Obama declares Islamophobia a felony hate crime

Phobia is an abnormal, irrational fear. As now defined, however, Islamophobia is merely “prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.” Rational “Prejudice,” “hatred” and “fear” of Islam are, therefore, now Islamophobic.


Obama often proclaims that there is no reason to fear Islam —  the religion of truth and love — and that He welcomes it in His America. It is permissible, indeed even patriotic, to fear and oppose the Non-Islamic Islamic State, but to fear and to oppose Islam runs counter to American values and is, therefore, worse than merely vile.

By virtue of His constitutional obligation under Article II to do whatever He damn well pleases, He has determined that anyone who criticises Islam is guilty of felony hate speech, which has long been recognized not to be entitled to protections under the First Amendment. To think Islamophobic thoughts leads to hate speech and must also be criminalised as hate thought.

Once again, Obama shows that He is a great leader — not a mere follower — in America’s quest finally to become a great nation of which He can finally be proud. An article by Jonathan Turley is titled Forty Percent of Millennials Favor Censorship of Offensive Speech By Government. Turley, a liberal in the old-fashioned sense of the word and among the few “liberals” to remain strong defenders of free speech, notes that

I have long argued that the West appears to have fallen out of love with free speech, which is more often viewed as a rising scourge rather than a defining value in some countries. A recent poll of the Pew Research Center shows just how many people we have lost to those calling for greater censorship and criminalization of speech. It is not surprisingly more prevalent with younger age groups, though Democrats are almost twice as likely favor censorship than Republicans. The largest (and most alarming) group is the millennials — 40% of whom favor government censorship of speech offensive to minority groups. [Emphasis added.]

Clearly, Obama is — as always — on the right side of history, leading from the front.


Here is the text of Obama’s address to the nation, to be delivered on Thanksgiving Day.

My fellow, blessedly multicultural, Americans, Thanksgiving is the day we all now understand was forced upon us to commemorate the vile treatment of Native Americans by settlers — just as Israeli settlers now abuse native Palestinians. To treat Muslims as we treated Native Americans, as Israel treats peaceful Palestinians — and indeed as Christian Crusaders just a short time ago treated peaceful Muslims  — is the worst type of anti-American prejudice I can imagine. Therefore, under the powers vested in Me under the U.S. Constitution, I hereby decree that anyone — no matter who or where and even in the halls of Congress — criticises the Religion of Peace and Love shall be tried and summarily convicted of felony Hate speech.

Some may say — falsely — that this is a drastic and unwarranted measure. It is neither. Islamophobia is intensely harmful to Muslims fleeing persecution by Christians and Jews abroad. It may even deter Muslims from coming to My America to enjoy the benefits of liberty and freedom as ordaned under the Constitution. They all desire to be assimilated into America and to live here with peace and honour killings in accord with our traditions of freedom and justice; traditions which are envied by those fleeing persecution and which they yearn to enjoy in My America. To persecute innocent Muslims here, as they are persecuted abroad is a disgrace; as long as I am your President I shall not permit it.

The spectre of hate thought also now darkens America and leads to hate speech against Muslims everywhere — even those in The Islamic State Republic of Iran, with which I successfully negotiated an historic deal to eliminate the spectre of nuclear weapons in, and to bring peace to, most of the Middle East.

Just as I have decreed that hate speech against Muslims shall be punished, so must hate thought. Accordingly, all candidates for public office in My America will now be required to answer questions seeking to probe their deepest unspoken, but dreadful, anti-Islamic thoughts. The Council on Islamic-American Relations will prepare the questions and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation will ask them. Those found to harbour anti-Islamic  — and therefore un-American — thoughts will be declared unfit for, and disqualified from holding, public office. The First Amendment, of course, provides no protection for freedom of thought; even if it did, it would provide no protection for hate thought.  This is necessary if My America is, once again, to lead the free world.

(Wait for vigorous applause.)

Thank you. Now, for your Thanksgiving pleasure, here is a tribute to Me by my favorite vocal group, the Muslim Brotherhood Chorus.


Posted in Asylum seekers, Bill of Rights, CAIR, Constitution, Executive Decree, free speech, Human rights, Iran scam, Islam, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamophobia, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood Chorus, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Islam — Radical, Extremist and Mainstream.

In largely secular western societies, Islam and its history are viewed by many non-Muslims as substantially irrelevant to how devout Muslims behave. Perhaps the view that religion is of little importance to devout Muslims is based on the role, minor if any, that religion and religious history play in their own secular lives. However, both Islamic teachings and history give devout Muslims their grounding in Islam and teach them that Islam is the religion of war, not peace: Islam must become the world’s only religion by extirpating all others.

Islam was founded by Mohamed ( c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) in the sixth century. Mohamed

is considered, almost universally,[n 2] by Muslims to have been the last prophet sent by God to mankind[3][n 3] to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[4][5][6][7] [Emphasis added.]

Islam considers the words of Mohamed, as transcribed in the “Holy” Quran and Hadith, to be the words of Allah. “Restoring” other monotheistic religions means changing them to comport with Islam as dictated to Mohamed by Allah; unaltered, those other religions cannot continue to exist; it is the duty of Muslims to force them to change or to exterminate them.

Islam provides the basis for Sunni and Shiite (principal branches of Islam) efforts to govern world civilization according to Islamic principles as voiced by Allah through his prophet, Mohamed. Since Islamic principles tolerate no religious or political freedoms (let alone contemporary gender equality or homosexuality notions), such western ideas must be extirpated — as they have been in Saudi Arabia (now the head of the UN Human Rights Council) and Iran. Islamic principles are also manifested by the hopes and efforts of the Islamic State (Sunni, like Saudi Arabia) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shiite) to achieve their own caliphates.

Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr is a scholar of Islamic law and a graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University — regularly touted as the world’s most prestigious Islamic university. Al Azhar University co-hosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginnings” address in Cairo, to which Obama insisted that at least ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited. According to an article at Jihad Watch,

After being asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic, Sheikh Nasr said:

It can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic].  The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs.  So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?  Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it].  Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate.  Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc.  Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities].  Al Azhar teaches stoning people.  So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? [Emphasis added.]

Nasr joins a growing chorus of critics of Al Azhar.  Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that “The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches… and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir’s Beginning and End.”

Since the world’s preeminent Islamic university teaches Islam as proclaimed by the Islamic State, how can non-Muslims claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic? Why do many, even conservatives, refer to the Islamic State and its allied Islamic terror groups as “radical” or “extremist?”

Martin Luther was “radical” and “extreme” because he tried to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism which he deemed malign.

He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

Unlike Martin Luther’s eventually successful efforts to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism, the efforts of Egyptian President Sisi and other moderate Muslims to reform Islam have thus far gained little traction. Obama appears to support President Sisi’s principal opponent in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Sisi and other moderates — rather than the Islamic State and Islamic nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia — should be characterized as “radical” or “extreme” because they dispute the teachings of Allah as relayed through his prophet, Mohamed. The proponents of Islam as it now exists are “mainstream,” and therefore neither “radical” nor “extreme.” We should support “radicals” like President Sisi.

As noted in an article titled Beware of Islamic Terrorism,

All Islamic terrorists — not only the Islamic State group and al-Qaida — systematically and deliberately target civilians, stabbing their Muslim and “infidel” host countries in the back, abusing their hospitality to advance 14 centuries of megalomaniac aspirations to rule the globe in general, and to reclaim the “waqf” (Allah-ordained) regions of Europe in particular.

Emboldened by Western indifference, these destabilizing and terror-intensifying aspirations have been bolstered by the Islamic educational systems in Europe, the U.S. and other Western countries. These proclaim a supposedly irrevocable Islamic title over the eighth-century Islamic conquests of Lyon, Nice and much of France, as well as all of Spain; the ninth-century subjugation of parts of Italy; and the ninth- and 10th-century occupations of western Switzerland, including Geneva. [Emphasis added.]

Europe has underestimated the critical significance of this long anti-Western history in shaping contemporary Islamic education, culture, politics, peace, war, and the overall Islamic attitude toward Europe, North America, Australia, and other “arrogant infidels.” “Infidel” France has been the prime European target for Islamic terrorists, with 11 reported attacks in 2015, despite France’s systematic criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority — dispelling conventional “wisdom” that Islamic terrorism is Israeli or Palestinian-driven.

Europe has ignored the significant impact the crucial milestones in the life of the Prophet Muhammad have had on contemporary Islamic geostrategy, such as his seventh-century Hijrah, when Muhammad, along with his loyalists, emigrated or fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina), not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary. Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world. [Emphasis added.]

According to a moderate Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, writing in an article at the Daily Beast titled ISIS Is Just One of a Full-Blown Global Jihadist Insurgency,

Our political leaders have been restricting the definition of this problem to whichever jihadist group is causing them the biggest headache at the present time, while ignoring the fact that they are all borne of the same Islamist ideology. Before ISIS emerged, the U.S. State Department strangely took to naming the problem “al Qaeda-inspired extremism,” even though it was not al Qaeda that inspired the radicalism. Rather, Islamist extremism inspired al Qaeda. And in turn, ISIS did not radicalize those 6,000 European Muslims who have traveled to join them, nor the thousands of supporters the French now say they are monitoring. [Emphasis added.]

This did not happened overnight and could not have emerged from a vacuum. ISIS propaganda is good, but not that good. No, decades of Islamist propaganda in communities had already primed these young Muslims to yearn for a theocratic caliphate. When surveyed, 33 percent of British Muslims expressed a desire to resurrect a caliphate. ISIS simply plucked the low-hanging fruit, which had been seeded long ago by various Islamist groups, and it will now require decades of community resilience to push back. But we cannot even begin to do so until we recognize the problem for what it is. Welcome to the full-blown global jihadist insurgency. [Emphasis added.]

The author of that article claims that Islamism (often referred to as “political Islam“) is not Islam:

I speak as a former Liberal Democrat candidate in the U.K.’s last general election and as someone who became a political prisoner in Egypt due to my former belief in Islamism. I speak, therefore, from a place of concern and familiarity, not enmity and hostility to Islam and Muslims. In a televised discussion with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on the issue, I have argued that of course ISIS is not Islam. Nor am I. Nor is anyone, really. Because Islam is what Muslims make it. But it is as disingenuous to argue that ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam” as it is to argue that “they are Islam.” ISIS has something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something. . . . [Emphasis added.]

It is important to define here what I mean by Islamism: Islam is a religion, and like any other it is internally diverse. But Islamism is the desire to impose a very particular version of Islam on society. Hence, Islamism is Muslim theocracy. [Emphasis added.]

In another article, Mr. Nawaz acknowledges,

Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves.

I wish Mr. Nawaz well and hope that his efforts to change Islam succeed. However, in drawing distinctions between Islam and Islamism, he seems to have forgotten, or perhaps to have chosen to ignore, the teachings of Allah as relayed by his messenger and Islam’s founder, Mohamed, referenced at the beginning of this article. Mohamed (and presumably Allah himself) would be surprised by and even horrified at such notions as “Islam is what Muslims make itand that Islam does not contemplate a Muslim theocracy. So, in all probability, would be many of the clerics at Egypt’s Al Azhar University.

Here are a few videos of Islamic clerics spreading their messages of Islamic peace, love and tolerance. The last of the bunch is about one of Obama’s favorite Muslims.

To close on a somewhat lighter note, here are a few observations by Jonah Goldberg taken from his Goldberg file (November 20, 2015 e-mail),

If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news” letter — you’ll find lots of left-wingtrollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).

What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today. [Emphasis added.]

Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)

. . . .

But it is simply a lie — an obvious, glaring, indisputable, trout-in-the-milk lie — that Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Simply put, this is nonsense. . . .  The jihadists say they are motivated by Islam. They shout “Allahu akbar!” whenever they kill people. “Moderate Muslims” in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have been funding Islamic radicals around the world for nearly a century. This morning in Mali, terrorist gunmen reportedly released those hostages who could quote the Koran. The leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies and openly talks about restoring the Caliphate. [Emphasis added.]

Despite all of this, don’t be distracted from the greatest threat to our security; or perhaps we should be:





Posted in Allah, CAIR, Cairo address, Christians, Egypt, England, Europe, Foreign policy, Freedom, History, Hitler's Germany, Holocaust, Human rights, Iran, Iranian support for terrorism, Iranian terror proxies, Islam, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamists, Israel, Jews, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's affinity for Islam, Palestinian heroes, Religion of death | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

REAL men like Obama aren’t afraid of widows and three year old orphans!

As Obama has told us, Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance and love. Islamists coming to America to flee the violent depredations of Crusader-inspired Quaker, Amish and Jewish terrorists produced by climate change must be welcomed. To reject them would be cowardly and un-Amerian un-Islamic.

widows with children

Thus spake Obama, who has managed to become even more of a caricature of a president than previously. He needed to try manfully, but finally surpassed even Himself. Having set the bar so high, will He ever be able to surpass Himself again?

To ask “what Obama was thinking” when he made the remarks memorialized in the above video is to suggest that He was actually thinking. Perhaps He was thinking that His followers, who have been hiding in their “safe spaces” at Yale and other bastions of higher learning, are unaware of what happened in Paris. Maybe they are also unaware that it could happen in America if we permit the unfiltered immigration of Islamic terrorists like France, German, Sweden and much of the rest of Europe have done. Maybe they can be kept oblivious to such problems by happy talk about widows and young orphans. Or perhaps it was Obama’s way of showing courage and moral superiority: unlike His cowardly opponents, He isn’t scared of widows and three year old children! Other threats? He’s dealing really well with those, so let’s change the subject; He is too busy to talk about doing anything different.


Leading from behind is lots of work, but He does it with the same bravery, steadfastness and self-sacrifice He demonstrates daily in all other contexts.

Hashtags, the Obama Administration’s most effective Weapons of Mass Deception (WMDs), have again been deployed:

Shouldn’t the new hashtag read “#Widows and three year old orphans Welcome?” Shouldn’t also it disparage “racist” Halloween costumes and speech offensive to Muslims? In the holy name of Islam, we must submit to Obama’s wisdom; the Department of Domestic Tranquility (DDT) must get on the case immediately to make sure that we do.

Posted in Asylum seekers, Climate change, Department of Domestic Tranquility (DDT), Foreign policy, free speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic rage, Islamic supremacy, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Religion of peace, Submission | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Infants in University Land

The infants at Yale’s Silliman (residential) College may deserve better, but it would have to start with fresh diapers and spankings. When I was a Yale undergraduate about a half century ago, my fellow students were young men, not infants; they had senses of humor. Those who helped us to learn were adults. They did not much care whether their words might offend the easily offended. Neither did we.

This song was sung by the returning class of 1963, my class. I wish I had been able to attend and wonder whether it will eventually cease to be sung at Yale.

In the present context, two events stand out from my undergraduate years. One evening, I watched a hundred or so Yalies walking about demanding Freedom. Yalies of that day were (and  those of today probably are) among the most free people on the planet. They carried “We Want Freedom!” signs, none of which even hinted at what they wanted freedom from or of what freedoms they had been deprived.  Perhaps they wanted freedom from exams. Or perhaps they just wanted to march around being silly and having a bit of fun. A college environment from which fun is barred would be dreadful.


Another time, I watched a group of Yalies crown Homer Tomlinson King of the World on the steps of Sterling Memorial Library. Tomlinson claimed to have ended the Korean Conflict by flying over the country. None of the Yalies appeared to be at all serious; they were mocking Tomlinson. He seemed to relish their attention and not to understand that he was the butt of their “insensitive” jokes. Another group had a different mission: they were “supporting” Dick Nixon by carrying signs reading “Nobody can lick our …” er, Richard. Nobody wanted, and nobody had, a “safe space” from which different views and mocking were excluded.

I very much hope that the current crop of students infants infesting Yale is small and not representative of present trends. In that case, safe spaces can be found for them in the scholarly environment shown in this (satirical) video. They should fit right in and find it very congenial.




Posted in College days, Fun, Yale College | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Obama can defeat violent extremism with hugs and other treats for terrorists

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) friend, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of CCCEB (Climate Change Causes Everything Bad), a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, beyond noting that I added a few words which I then struck out like this to provide greater clarity to Senator Librul’s article, here it is. 



Islamic terrorists Violent extremists are simply misguided youth who are underprivileged, mistreated and haven’t yet developed refined social skills. Therefore, they should be treated like their peers in American cities.

Obama’s task force on 21st century policing has suggested new and better ways to encourage misguided youth to become productive members of society. One suggestion is to “build relationships through nonenforcement interactions between officers, youth, and other community members.” An example of this splendid innovation is provided at page 23 of the study:

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans says, “I think we’re the only police department in the country with an ice cream truck and I can’t say enough good things about it. When the truck shows up, the kids love it and our officers love it too because it gives them a platform and an opportunity to engage and interact with our city’s young people in a positive, friendly, productive way.”

Surely, that will work equally well with poor, misguided youth abroad who, through no fault of their own, have failed to develop suitably refined social skills and therefore engage in Islamic terrorism violent extremism, Islamic white supremacy and other socially undesirable pursuits. Minor modifications will, however, be necessary. Here are a few suggestions:

Khat vs. ice cream

There has never been a scientific, multiculturally correct and therefore statistically valid survey of the quantum of pleasure violent extremists derive from ice cream or, indeed, whether they even like it.

Moreover, it has been claimed that “candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.” Liquor is also quicker than ice cream. However, Islam prohibits the ingestion of alcoholic beverages and, unless that wise proscription is revoked, offering Islamic terrorists violent extremists and Islamic white supremacists liquor would be culturally insensitive. On the other hand, offering khat would be culturally sensitive and, therefore, a good thing.

Catha edulis (khat, qat) is a flowering plant native to the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Among communities from these areas, khat chewing has a history as a social custom dating back thousands of years.

Khat contains a monoamine alkaloid called cathinone, an amphetamine-like stimulant, which is said to cause excitement, loss of appetite and euphoria. [footnotes omitted.]

Clearly, loss of appetite would be helpful to violent extremists who suffer from dietary insufficiencies and behave violently because of it. In similar fashion, euphoria would also diminish their perceived needs to engage in violent extremism and help them to transfer their excitement to productive, rather than destructive, activities. Offering khat would, therefore, be an excellent alternative to offering alcohol.

While some may favor providing marijuana instead of khat, the former has become increasingly lawful in many parts of Obama’s domain and doing so would deprive our own disadvantaged youth of one of their very few lawful pleasures, leading to their increased consumption of cocaine. That would, in turn, deprive many in Hollywood — America’s intellectual and cultural capitol — of a major source of inspiration for their production of splendid motion pictures which illuminate the foolish insensitivity of what most “conservatives” consider “thought.”


It is sometimes claimed that Obama wants to deprive “law abiding” citizens of the firearms to which they cling bitterly, along with their Bibles. This understanding is, of course, wrong: it should be obvious, even to those dolts, that when civilians are prohibited from having firearms, those who still have them will, ipso facto, cease to be “law abiding.”

Something has to be done with confiscated firearms, and Commander in Chief Obama has demonstrated the historic success of His efforts to eliminate violent extremism by overtly giving weapons of all sorts to violent extremists or simply — but cleverly — allowing them to fall into their hands. This strategy has been proven quite successful in defeating the Non-Islamic Islamic State (NIIS) and other non-Islamic organizations promoting violent extremism.


Many misguided youth who engage in socially undesirable conduct suffer, through no fault of their own, from lack of a suitable education. Great leaps forward need to be made in educating those who engage in violent extremism due to their sad misunderstandings of Islam, the religion of peace.

President Obama has proven Himself, countless times, to have a far clearer understanding of the true nature of Islam than any other person, living or dead — including Mohamed and countless so-called Islamic imams and other scholars. I therefore hope that He will soon find a way to visit as many Islamic lands as possible to provide personal instruction on the true nature of Islam to misguided youth, as well as to their misguided elders. Spreading the true nature of Islam in Islamic lands, particularly the Islamic Republic of Iran and thereby putting “Islamic” terrorism behind us forever, will be the greatest of President Obama’s many historic accomplishments. As a true Man of Peace and Understanding, President Obama will put Himself in no danger of violence by doing so: the truth and beauty of everything He says are always immediately obvious to all who hear him.

Although President Obama will be in no danger of personal harm, because Islam is the true religion of peace, precautions should be taken against the extremely remote chance that He might be murdered by someone who unreasonably rejects His godly message. To that end, Vice President Biden should be asked to resign for the good of the country and, indeed, of the entire world. President Obama should issue an executive order making Hillary Clinton His vice president. By doing so, He will ensure that, even if the worst imaginable should happen, His wonderful legacy will be carried forward without interruption.

Editor’s comments

Giving up the office of vice president will be a tremendous sacrifice for Joe Biden and for Imam Obama as well, since selecting him is the best decision Obama ever made. Perhaps Obama will be able to provide some small compensation by asking the King of Saudi Arabia to make him (Biden, not Obama) a sheik and his foreign minister – oil minister. In those capacities, Sheik Biden will reduce the flow of oil, raise oil prices and help to end the evil of clime change while simultaneously helping to bring true peace to the entire world.

Posted in Arms control, Democrats, Education, Executive Order, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Iranian terror proxies, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Obama and crime, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Religion of death, Religion of peace, Right wing extremists, Satire, Violent extremism, VP Biden, White Supremacists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Israel’s delightful partners for peace

Mahmoud Abbas is the longest serving President of “Palestine,” having been elected to a four year term in 2005. Due to “internal Palestinian conflict,” there have been no elections since then. Abbas has been praised by Pope Francis and Imam Obama as a true partner for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.


According to The Catholic Herald, Pope Francis did not refer to Abbas as an “angel of peace” in May of this year; He merely said that he could be one.

[A]ccording to La Stampa, after giving Abbas a medallion with the figure of the angel of peace, the Pope told him: “The angel of peace destroys the evil spirit of war. I thought about you: may you be an angel of peace.” Other reports quoted the Pope as saying: “Ho pensato a lei: che lei possa essere un angelo della pace” — “I have thought of you: that you could be an angel of peace.”

In March of 2013, Imam Obama said:

Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority, I believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Over the last few years, they have built institutions and maintained security on the West Bank in ways that few would have imagined a decade ago. So many Palestinians – including young people – have rejected violence as a means of achieving their aspirations. [Emphasis added.]

Here are a few videos showing Abbas, his colleagues, friends and followers demanding (Islamic) peace and love everlasting. Their hopes for change they can believe in should be easy to accomplish. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu need only listen to reason and stop inciting Jews to violence against innocent Palestinians. Oh. One insignificant detail: destroy Israel and kill the Jews.

In a September 16 address, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared: “The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are ours. They are all ours, and they have no right to defile them with their filthy feet.” Abbas further said: “We salute every drop of blood spilled for the sake of Jerusalem.” The address was aired on the official TV channel of the Palestinian Authority.

Of course, it’s not just Abbas, may his holy name be praised. Here is a video of remarks by a member of the Fatah Central Committee. Fatah is an organ of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.The fine gentleman in the video acknowledges that Israel has to be eliminated, but says that must be kept secret for a little while longer.

Fatah Central Committee Member, Abbas Zaki, Calls Netanyahu and Obama “Scumbags” and Says: “The Greater Goal Cannot Be Accomplished In One Go”, Al-Jazeera TV (Qatar) …

Here are videos of peaceful Palestinians promoting peace with Israel:






Israeli Prime Minister is an insecure and nasty little racist. He obviously doesn’t want peace because he refuses to give the Pope’s and Imam Obama’s friend, President Abbas, his colleagues and followers, what little they demand, merely the destruction of Israel. To Move On is a small price to pay for (Islamic) peace and understanding. Perhaps Imam Obama and Stenographer Kerry will persuade him to negotiate, seriously, for a two state solution.

On the other hand, this might be a better idea even though it wouldn’t work either:


Posted in Abbas, Fatah, Foreign policy, Gaza, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamist rage, Israel, Kerry, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Two state solution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Madam Hillary is on the right side of herstory

Lies are good and truth is bad because truth would damage Madam Hillary’s and even Imam Obama’s sterling images. Both, bravely and proudly, try to feed us what is “good.” Their people love it, so what difference does it make? 


According to John Hinderaker at Power Line, Madam Hillary

lies…it’s not exactly a news flash. On the contrary, based on the liberal media’s reaction to her Benghazi testimony, her willingness to lie, brazenly, is a positive virtue.

There’s always an excuse for having “misspoke.” It need not be a credible excuse, because an incredible excuse works just fine. Anyway, whatever happened was in the past and therefore doesn’t matter now:

What has Imam Obama lied about? Plenty. Here’s an incomplete list: Islam, the nuke “deal” with Iran, Libya, His strength and Putin’s weakness in the Middle East, Israel, Immigration, Crime, Obamacare, race relations and on and on and on. As with Madam Hillary’s spewings, the “legitimate media” generally love it.

Madam Hillary blamed the video repeatedly

According to an article titled “I didn’t blame the video,” Madam Hillary did just that while also managing to lie about substantially more than that.

Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” [Emphasis added.]

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton’s apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn’t actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” Clinton wrote Egypt’s prime minister the night of the attack. “It was a planned attack, not a protest.” But in public Clinton continued to blame the “offensive” video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip. [Emphasis added]

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said “Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators.”

You want to talk about Madam Hillary’s lies? She didn’t lie, of course, but let’s change the subject to something more important. Right now.




“Her people” not only don’t care, they are delighted with Madam Hillary’s numerous lies. Again, “what difference does it make?” Plenty.

Please think about Madam Hillary’s and Imam Obama’s impunity — and readiness —  to lie, violate laws and do pretty much whatever they please. We have become a nation without law enforcement where we need it most and very much where enforcement of Obama’s executive decrees harms us greatly (climate change and immigration for example). Do we want a nation the governance of which is increasingly based on, and perpetuated through, lies to “We the people?” Do we want Madam Hillary or another Obama clone as the next Commander in Chief?

Here’s what “Commander in Chief” Obama has done with his our military:

Do you approve of those and the other things He has done to our military? Want more of the same? Or even worse? If not, what can we do about it? Supporting Donald Trump may or may not be what we should do, but I think the songs in the video are superb. Back in September, I wrote an article titled To bring America back we need to break some stuff. We still do, and if someone other than Trump is ready, willing and able he (or, of course, she) should also be considered, very seriously.

Posted in Abuse of Power, Benghazi, Clinton, Congress, Dishonor, Freedom, Ideology, IRS, Islamic supremacy, Lust for power, Obama - rogue president, Obama's America, U.S. Military | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments