Thursday, March 12, 2015

US lacks leadership to fight radical Islam

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s magnificent Churchill-like speech to Congress this week, where he outlined the serious threats a fanatical Iran poses to Israel and the world, highlights how stark the difference between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama in their willingness to confront evil is.

Whereas Netanyahu unequivocally denounces evil, our president embraced it when he recently invited to the White House leaders of Muslim Brotherhood front groups with known terrorist ties in support of the Brotherhood’s ongoing efforts to retake Egypt.

Obama’s backing of the Muslim Brotherhood is eerie considering it was adopted by Adolf Hitler under the Third Reich and is the main supporter of virtually every Islamic terrorist group operating today, including Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, and Boko Haram, all of which want to rid the world of Jews and Christians.

Netanyahu understands that to achieve its goals, radical Islam aims to establish a worldwide caliphate by penetrating foreign cultures and building its presence until it’s the dominant force. We see this happening all over Europe now, and the goal to purge the world of “apostates” is being manifested right before our eyes with Jews getting shot, and thousands of Christians in the Middle East and Africa being ruthlessly beheaded, burned and buried alive.

In contrast, the day after ISIS fatally set a Jordanian man aflame, Obama rationalized modern ISIS barbarism by comparing it with Christians’ behavior during the Crusades, as if this excuses ISIS.  And at the recent conference on terrorism, which occurred just after the videotaped beheadings of 21 Christians by ISIS, Obama downplayed the victims’ Christianity and refused to identify radical Islam as a threat.

To Obama, the real threats, as documented in national security papers, are American Christians, veterans, and Tea Party patriots. But the documentation we should heed is that which shows evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully placed operatives in key positions throughout the Obama administration, and documentation from former CIA operative Clare Lopez shows Obama’s systematic appointment of Islamic advocates with ties to Iran to posts within several US government agencies.

Outside efforts at influencing US decision-making are nothing new. But here, as Lopez states, “where the guiding force behind such influence emanates from the senior-most levels of a regime like Iran’s – which holds the top spot on the State Department list of state-sponsors of terror and makes no secret of its hatred for the United States and Israel…such operations must be viewed with serious concern.”

This is of no concern to Obama though. His current negotiations with Iran would leave it with vast potential nuclear capabilities, despite his claims to the contrary. Think about that: Under Obama, America would be enabling the chief terrorist state in the world – the same one that declared it would use a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel, our greatest ally and the only democracy in the Middle East, and eventually the USA by any means necessary.

Not surprisingly, Obama shamefully boycotted Netanyahu’s speech on this and dismissed it as “nothing new”. Iran’s regime, deeply rooted in militant Islam, is as radical as ever, and with its backing, chaos and death are pouring down upon the world (and that’s without a nuclear weapon). But rather than back Netanyahu, the one leader who stands against Iran, Obama displays contempt for him. To show greater deference to Iran than to our only ally in the most volatile part of the world cannot be blamed on incompetence, but on what can only be seen as a deliberate siding with evil. 

The left has set the narrative that anyone concerned about all of this is merely “Islamophobic”, and says it’s only a small number of Muslims who are fanatical, so there is no threat. However, that “small number” is roughly 15 to 25 percent of Muslims who support worldwide conversion by the sword. With about 1.6 billion Muslims globally, that means about 300 million Muslims -- about as many people as the entire U.S. population – want a worldwide caliphate, with more being recruited regularly.

In dealing with deadly jihadists, though, leftist ideology purports they can be tamed simply by appeasement and job programs, and to use America’s strength beyond that is immoral. But the truth is, making deals that empower our enemies is an immoral undermining of America herself.

Meanwhile, rather than close our borders, Obama punishes border agents trying to enforce existing laws, and he just allowed entry to several thousand Syrians. The FBI says it’s impossible to vet them all and that almost certainly some are or will become terrorists, while FBI Director James Comey reported that suspected ISIS members reside in all 50 states. And thanks to Obama’s expressed desire to ban certain types of ammunition, were any such bans to go through, our right to defend ourselves personally, should it come to it, would be diminished.

America has what it takes to fight radical Islam. We just don’t have the leadership to do it. Under Obama, America is in retreat, jihad is on the rise, a Christian holocaust is underway, and enemies are infiltrating the U.S. The writing is on the wall, and as Netanyahu said, we “have a moral obligation to speak up on these dangers while there is still time to avert them.” Unfortunately, I don’t see our president fulfilling this obligation anytime soon considering he seems to stand squarely on the wrong side of the battle.


Sunday, March 8, 2015

Why Michigan's vote to allow Sharia Law is dangerous

The Michigan Taylor City Council unanimously approved a resolution this past Tuesday that supports a campaign for Sharia Law under the guise of "hate based on religion.” Apparently it is of no concern to this town council or other politicians that jihadists are conducting a genocide against Christians across the world. US politicians are too busy passing resolutions that prohibit anything that might offend Muslims, including criticism of Islam-backed activities, like honor killings, throwing homosexuals to their deaths from rooftops, and stoning women to death for the "crime" of being raped. Meanwhile, our own president refuses to even acknowledge that there may be a problem (see my related column on “Islamophobia” and the difference between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama’s approach to radical Islam).

At the same time, Islamic supremacists are embedding themselves in school boards, town councils, etc., to impose Islam on secular American society. Embedded Muslims and their well-paid stooges in local governments (like Taylor councilman Alex Garza, who spearheaded this vote) are passing resolutions to prohibit criticism of Islam and jihad.

Unfortunately, this sharia resolution is based on a false premise. For instance, the North Carolina parking dispute – in which a man shot and killed three Muslim students over a parking space – has been co-opted by the left as an "islamophobia" incident, despite the facts. For instance, the FBI's hate crime statistics for 2013 show the same statistics as previously reported ones -- that islamophobia does not exist, at least not in the way alarmists and politically correct zealots would like us to believe. 

In general, the false narrative of widespread Muslim victimization at the hands of "American bigots" is just that - false. Just as in previous years, most so-called hate crimes were not even religiously motivated – but the ones that were religiously motivated were anti-Jewish - not anti-Muslim. But we don't see politicians addressing that, do we? In fact Muslims suffered fewer total incidents than many groups and fewer per capita than gays or Jews. Anti-Islamic crimes did not involve greater violence than others and have not become more frequent.

But what difference does truth make when unfathomably dumb politicians can find their next pet cause? Votes like the one in Michigan are dangerous because they pave the way toward making Sharia Law increasingly potent throughout America. Consider that in France there are currently over 700 “no go” zones imposed by Muslims under Sharia Law. That means it is actually unsafe to go into those areas if you are not Muslim. With the soft mentality of US politicians doing the bidding for the same thing, it’s only a matter of time before we will have “no go” zones all over America. 

Meanwhile, pay close attention to what US public schools are doing when it comes to Christianity vs. the Muslim faith. All references to Christianity are being blatantly purged from public schools in the name of "separation of Church and State" yet children are being taught Muslim prayers and being taken on field trips to Mosques. What do you think that means? It's chilling. People had better rise from their politically correct slumber and wake up.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Illegal immigrants to get back-pay tax refunds worth billions

Illegal immigrants will receive “back pay” for tax refunds they would have received had they been working legally and paying taxes. Huh? Yes, it’s just yet another perk of President Barack Obama’s executive order for amnesty.  

The normal rule is that the IRS can audit for three years, so you can usually go back three years to amend your return or claim a credit you forgot. But what if you never had any income or never filed a return? Easy. Since an illegal immigrant under Obama’s executive action can now get a Social Security number, the immigrant road map is clear.

First, get the Social, then claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for the three open tax years, and just like that the IRS sends you three years of tax refunds. No matter that you never paid taxes, never filed a return, or if you worked off the books. Amnesty means absolution of all sins.

The IRS is defending its decision to let illegal immigrants claim up to three years’ refunds on income even if they never paid income taxes, telling Congress in a new letter last week that agency lawyers have concluded getting a Social Security number triggers the ability to go back and ask for previous refunds.

President Obama’s new deportation amnesty could grant Social Security numbers to as many as 4 million illegal immigrants, making many of them eligible for these tax refunds, which estimates say would come out to be billions of dollars paid to illegal immigrants.

“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in his letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley on Wednesday.

In other words, the same organization that is going to take away the tax refunds of millions of Americans through Obamacare is going to give illegal immigrants refunds for taxes they never paid.

And speaking of Obamacare, some observers are saying it could make illegal immigrants more attractive to hire than U.S. born workers.

Welcome to Obama’s America, where your hard-earned tax dollars are going to those who have no interest in assimilating America’s values, but are more than happy to sponge off the fruits of hard working Americans’ labor. Of course, this is all with the president’s blessing, who is licking his chops at the prospect of a permanent Democratic voting base.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Government vote to take over Internet set for Feb. 26

“We now have a court order. We’ll eradicate Twitter. I don’t care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic,” Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan. 

Turkey isn't alone. During the "Green Revolution" in 2009, Iran implemented a widespread crackdown on the Internet. China has censored information for years. And Russia made Facebook take down content that was critical of Putin last year. 

These are just a few examples of what can happen when government takes total control of the Internet.
On November 10th, 2014, President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to re-classify the Internet as a public utility. He proposed dusting off a law that’s nearly 80 years old (and about unrelated technology) and using it to give the Federal Government power to police the Internet. 

I know many people do not love the big Internet providers (count me as one of them) and just want to make sure that consumers are not stuck with slow access speeds and bad service. That’s a good goal. 

But the solution is not to get government in this space with expanded powers to police the Internet. Internet freedom is just too precious to hand Washington new regulatory powers over the Internet without oversight. 

If Obama gets his wish, instead of the “light touch” approach that has allowed the Internet to flourish for years, government bureaucrats would be put in charge of a new heavy-handed regulatory scheme. 

Worst of all, Americans do not fully understand the implications of how far this could go because it’s all happening so fast. Instead of Congress having a public debate out in the open where the American people can listen and Congress is held accountable, the Executive Branch is rushing to pre-empt Congress and jam this new regulation through while the American people are not really paying attention. (If this reminds you of Nancy Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” statement about ObamaCare a couple years ago, it should.) 

Americans should be deeply concerned about the chilling effect a government-controlled Internet could have on speech. Recent actions taken by foreign governments should make every American nervous when thinking about such a government controlled Internet. 

That’s because the Internet is not just a more efficient way of engaging in commerce; it’s the greatest threat to tyrannical governments in the world today. Autocrats like Putin do not want a free and open Internet. They want a “small I” Internet that runs more like their own personal intranet that they can control. America must remain a global leader for a free and open Internet and continue to tell countries like Iran, Russia, and China “No” on regulating the Internet access of their people, and their right to free speech. 

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that maintaining a free and open Internet is the goal. But more government intervention will not help us reach that outcome. It will restrict the dynamism that has fueled the greatest revolution since Henry Ford invented the Model T, and choke political speech. 

I believe this truly is a slippery slope scenario where years in the future, another Administration could use power over the Internet to censor speech and intimidate political opponents. 

I know there will be those who try to dismiss this concern out of hand…But after the way our government has operated over the last six years, does anyone really think we should just give Washington control over something as precious as the Internet? 

Do we really want the same type of people who brought us the IRS scandal--where they targeted political opponents of the Administration--making decisions about political speech online? 


Should the same type of people who were responsible for the utter failure of the Veterans Administration be in a decision-making position on the future of the Internet? Can the same group of “tech experts” responsible for the disastrous roll out of Healthcare.gov really be entrusted with maintaining transparency and access online? 

It’s up to us to preserve the Internet for future generations as one of the greatest forces for freedom the world has ever known. A government-controlled Internet is not the right choice. 

The FCC votes on February 26. Consider calling the FCC to make your voice heard: 1 (888) 225-5322.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Why 50 Shades of Grey is abusive to women

I wish I could say I wrote this, but I didn't. It's written by a very talented writer named Owen Strachan, and he nails the topic at hand so well that I wanted to share:
We commonly hear today from a secular culture and from many voices of progressive Christianity (so-called) that the Bible is oppressive to women. Men are called to be heads of their home, goes the line, and women are called to submit, and that makes the Bible hugely problematic.
Let me make four points to guide a possible response to this common objection and to "50 Shades of Grey" in particular, which opens in theaters Friday.
1) This is a sham accusation, of course. Men are called to be heads, but in the image of Christ. They're called to lay their lives down for their wives (see Ephesians 5:22-33). The Bible never enfranchises men treating women anything less than purely and lovingly (1 Peter 3:7). The man a godly woman submits to is not some goofball with a title he didn't earn. To the fullest possible extent, with every fiber of his being, he's supposed to love his wife like Jesus loves His bride. Nothing less than perfection is the standard for masculine conduct and manly headship. High stakes, these.
Not so with secular culture. There is no extant moral code for men and women. Christianity is outmoded, bygone and repressive. In its place, the postmodern West has adopted, well, not much of any ethical standard, really. Into the vacuum come cultural fodder like 50 Shades of Grey, based on the best-selling book. In this film and book, a playboy named Christian Grey enters into a relationship with Anastasia Steele. Grey sexually uses and abuses Anastasia, who finds herself drawn to the man despite his roughness.
In the Bible, an abusive male sexual predator is an abomination. In secular culture, an abusive male sexual predator is a celebrity. The difference could not be more stark.
2. Christianity disciplines abusive men. A man who sexually uses and abuses women will be excommunicated from the church, reported to the police, and opposed with the full force of biblical righteousness. Not so with the culture that promotes 50 Shades of Grey. A man who sexually uses and abuses women is cool, mysterious and compelling.
Let me speak as strongly as I should here: 50 Shades of Grey is disgusting, despicable and unerringly awful for women. Don't view this film as just a film. Know that it is much more. It is representative of the new sexual progressivism and its amoral worldview. 50 Shades of Grey speaks to where things are headed in our culture. We should not expect that postmodernism will protect women. It will do no such thing. We should not expect that it will ennoble men and call them to self-sacrificial responsibility. It will do no such thing. We should not expect that postmodernism will bless children and strengthen the family. It will do no such thing.
Those who work against biblical manhood and womanhood, who fight the Scripture's teaching as marginalizing are in fact undermining the last cultural defense that still stands against male predation and sexual suffering.
3. 50 Shades of Grey may seem exciting, enticing and alluring. It is in truth nihilistic, degrading and devastating. Any woman who has been sexually abused will be very clear that there is nothing romantic, fun and satisfying in the experience. It's unthinkable -- but true -- that this is the vision of the good life being offered to and received by many, many women today. Abuse of women is evil to the very core of what evil represents. Yet our double-minded culture decries "rape culture" and then -- in a spasm of confusion -- turns around and extols what it just condemned.
Think about how confusing sexual mores are today for young men and women. There is effectively no standard of sexual conduct on many secular college campuses, for example, outside of mutual consent. But media like 50 Shades of Grey entice young men to sexually abuse women while exhorting young women to engage in harmful sexual practices. Honestly, what kind of twisted, deviant culture is this?
The church must be clear against the backdrop of such confusion. No system of thought more dignifies women than biblical Christianity. Our culture and our world desperately need it. But in a world turned upside down by the fall, many people -- including professing Christians -- make gospel faith out to be the problem. They try to present biblical complementarianism as evil. This is a lie. We must not believe it.
There is evil in every human heart; no church is perfect. Abuse can and does happen even in Christian homes and churches, but we must remember that when it does, no gospel-loving church celebrates it. No movie is made to sell it. Such sin is condemned and opposed and reported to authorities and then dealt with in the household of God. No, it is not the Scripture that harms women and subjugates them. It is a sexualized culture that has loosed men from their role as Christ-like heads and encouraged them to gratify their lusts for women without recourse.
4. There is one, and exactly one, source of ultimate hope for man-woman relationships today. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ. This gospel, the message of Christ crucified and raised for sinners like us, takes predatory men and fallen women and turns them into trophies of grace. This is not a limited redemption. The worst of the worst can be saved. The abusive, the predatory, the abused, the hopeless -- all alike find everlasting salvation in the cross of Jesus as they turn from this world and run into the strong and safe arms of Christ.
Remember these words when 50 Shades of Grey is lauded in coming days. You're not witnessing something beautiful and hopeful. You're seeing something diabolical and twisted, a force so strong that only one man can undo it: Jesus Christ, the self-sacrificing Savior of His wandering, unfaithful bride, the church.

----
My note: We all deserve better than this. If you want to see a promisingly delightful alternative to the filth and degradation of 50 Shades of Grey, go see the movie entitled, "Old-Fashioned". It starts Friday, Feb. 13. Check your local theaters for times.


Thursday, February 5, 2015

Outrageous: Obama compares ISIS actions to Christians in the name of Christ

This man doesn't even deserve the attention I give him, except for the hope that anyone who still is blinded by this hateful, despicable, anti-American person we call the President of the United States of America will begin to see him for what he is: either a man drowning in delusion overall about the dangers facing our world, or a man actually out for the destruction of Western civilization as we know it.

Instead of condemning with the full force of his power and authority what these ISIS and other radical Islam animals are doing, Obama (at a National Prayer Breakfast, no less) just compared them to what Christians did during the Crusades in the name of Christ, and that proponents of Jim Crow laws felt they "were justified in the name of Christ." In fact, he said we need to get "off our high horses" in thinking we are not as guilty as these barbaric murderers.

What Christians did thousands of years ago during the Crusades is in no way a moral equivalent of today's radical Islam. Yes, there were atrocities as Christians fought to take back land stolen from them by Muslims. And while it may be true, it is utterly irrelevant to today. There is  no comparison between what Christians did then, to men in the modern day who chop off children's heads for watching a soccer game, or who douse caged men in gasoline and set them aflame. But Obama wants us to believe it's no different than what happened thousands of years ago, and hence he diminishes the unheard of evil being committed today.

What's happening now is not Christians on the march, it is radical Islam. And they have Christians and other "apostates" as their targets. Astonishing that our president would equate this satanism, because that's what it is, with Christians in any way, shape or form. It's revolting. 

I have nothing else to say right now. I am too sickened with disgust by this traitor in the White House, who preaches to us while doing nothing to genuinely denounce or act against these monsters. And no, I don't feel he deserves respectful speech from me because of the Office he holds. He has no respect for it himself, or for any of us, so why should I have respect for him just because he currently resides in the White House?

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Barbarians Burn Pilot Alive: ISIS Will Never Release A Living Prisoner

Report from The Daily Beast:




ISIS has released a video of a man, which The Jordanian government said Tuesday was captive pilot Muadh al Kasabeh. The video shows a trail of lit gasoline leading to Kasabeh’s cage, where he is engulfed in flames. Jordanian state TV claims Kasabeh was killed on Jan. 3, exactly one month ago. 

Unlike the recent videos of the Japanese captives beheaded by ISIS, which were brief, hastily produced amalgams of a few still photographs and a recorded voice, this one has sophisticated animated effects, music, narration and an extended “confession” by the young first lieutenant in a studio setting. The production values alone lend credence to the idea he was killed long before ISIS offered to spare his life late last month in exchange for that of a failed female suicide bomber in Jordanian custody. That now appears to have been a bit of opportunism in the middle of the failed negotiations to ransom the Japanese.

So, once again ISIS is producing horror films that it hopes will have a political impact, and in this one there is no doubt its target is Jordan’s government and its military, which ISIS accuses of supporting the “crusaders” fighting against the so-called “caliphate.”

This is the kind of video using 21st-century technology to promote medieval brutality that has played well among gullible young men, and a few young women, who have flocked to the ISIS banner from abroad. The question is how it will play with the Jordanian and other Arab coalition partners arrayed against ISIS, because they clearly are the targets of this psychological operation.

Al-Kasasbeh, who has a black eye in the video, presents a detailed picture of the Arab and Western air forces deployed against ISIS and the munitions they use, with interspersed pictures of burned babies and men being dug out from under rubble. Then he is paraded in front of uniformed men wearing balaclavas and carrying Kalashnikovs. He is put into a cage amid the wreckage of buildings presumably bombed by coalition planes. His orange prisoner suite is wet with some substance. He is set ablaze. The camera stays on him until his blackened flesh begins to melt away from his face and he falls over. Then a backhoe dumps earth on top of the cage and rolls over it. A burned hand is shown protruding from beneath shattered concrete.

But it is the beginning of the film (after the invocation, “In the name of God, most Merciful, most Compassionate”) and the end that tells us the most about the ISIS psy-war strategy. 

The first image in the video is of Jordan’s King Abdullah speaking on the Charlie Rose Show in the United States on December 5. The king says that when Jordan joined the coalition, the F-16 pilots were told only volunteers had to take part. “Every single pilot raised his hand and stepped forward,” the king tells Charlie Rose in the video clip used by ISIS.

In fact, in Jordan there was some negative reaction to that interview at the time. It appeared to many Jordanians as if the king was playing to an American audience, not to their own concerns. Many had expressed doubts about whether the coalition war really was Jordan’s war. 

ISIS, in this video, is trying to up the ante, not only denouncing Jordan’s intelligence and military cooperation with the “crusaders” and with Israel, but also naming 11 more Jordanian Air Force personnel at the end of the 21-minute video, showing pictures of them and pinpointing their alleged residences on a satellite map. “Wanted Dead,” says the legend above each figure’s name and photograph. 

The information and photos could easily have been obtained from al Kasasbeh’s cell phone if he had it with him, but the effect that ISIS clearly wants in the video is one of omniscience.

A statement posted in the middle of this montage, coming shortly after the horrific immolation, says: “On this occasion, the Islamic State announces a reward of 100 gold dinars to whoever kills a crusader pilot. The diwan for state security has released a list containing the names of Jordanian pilots participating in the campaign. So, good tidings to whoever supports his religion and achieves a kill that will liberate him from hellfire.” Such is the reward, apparently, for assassins.

King Abdullah clearly is undeterred. He arrived in Washington on Tuesday where his government signed a new memorandum of understanding with the United States upping support payments from $600 million a year to $1 billion a year. 

Meanwhile some unconfirmed reports out of Amman suggest that several prisoners with connections to ISIS, including the woman whose freedom it demanded, will be executed in short order. 

In what is likely to be a long war, more such incidents can be expected. What is unlikely is that any government will take seriously from now on overtures by ISIS to ransom or otherwise negotiate the release of prisoners.

By killing the Jordanian pilot after (or even before) his government had offered a prisoner swap, the terrorist group has affirmed that it has no interest in negotiating seriously, and that will compel Jordan and other governments to launch military rescue missions rather than try to dialogue for their citizens’ release, a former U.S. official with extensive experience in hostage negotiations and rescues told The Daily Beast. 

***end Daily Beast report

Question: Mr. President, when will you recognize the savage evil of Radical Islam? Of course, you're too busy attacking Christians and Tea Party members, and bemoaning Global Warming as the greatest threat facing our country. 

Our president is doing in phases what dictators like Chavez did to Venezuela. He is spending beyond our limits to buy the votes of the poor, for one thing. He is flooding our country with illegal, diseased immigrants, and is turning a blind eye to terrorism by releasing prisoners from GITMO to be returned to jihadist activity. 

What is President Obama's real agenda on terrorism? Because from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like he's actually concerned about putting a stop to it.