The 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest

STAGE 1: INFILTRATION

Muslims begin moving to non-Muslim countries in increasing numbers and the beginning of cultural conflicts are visible, though often subtle.

• First migration wave to non-Muslim “host” country.
• Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the host society.
• Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful & Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism (even though Islam is not a ‘race’).
• High Muslim birth rate in host country increase Muslim population.
• Mosques used to spread Islam and dislike of host country & culture.
• Calls to criminalize “Islamophobia” as a hate crime.
• Threatened legal action for perceived discrimination.
• Offers of “interfaith dialogue” to indoctrinate non-Muslims.

How many nations are suffering from Islamic infiltration? One? A handful? Nearly every nation? The Islamic ‘leadership” of the Muslim Brotherhood and others wish to dissolve each nation’s sovereignty and replace it with the global imposition of Islamic sharia law. Sharia law, based on the koran, sira and hadith, condemns liberty and forbids equality and is inconsistent with the laws of all Western nations. As the author and historian Serge Trifkovic states:
“The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history.”

STAGE 2:   CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

Muslim immigrants and host country converts continue demands for accommodation in employment, education, social services, financing and courts.

• Proselytizing increases; Establishment and Recruitment of Jihadi cells.
• Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population to Islam.
• Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
• Efforts to destroy historic evidence that reveal true Islamism.
• Increased anti-western propaganda and psychological warfare.
• Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (communists, anarchists).
• Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint.
• Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslims.
• Efforts to introduce blasphemy and hate laws in order to silence critics.
• Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and immigration.
• Use of charities to recruit supporters and fund jihad.
• Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of host society from within.
• Development of Muslim political base in non-Muslim host society.
• Islamic Financial networks fund political growth, acquisition of land.
• Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
• Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes.
• Greater demands to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
• Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives in hidden locations.
• Overt disregard/rejection of non-Muslim society’s legal system, culture.
• Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions including and especially Jews and Christians.

Is there a pattern here? Theo van Gogh is murdered in the Netherlands for ‘insulting’ Islam; the Organization of the Islamic Conference demands ‘anti-blasphemy’ laws through the United Nations; France is set afire regularly by ‘youths’ (read Muslims); the rise of (dis-) honor killings…holocaust denial…anti-Semitism…deception re the tenets of Islam; hatred toward Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists.  The pattern for all to see is the rise of Islamic intolerance and the covert/cultural jihad to remake host societies into sharia-compliant worlds – to remove host sovereignty and replace it with Islamic sharia law.  Sharia law that condemns earthly liberty and individual freedom, that forbids equality among faiths and between the sexes, that rejects the concept of nations outside the global house of Islam, that of dar al-Islam.

STAGE 3: OPEN WAR w/ LEADERSHIP & CULTURE

Open violence to impose Sharia law and associated cultural restrictions; rejection of host government, subjugation of other religions and customs.

• Intentional efforts to undermine the host government & culture.
• Acts of barbarity to intimidate citizens and foster fear and submission.
• Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.
• All opposition is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.
• Mass execution of non-Muslims.
• Widespread ethnic cleansing by Islamic militias.
• Rejection and defiance of host society secular laws or culture.
• Murder of “moderate” Muslim intellectuals who don’t support Islamization.
• Destruction of churches, synagogues and other non-Muslim institutions.
• Women are restricted further in accordance with Sharia law.
• Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, bombings.
• Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
• Imposition of Sharia law

The website www.thereligionofpeace.com keeps track of the number of violent jihad attacks as best it can. The site lists more than 14,000 attacks since September 2001. It is worth a visit. What is occurring, however, that is likely inestimable are events where muslims are bullied by other muslims for not being “muslim enough,” where non-Muslims are intimidated into doing or not doing what they desire, where remnant populations are in a death spiral simply for being non-muslim in a predominantly muslim area. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists Animists and Atheists meet with death, property destruction or confiscation, forced conversion, rape, excessive taxation (the jizya), enslavement, riotous mobs and various other forms of islam (in-) justice at the hands of muslims in Sudan, Philippines, Kenya, Malaysia, India, etc.  And let us not forget ‘death to Apostates’ the world over.

STAGE 4: Totalitarian ISLAMIC “THEOCRACY”

Islam becomes the only religious-political-judicial-cultural ideology.

• Sharia becomes the “law of the land.
• All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
• Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.
• Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.
• All religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed.
• Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, populations and symbols in country (Buddhas, houses of worship, art, etc).

The House of Islam (“peace”), dar al-Islam, includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, to the soul crushing, liberty-condemning, discriminatory law of Sharia. The rest of the world in in the House of War, dar al-harb, because it does not submit to Sharia, and exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of ‘Allah.’ No non-Muslim state or its citizens are “innocent,” and remain viable targets of war for not believing in ‘Allah.’ The Christian, Jewish, Coptic, Hindu and Zoroastrian peoples of world have suffered under subjugation for centuries. The Dhimmi-esque are forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair existing ones, economically crippled by the heavy jizya (tax), socially humiliated, legally discriminated against, criminally targeted and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness, fear and vulnerability by Islamic governments.
It should be noted that forced conversions (Egypt) and slavery (Sudan) are still reported. Homosexuals have been hung in the public square in Iran. Young girls are married to old men. Apostates are threatened with death. “Honor” killings are routine. Women are legally second-class citizens, though Muslim males insist they are “treated better” than in the West. These more obvious manifestations may distract from some less obvious ones such as the lack of intellectual inquiry in science, narrow scope of writing, all but non-existent art and music, sexual use and abuse of youth and women, and the disregard for personal fulfillment, joy and wonder. Look into the eyes of a recently married 12 year old girl to see the consequence of the moral deprivation spawned by Islam.
The 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest is also available in pdf format for easy sharing as part of “Liberty vs Sharia“

White people rioting!!!!!?????????

If you missed the news coverage we’re here to fill you in.
A neighborhood watch man, an adult carrying a concealed weapon, shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy and was just found not-guilty by a jury after two days of deliberations.

“I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,” [the shooter] said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the [young boy’s] family; it’s still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over.”
As deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, [the shooter] admits he didn’t know how it would all turn out.
“I was nervous of course,” he said. “You never know what direction this whole thing is going to turn, so I have no idea. But it worked out and I feel that justice (was) served today.”
[The boy’s] family members say justice wasn’t served. They say [he] was murdered in cold blood, that he’d never been in trouble and [the shooter] acted as judge, jury and executioner.
“The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said [the boy’s] father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”
[The shooter] says he acted in self defense when he confronted [the boy]…

Perhaps the reason you missed the story is because here are pictures of the shooter and the victim…







The one on the TOP, in the hoodie, is Roderick Scott, the shooter. The one on the BOTTOM  is the dead kid, Christopher Cervini.
I’m shocked you missed President Obama’s statement when he found out about the shooting, “If the white half of me had a son he would have looked like Christopher Cervini.”
You might have even missed the uproar surrounding the Department of Justice having their Community Relations Services group in Rochester, NY organize demonstrations of white upstate New Yorkers demanding a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate this cold blooded murder of a gentle white boy by a black man wearing a hoodie.
Actually, I’m not shocked that you missed all that news since it wasn’t really news outside of Rochester, NY. Here’s a summary of what happened.

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.
Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

Based on what I’ve been able to find, the jury reached the correct verdict in Scott’s case just as they did in the Zimmerman trial.
I can understand how Christopher Cervini’s dad could say what he said just like I can understand how Trayvon Martin’s parents can say what they say. It’s called “grief”. It’s also called “denial”.
I also understand why we haven’t heard a word from President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP or anything about expanded investigations from the Department of Justice.
That is called “hypocrisy”.

WHERE ARE YOU dear leader   "ODUMBO"      SHOW YOU WHITE SIDE TO ALL.................. you orally flatulent   raciest buffoon

Obama’s Executive Ordered Study Report On Gun Violence Slaps Him In The Face

July 5, 2013 by Tim Brown

If you recall, back on January 16, 2013, standing with little children, Barack Hussein Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people and issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. Among those was number 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Well friends, that study did happen and it destroyed Obama’s position on guns and gun violence.
Well like all things in government, the people tasked with the study simply directed the study to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. However, many people have not heard about the report. Could it be that much of the information in the report didn’t quite “jive” with Obama and the anti-gun crowd?
Actually, that’s exactly what it did. In fact, not only did they not hold any water for Obama’s claims regarding gun violence, it poured it on him, pretty much backing every Second Amendment lover’s argument that has been made.
The report, titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence, which identifies the particular topics of gun violence to be researched over the next few years, made the point that the majority of deaths that take place annually by the use of a firearm are not related to crime, but to suicide.
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States,” reads the study.
That’s obviously not a good thing. However, it indicates that many Americans suffer from both a spiritual and mental health issue. With that said, let’s not then run to government to deal with mental health issues. I’ve warned before and I’ll warn you now: That would be a very bad move.
Here’s the great news in the report though. It points out that virtually every study which “assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” discovered the same thing. Those using their guns for self-defense “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
Oh and remember how we’ve been told by the Obama administration and the socialist gun grabbers that guns aren’t used that often in self-defense? Well, the report shows that isn’t true either.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”

Yeah, not as uncommon as the propagandists would have us believe.
In all fairness, the report does point out that “some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).”
While the report does maintain that this will always be a controversy in the field, the study does state that “the estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys,” while the “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim,” reads the report.
The report does have a downside. It indicates that we have the most firearm related deaths of any western nation. However, the good news is that the study claims that is rapidly declining.

“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” However, “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.”
Additionally, the report goes on to inform about other declines. “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report continues, adding that accidental shootings were declining as well.

The report also states that “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
While everyone recognizes that there will always be crime and violence and yes, even gun violence, the fact of the matter is that gun control is not the answer, except to make sure you control your own gun and hit your target. For sure there will be more data added as the study continues, but already what they do have from the past indicates something that is completely opposite from what this administration has presented and there is no doubt that any information that comes out of the study will be thoroughly scrutinized.
The report also referenced video game violence to see how it might contribute to gun violence, but said that more research would need to be done and no research to the present has been conclusive.
Anyone wondering why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein aren’t running to the state run media to air out this little report? It’s because they have egg on their face.
One last question that is on my mind is, how much did will this study end up costing the American taxpayer?

The Liberal Bigot

Like all organisms the liberal bigot is an evolved creature, although the character traits which made him – hypocrisy, the wish to create the world in his own image, paternalism, a sense of moral superiority, a desire to gratuitously interfere with the lives of others, false humility, self-indulgent masochism and a pathological refusal to accept evidence which contradicts emotionally based beliefs – are as old as civilised man. Those who know their history will readily recognize the basic personality of the liberal bigot, for it is that of the Puritan.

Very primitive types existed in the ancient world – Plato's Socrates has much of the liberal bigot's smugness and ability to ignore the facts of human nature – but it was not until the eighteenth century that creatures displaying most of the modern liberal bigot's general features emerged in the shape of men such as William Wilberforce and Jeremy Bentham.

But Wilberforce and Bentham still had some moral sense and it is Shelley who perhaps first displays the peculiar humbugging amorality of the modern liberal bigot with his continual prating about his love for 'mankind', whilst behaving abominably to all and sundry.

The nineteen thirties saw the first indubitably modern liberal bigot – described by Friedrich Hayek after he found one called Harold Laski at the London Schoool of Economics. To be sure Laski did not have certain of the detailed traits associated with the liberal bigot of our time – for example the hatred of academic success in the working class – nor did he possess the instinct to dissemble his paternalism. But he had that quintessential quality of the fully developed liberal bigot, an intellectualized pseudo-morality or, to put it more exactly, ethical rules without moral context.

Since the discovery of Laski, liberal bigots have become increasingly common and they are now a very widely spread pest. They are particularly fond of habitats such as politics, the arts, universities, the media and the social services. They can be found in all Western societies, but nowhere do the creatures have such success as in the Anglo-Saxon world, where they have captured political control of their societies.

The liberal bigot's ideological and psychological starting point is the fantasy, which he maintains in the face of all the evidence, that man is a generally malleable creature who can be changed by social engineering to create a world fit for liberal bigots; although in so thinking the liberal bigot misunderstands his own psychology for he would find such a place supremely uncongenial. No more would he be able to posture in the public eye because there would be no matters occasioning expressions of liberal bigot moral outrage or excuses for paternalistic action. Even more alarmingly, in a realized liberal bigot society, he might be forced to match his behavior to his words. However, he may rest easy in his bed for such a world is but fit for dreams.

The liberal bigot has but one general principle, but what a principle it is, being so all-embracing that no other is needed. He holds as an article of faith that no discrimination should be made between human beings, regardless of man's natural inclinations and Nature's distinction by sex, sexual inclination, race, colour, culture, class, talent, intelligence, education, personality, physical condition and age – unless, of course, the person judged is female, homosexual, non-Caucasian, poor, stupid, uneducated, old or crippled. Then the liberal bigot may discriminate to his heart's content, although in the weasel-worded manner of Lenin's 'democratic centralism' he calls it 'positive discrimination' and thinks it not in the least 'judgemental'. This he has institutionalized in a totalitarian system called political correctness.

Above all things the liberal bigot delights in what he calls 'racism', which in practice means the white man defending his own interests or extolling his own culture. This the liberal bigot has raised to the status of the great modern blasphemy. Just as once the Holy Office caused men to be burned for denying the literal truth of

Like all organisms the liberal bigot is an evolved creature, although the character traits which made him – hypocrisy, the wish to create the world in his own image, paternalism, a sense of moral superiority, a desire to gratuitously interfere with the lives of others, false humility, self-indulgent masochism and a pathological refusal to accept evidence which contradicts emotionally based beliefs – are as old as civilized man. Those who know their history will readily recognize the basic personality of the liberal bigot, for it is that of the Puritan.

Very primitive types existed in the ancient world – Plato's Socrates has much of the liberal bigot's smugness and ability to ignore the facts of human nature – but it was not until the eighteenth century that creatures displaying most of the modern liberal bigot's general features emerged in the shape of men such as William Wilberforce and Jeremy Bentham.

But Wilberforce and Bentham still had some moral sense and it is Shelley who perhaps first displays the peculiar humbugging amorality of the modern liberal bigot with his continual prating about his love for 'mankind', whilst behaving abominably to all and sundry.

The nineteen thirties saw the first indubitably modern liberal bigot – described by Friedrich Hayek after he found one called Harold Laski at the London Schoool of Economics. To be sure Laski did not have certain of the detailed traits associated with the liberal bigot of our time – for example the hatred of academic success in the working class – nor did he possess the instinct to dissemble his paternalism. But he had that quintessential quality of the fully developed liberal bigot, an intellectualized pseudo-morality or, to put it more exactly, ethical rules without moral context.

Since the discovery of Laski, liberal bigots have become increasingly common and they are now a very widely spread pest. They are particularly fond of habitats such as politics, the arts, universities, the media and the social services. They can be found in all Western societies, but nowhere do the creatures have such success as in the Anglo-Saxon world, where they have captured political control of their societies.

The liberal bigot's ideological and psychological starting point is the fantasy, which he maintains in the face of all the evidence, that man is a generally malleable creature who can be changed by social engineering to create a world fit for liberal bigots; although in so thinking the liberal bigot misunderstands his own psychology for he would find such a place supremely uncongenial. No more would he be able to posture in the public eye because there would be no matters occasioning expressions of liberal bigot moral outrage or excuses for paternalistic action. Even more alarmingly, in a realised liberal bigot society, he might be forced to match his behaviour to his words. However, he may rest easy in his bed for such a world is but fit for dreams.

The liberal bigot has but one general principle, but what a principle it is, being so all-embracing that no other is needed. He holds as an article of faith that no discrimination should be made between human beings, regardless of man's natural inclinations and Nature's distinction by sex, sexual inclination, race, colour, culture, class, talent, intelligence, education, personality, physical condition and age – unless, of course, the person judged is female, homosexual, non-Caucasian, poor, stupid, uneducated, old or crippled. Then the liberal bigot may discriminate to his heart's content, although in the weasel-worded manner of Lenin's 'democratic centralism' he calls it 'positive discrimination' and thinks it not in the least 'judgemental'. This he has institutionalized in a totalitarian system called political correctness.

Above all things the liberal bigot delights in what he calls 'racism', which in practice means the white man defending his own interests or extolling his own culture. This the liberal bigot has raised to the status of the great modern blasphemy. Just as once the Holy Office caused men to be burned for denying the literal truth of transubstantiation, so just as surely does the liberal bigot wish to immolate those who distinguish amongst their fellows on the most natural grounds of all, a sense of kinship, of shared culture and experience. So central is this tenet to modern liberal bigotry that the liberal bigot has moved in the past forty years from believing that racial discrimination is bad to asserting that multiracial societies are a positive good.

The fact that such societies always experience considerable friction between their various racial components is not, of course, taken as evidence by the liberal bigot that he is wrong, but as ammunition for promoting more restrictions on the white population and further reason for indulging in positive orgies of European cultural denigration.

At some level the liberal bigot realises that his creed is at odds with reality. So, following in the footsteps of religious intellectuals such as Aquinas and political theorists such as Marx, he creates an elaborate fictional world which is baldly represented as 'natural' or 'right', and reality 'unnatural' and 'wrong', even though intellectually he would deny any objective morality or measure of cultural worth.

Like all those who adopt intellectually indefensible ideologies, the liberal bigot makes disbelief a heresy and punishes it with a gamut of sanctions which range from simple expressions of distaste through exclusion from public life to the passing of laws threatening fines and imprisonment for those who express the 'wrong' opinions.

Morality exercises a peculiar difficulty for the liberal bigot for he is caught between believing in moral relativism and a desire to impose his own standards on the world, for which he cannot, necessarily, have any absolute sanction. This dilemma is partially solved by the development of an amoral personality and by using doublethink to hide the intellectual contradiction.

The liberal bigot decries 'nationalism' but he is also a firm advocate of cultural expression, provided, of course, that the people concerned are within his approved ideological circle of deserving causes. That a sense of cultural worth and identity is practically indistinguishable from nationalism the liberal bigot cannot accept, so he represents the two as opposites. When pressed with disloyalty, he often makes a spurious distinction between patriotism and nationalism and says he is 'proud' of such things as Britain's history of providing sanctuary for refugees, which trait, when translated to the nature and level of modern population movements, is of course of the greatest possible disadvantage to the receiving country. If he is in the media he will crudely mock the idea of national feeling by being absurdly jingoistic in trivial matters as in the statement: "The space shuttle took off today. The plastic wrappers for the food were British." His hysterical laughter at any suggestion that Churchill or Wellington might be worthy of respect changes to a childlike reverence when his thoughts turn to such vicious charlatans as Che Guevara.

The liberal bigot wishes to enjoy the material wealth, physical security and intellectual tolerance of the advanced civilisation in which he lives, whilst decrying all the institutions and habits which have produced this happy state. He publicly laments such things as poverty, but he reacts most strongly to suggestions that his personal wealth should be expended on those causes supposedly dear to his heart – it is to the public purse that the liberal bigot looks, first, second and last. He extols the virtues of 'working class' or 'ethnic' customs and values, but takes good care to avoid contact with unreconstructed members of such groups by living well away from or cocooning himself within a gentrified part of their areas.

In truth, the liberal bigot has little knowledge of the groups whom he purports to champion. Loving humanity in the mass, he finds their individual reality at odds with his ideology and personal inclinations. Even worse, he cannot but suspect that the downtrodden prole or black does not take him seriously, that in some curious way he is patronised by the very people he imagines desperately need his help. Now if there is one thing which enrages the liberal bigot above all others, it is not being taken seriously. While uttering a great deal of cant about how much he is against snobbery, how he is just a common man no different from anyone else in the street, he is mortally offended when he is taken at his word.

The liberal bigot decries privilege but excepts it eagerly when the beneficiary is himself or other liberal bigots. How cleverly he creates jobs and status for those of a like mind. He is always pushing for more, and better paid, social workers, teachers and race relations operatives, whom he constantly refers to as 'professionals'. Indeed, on the question of formal status he can be decidedly touchy. For one who supposedly embraces egalitarianism this is rather strange, but then not so odd when his propensity for hypocrisy is considered, for there is nothing he likes so much as having his cake and eating it.

The liberal bigot is the enemy of social opportunity for all but his like-minded fellows. The happy recipient of social and educational opportunities which permit him to enter the magic circle of liberal bigotry, his voice is always to be heard berating the value of such things for what he calls 'the underprivileged'. To this end he speaks of the worth of 'working class' and 'ethnic' cultures which, of course, cannot be preserved if 'middle class' values are foisted upon their members. And this is scarcely to be wondered at, for the liberal bigot is essentially undemocratic. A politically sophisticated and educated working class capable of effectively challenging liberal bigot ideas is the last thing the liberal bigot wants. Besides, without them who would he have to patronise so superbly?

The self-conscious masochism of the liberal bigot knows no bounds. Like the medieval Christian who cried "I am the humblest of men", he commits the sin of pride in a peculiarly distasteful manner as he seeks approbation under the guise of self-denigration. How diligently he vies with others to prove that his society is the guiltiest of colonial and cultural oppression; how relentlessly he denigrates his own people's cultural and intellectual achievements.

What will be the future of the liberal bigot? Like the nautilus with its ever increasing spiral, the liberal bigot continues to evolve regardless of specific advantage. He acknowledges no sense of belonging or cultural indebtedness, whilst exhibiting a truly unthinking arrogance in his belief that no matter what he does or what cause he supports, his own person will be inviolate, both intellectually and materially.

In fact, the liberal bigot exhibits the classic behaviour of the parasite. He enjoys benefits gained at the expense of the host, in this case Anglo-Saxon society. But parasites can only be successful in the long run if they do not so weaken the host that it is eventually unable to support them.

Consequently, the liberal bigot is unlikely to survive in his present form for very long because he shows no capacity for controlling his voracious appetite for incontinent abuse of his environment.

, so just as surely does the liberal bigot wish to immolate those who distinguish amongst their fellows on the most natural grounds of all, a sense of kinship, of shared culture and experience. So central is this tenet to modern liberal bigotry that the liberal bigot has moved in the past forty years from believing that racial discrimination is bad to asserting that multiracial societies are a positive good.

The fact that such societies always experience considerable friction between their various racial components is not, of course, taken as evidence by the liberal bigot that he is wrong, but as ammunition for promoting more restrictions on the white population and further reason for indulging in positive orgies of European cultural denigration.

At some level the liberal bigot realizes that his creed is at odds with reality. So, following in the footsteps of religious intellectuals such as Aquinas and political theorists such as Marx, he creates an elaborate fictional world which is baldly represented as 'natural' or 'right', and reality 'unnatural' and 'wrong', even though intellectually he would deny any objective morality or measure of cultural worth.

Like all those who adopt intellectually indefensible ideologies, the liberal bigot makes disbelief a heresy and punishes it with a gamut of sanctions which range from simple expressions of distaste through exclusion from public life to the passing of laws threatening fines and imprisonment for those who express the 'wrong' opinions.

Morality exercises a peculiar difficulty for the liberal bigot for he is caught between believing in moral relativism and a desire to impose his own standards on the world, for which he cannot, necessarily, have any absolute sanction. This dilemma is partially solved by the development of an amoral personality and by using doublethink to hide the intellectual contradiction.

The liberal bigot decries 'nationalism' but he is also a firm advocate of cultural expression, provided, of course, that the people concerned are within his approved ideological circle of deserving causes. That a sense of cultural worth and identity is practically indistinguishable from nationalism the liberal bigot cannot accept, so he represents the two as opposites. When pressed with disloyalty, he often makes a spurious distinction between patriotism and nationalism and says he is 'proud' of such things as Britain's history of providing sanctuary for refugees, which trait, when translated to the nature and level of modern population movements, is of course of the greatest possible disadvantage to the receiving country. If he is in the media he will crudely mock the idea of national feeling by being absurdly jingoistic in trivial matters as in the statement: "The space shuttle took off today. The plastic wrappers for the food were British." His hysterical laughter at any suggestion that Churchill or Wellington might be worthy of respect changes to a childlike reverence when his thoughts turn to such vicious charlatans as Che Guevara.

The liberal bigot wishes to enjoy the material wealth, physical security and intellectual tolerance of the advanced civilisation in which he lives, whilst decrying all the institutions and habits which have produced this happy state. He publicly laments such things as poverty, but he reacts most strongly to suggestions that his personal wealth should be expended on those causes supposedly dear to his heart – it is to the public purse that the liberal bigot looks, first, second and last. He extols the virtues of 'working class' or 'ethnic' customs and values, but takes good care to avoid contact with unreconstructed members of such groups by living well away from or cocooning himself within a gentrified part of their areas.

In truth, the liberal bigot has little knowledge of the groups whom he purports to champion. Loving humanity in the mass, he finds their individual reality at odds with his ideology and personal inclinations. Even worse, he cannot but suspect that the downtrodden prole or black does not take him seriously, that in some curious way he is patronized by the very people he imagines desperately need his help. Now if there is one thing which enrages the liberal bigot above all others, it is not being taken seriously. While uttering a great deal of cant about how much he is against snobbery, how he is just a common man no different from anyone else in the street, he is mortally offended when he is taken at his word.

The liberal bigot decries privilege but excepts it eagerly when the beneficiary is himself or other liberal bigots. How cleverly he creates jobs and status for those of a like mind. He is always pushing for more, and better paid, social workers, teachers and race relations operatives, whom he constantly refers to as 'professionals'. Indeed, on the question of formal status he can be decidedly touchy. For one who supposedly embraces egalitarianism this is rather strange, but then not so odd when his propensity for hypocrisy is considered, for there is nothing he likes so much as having his cake and eating it.

The liberal bigot is the enemy of social opportunity for all but his likeminded fellows. The happy recipient of social and educational opportunities which permit him to enter the magic circle of liberal bigotry, his voice is always to be heard berating the value of such things for what he calls 'the underprivileged'. To this end he speaks of the worth of 'working class' and 'ethnic' cultures which, of course, cannot be preserved if 'middle class' values are foisted upon their members. And this is scarcely to be wondered at, for the liberal bigot is essentially undemocratic. A politically sophisticated and educated working class capable of effectively challenging liberal bigot ideas is the last thing the liberal bigot wants. Besides, without them who would he have to patronize so superbly?

The self-conscious masochism of the liberal bigot knows no bounds. Like the medieval Christian who cried "I am the humblest of men", he commits the sin of pride in a peculiarly distasteful manner as he seeks approbation under the guise of self-denigration. How diligently he vies with others to prove that his society is the guiltiest of colonial and cultural oppression; how relentlessly he denigrates his own people's cultural and intellectual achievements.

What will be the future of the liberal bigot? Like the nautilus with its ever increasing spiral, the liberal bigot continues to evolve regardless of specific advantage. He acknowledges no sense of belonging or cultural indebtedness, whilst exhibiting a truly unthinking arrogance in his belief that no matter what he does or what cause he supports, his own person will be inviolate, both intellectually and materially.

In fact, the liberal bigot exhibits the classic behavior of the parasite. He enjoys benefits gained at the expense of the host, in this case Anglo-Saxon society. But parasites can only be successful in the long run if they do not so weaken the host that it is eventually unable to support them.

Consequently, the liberal bigot is unlikely to survive in his present form for very long because he shows no capacity for controlling his voracious appetite for incontinent abuse of his environment.

Barack Obama bombs in Berlin: a weak, underwhelming address from a floundering president

  by Nile Gardiner 

When John F. Kennedy delivered his “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate on June 26, 1963, 450,000 people flocked to hear him. Fifty years later a far more subdued invitation-only crowd of 4,500 showed up to hear Barack Obama speak at the same location in Berlin. As The National Journal noted, “he didn’t come away with much, winning just a smattering of applause from a crowd that was one-hundredth the size of JFK’s,” and far smaller than the 200,000 boisterous Germans who had listened to his 2008 address as a presidential candidate. JFK had a clear message when he came to Berlin a half century ago – the free world must stand up to Communist tyranny. 24 years later, President Reagan stood in the same spot famously calling on the Soviets to “tear down this wall.” Reagan’s speech was a seminal moment that ushered in the downfall of an evil empire, and gave hope to tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain. It was a display of strength and conviction by the leader of the free world, sending an unequivocal message of solidarity with those who were fighting for freedom in the face of a monstrous totalitarian ideology.

In stark contrast to that of his presidential predecessors, Barack Obama’s message on Wednesday was pure mush, another clichéd “citizens of the world” polemic with little substance. This was a speech big on platitudes and hopeless idealism, while containing much that was counter-productive for the world’s superpower. Ultimately it was little more than a laundry list of Obama’s favourite liberal pet causes, including cutting nuclear weapons, warning about climate change, putting an end to all wars, shutting Guantanamo, ending global poverty, and backing the European Project. It was a combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries, and the championing of more big government solutions.

There was little in this speech that advances US interests, or makes the world a safer place. Completely missing from Obama’s address was a call for the West to stand up to the rising threat of Islamist militancy, the defence of Christians facing huge levels of persecution and intimidation in the Middle East, strong condemnation of Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and any criticism of growing authoritarianism in Russia. The president paid lip service to the NATO alliance, which has proved critical in preserving Europe’s security for over 60 years, but made no call for the alliance to be strengthened in the wake of waning support and investment in Europe.

President Obama’s words may well have pleased his German government hosts, content to see a United States whose ambitions as a military power have been significantly clipped since George W. Bush left office in 2009. But Barack Obama underscored again why he is no JFK or Ronald Reagan. In front of the Brandenburg Gate, Obama sounded more like the president of the European Commission than the leader of the free world. It is never a good sign when a US president parrots the language of a Brussels bureaucrat when he is supposed to be a champion of freedom. Obama’s distinctly unimpressive speech in Berlin was another dud from a floundering president whose leadership abroad is just as weak as it is at home

Did you hear about this??????

 

Breaking news

 Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston

BOSTON
National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.

Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

. . . And this, people, is how the American Revolution began .

April 20, 1775 ~JH

http://trollthensa.com

Let's jam up the NSA's scanners

IF MILLIONS OF US, ALL AT THE SAME EXACT TIME, CALL OR EMAIL SOMEONE WITH OUR KEYWORDS-OF-TERROR-FILLED SCRIPT,
WE CAN GIVE OUR NATION’S IMPRESSIVE SURVEILLANCE APPARATUS THE KIND OF TEST IT DESERVES.

They say they don’t read or listen to the contents of our messages. Why not test it out?

It'll be fun.

COUNTDOWN TO THE MASS CALL/EMAIL - 7:00PM EST WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013

5
Hours16
Minutes15
Seconds

AT 7:00 PM EST ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, CALL/EMAIL THIS SCRIPT:

Hey! How’s it going? I’m all right.

My job is so shitty I wish I could overthrow my boss. It’s like this oppressive regime where only true believers in his management techniques will stay around. I work marathon-length hours and he’s made all these changes that have made it the worst architecture firm to work at in Manhattan. Like he moved the office to the Financial District and fired my assistant. She was the only one who knew where the blueprints were! I need access to those blueprints to complete my job! F my life, right? And he keeps trying to start all these new initiatives to boost revenue, but seriously we just need to stick to what we do best. There’s only one true profit center. I seriously feel ready to go on strike at any second.

I just read this article about how these free radical particles can cause the downfall of good health and accelerate aging. These could actually cause death to millions of Americans. If these particles are flying around undetected everywhere, does that mean we’re all radicalized?

Have you seen the second season of Breaking Bad? I just finished it. I couldn’t believe that episode where they poison the guy with ricin! That was the bomb! I won’t say any more because I don’t want to reveal the earth-shattering events to come.

Oh! So I’ve been planning a big trip for the summer. I’m thinking of visiting all of the most famous suspension bridges in the United States. So probably like the Golden Gate Bridge, The Brooklyn Bridge, and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. I’m gonna bring my younger brother and I know he’ll want to go to bars, so I’m thinking of getting him a fake drivers license, but I hope that doesn’t blow up in my face.

Okay, I gotta run! I’m late for flight school. I missed the last class where we learn how to land, so I really can’t miss another one. Talk to you later!

They've done a fine job monitoring us. Let's see how they handle this.

US Order To Shutdown Millions Of Christian Websites Shocks World....... Pakalert

A shocking report authored by the office of Russia’s top religious leader Patriarch Kirill I states that this past week the United States ordered over 10 million Christian websites destroyed that they claimed were a “threat” to their National Security and that the American Internet giant Google quickly responded by making them all disappear.

According to this report, Google first came under assault from the US government in June when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that they had launched an investigation into the company, a move defended against by top Google executive Amit Singhal who aside from claiming the attacks against them were baseless said, “At Google, we’ve always focused on putting the user first.”

After weeks of unrelenting pressure upon them, however, this past week Google, which had refused to answer the baseless charges against them, caved to the US government and announced that their Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who had previously said the charges against them were nonsense, agreed to testify before a US Senate Committee under threat of subpoena.

On the very same day that Google caved into these US governments demands, this report continues, they then announced that they had blacklisted and banned over 11 million websites that had been registered for free through the co.cc subdomain the world over.  Giving as its reason for this largest in history removal of private websites Google asserted that it had the right to pull the plug on sites if they “see a very large fraction of sites on a specific freehost be spammy or low-quality.”     

Co.cc is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Cocos (Keeling) Islands, an Australian territory. It is administered by VeriSign through a subsidiary company eNIC, which promotes it for international registration as “the next .com”; .cc was originally assigned in October 1997 to eNIC Corporation of Seattle WA by the IANA.

Most important to note about the .cc domain, this report points out, is its being preferred by Churches and Christian organizations around the world as “CC” also happens to be an abbreviation for “Christian Church” or “Catholic Church,” especially in Islamic Nations where due to strict laws against Christianity these free co.cc websites were the only way those belonging to this faith were able to communicate with each other.

In this Patriarch Kirill I report as to the “true reason” for the US ordered government shutdown of millions of Christian websites in Islamic Nations it states is the “fundamental shift” undertaken by the Obama regime to support radical Muslim elements instead of the once secular Arab leaders it once did.

The most crucial US turnaround in this regard happened this past week, and as we can read, in part, as reported by the Front Page Magazine News Service:

“The Obama administration is set to begin formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house.”

This news came in a Reuters report Wednesday, quoting a “senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.” Why this official felt it necessary to speak on condition of anonymity is a mystery, given the fact that Barack Obama has never made a secret of his solicitude for the Muslim Brotherhood. Even though the Brotherhood was still outlawed in Egypt at that time, he made a point of inviting leaders of the group to attend his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4, 2009.

Not only that. Obama included the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case among the clerics giving a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies: Ingrid Mattson, then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama’s Inauguration Day – despite the fact that ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood. In fact, so overwhelming is the evidence of ISNA’s involvement with the Brotherhood and Hamas that the previous summer, federal prosecutors had rejected a request from ISNA to remove its unindicted co-conspirator status. Obama even sent his Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention in 2009.”

This gravest danger posed by the US ordered destruction of these millions of Christian websites, this report continues, involves the estimated 20 million Coptic Christians now living in Egypt who, should the Muslim Brotherhood gain control, would face the removal from their homes of all of their children so they could be “educated” in Islamic schools as converts to the Muslim faith.

US author Brad O’Leary in his book “America’s War On Christianity” warns that no one should be surprised about these things as many US regimes, including Obama’s, have waged a decades long war against this faith in their attempt to eradicate it from all forms of public expression, even to outlawing school children from even mentioning the words “God,” “Bible,” or “Jesus Christ” under threat of imprisonment.

Even worse, shocking news is now coming from the United States that the Obama regime has ordered that the words “God Bless” and “Jesus Christ” cannot be used even when burying their military dead, and as we can read, in part, as reported by the Christian Post News Service:

“Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is calling for an investigation into the actions of the Houston National Cemetery director who told pastors and veterans groups to stop using words like “God bless” and “Jesus Christ” during funeral services. Several veterans groups and pastors in the Houston area filed a religious discrimination lawsuit this week, charging that the cemetery’s director, Arleen Ocasio, was censoring prayers and certain religious terms at funerals for veterans.”

Most appalling of all of these things is the vast majority of the American people allowing their once cherished Christian values of home, family and morality to be continued to be stripped away from them with nary a protest as if they have completely forgotten that their religion would have never survived without the countless millions who martyred their lives, including Jesus, so their faith could survive.

To the horrific future lying in store for Christians living in America today should come as no surprise either as prior to his election as President, Obama stated in response to them, “…it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Forgotten by Obama is that those Americans who “cling to their guns and religion” are the exact people that made the Founders of the United States created their Nation for; and though they have survived much since their founding, their silence today as their Nation is allowed to be destroyed shows how truly weak they have become.  And in that weakness lie the seeds of their own destruction, but which they are too ignorant of history to even see as their total destruction looms ever closer.

Palin is right again.

Judge saves 10-year-old from Kathleen Sebelius - the one-woman death panel 

 

By DAN CALABRESE - Palin is right again.
Not that she'll get credit for it, but when Sarah Palin warned of "death panels" resulting from the constructs of ObamaCare, this is exactly what she meant: Someone needs something or they're going to die, and some government bureaucrat who values the systemic ramifications of the matter above all else, gets to decide what will happen.
In this case, DHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made her decision: She would not intervene to save the life of 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan, a cystic fibrosis patient from Pennsylvania. Sarah is, as I write this, weeks away from death if she doesn't get a lung transplant. That, you'd think, would serve as a call to action for anyone who might be able to make the transplant happen. But not Kathleen Sebelius, because adults are also waiting for lungs, and the rules say no one under 12 can be prioritized over adults.
Sebelius claimed rules are rules and she had no authority to intervene, despite a letter from several members of Congress asserting that she absolutely does (including two from Pennsylvania). Sebelius did trouble herself to "order a policy review," but she refused to take action to save Sarah's life.
Fortunately, District Court Judge Michael Baylson issued a restraining order prohibiting Sebelius from applying the policy that will block Sarah from getting the lung transplant. CNN reports:

Janet Murnaghan, Sarah's mother, said the family is "thrilled ... literally jumping for joy."

In a written statement, the family added, "We are experiencing many emotions -- relief, happiness, gratitude and, for the first time in months, hope."

Where someone is placed on the adult lung transplant list depends on several factors -- blood type, distance from donor to potential recipient, and a lung allocation score. The score is derived from medical factors like test results and the patient's diagnosis.

Sarah's parents said her score is a 78. Anything above 60 is considered a high score, according to reports published on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network website.

The Murnaghans had argued that since the number of children's lungs available through organ donation programs is so small, Sarah -- and other pediatric patients like her -- should be added to the list of people waiting for adult lungs, prioritized by severity of their illnesses.

Now let's be clear about exactly what happened here. A policy was put in place by the federal government that said certain people would take priority over others for transplants. When a person proved to be in desperate need of such a transplant - a matter of life and death - a cabinet-level government official refused to intervene, citing the rules, citing limits on her own authority and saying it would take too long at any rate to change the policy.
Lungs are available. A 10-year-old girl needs one or she will die. But a government policy says she can't have one and no one will do anything to set aside or get around the policy so a 10-year-old girl will not die. Or at least no one would until Judge Baylson came along, thank God.
This is the death panel. It is exactly what Palin was talking about. It is not a group of hooded men sitting atop a raised dias, informing unfortunate souls, "You have been selected for death," but it has the exact same effect. The government makes rules to govern the allocation of resources in health care, and the rules leave no room for flexibility when a person's life is on the line and common sense argues that flexibility is absolutely necessary. Only the intervention of this judge, assuming it is allowed to stand, can save this young girl's life - because government has no idea how to stop tripping over its own policies.
By the way, about Sebelius's claim that she couldn't act because she lacks the authority. Two things about that: 1. She doesn't have the authority to shake down the health care industry for money to pay for ObamaCare implementation either, but that's not stopping her. 2. People who believe it is important to make something happen find a way. They make phone calls. They knock on doors. They call in favors. They get done what needs to get done. People who don't really want to help claim they don't have the authority and leave it at that.
We know what Kathleen Sebelius's priorities are. What a despicable woman. Oh, by the way, I don't remember her boss issuing any directive to find a way to help either. Palin has been right about a lot of things.

Very Important Psychology Lesson!!

Psychology 101 - This Is Brilliant!! (Simple truth)


If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same result...all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away.

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment...... with enthusiasm, because he is now part of the "team".

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.

Why, you ask? Because in their minds...that is the way it has always been!

This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and this is why, from time to time: ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.

Next: The Benghazi Select Committee

By Jed Babbin on 5.13.13 @ 6:10AM

It’s enough to make a reporter yearn for Monica Beach.

Which one of these facts doesn’t belong among the others?
• U.S. Marines are on alert to evacuate remaining Americans from Libya.
• On the night of September 11, 2012, Gregory Hicks, a State Department official stationed in Tripoli, had a telephone conversation at 8 pm Washington time — that’s 2 am Tripoli time — with Hillary Clinton.
• The Obama administration had a private meeting with their press allies on Friday and CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson is reportedly under fire for taking a skeptical approach to the administration’s spin on Benghazi.
• Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) hearing last week left far too many questions unanswered.
Okay, you got me: it’s a trick question. None of those things doesn’t belong among the others, and all add up to the conclusion Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) reached in January. The House needs to pass Wolf’s H. Res. 36 and create a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack on Benghazi that took four American lives.
Wolf’s point is simply that the conflicting priorities of congressional committees make the Select Committee the only practicable way to get at the truth. As he pointed out in his letter last Friday to Speaker Boehner, Wolf’s bill is now supported by nearly two-thirds of the Republicans in the House, 139 co-sponsors.
Will Boehner have the guts to pass Wolf’s bill? He should, for a host of reasons both substantive and political. In a Friday editorial the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Across this country’s history, the murder of an American ambassador, the nation’s representative, has been taken as not merely a tragedy but an attack on U.S. interests that demands an official accounting to the American people.” With the Journal providing cover for him, Boehner has no excuse to not pass it.
That the Marines are on alert to evacuate the remaining Americans in Libya should be the last stake in the heart of Obama’s “Arab Spring” policy. From Libya to Syria (and Yemen and Iraq and Mali and in so many other places), Obama has worked hard to create a political fiction: that democracy is blooming where it cannot — wherever Islamic law prevails — and al Qaeda is dying among its flowers. Instead, we see terrorist groups fighting among themselves for dominance in too many places. Too many places in which we have lost our ability to influence events.
Which leaves us with the other facts at hand. We know a lot of the questions that still need to be answered, thanks to Wolf’s letter and Andy McCarthy’s usual great work. For example, McCarthy points out here that the Hicks-Clinton telephone call was probably recorded. If that recording (still) exists, it should be turned over to the House and Hillary’s involvement in dealing with the terrorist attack — or not doing so — should be fully investigated.
As should be so many other aspects of this scandal. Another example is the CIA talking points that White House flack Jay Carney claimed were the basis for Amb. Susan Rice’s falsehoods on the September 16, 2012 Sunday talk shows. Carney said, on November 28, 2012, that “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Which was absolutely false. Moreover, it’s pretty clear that the CIA’s talking points were mangled beyond recognition — at least twelve versions exist according to ABC News — yet the CIA and the intelligence community were blamed for what they and Susan Rice said. The talking points were changed for a reason, and that reason had to be political.
Political as in re-electing Obama. Everything points to the president. His involvement and the involvement of his cabinet and personal staff have to be investigated.
The most interesting part of this is that the White House is feeling sufficient heat on Benghazi to call in the Obamamedia’s most faithful, including CBS News President David Rhodes. (Rhodes’s brother — Ben — is the White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and reportedly played a major role in changing the CIA talking points.) If, as it appears, the White House is trying to censor Sharyl Attkisson, the alarm bells are ringing all around. Not in the media: they’re Obama’s captives. The desperation alarms are ringing in the White House. They have to bury the Benghazi story before it buries Obama’s presidency.
And they might succeed. Issa’s hearings won’t go on forever and the Benghazi story may only survive in the conservative media. But not if Boehner passes Frank Wolf’s bill and creates the select committee.
What the White House obviously understands is that if Boehner has the courage to do that, there won’t be any way for Obama to escape the Benghazi story between now and the 2014 election. No matter what he does, no matter what he says, as a matter of reflex the media’s attention will return to the select committee’s dealings.
The select committee would, under Wolf’s bill, have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. So who’s getting subpoenaed this week? Is Obama resisting the document subpoenas? Has he claimed executive privilege yet? What did Hillary’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, say in her deposition? It’s easy to see that creating a select committee could have one overriding effect: the White House should be as tied up with it as Congress was with Obamacare. Our politicians spent about eighteen months on that without a break.
Some of us remember the good old days on Monica Beach. That’s when reporters staked out Ken Starr’s grand jury proceedings in the broad concrete courtyard in front of the U.S. District Court, which became known by that name. There will be enough “process crimes” — lies to congressional investigators that breed lies to grand juries — in any Select Committee’s investigation to keep the Obama administration reeling through 2016.
One of the big reasons that the White House will be tied up is that their friends in the liberal media — especially the crazies on MSNBC and their ilk — are so scared of the Benghazi story that they can’t resist covering it. It may go so far — as one radio talk show host predicted last week — that they would try to cover the Benghazi select committee, even if only to lampoon it, sooner than the rest out of fear of the damage it could cause Obama.
And that’s all politics, the fun side of what we do. The substance of politics is policy, and Obama’s needs to be laid bare to the public.
It would not be beyond the purview of the Benghazi Select Committee to investigate just what Amb. Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi the night he was killed. What policy purpose was there in exposing him to terrorist attack? Was there some goal that Obama or Hillary was trying to reach?
What was the purpose of the separate mission being conducted by the two former SEALs who were killed the same night? There are so many rumors floating around about what they were doing that a new category of intelligence info had to be created just for it by a friend of mine. He calls it “rumint.” We’ve heard about “MANPADs” — man portable air defense missiles they may have been trying to round up lest they fall into the hands of terrorists. Were they successful? How did their actions further our policy in Libya?
There is every reason for us to be skeptical of Obama’s goals, motivations, and policy. And, given the attention span of the Congress and its committees, there is no prospect that the truth about Benghazi will ever be determined unless Boehner creates the Benghazi Select Committee. The truth still matters. Let’s get this done.http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/13/next-the-benghazi-select-commi

Obama Holds Secret Benghazi Press Conference, Invites Only Liberals

• 
  

AUTHOR Warner Todd Huston

When Barack Obama came to office he promised to have “the most transparent administration in history.” Apparently that isn’t working out so well, at least not with Benghazi. Last week the administration held secret, off-the-record meetings with the press likely to strong arm them into aiding in the Benghazi cover-up.
After last week’s dramatic testimony on Obama’s failures in Benghazi the off-record nature of the meetings raised a lot of eyebrows, certainly. One has to wonder what Obama is hiding? He keeps claiming that there is nothing to worry about with his conduct during the attacks on our embassy personnel in Libya that horrible day. So, if he isn’t worried, why the secretive meetings with his lapdogs in the press?htthttp://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/15224-obama-holds-secret-benghazi-press-conference/p://youtu.be/9oHjiSCJAm8                                                                                         Could the edited talking points be one thing the 
Obama admin doesn’t want well known?
After the briefing was reported as off-record, some in the Obama administration even wanted to spin that and mischaracterize it as “on deep background,” instead of off the record. What is the difference between the two? According to Politico that means reporters can use the info they heard but cannot attribute the quote to anyone.
In other words, nothing from the meeting will be reported because good journalistic practice means identifying key sources. Just saying “some say,” or “sources confide” is not optimal, though it is done.
Who can blame Obama for trying to staunch the flow of his administration’s political blood, though. With one group already filing lawsuits against him for his failed leadership in Benghazi and Congress calling this the worst cover-up since anyone can remember, Obama is beginning to panic. But, he’ll likely be able to rely on the Old Media establishment to come to his aide as always… hence the secret meetinghttp://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/15224-obama-holds-secret-benghazi-press-conference/http://youtu.be/9oHjiSCJAm8

INTERESTING FACTS CONCERNING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law , St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some INTERESTING FACTS CONCERNING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 Million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler ' s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation ' s population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, BY ALL MEANS, DON'T SHARE.

IF YOU ARE NOT then SHARE IT to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT MARTIAL IS??????

My Edited Video

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis.

Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.

In most of the cases, military forces are deployed to subdue the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.[1] Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.[1]

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (such as Thailand in 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency.

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

Can a Muslim be a good American"

I wish I wrote this one

Here is something interesting to consider.

Garnered the following answer, which means there can be no "good" Muslim soldiers either:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256.)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam. and the Quran.

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca. to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders,) who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34.)

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran, do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

So - we must be suspicious of each and every Muslim. At. ALL. Times.
Just callin' it like it is!!

PONZI SCHEME

A must read...

Who died before they could draw their Social Security?

KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT... THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!! WHERE DID THATMONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security, but your employer did, too. It totals 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again!

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an ENTITLEMENT when we reach the age to take it back.

If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. If you have a deceased spouses who died in their 50's -- their S.S. money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives over the past 30 years!

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare!!! And they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?!?

We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless.
Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey. And now Pakistan......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS... if not TRILLIONS of DOLLARS are unaccounted for!!!

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.