BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, 3-7-17

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sackheads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, March 7th, 2017” on Spreaker.

Tuesday night on the Berserk Bobcat Saloon:

  • German Police speak out about Islam;
  • Dr Ben Carson’s comments about black as immigrants;
  • Leftists leave $1 million cleanup job at Dakota Pipeline site, abandoning puppies;
  • President Trump’s Tweet about his campaign being hacked by Barack Obama;

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast.

BZ

 

Syrian refugees in US somehow DISAPPEAR: it’s STARTING already

Syrians Fleeing From ISISFrom GatewayPundit.com:

Breaking: Syrian ‘Refugee’ Already MISSING IN LOUISIANA

by John Binder

Liberals continue to tell us the “vetting process” for refugees is under control. They insist the federal government is monitoring every Syrian once they make it to America.
But, of course, that’s a total fallacy.

Chris Nakamoto at WBRZ writes:

We’re learning more details on the Syrian Refugee in Baton Rouge. Catholic Charities helped the refugee. However, we’re told the immigrant left after a few days, and Catholic Charities doesn’t know where he or she went. It’s not their job to track them. Details on WBRZ Channel 2 at 6.

Right.  So the Catholic sponsors couldn’t care less.

So just where might at least some of the Louisiana Syrian “refugees” be?  The Hayride.com lets us know:

Here Are The Exact Numbers Of How Many Syrian Refugees Are In Louisiana And Where They Are Located

by John Binder

Nearly two weeks ago, the Hayride exclusively reported on Syrian refugees potentially resettling in the state, it seems that some 14 refugees have already resettled in the state, according to WWL.

Here’s the breakdown of where the Syrians have resettled in the state:

  • 7 in Kenner.
  • 6 in New Orleans
  • 1 in Baton Rouge

Also, the New York Times has released this map, showing exactly where all Syrian refugees between 2012-present have been resettled in the country. Take a look:

syrian-refugee-mapISIS is already here in the US.  They were first elements of other anti-American Muslim groups but have now sworn fealty to ISIS.

Syrians have been stopped in Turkey from boarding aircraft, and stopped in the nation of Honduras, in possession of false Greek passports.

We do not need more Syrians imported into the United States, now or ever.  I say this not to be harsh or critical, but to be realistic.  As The Realist, it is clear that ISIS is driving its forces within Syria and other Middle Eastern nations and, further, insulating themselves within less-radicalized Syrians in flight.  Some of the terror suspects from the Paris attacks insinuated into Syrian groups specifically in order to kill French people.

With this freshly in our minds, Mr Obama is not just stupid, he is not just philosophically bent, he is dangerously evil when he wants to, at this juncture, purposely import Syrians into the United States — which is already starting to occur, as you can see.

If our government can’t manage a handful of Syrians in one city, what makes anyone think it can manage — or even would care to manage — hundreds, or thousands, or ten-thousand Syrians here in the United States?

Chris Christie is right.

NO SYRIANS IN THE UNITED STATES.

PERIOD.  No women, no children, no infants.

The safety and security of America comes first.

PERIOD.

BZ

 

After Paris, Obama triples down on EVIL

Paris Attack Bataclan Concert Site Dead BodiesIt wasn’t enough for Mr Obama to say, on May 23rd of 2013, that “the global war on terror is over.”

It wasn’t enough for Mr Obama, the very day of the Paris attack, to say that “ISIS is contained.”  When of course it wasn’t, 129 bloody bodies later.

It wasn’t enough for Mr Obama to say that he must now “increase and accelerate” the number of Syrians we place onto hallowed US soil.  Without an adequate intelligence data base this is a terribly dangerous action which jeopardizes the lives of Americans.

Because as the Paris attacks occurred, Syrians were in fact being landed in New Orleans.  And with that information, a modicum of common sense began to occur.

There began to become pushback by US governors on the Syrian “refugee” infiltration.  It was a wonderful and timely outcome stemming from a continuing wave of insanity from Obama and DC.

Mr Obama then decided that, on Monday, it was time to triple down on his stupidity as illustrated by the graphic which reflects Obama’s actual quote.

Because, as Obama says,

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France.  I’m too busy for that.”

Obama isn’t interested in American leadership.

Obama isn’t interested in America winning.

Mr Obama’s thoughts are inchoate, absurd, puerile, jejune, naive and, well, I’m running out of adjectives here.

What occurred in Paris can happen in any American city on any day.

“ISIS is an Obama creation.”
— Mayor Rudy Giuliani

“It would be malpractice on behalf of Islam to not take advantage of the Syrian  refugee crisis.”
— Dr Ben Carson

This is a proverbial “clash of civilizations.”  Either Islam wins or Western Civilization wins.  There is no “in between.”  There is no “moderation,” no gray area.

Mr Obama understands precisely none of it.  To him, this is a practice of artifice made in the vacuum of his mind.

BZ

 

The myth of the “moderate Muslim” in America, Pt. II

Burqa

A US Muslim male in the company of his wife dressed in this fashion is not a “moderate Muslim” but, instead, someone to be watched quite carefully.

I first wrote about the myth of the so-called “moderate Muslim” here, when it was revealed by the Center For Security Policy that “of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.”

But wait; those “moderate American Muslims” you’re told are good and tolerant people — and are in your community?

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

Two more very important paragraphs from my first blogpost about the myth of the “moderate Muslim in America:

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Understand this, however:

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Read that again.  Violence is justified is justified to ensure shariah law.

So essentially, as WND.com wrote,

Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

‘Quran should be highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion’

by Leo Hohmann

Ben Carson’s comment that he would not support a Shariah-compliant Muslim for president because Islamic law is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution led to the former brain surgeon’s roasting among media talkers and politicians of all stripes.

He has been excoriated as “anti-Muslim,” “bigoted,” even “anti-American” and unfit for office.

With the exception, as I wrote here, is that Dr Carson merely states the truth because, as indicated repeatedly, Muslims in the US embrace Shariah Law over our own US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Further, where does the Muslim concept of “taqiyah” enter into the equation?  If you are unfamiliar with that term, you’d best click on the link.

Further, Leftists embrace CAIR as they embrace the ACLU.  Except that the ACLU doesn’t immediately want to kill you for religious reasons — say, if you’re a Christian..  Yet.

This is important because Omar Ahmad, one founder of CAIR — and CAIR makes no bones about its representation of Muslims in the United States of America — has said, in “a conference hall packed with California Muslims in July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” ”

CAIR denied Ahmad made the statement and said the newspaper that printed his statement retracted it, but that was proven false.  In other words, Ahmad told the truth and CAIR lied.

This is another telling paragraph itself.

Ihsan Bagby of CAIR’s Washington office has said that Muslims “can never be full citizens of this country,” referring to the United States, “because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country,” Pipes reported in his 2006 article, “CAIR Islamists Fooling the Government.”

Islam can be conflictive in its statements, but that is dependent upon its goals at the time of the statement.  There is a general Muslim word called “taqiyah” representing the notion in Islam that Muslims should never tell the truth to infidels.  You and me, Western Civilization, those not believing in Islam, we are the infidels.  The unclean.  The ones who, like the Borg, need to be converted or killed.  Muslims are not ashamed to tell you this and to make the concept clear.  Google the word and check its meanings and various spellings.

Islam will frequently tell you what it is thinking and what it wants.  Many Muslims in America — a majority as indicated above — believe that Shariah Law is supreme over any other form of American law.  That is very clear.  On the other hand, Muslims have a duty to lie to infidels.

Therefore, Ahmad through CAIR, is representative of what Muslims in the US believe.  You can come to no other conclusion.  CAIR is happy to make the linkage itself.  They make it quite clear they wish to represent Muslims in America.  As noted above, a poll already indicates that a majority of sampled Muslims hold that Shariah Law should be the law of the United States.

Yes, I am certain there are moderate Muslims in America.

Just as I believe there are Muslims in America who do not practice Islam as demanded by the most devout and true of followers of Mohammad and of the Koran.

Those are the “moderate Muslims” in America, who would not survive their practice in the Middle East.  The Muslims who do not practice the Koran as strictly written.  If you are a “moderate Muslim,” you’re not doing it right and you yourself may be in danger of an Islamic re-tuning.

If you point out a “moderate Muslim” to me, I’ll point out someone who cannot recite a minimum of five surahs and hasn’t been to a mosque in months or years, whose wife doesn’t wear hajib and who doesn’t not have a beard or fear Mohammad.  Someone the rest of non-moderate Islam would consider too Westernized

Unless they are present in the US to blend in as they plot our infidel deaths.

There are the exceptions, you see.

hirsi-ali_-ayaan-B_W_Size4

Asked whether suicide bombing can be justified as a measure to defend Islam, 26 percent of American Muslims age eighteen to twenty-nine said yes. That is one quarter of the adult American Muslims under the age of thirty, and no matter how you count the number of Muslims in America (estimates vary from 2 million to 8 million), that is a lot of people.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Somali-born American (formerly Dutch) activist, writer, and politician.

BZ

 

Breitbart focuses on Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt Looks Right Smiling - DSalem Radio Network radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump on Thursday, September 3rd, for the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show.

Trump believed he’d been ambushed with a series of “gotcha” questions regarding the situation in the Middle East, and called Hewitt a “third rate radio host” the following day, despite the fact that he’d sent a note to the show thanking them for the opportunity to Donald Trump On Hugh Hewittspeak — a fact made evident by co-producer Marlon Bateman, himself a US military veteran, something that Mr Trump is not.

Donald Trump On Hugh Hewitt, Redux RetortIn my opinion, the questions asked by Hugh of Mr Trump were not “gotcha” insofar as they were asked of pretty much every other GOP candidate appearing on Hewitt’s show.  These same questions were posed on the same show of Carly Fiorina, for example, who managed to field them and appeared familiar with most of the territory, also including some personal experiences.

For background, Hugh Hewitt will work alongside Jake Tapper on the next GOP debate, September 16th, at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley (to now include Carly Fiorina), hosted by CNN.  Tapper will moderate and Hewitt will pitch the questions.

Once this became known, many GOP brokers who formerly disdained any appearance with Hewitt somewhat soiled their shorts in order to line up a segment on his radio show.  As a result Hugh has interviewed Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and any number of GOP presidential contenders.

That’s why Trump appeared on Hewitt’s show last week.

That information, therefore, was the requisite set-up for the newest article on Breitbart today, taking a swipe at Mr Hewitt.

From Breitbart.com:

Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters

by Julia Hahn

Hugh Hewitt, the moderator picked by GOP leaders for the upcoming candidates’ debate, is firmly on the establishment’s side in its struggle against outsider Donald Trump.

Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.

“No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.

The thrust of the article is that Hugh Hewitt hates Trump, and that Trump was correct in his labeling of Hugh as a “third rate radio host.”

Mr Hewitt certainly doesn’t need me to fight his wars for him; he’s more than capable of defending himself in any venue.  However, some have said — and I am tending to agree — that Breitbart is becoming a bit of Trump Central, where persons or entities that don’t pull the Trump line are run through the Breitbart Ringer.

Frankly, I find that rather disappointing on any number of levels since I utilize Breitbart not only as a valid news source but a form of reference for the blog.

Yes, Hugh pulls a good deal of water for the Republican Party but not all the water imaginable.  There are times when I disagree with Hugh (one of those areas being some areas of immigration).  But I find that Hugh isn’t selective in terms of how he treats his on-air guests.  He particularly attempts to treat those involved in politics in an egalitarian fashion.  He did so with Trump, Fiorina, Bush and with Ben Carson — whose interview likewise did not go what could be quantified as “swimmingly.”

I don’t expect Trump or other interviewed pols appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show to be perfect; far from it.  What I do expect is that presidential candidates have staffs.

And with those staffs, I would expect candidates to have paid for consultation services, and to have researched those places and points where the candidate will interview.

I would expect those staffs to have researched every place I would speak and to have at least a semblance of understanding of that potential interviewer.

Paying a consultant for these considerations should be the last thing Trump is thinking about.  That advice to each candidate should already have been made and been in place prior to each interview.  Shame on the candidates and their staffs if that hasn’t happened.

It isn’t Hugh’s job to do their job.

Further, you have to be smart enough to realize that the questions Hugh asks, when you appear, may be remarkably similar to the questions he’ll pose on CNN’s September 16th GOP debate.

Hello?  (taps on mike)  Any of you candidates getting a clue here?

This isn’t “gotcha,” folks.  This is called “show prep.”  For Hugh and you.

BZ