Obama: comparing ISIS to the Crusades

Obama continually — as do other Islam apologists — conflates and compares ISIS to the Crusades.  As in: Islam vs Christianity, with Christianity the abject and utterly violent loser and Evildoer in the equation.

This specious argument couldn’t be more wrong.

Megyn Kelly weighs in:

After that, this video in a more concise version:

And finally, the full 22 minute video:

They are right.  Words matter.  And when Obama speaks before any group and there are TelePrompters involved, the words Mr Obama speaks have been vetted and parsed and sifted with the greatest amount of care possible.  When he says this, he means this.

Which is why when Obama refers to “people (who) committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” he’s speaking about Christians in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

This age-old saw is the first trotted out by Muslim apologists.  The major historical problem people don’t much seem to consider is: the Crusades occurred 800 years ago, and the inquisition was 600 years ago.

Since then, the blood and death and violence involving religion has been at the hands of Muslims, in the name of Islam.  Not Christianity.

Charles Krauthammer said:

“Everything he does is to minimize what’s happening, to hold us back and to essentially deny the gravity of what’s happening. That’s why today he had to compare it to the Crusades and to the Inquisition, which is simply astonishing. Mr. President, the Crusades were 800 years ago, and the Inquisition 500 years ago. What’s happening right now is not Christians on the march. It is radical Islam.”

“The only reason Obama got involved with ISIS in the first place was precisely the public reaction to the video beheading of the two Americans,” said Krauthammer. “If that hadn’t happened, he never would have stirred himself.”

Mr Krauthammer is entirely correct.

Obama still can’t say “Islamic terror.”  And ISIL is not Islamic, according to Mr Obama.



Islam: moderates or not?

Meaning, as I wrote, do we fundamentally have Islam wrong?

I think we do.

Are so-called “Islamists” in the majority or are so-called “moderates”?

Let’s watch:

Any conclusions one can draw?  Something similar to my core phrase, “Islam is as Islam does”?

Clearly, yes.  Over 50% of Muslims on the planet are not “moderate” but are in fact radical.  This goes against the meme of the “good moderate and peaceful Muslim.”

“Moderate Muslims” are, frankly, a statistical myth.  Thank you, Ben Shapiro.



Western civilization has Islam wrong:

KoranAbsolutely correct.

Western civilization and nations have Islam completely wrong, as Islam has been telling you for quite some time.

It isn’t Islamists that aren’t following the Quran.

It’s so-called “moderate Muslims.”

Ponder that for a moment.

Then read “Why Islam Creates Monsters.”



Why Islam creates monsters

Suicide of the WestThe following may well be the most insightful, thought-provoking and illuminating article you will read this year.  And it answers so many questions asked by so many people — yet — will likely be predominantly unread by the very groups of persons who most need its information.

Please, take the ten or fifteen minutes it requires to completely read the article.  At the end, you will come to understand the various aspects of Islam and how they meld into the religion (not really just a religion) and are applied by its adherents around the planet, and not just the Middle East.

The article, by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, is entitled “Why Islam Creates Monsters” and provides an examination of Islam not from a political viewpoint, but that of a psychiatric and cultural background.

An excellent Q&A with Sennels is here — as well as his article “Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences” — both being highly recommended reading.

Please read all three and you’ll be provided answers to questions you’ve been asking yourself recently.  Questions Leftists and our president aren’t asking and apparently don’t wish to pose.  Perhaps with fear of the answers themselves?

And you’ll come to understand my viewpoint on Islam as well.


Islamic State & Islam

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback

Freedom Go To HellThere is in fact, something rotten in Denmark.

It appears to be from the Danes themselves.

From Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs:

Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

By Nicolai Sennels, Jihadwatch, June 20, 2014

Recently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via 10news.dk, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Of course.  We “like” free speech until free speech conflicts with something else that is politically incorrect or sensitive or impolitic or requires courage, which is something Lefitsts clearly do not possess.

In other words: when there is pushback — in this case, something involving Islam and Sharia Law — “freedom of speech” is merely an old, volatile and hackneyed phrase.  And one that must be kicked to the curb.  There can be no courage in the face is Islam vs Westernized Nations.  The West must inherently lose, according to the GOWPs of the West.  The Guiilty Overeducated White People.

But I say this:

There must be a REASON that our Founding Fathers decided to place freedom of speech on “front street” in terms of our Bill of Rights, which states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suppose there can be a more clear and simple delineation of a basic freedom than the First Amendment.

But here’s the “rub.”  There will be greater conflicts when so-called “free speech” comes into conflict with “tolerance” and “cultural acceptance.”

What happens when you place Sharia objections of free speech under the guise of “tolerance,” then?

I submit: you lose your free speech.

As Pamela Geller clearly states and I obviously embrace, it is a characteristic of religious barbarians vs the common sensical.

When you embrace the consideration of Sharia Law as opposed to actual western rules of law, you ask for “civilizational suicide.”

“The political function of ‘the right of free speech’ is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression.”

Pamela Geller writes:

Abridging this most crucial freedom so as not to offend savages is civilizational suicide. It is the death knell for the modern enlightenment.

I couldn’t agree more.

Guess what, Denmark?  You’re about to LOSE your country.  Get prepared.