn’t stop Jesse Jackson from telling the Los Angeles Times at the height of the Zimmerman frenzy that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”

Folks, the nonsense must stop – there are those who profit or gain power by such division, tactics, fear-mongering, and rabblerousing.  The bottom line is that all lives matter, no matter what race or color you may be.  I leave you with this quote:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” – Booker T. Washington