Yes – Mock Islam at Every Opportunity

Yes – Mock Islam at Every Opportunity

For a long time, I agonized over whether pigeonholing liberals as either stupid, deluded or evil presented an unfair and narrow-minded assessment. After all – are there not intelligent, sane and decent liberals among us?

Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that this appraisal is accurate and that those who self-identify as “liberal” do indeed fit into one of those three subcategories. For the record, I’m not talking about those we refer to as “classical liberals.”

Plainly put, I believe that the evidence is in and that I’ve developed sufficient clarity on the matter to back up the statement.

More important than understanding where they’re coming from is the reality that the stakes have become too high to consider concepts of equity in accommodating liberals’ perverse worldview – even those who are basically good people (and who I would say fall into the “deluded” group). This sort wants to have an intellectual debate while the ship glides toward the iceberg, a course their more “dedicated” (evil) cohorts have set. In fact, they believe that we have an obligation to engage in this debate with them.

Well, sorry, pal – we’re taking the helm, and if someone has to bust you in the chops in the process, so be it. The fact that those on the left never engage in the type of introspection I’d been doing on the subject only served to further validate my conclusion, by the way.

As we are aware, two armed men were killed on Sunday after shooting at a security guard outside an exhibit of cartoon depictions of the Muslim “prophet” Muhammad in suburban Dallas, Texas. The shooters, who opened fire on the guard with semiautomatic rifles before being outgunned by police, were Arizona-based, and one was already the subject of a terrorism investigation.

The exhibit was part of a contest being held over the weekend by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). It was calculated to make a statement illustrating the intolerance and barbarity of Islam, that ancient death cult posing as a religion.

Obviously, it worked, as exemplified by the two deceased death cultists, who presumably thought they would make an example of AFDI á la Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine that was attacked by jihadis in January.

Immediately, the political left clamored to get their two cents’ worth in: They excoriated AFDI and its president, Pamela Geller, as Islamophobic bigots attempting to provoke otherwise peaceful Muslims. For some time, Geller (who is also a regular columnist for WND) and AFDI have been raising the ire of liberal baby-cannons and Muslims in New York with their anti-jihad billboard advertisements; these showcase historically accurate Muslim anti-Semitism and Islamists’ statements of Jew hatred.

One of the most notable byproducts of liberals’ apoplexy was Pamela Geller’s casual dismembering of CNN’s Alisyn Camerota mere hours after the incident. First intimating that Geller hates Muslims because she protests against jihad, Camerota then attempted to intercede on behalf of America’s “3 million peaceful Muslims,” who are apparently as elusive as Bigfoot.

[See Geller’s CNN interview]:

Addressing this supposed provocation of Muslims, we find yet another object lesson in the boundless hypocrisy of the political left. For example: If one of these at-risk “transgender” teenage lads (over whom liberals have been making such a fuss lately) comes to school dressed as Rollerena and his classmates look at him like he’s a freak, his exploits are “normal,” but it’s “bullying” on the part of his peers. However, if a private organization holds a contest for the best cartoon depicting the “prophet” Muhammad, that’s “provocation.”

As a few have pointed out, another apt analogy is that of blaming the rape victim for her rape in that she “provoked” her attacker by wearing revealing attire.

It has been established over centuries that the passive, inoffensive first 2 percent of Muslims who immigrate to other countries and keep to themselves always give rise to the militancy of Islamists – always. Muslims intend to wholly subjugate America, to supplant our paradigm with their retrograde one, first by guile, and finally by force of arms. The imperative to do so is codified in Islamic texts, thus any denial is either manifest delusion or deliberate deception, quod erat demonstrandum.

As such, not only should Americans not avoid mocking Islam and its pedophiliac, serial-murdering “prophet,” but we ought to do so at every available opportunity, in the spirit of the World War II-era hit song, “Der Fuhrer’s Face.”

Actually, I’d say it’s poetic justice, taking into account that Middle Eastern Muslims of high station collaborated with Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, during and after the war.

For me, this isn’t even about standing up for the Christian church per se; it is a factor, but this is about standing up for America. Our God-given rights themselves are under attack by people in service of evil, and this is being handily demonstrated in the methods by which they are attempting to undermine the Constitution: cultural balkanization via race tension and class envy, the elevation of homosexuals to the status of an unassailable protected class, and their pathological deference toward Muslims, who ironically despise many factions within the left’s political contingency.

As far as American Christians go: We must become more militant in our thinking. By this I do not mean taking up arms and hunting jihadis (although the likelihood that this will ultimately become necessary increases every day). I mean that we must stop avoiding confrontation and stop acquiescing when detractors level the charge that we’re all the more bigoted and intolerant if we stand up for ourselves.

If we are truly Bible-believing Christians, we must become Defenders of the Faith and Soldiers of the Cross; personifying the grim, resolved Crusader of old – ready and willing to cleave the enemy in twain with cogent communication, history, Scripture and attitude rather than a broadsword.

At least for now …

Originally published in WorldNetDaily




Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Obama Feeds ‘The Cult of Stupidity’

Obama Feeds ‘The Cult of Stupidity’

“We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs …”

– State Department representative Marie Harf

I wonder if others found the opening statement as curious as did I; this was the State Department’s Marie Harf discussing the administration’s policy in fighting the militant Muslim group ISIS in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

It was my understanding that nations essentially did kill their way out of wars; you do enough damage to the other side (killing them and breaking their stuff), and either they give up, or the question is rendered academic.

Somewhat surprisingly, Matthews was actually dismissive of Harf’s assertion that job opportunities (no doubt via American taxpayers’ investment in the primitive toilets these people call nations) would ameliorate 1,400 years of institutionalized cultural depravity.

Harf, by the way, is not to be confused with State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who we usually get to see during the frequent State Department press briefings. Psaki typically handles the really big lies and misrepresentations – like last week, when she told reporters that “refugees” from Syria, Somalia and other war-torn majority Muslim countries who the administration is bringing into the U.S. by the thousands were “the most carefully vetted of all travelers to the United States.” These are among the same nations upon which her boss has dumped the Miracle-Gro of Islamofascism: billions in armaments and cash.

Back in November, people went absolutely nuts when a video surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber calling American voters “stupid,” but the sad fact is that there’s a segment of any population that’s going to be stupid. Among American voters, you also have those who aren’t necessarily stupid, but are so uninformed or ill-informed as to be operationally stupid, if you will.

The likelihood that these individuals will be consumers of establishment press sources (mainstream media) exclusively is a foregone conclusion. This ensures that they will be exposed only to sanitized, White House-approved versions of the coverage on terrorist activities, crafted expressly for the cult of stupidity.

Read more here

Originally published at WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
SOTU Coverage Only Obscures Obama’s Treason

SOTU Coverage Only Obscures Obama’s Treason

“America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.”

– Barack Obama, State of the Union address, Jan 20, 2015

I will spare my readers yet another frustrating analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union address this week, in that enumerating his dubious intentions and the brazen lies he tells are things I express here quite regularly. Other than his defiant tone serving to give the lie to his conciliatory rhetoric prior to the November midterm election rout, I believe that the primary value of this address was its potential for having demonstrated to a few million more Americans that this is the most diabolical individual to ever occupy the White House.

If nothing else, Obama made it plain that he will continue to do precisely what he wishes; he will continue to torch billions if not trillions of dollars on big-government socialist frivolities, ramrod new taxation through if he can, circumvent Congress when he deems necessary and ignore the Constitution.

The basis of Saul Alinsky’s strategy for political conquest, detailed in his book “Rules for Radicals,” is the widespread use of lies. Given that this tome is the sacred text of Obama and his Cabinet (or co-conspirators, if you prefer), one might interpret the State of the Union address in light of this.

More germane to the topic I will address here were Obama’s references to the terrorist threats currently faced by America and the West. It should be no surprise that Obama did not employ the words “Islam,” “Islamic,” nor “Muslim” throughout his address, save for one instance in which he contended that the vast majority of Muslims “share our commitment to peace.”

Earlier Tuesday, news agencies carried accounts of Iran-backed Shiite rebels having shelled the residence of Yemen’s leader and swept into the presidential palace. On paper (that being officially), Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi is purported to be a U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaida groups in Yemen. Here, one could argue that he might take counsel from members of our former “ally” government in Iraq, but I digress.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Who Let CAIR Off the Hook in the First Place?

Who Let CAIR Off the Hook in the First Place?

As was widely reported this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society were recently designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. The two American groups were named alongside ISIS, al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood branches in a list numbering 83 Islamist groups.

CAIR, which claims to be a mainstream “religious community service organization,” is widely known to be a terror sponsor and a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – itself the wellspring from which all global Sunni Muslim terror organizations flow. They were named by federal prosecutors in 2007 as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas funding case connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial. Hamas has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2007.

If you’re thinking that the Muslim UAE’s designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization speaks volumes vis-à-vis the group’s geopolitical toxicity, you’re quite right. CAIR was also one of the organizations that sponsored the first Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral last Friday, by the way.

Earlier this week, it was also revealed that CAIR is spearheading efforts to exacerbate racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, by using social media to advance the claim that Michael Brown (the black teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in August) and Luqman Ameen Abdullah (a Muslim activist shot during an FBI raid in 2009) were victims of racist police targeting blacks. According to federal prosecutors, Abdullah was a radical Islamist intent upon overthrowing the U.S. government.

In July of 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis supported CAIR’s request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. While Solis is often portrayed as having been critical of CAIR (sometimes even being credited with publicly outing the CAIR-Hamas connection), the fact that he essentially acted on the organization’s behalf is evident in his order.

Then, in October of 2010, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Justice Department had violated the Fifth Amendment rights of CAIR and another Muslim advocacy organization by including them on the publicly filed co-conspirator list in the case.

The pressing question here is how the government got from the firm belief in CAIR as a terror supporter to practically being an advocate for their so-called civil rights.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Oppression of Muslims a Myth, but a Powerful and Popular One

obama_imam1According to the Shoebat Foundation website, the Obama administration has been helping Muslim fundamentalists push an agenda to force non-Muslim countries to enact laws prohibiting the criticism of Muslims and Islam. Sweden recently passed such laws, and Saudi Arabia has long been pressuring Norway to make criticism of Islam and its “prophet” illegal.

Currently, the #1 violent crime in Norway is the rape of Norwegian women by Muslim men – and they tend to prefer blondes.

Last week, a candidate in the European elections has been arrested after making a speech quoting from a book by Winston Churchill about Islam. Paul Weston, chairman of the Liberty GB party, was making the speech on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, Hampshire, on Saturday, when a member of the public complained to police and he was arrested.

Now, Many Americans are currently concerned about similar future actions in the face of legislation recently proposed by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” carrying particular provisions for those who “insult Islam.”

While in Malaysia last week, President Obama President Obama was asked by Grand Imam Ismail Muhammad to end oppression against Muslims worldwide.

“Pray for me,” Obama is said to have replied.

Yet the casual observer is hard-pressed to find this “oppression against Muslims worldwide.” More accurately, it appears that (as Islamist supremacists have done for 1400 years) Muslims have a penchant for playing a passive-aggressive game with societies they seek to conquer, claiming oppression while concurrently conspiring to subjugate the preeminent societal paradigm – by any means necessary.

Relevant Links:

The Real Agenda behind Susan Rice being Told to Lie
Big chill: Feds want to scour Net, media for ‘hate speech’
Election candidate arrested over Churchill speech

Posted by Erik Rush in News

But Don’t Offend the Muslims…

Thank God that in this day and age of the press determining it wishes to aid in the downfall of civilized society as opposed to doing its job, whistleblowers and citizen journalists have the facility to bring news into the realm of public discussion.

rigby_murdererAs reported in Front Page Magazine in a column entitled The UK Confronts Islamism, Britain and other Western democracies are “attempting to address” the problem of Islamofascism and the attendant rape, murder, enslavement, and oppression it has brought to these nations. Unfortunately, they are attempting to do so by employing some of the same ineffectual methods we are seeing used in America – although at this point, their problem is much worse than ours.

The methods of which I speak include a basic denial of the reality of Islam and those who adhere to it to the degree that compels them to rape, murder, enslave, and oppress. These aspects are being referred to by European politicians as “extremism,” and in their approach, they seem to believe that that can separate the “extreme” actions from the perpetrators, or the perpetrators from the system (I use the term system rather than religion because Islam is a system with a religious component, much like Marxism, which simply does not codify its religious zealotry).

Part of this, I believe stems from their squishy desire to be politically correct and not offend Muslims, and the other is sheer stupidity. Obviously they do not remember their own history, wherein 1000 years ago, Islamists attempted the subjugation of Europe in precisely the same manner they are attempting now. This is even proscribed in their writings; the small religious factions that emigrate into a nation, the politicizing of that faction as it grows, then finally the militant uprisings which overthrow the establishment. This is what Westerners refer to as radicalization.

But Islam has always been radical, and save for the tiny minority of Muslims who enjoy living in Western democracies and republics (and who would be quite happy if the process never progressed), Islam remains what it always has been: Manifestly unable to coexist with any other creed, and thus wholly incompatible with Western society.

So if we wish to avoid having American women raped in accord with the rapist-mass murderer Muhammad’s directives, have our citizens beaten, robbed, and hacked to death in the streets, and ultimately to be completely subjugated by howling, bearded, dress-wearing, pedophiliac primitives, we’d better get about it now.

As far as offending Muslims goes: You know what they say about making an omelet…

Posted by Erik Rush in News

Obama and Islam: A poisonous synergy

I don’t particularly enjoy being the bearer of bad news. In addition to reticence toward being a wet blanket or bringing people down, there is always the component in human nature that wants to kill the messenger, so to speak, in reaction to bad news.

People do not like to admit they’ve been taken. Many find this particularly shameful, and will do their level best to deny that they’ve been duped or betrayed by a trusted party, whomever that party may be or the level of existing trust. Consequently, no one wants to be the one to break the bad news about an associate’s prospective love interest being a gold-digger, or the friend who’s been talking behind another friend’s back.

toxic1If one doesn’t have a relationship with the recipient of said bad news, there is additional danger, since there’s no benefit of purporting to act in their best interest.

The American people have been betrayed in two areas that may be seemingly unrelated, but play to the same sentiments I’ve described. They concern our president, Barack Obama, and the creed known as Islam. The character of both have been distorted to compromise Americans’ better judgment, goodwill and compassion. This is not to say that I believe the president is a Muslim; in truth, I believe that Obama is either an atheist or an individual of agnostic leanings.

What I am saying – and why I have chosen to discuss these together – is that the confluence of threats posed by Barack Obama and Islam are the most serious existing threats to the survival of this nation. In very short order, either could exact an extremely grave toll on America, chiefly because Americans’ better judgment, goodwill and compassion have been compromised. Our human proclivity for denial in this area – in admitting to having been taken – presents at least as great a danger as those posed by Obama and Islam themselves.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Obama

‘Great Satan’ Americans pay for pro-Islam elites

TALIBAN AMBASSADOR TO PAKISTAN ZAEEF LISTEN TO JOURNALISTS' QUESTIONS IN ISLAMABADI very seldom watch major network television, but last week I had the extreme displeasure of viewing an installment of ABC News’ “What Would You Do?” The show is hosted by news veteran John Quinones, and features what might be considered staged moral dilemmas played out in a public setting.

Segments consist of actors playing out morally ambivalent vignettes in public places (like restaurants, laundromats, etc.), challenging bystanders to intervene, or not to intervene, based on their level of mortification and I suppose, their courage. One past segment featured an actor making disparaging remarks about homosexual unions in a restaurant, directly challenging other individuals present who supported same. The confrontations end with John Quinones revealing himself à la “Candid Camera,” and interviewing the bystander participants. The show clearly if insidiously conveys an uber-liberal worldview, if you hadn’t guessed already. I also can’t help but wondering if the title is a subtle mockery of the popular “What Would Jesus Do” adage, but I digress.

The segment of which I speak depicted a young white male (actor) refusing service in an establishment wherein he was to be waited on by a young Muslim man. Using language and behavior befitting someone with a severely sloping forehead, he was blatantly rude and offensive, finally inciting others around him to suggest he take his business elsewhere. 

The objective of “What Would You Do” is twofold, of course: To engender widespread sympathy for those with whom the left wishes Americans to sympathize, and to portray people of a more traditional worldview as possessing severely sloping foreheads.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Islam

The dawn of the ‘M-word’

Yes, it would be peachy if everyone could “just get along.” As the product of a mixed-race marriage who was raised to discern character rather than appearance or creed, I consider myself to be quite tolerant, despite recent accusations to the contrary. The reality of coexistence, however, remains the same as it has been since human beings lived in caves. It’s a coin toss as to whether that tribe on the other side of the river – no different than their neighbors on this side – will determine to coexist, or to attempt to dominate, enslave, or even kill the ones over here.

hiraba1Nations – unless they have lost their collective mind – always act in their own self-interest. I am not here to act as an apologist for American foreign policy; as a society directed by human beings, we have probably made as many mistakes in our foreign policy as we have in our domestic policy. Suffice it to say that the United States of America has done far more to contribute to the liberty and tranquility of other nations than we have to harm them, especially when compared to history and our contemporaries of equivalent power and influence. Indictments to the contrary are simply well-crafted propaganda I have personally resolved not to dignify with argument any longer.

Since the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, several contentious issues have concurrently come to the fore. Immigration, national security and the Second Amendment all came into play with regard to the bombing, manhunt and standoffs that ultimately ended with one bomber dead and one in custody. The Obama administration’s alleged transparency is also a factor, as they continue to obstruct justice and obfuscate pertaining to the narrative.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Islam