ADVERTISEMENT

Obama defends Islam

nashvillegoldenflash

Hall of Famer
Dec 10, 2006
7,377
206
63
BBJ, I'm surprised that you haven't commented on Obama's hateful comments about Christianity. Below is a link to an article written by Matthew Burke explaining Rev. Franklin Graham's rebuke to Obama's hateful comments (see link).

Obama claims he is a Christian but his actions clearly show that he is a Muslim. So why didn't he show up at the Freedom Walk in Paris? Of course Obama provides reasons for not attending but his absence merely shows that a Muslim won't take sides against Muslims. After six years in office, it's quite clear he is sympathetic to the Muslim brotherhood. But why should we be surprised? Just look up the man's upbringing and where he lived and who he lived with, his education as a youth, his religious preference as a youth, his father, Kenya, Indonesia, Frank Marshall, and changing his name from Barry Soetoro back to his Muslim name given at birth. As you probably know, Obama was given the name Barack Hussein Obama Jr. at birth. But when his parents divorced his parents changed his name in Indonesia to his stepfathers last name and they chose Barry for the first name. Then in college he went by the name Barry Obama mixing the two together. But just like Muhammad Ali who started out as Cassius Clay and changed his name to Muhammad Ali when he became a Muslim, Barry went back to his Muslim name. So basically Barack Obama re-embraced his Muslim faith when he switched back to his Muslim name. That is why so many people consider him to be a Muslim. You only have a Muslim name if you are a Muslim in most Muslim countries. Of course liberals will dispute all of this but his actions clearly show he favors the Muslim brotherhood.

10982456_603461079787074_6317747773243214043_n.jpg





Rev. Franklin Graham Delivers a Powerful Rebuke
 
Judge Jeanine SLAMS Obama and comes to startling conclusion about Obama

Judge Jeanine Pirro has been one of Obama's strongest critics since day one. She slams Obama every weekend with her Opening Statement on the Fox show, "Justice with Judge Jeanine." She's always right on the money. This weekend, she came to a daunting conclusion. After Obama's pathetic, spineless remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, it all started to make sense.


"You know I've been watching this president for six years. And after this week's prayer breakfast, it all came together. It finally made sense to me: Barack Obama is comfortable with extremism. He's okay with it. He's nonplussed. It's part of what happens.[/B][/I]

It explains why he goes golfing within minutes of announcing the beheading of an American. It explains why he didn't join 40 world leaders in France to denounce 'Islamic terrorism.'[/B][/I]

It explains why he doesn't attend certain funerals. Why he does nothing about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East. Or the raping, beheading, crucifying and burying alive of children there. Why he doesn't get excited about people who cross his 'red lines.' And it explains why he so easily pivots to healthcare after announcing the burning alive of a coalition pilot."[/B][/I]


It's cliché, but actions speak louder than words. In this case, Obama's words, especially at the National Prayer Breakfast, explained his actions- or lack thereof. Everything is our fault.

He said that the world saw "terrible deeds committed in the name of Christ." So basically his logic is as follows: People did bad things for the sake of Christ hundreds of years ago, so who can blame the Islamic State for acting out?

Except it's not the same. At all. The comparison literally defies logic. The crusades should be viewed as a defensive[/I] war against Muslims. Why? Because they were acting up again. Plus their holy book instructs them to slay people.

It's like someone murdering your neighbor and saying, "Yeah, well my ancestors might have killed people too. Nobody's perfect. No biggie.



Judge Jeanine SLAMS Obama
 
Some of the most shocking quotes that Barack Obama has ever uttered in public.Even though he claims to be a Christian, throughout his political career Obama has repeatedly attacked traditional Biblical Christianity and he has a very long history of anti-Christian actions. In public speeches he has repeatedly cast doubt on the Bible, he has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation. At the same time, Obama has always referred to Muhammad as "the Prophet", he has always expressed great love and respect for Islam.

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam

#1 "The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam"
#2 "The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer"
#3 "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world - including in my own country."
#4 "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam."
#5 "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance."
#6 "Islam has always been part of America"
#7 "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"
#8 "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."
#9 "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
#10 "I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam."
#11 "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace."
#12 "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed"
#13 "In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."
#14 "throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."
#15 "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality"
#16 "The Holy Koran tells us, 'O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.'"
#17 "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."
#18 "We've seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants -- farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe."
#19 "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
#20 "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story."

5 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity

#1 "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation"
#2 "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
#3 "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"
#4 "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages -- the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity -- are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life."
#5 "The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics."

OBAMA WAS RAISED A MUSLIM & STILL A MUSLIM
 
Bishop Jackson Slams Obama: 'Frankly Sir, You Ought To Close Your Mouth'

Last week President Obama slammed Christians by claiming that the crusades that ended over 500 years ago makes Christianity as bad as radical Islam is today. Naturally Christian-hating liberals hailed Obama's hate-speech as intellectually brilliant. But not everyone was so taken with Obama's brilliance.


As Western Journalism notes, the founder of StandAmerica, Bishop E. W. Jackson, told Elizabeth Hasselbeck on Friday morning's Fox and Friends that he had a message for President Obama:
I have a message for the president with all due respect to him and to the office: Mr. President, if you don't want to give terrorists a recruitment's tool, instead of closing Guantanamo Bay, frankly sir, you ought to close your mouth. Because you just gave them a gigantic propaganda tool. They called us 'crusaders' and you just confirmed it.
Mr. President, we're not on our 'high horse.' What we are is on high alert. And the American people would like for once, to know that you are willing to defend Christianity and defend America instead of defending Islam.
I would remind the president that the Crusades began in 1096 as a response to Islamic aggression and the fact that they had conquered the Holy Land and they were oppressing Eastern Christians. And there was a response to that. So, if the president is even going to cite that as an example, then he ought to get his history complete.
This president does everything he possibly can to defend Islam and does almost nothing to defend the honor of this country. And yes, once again, he's giving them exactly what they want. And you know, Elizabeth, they're laughing at us because all they see it as, is a sign of weakness. And America needs to operate from strength.
Pray for our president. I think he's deeply misguided and confused. Pray for our country. We need leaders who will defend the integrity of our nation.[/QUOTE]
Right on, Bishop Jackson.

Bishop Jackson Slams Obama
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
BBJ, I'm surprised that you haven't commented on Obama's hateful comments about Christianity. Below is a link to an article written by Matthew Burke explaining Rev. Franklin Graham's rebuke to Obama's hateful comments (see link).

Obama claims he is a Christian but his actions clearly show that he is a Muslim. So why didn't he show up at the Freedom Walk in Paris? Of course Obama provides reasons for not attending but his absence merely shows that a Muslim won't take sides against Muslims. After six years in office, it's quite clear he is sympathetic to the Muslim brotherhood. But why should we be surprised? Just look up the man's upbringing and where he lived and who he lived with, his education as a youth, his religious preference as a youth, his father, Kenya, Indonesia, Frank Marshall, and changing his name from Barry Soetoro back to his Muslim name given at birth. As you probably know, Obama was given the name Barack Hussein Obama Jr. at birth. But when his parents divorced his parents changed his name in Indonesia to his stepfathers last name and they chose Barry for the first name. Then in college he went by the name Barry Obama mixing the two together. But just like Muhammad Ali who started out as Cassius Clay and changed his name to Muhammad Ali when he became a Muslim, Barry went back to his Muslim name. So basically Barack Obama re-embraced his Muslim faith when he switched back to his Muslim name. That is why so many people consider him to be a Muslim. You only have a Muslim name if you are a Muslim in most Muslim countries. Of course liberals will dispute all of this but his actions clearly show he favors the Muslim brotherhood.

10982456_603461079787074_6317747773243214043_n.jpg
Flash, I haven't commented because I've been so outraged at Obama's comments that I had to cool down for awhile! Yes, his comments were deplorable and he will be very fortunate if God doesn't remove him before he leaves office.

Here's an article that sums up Obama's comments very nicely:






Obama's Morally Confused Prayer Breakfast Lecture






February 9, 2015 - 9:42 AM







limbaugh.jpg






By David Limbaugh




I find it very odd that a president notably lacking in humility and frequently riding his own high horse would lecture American Christians about those subjects because they presumably condemn acts of barbarism by Islamists.

Talk about a string of disconnects. While we're at it, let's note one more. Obama, at the National Prayer Breakfast, also exhorted us to "uphold the distinction between our faith and our governments - between church and between state." Last time I checked, it was not Christians, unless you believe that Obama is a Christian, who were using government power to restrict religious liberties of others.

Obama, however, has conspicuously infringed on the conscience rights of Christians in supporting mandates that require religious organizations to pay for contraception and abortifacients.

Indeed, Obama was too busy lecturing Christians about "theocracies that restrict people's choice of faith" - though there are no Christian theocracies in the world - to note that many Muslim nations in the world are theocratic and under Shariah.

Is Obama's moral compass so skewed that he is utterly blind to the rampant theocratic oppression that routinely occurs in Muslim nations in the world? This takes moral equivalency to new levels.

But that wasn't even his worst moral distortion of the morning. On the heels of the Islamic State group's burning alive a captured Jordanian pilot, Obama's instinct was not to decry ISIS' depraved murder but to caution us not to judge the religion of Islam. Was anyone doing that, by the way?

As usual, Obama's first impulse to another atrocity committed in the name of Islam was to defend Islam - and attack Christianity and Christians, who Obama apparently believes are holding their noses in the air thinking they don't engage in such behavior in the name of their religion.

Foremost on his mind was to correct the record on Islam, kind of a pre-emptive defense of the religion he holds dear from his childhood, against any attempts to tar it based on thousands of "isolated" incidents. Here's where his moral equivalence reared its ugly head again.

He said, "We ... see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon." That was his predicate for chronicling the recent despicable actions of ISIS - an acronym, by the way, that, in his moral bewilderment, he refuses to utter - and then glibly transitioning into certain regrettable actions committed by or with the support of Christians in history.

Of course, he was compelled to invoke the Crusades, which in his view were unprovoked acts of aggression by Christians against Muslims but which in reality were far more complex than that. And of course, he had to mention the Inquisition, as if that is somehow relevant, even microscopically, to what's going on today.

But no blanket condemnation would be complete without Obama's obligatory and habitual denunciation of slavery and Jim Crow, only this time he cited them as examples not of America's evil past but of evils committed in the name of Christianity.

As long as we're talking about "wedges" and "weapons," it sure seems to me as if that's precisely how Obama continues to use slavery and Jim Crow. He just will not let these go. It obviously never occurs to him that Christianity was one of the main driving forces in eradicating slavery in this country. But we can hardly expect him to give us a fair reading of Christianity's role when he is on a mission to demonize it.

Obama is the one who needs to demonstrate a little humility and dismount his own elevated steed. He needs to put aside the pride that contributes to clouding his judgment about acts of terror committed by Islamists. He needs to recognize that it is nothing short of an act of moral cowardice to suggest that the multitudinous atrocities committed in the name of Islam today, whether or not they are representative of the true religion of Islam, bear any comparison to acts of Christians - today or in the past.

He needs to reset his own bias-riddled perception and open his willfully closed eyes to the fact that we have real enemies today who are killing us in the name of their religion and that, regardless of how representative they are of the faith that fuels their war cry, they see themselves as faith-driven and they are not going to be deterred or pacified by craven denunciations of Christianity or fervent defenses of Islam proper.

This is not about the Islamists' grievances over poverty or injustice or any of the other pet causes with which Obama can identify but about conquering the world for a global caliphate and subjugating or killing everyone who will not submit. There is no appeasing this mindset.

Americans are in greater danger now than we have been in decades because we have a leader who simply will not recognize that our allies and we are under attack around the world by untold numbers of people acting under the banner of Islam. No matter how many peaceful Muslims there are in the world, it doesn't change the fact that we're threatened by many who aren't.

If Obama spent one-tenth of the time focusing on these radical enemies as he does apologizing for the religion they claim to represent, Americans would be much safer.

This post was edited on 2/9 11:27 AM by bigbadjohn45
 
And what is so sad is our nation re-elected him. It just shows how far our country has fallen since he has been in office. Is there really any hope for our nation? Just think how much more damage Obama will bring to the U.S. in the next two years. He is definitely transforming America as he said he would. It's so sad. Just think of all the men and women who died in past wars to defend American freedom. And to think ISIS is in every state in the union except for Alaska. How many more innocent people have to die before Americans realize how serious Muslim terrorism is to us and the world.
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
And to think ISIS is in every state in the union except for Alaska. How many more innocent people have to die before Americans realize how serious Muslim terrorism is to us and the world.
"Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense. Our threat is from the insidious forces working from within which have already so drastically altered the character of our free institutions - those institutions we proudly called the American way of life." - General Douglas MacArthur, speech to the Michigan legislature in Lansing, Michigan May 15, 1952








This post was edited on 2/9 8:35 PM by MTLynn
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
The FBI has open cases against possible ISIS terrorists in every state of the Union except Alaska
I would expect no less. And global warming is gonna get us too...
 
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." - James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution, Constitutional Convention 6-29-1787
 
Mark Levin: Obama "A Nihilist, A Narcissist And An Extremist;" Warns "We Are Going To Get Hit Again"
SEAN HANNITY: You talk about moral relativism. The terrible deeds in the name of Christ, he can't even say the Islamic State is ISIS. Would he ever say the terrible deeds committed in the name of Muhammad? Did you ever hear those words coming out of his mouth?

MARK LEVIN: No, we won't. This man is a nihilist and a narcissist and an extremist. And I would like to suggest that -- Mr. Obama, here's a suggestion for you as the leader of the United States. This weekend rather than going off and campaigning or going on vacation, why don't you go across the Potomac River into Arlington National Cemetery?

Why don't you walk the rows and rows and rows of the dead heroes who liberated peoples who were facing genocide and tyranny of all kinds, World War I, World War ii, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and all kinds of wars. Those young men, if you look at those headstones, the overwhelming majority, all religions, but the overwhelming majority, Mr. Obama, are Christians. Why didn't you speak to them today, Mr. Obama?

And ironically you brought up slavery in the United States. And what's ironic about it, Sean, is if Abraham Lincoln took the position of Barack Obama, it would have been something like this. Lincoln saying we've had slavery on every continent in every country since the beginning of mankind. The Egyptians enslaved the Jews, the Romans enslaved Christians. Slavery is almost a human natural act, is it not? And Lincoln would say, following Obama's argument, don't get on your high horse.

This is not an existential threat, Obama said the other day of the genocide in the Middle East. And Lincoln might say, why in the world would I send hundreds and thousands of men to their death to end slavery?

What Obama is saying and doing is the lowest of the low now. He really is not a leader of a great people. He's not a leader of a great nation. He is stuck in his own ideology. He's stubborn and ignorant at the same time. There are black Christians and black Muslims in Africa who are being slaughtered. They don't want to hear about the Jim Crow laws. There are Christians, there are other Muslims being slaughtered in the Middle East, they don't need a lecture from Obama about Christianity. The fact of the matter is Obama is not doing anything effective or substantive to stop genocide in our time.

###

HANNITY: Let me show you two maps. Savannah Guthrie, during the Super Bowl, interviewed the president and talked about how his strategy is not working. The president vehemently denied it, but there you can see on the map the increase in ISIS-controlled territories and the battle for both big cities and small and the control that they've taken.

Then we look at radical Islam in January 2015 and its worldwide influence now, all around the world. The president denied that advancement as well. If America doesn't lead, are we going to count on the Jordanians? Are we going to count on Middle Eastern countries to take up this battle, this fight? Don't we need America to be fully engaged to actually win this war against modern fascism in our time?

LEVIN: There's no question about it. And the fact of the matter is for all of his talk that he thinks is in defense of Muslims, this president because of the way he left Iraq, this vice president has started to get a status of forces agreement, they have, in my humble opinion, lots and lots of blood on their hands. Many, many Muslims, Christians and others have died as a result of their actions. He can give as many speeches and issue as many bumper stickers as he wants. And here's the other point, we are going to get hit if we do not hit this enemy where this enemy is. We are going to get hit again.

Mark Levin: Warns "We Are Going To Get Hit Again"
 
LIBERALS WILL BE FURIOUS WHEN THEY SEE WHAT SCOTT WALKER'S GOT TO SAY ABOUT OBAMA AND ISIS


Scott Walker has a way of royally upsetting liberals. It's a good quality to have, especially when it comes down to standing up for conservative ideals that liberals can't stand.
But now he's in the news again for speaking out against Obama and his handling of the terror threat presented by ISIS.
He appeared on Fox News and spoke his mind about how ISIS should be fought.
Western Journalism writes
"This is a president who the other night not only talked about turning the page, he talked about the shadow of crisis having passed," Walker said. "Anytime you have freedom loving people anywhere around the world who are under attack by radical Islamic terrorists, it's a threat to all of us and we need a president who treats that seriously."
He referenced Yemen, Iran, and the Middle East as hotbeds for radical Islamic activity and summed up his response with a show of force.
"When you have an administration … who doesn't take seriously those threats, who doesn't invest the resources needed to take those threats seriously, you open the door to chaos and that's something we all should have learned from 9/11," Walker concluded. "It's not a matter of if there will be attempts, it's a matter of when and we need to be prepared -- ere in the U.S. and around the world -- to make sure the fight doesn't come to us, that we take it to them.
"If we want to protect our families, our children, our livelihood here in the United States, we've got to be prepared to act elsewhere," he added.[/QUOTE]
You can be sure, as soon as liberals see what Walker wants, they're going to cry big fat crocodile tears about how America just needs to leave Muslims alone.
It's unknown how Obama will respond to the criticism, but you can be sure he's not going to double down on ISIS.
Like Walker said, Obama mentioned the shadow of crisis has passed… that's just his way of saying "I'm not going to get in ISIS's way anymore."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the right answer to ISIS, libs? Shall we all kumbaya w/ lattes and hope for the best?
(This is a rhetorical question. Please don't give me your answer.)



LIBERALS WILL BE FURIOUS
 
"Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.
"Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

"But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory. "

Douglas MacArthur
April 19, 1951[/QUOTE]
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:



What is the right answer to ISIS, libs? Shall we all kumbaya w/ lattes and hope for the best?
I wanna know if ISIS will be using utility knives as well?

1932250_705874216139377_1739815614_n.jpg
 
In case you haven't seen the news in six years, Obama is not a friend of Israel or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When Republican House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress without discussing it beforehand with the White House, Obama became furious.

Netanyahu is up for reelection and Obama says he doesn't "want to influence the elections," thereby leading a campaign effort against the only person taking a strong stance against Iran, ISIS and Hamas terrorists.
According to the The Atlantic, unnamed senior officials in the Obama administration have called Netanyahu a "chicken****" and bragged that it was now "too late" for him to take action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability.
Despite the calls from Democrats to cancel his speech before Congress next month, Netanyahu refuses to back down, naturally.
From Jerusalem (AP) via Fox News:

His remarks Monday at an election rally come amid an uproar over his planned speech about Iran before Congress next month.[/B]
Netanyahu said: "A bad deal with Iran is forming in Munich that will endanger Israel's existence. … Therefore I am determined to go to Washington and present Israel's position before the members of Congress and the American people."[/B]
Netanyahu said despite the differences in opinion, U.S. relations remain strong.[/B]
Netanyahu's speech would come days ahead of Israel's March election.[/B]
Let's face it, Obama and Netanyahu have absolutely nothing in common:
1332x798xScreen-Shot-2015-02-09-at-5.13.43-PM1.png.pagespeed.ic.XRfz12vj-E6ZeyWbb27l.jpg

Just further proof that Obama is a Muslim.

Obama demands Netanyahu cancel his trip
 
Oh now, Flash, don't worry about it.

You just need to focus on eating your genetically modified foods (they're good for you!) taking your inoculations (they're good for you!) and saving the planet from global warming or cooling. Big brother will keep those those evil doers from getting nukes - or worse - utility knives!
 
I first posted this a few years ago and I'm posting it again because it shows the great concern big brother has for national security.








This post was edited on 2/13 1:35 PM by MTLynn

US helping Fund Iran Nukes
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
54cd953d1db2a0dbcaf555421f9b54a1.jpg





https://middletennessee.rivals.com/audio/mclean/kjv/Prov.26.4









Proverbs 26:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.














Matthew 7:6 King James Version (KJV)


6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
This post was edited on 2/13 3:58 PM by bigbadjohn45
 
966x526xScreen-Shot-2015-02-16-at-9.59.09-PM.jpg.pagespeed.ic.5h84dkLmUO0-ls4_eI6r.jpg


For some people, liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf told Chris Matthews that ISIS can be stopped if we just create jobs for them. She is literally living in an alternate reality. Guess what happens if we stop trying to kill ISIS? They grow stronger and keep killing the infidels.

From the Weasel Zippers:

MATTHEWS: How do we stop this? I don't see it. I see the Shia militias coming out of Baghdad who are all Shia. The Sunnis hate them. The Sunnis are loyal to ISIS rather than going in with the Shia. You've got the Kurds, the Jordanian air force and now the Egyptian air force. But i don't see any -- If i were ISIS, I wouldn't be afraid right now. I can figure there is no existential threat to these people. They can keep finding places where they can hold executions and putting the camera work together, getting their props ready and killing people for show. And nothing we do right now seems to be directed at stopping this.

HARF: Well, I think there's a few stages here. Right now what we're doing is trying to take their leaders and their fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. That's really where they flourish.

MATTHEWS: Are we killing enough of them?

HARF: We're killing a lot of them and we're going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They're in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether [/B]--

MATTHEWS: We're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be poor Muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet's blowing and they'll join. We can't stop that, can we?

HARF: We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…[/QUOTE]
Many things about this story trouble me. I suppose the most troubling thing is that she started her career in DC as a Middle East analyst for the CIA. Let that sink in.




We need to give them jobs
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:


State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf told Chris Matthews that ISIS can be stopped if we just create jobs for them.
JOBS??? This is propaganda for the brain dead.

Propaganda for the gullible include (but not limited to):

- global warming will kill us
- vaccines will save lives
- gun control will save lives
- GMO's are good for us
- Muslim terrorists are trying to kill us
- Big brother will pass more laws to keep us safe.
 
I realize liberals don't want to believe it but Muslims have been gaining in numbers and territory by torturing and killing unbelievers since the 7th century until the Ottoman empire was broken up after WWI in 1924. They enslaved and raped captive women and children during their reign of terror. Muslims tried to invade Europe many times but were pushed back by Christians and the Crusades. Unless we know history we are fooled into believing terrorism is something new by Islam because of the "terrible things the United States is doing" or because " Israel was made into a nation after WWII". The truth is terrorists are following the teachings of the Quran just like they did during the Ottoman empire. Moderate Muslims are just the ones who don't take Islam seriously. The radical Muslims are the ones who take it seriously because Islam is a radical belief. Islam seeks the establishment of Sharia law that calls for the submission and or death of unbelievers. Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Sharia law is, of its own nature, unconstitutional and cannot be permitted in order to protect the very freedom of religion it seeks to destroy. The other problem with Islam is it isn't just a religion, it is also a form of government that seeks to replace other forms of governments with its own. But despite the prevalence of Islamic terrorism, liberals are in denial of Islamic militancy. After any terrorist attack, why is the first instinct of liberals to downplay it? (see link)




Why liberals downplay terrorism
 
The government says we have global warming and the government says we have terrorism.


Do you believe in global warming when big brother says we have a record high temperature in the summer? If you do then I can see why you would believe big brother when a "terrorist attack" occurs.


The weak minded ignore history and swallow snake oil time and time again.

The Last Word on Terrorism
 
The problem is Obama refuses to admit we have Islamic terrorism. He is in as much denial as you are. Just liberal lunacy.

Why Obama Won't Talk About Islamic Terrorism

The Copenhagen gunman who took two lives this weekend knew exactly whom he wanted to kill. The free speech conference at a cafe in Copenhagen featured Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who has faced repeated attacks and threats on his life since he drew a satirical cartoon of Muhammad in 2007. The gunman fired perhaps 40 shots into the cafe, killing one person and wounding two police officers. Had he not been prevented from entering, he could have massacred dozens of people. The gunman then walked to a different part of town, 30 minutes away, where he attacked a synagogue in which a bat mitzvah was being held. Fifty children were moved into the synagogue basement; a volunteer guard was killed.

The attack mimicked the Charlie Hebdo atrocity in Paris in January--and has thereby revived a controversy over President Obama's comments on that prior incident. Obama told Vox that Americans should be concerned about violent, vicious zealots who "randomly shoot a bunch of folks at a deli in Paris[/URL]."

Shooting up a kosher market does not seem a very random act, especially not when the killer himself told journalists: "I have 16 hostages and I have killed four. I targeted them because they were Jewish." Yet for almost a full day, spokespersons first for the White House and then the State Departmentdefended the president's choice of words:
MATT LEE, AP: Does the administration really believe that these-that the victims of this attack were-were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?

JEN PSAKI: Well, as you know, I believe if I remember the victims specifically, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality. So I think what they mean by that is, I don't know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically, but the individuals who were impacted.[/QUOTE]
Journalists sympathetic to President Obama have ridiculed the controversy over those words as "Randomgate"--a contrived uproar with no larger meaning. Yes, they concede, the president chose his words poorly. Yes, spokespeople for the White House and State Department made things worse by defending the poor choice rather than straightforwardly confessing a pardonable verbal slip. But so what? As Jonathan Chait observed:
What makes this so bizarre is that it is not--or at least, was not--administration policy to deny the anti-Semitic character of the obviously anti-Semitic attack on Hyper Cache. In the wake of the attack, the State Department spoken forcefully on the general trend of rising anti-Semitism in Europe.[/QUOTE]
Chait might have added that some of the most forceful condemnations of anti-Semitism have come from the president personally. President Obama has empathized with the traumas of Jewish history eloquently and often, not least in his 2011 address to the United Nations General Assembly: "The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied."

Matt Yglesias, the Vox journalist who elicited the "random" quotation, complains that by paying so much attention to a mere slip of the tongue, the Washington media punishes politicians for trifling errors==and denies itself access to more important news in the future:
This is the problem with gaffe-coverage: it's sound and fury, signifying nothing and leaving nothing behind. Worse, it distracts from more consequential, but complicated, debates. … Long-term, the problem here isn't just news consumers find themselves listening to bullshit gaffe stories. It's that politicians learn the same lessons over and over again: unscripted moments are dangerous and generally to be avoided. Don't give interviews and don't stray from talking points.
The media will bemoan lack of access and robotic, scripted answers. But it will also punish deviations from the script. And it will do so in the most trivial ways. No minds were changed during Randomgate, and nobody learned anything. A couple of spokespeople had a bad afternoon. Some websites (including this one) got some extra pageviews. And every politician learned to be that much more boring in the future.[/QUOTE]
I think all this is very wrong. President Obama's choice of words in his Voxinterview in no way constituted a gaffe. He spoke about the Charlie Hebdo attack in a way consistent with the way he has spoken in the past--and for reasons integral to his administration's distinctive approach to terrorism. President Obama described the Paris attack as random not in order to conceal the Jewishness of the victims. He described the attack as random because, for deeply considered reasons, he did not wish to acknowledge the anti-Jewish ideology of the assailants.

The Obama people, not being idiots, understand very well that international terrorism possesses an majority of the most lethal terrorist incidents of the past 15 years have been carried out by people professing to act from Islamist motives. The huge effort made to deny this truth is its most ironic confirmation.

In dealing with this threat, the Obama administration has confronted a pair of difficult questions: What exactly is the nature of the threat? What are we trying to contain? This is a surprisingly difficult and contentious issue, and governments across the Western world have wrangled over it since 9/11.
One possible answer is that we are threatened by antidemocratic extremism, including religiously motivated antidemocratic extremism. British Prime Minister David Cameron forcefully presented this view in a speech to the Munich security conference in 2011:
We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values.[/QUOTE]
In Cameron's view, violence is a symptom of a problem, but is not itself the problem. The problem is the rejection of liberal values by a substantial number of recent immigrants to liberal societies, and by their children and grandchildren. Terrorism manifests that rejection, but even when terrorism is contained by effective police work, the challenge remains intact.

The Obama administration repudiates this view. The Obama administration believes the problem is violent extremism. Of course it's wrong, in this view, to kill cartoonists who caricature Muhammad. But wishing such cartoons suppressed by non-violent means does not present a similarly urgent threat. Indeed, those who wish such cartoons suppressed by means short of violence may be our best allies in the struggle against violence, precisely because they have the most credibility with the people who might otherwise turn to violence.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, who was then serving as deputy national security adviser, presented this point of view in a March 2011 described by the New York Times as "interfaith but mostly Muslim":
We must resolve not to label someone as an extremist simply because of their opposition to the policies of the U.S. government or their strong religious beliefs … Let's resolve that efforts to protect communities against violent extremists must be led by those communities.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, warned McDonough, in order to empower Muslim communities to take the lead against violence, the government and the larger society must refrain from actions that alienate or offend community leaders.
Just as our words and deeds can either fuel or undermine violent extremism abroad, so too can they here at home.

We have a choice. We can choose to send a message to certain Americans that they are somehow "less American" because of their faith or how they look; that we see their entire community as a potential threat … Or, we can make another choice. We can send the message that we're all Americans. That's the message that the President conveyed last summer when he was discussing Muslim Americans serving in our military and the need to honor their service. "Part of honoring their service, he said, "is making sure that they understand that we don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us."[/QUOTE]
McDonough's words have led the way toward a new policy. The Obama administration has established an office within the FBI whose mission is "Countering Violent Extremism"--indeed, CVE has become a familiar acronym to all in the law-enforcement community. Last year, Lisa Monaco--the White House official who oversees the CVE effort-delivered a progress report in Boston.
We've built partnerships and expanded our engagement with communities across the nation, especially those that may be targeted by extremist groups. We are working to improve our understanding of how and why people are drawn to violence. And we have made it a priority to uphold and defend the qualities from which we draw strength--our openness, our diversity, and our respect for the equal rights of all Americans.[/QUOTE]
As part of the partnership-building, the Obama administration has opened its doors to foreign and domestic individuals and groups who might have been unwelcome in the prior administration, including anatomized this line of thinking in his classic essay, Mau-Mauing the Flack Catchers:
The idea that the real leadership in the ghetto might be the gangs hung on with the poverty-youth-welfare establishment. It was considered a very sophisticated insight. The youth gangs weren't petty criminals ... there were "social bandits," primitive revolutionaries ... Of course, they were hidden from public view. That was why the true nature of ghetto leadership had eluded everyone for so long ... So the poverty professionals were always on the lookout for the bad-acting dudes who were the "real leaders," the "natural leaders," the "charismatic figures" in the ghetto jungle. These were the kind of people the social-welfare professionals in the Kennedy Administration had in mind when they planned the poverty program in the first place. It was a truly adventurous and experimental approach they had. Instead of handing out alms, which never seemed to change anything, they would encourage the people in the ghettos to organize. They would help them become powerful enough to force the Establishment to give them what they needed.[/QUOTE]
What began as a farcical element of the antipoverty programs of the 1960s has ended in the tragedy of American national security policy in the 2010s.

Take a closer look for example at another much-discussed recent statement by President Obama about terrorism, his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. The president's claim that "people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ" ignited a major ruckus. The fuss obscured something more remarkable in the speech, which is that there was no bookend reference to "terrible deeds in the name of Islam." Instead, in every place where the word "Islam" might have been expected, the word "religion" was substituted. Thus, "we see a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion." Thus, "we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion-any religion-for their own nihilistic ends." Thus, most strikingly, the group that calls itself the Islamic State, referred to only by the acronym ISIL, is condemned as a "a brutal, vicious death cult" that "carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism," and does so "in the name of religion."

When mention of the Islamic inspirations of terrorists becomes truly inescapable, administration spokespersons will emphatically insist that their actions do not represent the true Islam. At times, the president has baldly cover story for The Atlantic, ISIL is nothing if not Islamic:
In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.[/QUOTE]
President Obama has accordingly reformulated his denial that ISIL is Islamic to argue instead that it has somehow up-ended Islam, that ISIL's terrorist have "perverted one of the world's great"--and of course unnamed--"religions." Perhaps indeed they have done so. Yet it seems a strange use of authority for an American president to take it upon himself to determine which interpretations of Islam are orthodox and which are heretical. President Obama would be unlikely to venture an opinion as to whether Mormons are Christians or whether Lubavitcher Hasidim are correct to revere Menachem Mendel Schneerson as the Messiah.

In the mouths of less nimble speakers than the president, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, the refusal to accept any Islamic content to Islamic terrorism can collapse into comedy.

Michael Doran of the Brookings Institution reminds us of a revealing line from a profile of the Obama administration's foreign policy decision making: "The thing we spent the most time on" was also the thing "we talked least about in public." In that case, the "thing" was the project to achieve détente with Iran. But other projects also signal their importance by going undiscussed, and near the top of that list is the Obama administration's distinctive counter-terrorism policy.

You see the impress of this policy in the Obama administration's distance from, and discomfort with, the mourning for the slaughtered Charlie Hebdo satirists in France. You see it in Obama's twinned condemnations of anti-Islamic blasphemy and Holocaust denial at the United Nations in 2012, and in his declaration in that same speech that the future will "not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." It is this impress that we see again, so very clearly, in the otherwise-baffling claim that the post-Charlie Hebdo attack on the Hyper Cacher kosher market was "random."

The dictionary tells us that a random event is one without definite aim, direction, rule or method. The refusal to acknowledge the aims and direction of Islamic terrorism is central to the Obama administration's counter-terrorism policy. They don't often defend that refusal, but they systematically and self-consciously practice it. They generally conceal its purposes and consequences in phrases that sound unexceptionable to those who, like most of us, listen only casually. And then, Obama's stray phrase in his Vox interview thrust the policy into the spotlight in a way that nobody could miss.

The interviewers at Vox didn't fully appreciate what the president had said, when he said it. By their own telling, they still didn't understand it even days after the event. But that's no reason for the rest of us to emulate their unawareness. "Randomgate" is a real story that brings to light a central, urgently important, and massively under-discussed element of this administration's national-security policy. It's not receiving too much air-time, but rather, entirely too little.

Note: Before you dismiss this as conservative propaganda, let me point out that The Atlantic is viewed as a liberal publication.



Why Obama Won't Talk About Islamic Terrorism
 
Why do you trust the politicians and media more than MacArthur?

"Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense." - General Douglas MacArthur, speech to the Michigan legislature in Lansing, Michigan May 15, 1952
 
"Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.
"Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

"But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory. "

Douglas MacArthur
April 19, 1951[/B]

Do you honestly believe that General MacArthur would be passive toward Islamic terrorists? The fact of the matter, it was MacArthur's support for a strong military and his public criticism of pacifism and isolationism that made him unpopular with the Roosevelt administration (see link).

GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR BIOGRAPHY
 
Ronald Reagan said this on the 40th anniversary of D-Day:


"We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace; prepared to deter aggression; prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms; and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation."
[/B]

Have the current generations of Americans "learned bitter lessons from two world wars" -- that isolationism is the wrong foreign policy course?[/B]










This post was edited on 2/18 12:33 AM by nashvillegoldenflash
 
To pretend a heavily armed terrorist army of over 40,000 with billions of dollars is not a threat is pure stupidity and naivety. Need I remind you a couple dozen like minded men carried out 9/11?

I find it interesting that you continue to use a quote from General MacArthur to support your pacifist and isolationist views since you despise authoritarians and MacArthur is known as one of America's highly authoritarian figures. I realize you do it to give credibility to your isolationist position but MacArthur clearly did not believe in isolationism.

In his farewell address in 1951, Douglas MacArthur urged us to establish a Pacific defense perimeter on "a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Marianas held by us and free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific." MacArthur's strategy did not envision any retreat to California. He was no more an "isolationist" than Eisenhower, who advocated a similar policy for Europe.

-- From A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny, by Patrick J. Buchanan

This post was edited on 2/18 10:59 AM by nashvillegoldenflash

MacArthur was not an isolationist
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
To pretend a heavily armed terrorist army of over 40,000 with billions of dollars is not a threat is pure stupidity and naivety.
According to the official report, the 911 hijackers used utility knives. Just think what damage the commies could have done had they acquired utility knives...

Don't worry, flasher, big brother will protect you!
 
For some reason you keep missing MacArthur's point.


"Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense."


In other words he is saying that threats are a scam, NONSENSE, snake oil. This has NOTHING to do with isolationism - fear mongering is just fraud.


Same as global warming.







This post was edited on 2/18 1:11 PM by MTLynn
 
For your information, Islamic terrorists are using more than utility knives to kill innocent people. But I'm sure you are in denial of this. If you deny that Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians in the world, I have a feeling that you are also a Holocaust denier since so many of the Ron Paul supporters are (see link).

1297621226591_ORIGINAL.jpg

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, pictured in this image tweeted from an ISIS social media account, has been identified as the shooter of a soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, Oct. 22, 2014. (Twitter/Handout/QMI Agency)

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
For your information, Islamic terrorists are using more than utility knives to kill innocent people.
Isn't it AMAZING that all those airplanes were hijacked with utility knives? Do you believe it?

do you believe everything the media and government tell you or just the terrorism scam?

521978_538870549497252_1469880291_n.jpg
 
The Rothschild family caused the Holocaust.


"I know thy works, and tribulation and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." - Revelation, Chapter 2, Verse 9


I noticed that you didn't comment on my questions about utility knives and swallowing government and media propaganda. Typical big brother lover.




This post was edited on 2/18 5:25 PM by MTLynn
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT