Citing America's Violence, Torture and Racism, China Tells the U.S. To Shut Its Yapper About Human Rights

Apparently, the People's Republic of China has had just about enough of the pot calling the kettle black so they have requested that America stop pointing any fingers at them regarding human rights.

From the story over at Reuters via Breitbart:

The United States is beset by violence, racism and torture and has no authority to condemn other governments' human rights problems, China said on Sunday, countering U.S. criticism of Beijing's crackdown.

The row between Beijing and Washington over human rights has intensified since China's ruling Communist Party extended its clampdown on dissidents and rights activists, a move which has sparked an outcry from Washington and other Western governments.

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is the most prominent of the activists to be detained by police or held in secretive custody in the latest crackdown.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday she was "deeply concerned" about it, and cited "negative trends" including Ai's detention.

You know, you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not notice how the entire world had caught onto the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has set up America to be the whipping post for the entire world right now. I remember a day when many countries would think twice about pissing off America - either they feared a sort of isolation economically or they feared a cut in their foreign aid or they even feared some sort of military action but not now, not with the Great Apologist at the helm of this country. No, now it's the international sport of using America as a punching bag and knowing damn well that they can get away with it.

To think that China would seriously make a claim of racism and violence and torture in the United States as a reason why the atrocities going on in that country should be ignored is almost laughable.

But you know, I guess if the Chinese are watching certain video clips of America...you know, like clips of Obama's pastor saying that G_d damns America....or Obama's friend having bombed the Pentagon in his past.....well, perhaps that is where they get these crazy notions.

We have China calling us "racist", we have the likes of Iran calling us "The Great Satan", we have Venezuela taunting us at every turn and we even have a Mexican president standing on our soil degrading our country and we wonder what in the world happened? Remember the claim that electing Barack Hussein Obama to the White House post would make all of the world like America again? Well, I guess the strategy of Obama to make America out as the bad guy in all of the world's problems has backfired....you see, none of the world's leaders have taken in those apologies and said "boy, America is really humble now, we like them"....ummm...no...they have said "the once great America is now a sniveling, weak-kneed coward so let's take this chance to pummel the shit out of them."

China tells U.S. to quit as human rights judge


(Reuters) - The United States is beset by violence, racism and torture and has no authority to condemn other governments' human rights problems, China said on Sunday, countering U.S. criticism of Beijing's crackdown.

The row between Beijing and Washington over human rights has intensified since China's ruling Communist Party extended its clampdown on dissidents and rights activists, a move which has sparked an outcry from Washington and other Western governments.

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is the most prominent of the activists to be detained by police or held in secretive custody in the latest crackdown.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday she was "deeply concerned" about it, and cited "negative trends" including Ai's detention.

A U.S. State Department report on global human rights released on Friday said Beijing had stepped up restrictions on lawyers, activists, bloggers and journalists, and tightened controls on civil society.

It has also increased its efforts to control the press, Internet and Internet access, the report said.

But China has shown no sign of bowing to foreign pressure.

Its Foreign Ministry on Saturday dismissed the U.S. report as meddling, and its own annual report about U.S. human rights stressed Beijing's dismissive view.

"Stop the domineering behavior of exploiting human rights to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries," it said, according to excerpts published by the official Xinhua news agency.

"The United States ignores its own severe human rights problems, ardently promoting its so-called 'human rights diplomacy', treating human rights as a political tool to vilify other countries and to advance its own strategic interests," said a passage from the Chinese report

Produced by the State Council Information Office, the government's public relations arm, the report dwelled on what it said were severe deprivations and threats facing many Americans, as well as Washington's invasion of Iraq.

It also cited the United States' refusal to ratify a number of international human rights pacts, and listed poverty, hunger and homelessness as stains on the country's rights record.

"The United States is the world's worst country for violent crimes," said the report. "Citizens' lives, property and personal safety do not receive the protection they should."

"Racial discrimination is deeply rooted in the United States, permeating every aspect of social life," it said.

Criticism of China's human rights problems do not come just from foreign governments and groups.

Chinese rights lawyers and advocates have also been dismayed by a recent burst of arrests, detentions and heavy sentences against dissidents and activists.

On Sunday, hundreds of Chinese police moved to prevent a planned outdoor service by a church in Beijing that had been evicted from its former premises.

Russians, Now In the Driver's Seat In Space, Stick It To NASA For Price of Transportation For U.S. Astronauts

If you ever were looking for the defining portrait of what Barack Hussein Obama has done to the prestige and standing of the United States of America in just two short years, then look into space. I'll paint this portrait for you, painful as it is for most red-blooded Americans to view.

You see, come this summer, American astronauts will literally have no way to get into space. That fancy schmancy space station that orbits the Earth...well, American astronauts won't have a way to get to it come the end of this summer. Barack Hussein Obama has seen to it that America no longer has any space shuttles or rocket ships or whatever the next generation would have been. So, come the end of the summer, American astronauts will have to take a hired taxi into space and those "taxis" are Russian spaceships and the deal has just been announced regarding how much the Americans will have to PAY to hitch those rides. And the Russians are sticking it to us. Big time.

From the article at The Telegraph:

With the US shuttle programme due to formally end this summer, Nasa has had little choice but to agree to a £470.6 million two-year deal with Russia to deliver twelve astronauts to the ISS from 2014-2016.

The deal, which includes training, a return ticket and a rescue service if needed, means that Nasa is paying almost £40 million per astronaut for what the Russian media have dubbed the most expensive taxi ride in history.

Nasa is paying just over £30 million per astronaut now so the new deal represents a price hike of almost twenty five per cent and is the fourth price increase in just five years.

Okay, back to what Obama has done to all of us. Think about the portrait I've drawn...we have a country like Russia, one that is as close to collapse as any in the world...a country with a population declining and Muslims taking over their military and yet these are the new pioneers of space. Barack Hussein Obama didn't just let this happen...hell no...he designed this to happen.

You see, Barack Hussein Obama simply hates American exceptionalism. He's never been a winner, he's always been a loser. Throughout his life, Barry Soetoro has lost and felt that sting of defeat - he's simply never been successful and he blames it on America. So, in his new position of authority, Obama has set out to make his "bully" pay for what it did to him. We've not only seen this in Obama's attack on the space program but in his entire foreign policy and we saw it just this week. You think it was just a coincidence that France took the reins of the Libyan offensive? Hell no. Barack Hussein Obama wants you and me to become comfortable with the once most powerful America sitting on the sidelines. You see, the once young Barry Soetoro sat on the bench during basketball games, because he wasn't good enough to start...and he sat on that bench and he stewed and he smoldered and he vowed one day to get back at "all of them."

Russia takes advantage of end of space shuttle programme


With the US shuttle programme due to formally end this summer, Nasa has had little choice but to agree to a £470.6 million two-year deal with Russia to deliver twelve astronauts to the ISS from 2014-2016.

The deal, which includes training, a return ticket and a rescue service if needed, means that Nasa is paying almost £40 million per astronaut for what the Russian media have dubbed the most expensive taxi ride in history.

Nasa is paying just over £30 million per astronaut now so the new deal represents a price hike of almost twenty five per cent and is the fourth price increase in just five years.

Charlie Bolden, the Nasa chief, said it would buy America breathing space to develop its own spacecraft to transport US astronauts to the ISS.

He said plans were in place "to ensure that American astronauts and the cargo they need are transported by American companies rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments."


In future, private US companies will design and build spacecraft to get astronauts to the ISS, while NASA will focus on the development of more ambitious projects.

"This new approach in getting our crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for our American economy," Mr Bolden said. "If we are to win the future and out build our competitors, it is essential that we make this program a success."

Russia's own space programme, a shadow of its Soviet predecessor, needs all the money it can get as it prepares to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's 1961 space flight next month.

Sergey Ivanov, Russia's powerful deputy prime minister, last month accused the Russian space agency of committing "childish" errors after a string of failed satellite launches. It had also failed to build enough spacecraft, he added.

Despite the high price tag, Russian experts believe the Kremlin could have got even more money from Nasa.

"We could have got more," said Andrei Ionin, a member of Russia's space academy. "But in the current situation, it is better not to spoil relations."

Did You Know That America Is Flying Spy Drones Over Mexico?

In this article at The Telegraph, I learned, for the first time, that the U.S. government has teamed up with Mexico to try and battle the drug cartels along the U.S./Mexico border by providing unmanned spy drones to fly along the border and gather intel on drug movements. Perhaps I'm a mushroom here but I had no idea this was going on. I find it interesting that the Mexicans are insisting that they are running this surveillance program - let's see...the drones are American, the pilots of the drones are American....hmmmm.

From the report:

The country's National Security Council said in a statement that the unmanned aircraft have flown over Mexico on specific occasions, mainly along the border with the U.S., to gather information at the request of the Mexican government.

The flights expand the U.S. role in the drug war, in which Americans already have been training Mexican soldiers and police as well as co-operating on other intelligence.

"When these operations are carried out, they are always done with the authorisation, oversight and supervision of national agencies, including the Mexican Air Force," the council said.

It said Mexico always defines the objectives, the information to be gathered and the specific tasks in which the drones will be used and insisted that the operations respected Mexican law, civil and human rights.

So, my next question is this - why aren't these drones equipped with hellfire missiles so when they happen upon five Mexican drug cartel vehicles who have their trucks loaded with drugs and members of the cartel present have automatic weapons, the hellfires can be loosed and rained down upon these Mexican terrorists? Why not?

Do we needs drones to tell us that there are drugs passing over the border into America? Do we need drones to tell us that the cartel people running the drugs are armed? Do we need drones to tell us where along the border they are coming in? Well, obviously, the answer to all those questions is a resounding "hell no." I guess one thing the drones could try to do would to determine the origination point of these drug cartel excursions but I like the idea better of adding the firepower.

Mexico allows US drones into its territory


The country's National Security Council said in a statement that the unmanned aircraft have flown over Mexico on specific occasions, mainly along the border with the U.S., to gather information at the request of the Mexican government.

The flights expand the U.S. role in the drug war, in which Americans already have been training Mexican soldiers and police as well as co-operating on other intelligence.

"When these operations are carried out, they are always done with the authorisation, oversight and supervision of national agencies, including the Mexican Air Force," the council said.

It said Mexico always defines the objectives, the information to be gathered and the specific tasks in which the drones will be used and insisted that the operations respected Mexican law, civil and human rights.

The drones "have been particularly useful in achieving various objectives of combating crime and have significantly increased Mexican authorities' capabilities and technological superiority in its fight against crime," the council said.

The drone operations were first reported on Wednesday by The New York Times.

Mexican politicians have often criticised the involvement of U.S. agencies on Mexican soil. Last week, the Mexican Senate voted to summon Mexico's ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, to talk about allegations that U.S. agents allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico as part of investigations into drug trafficking.

Mexican Sen. Luis Alberto Villareal said direct U.S. involvement "violates trust and undermines national sovereignty."

More than 35,000 people have died since President Felipe Calderón launched a stepped-up offensive against the cartels in late 2006.

America's President....A World Observer, Not a World Leader

I have been extremely critical of the foreign policy of Barack Hussein Obama and rightly so and this article from Family Security Matters sums it up well when he talks about how America has become an observer of world happenings and not a leader in those events. In the past, the world stood still waiting to see what America would do...but today, after a little over two years of this novice-in-chief, the world is moving chaoticly through crisis after crisis with no American leadership in sight.

From the article:

Yet to the regret of many the U.S. has not asserted any leadership. It is as if we are mere observers of a revolution that has the potential to alter international relations permanently. The level of institutional blindness was evident when intelligent chief Clapper argued the Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular organization. I wonder if Mr. Clapper asked why it is not named the Secular Brotherhood.

This response may not be treasonous, but it assuredly is inept. The lack of coordination; the many voices claiming to speak for the administration and the striking and conspicuous silence of the president have produced an air of uncertainty.

Most significantly, it has produced in the mind set of our enemies in Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and even Turkey a U.S. that is weak and ineffectual. Its rhetoric is inconsistent with its action or lack thereof.

What I wanted to focus on here is the danger that is presented by this continued pattern of inaction by Obama - a danger created by the world's misfits knowing that Obama will do nothing. What we have confronting us now is the perception by every rogue nation in the world that the planet is now a playground for bad behavior. There are no consequences to evil intent and actions.

I could argue that in the past the U.S. has stuck its nose in TOO many places but to sit idly by consistently now without ANY action in some serious affronts is ten times worse. We have given the rogues of this world an inch for over two years and they haven't just taken a mile...they have taken countries.

The really sad part of all of this is that it simply won't change - you can't change the mettle of a man. Sure, there might be some forced reactions by Obama but the core situation is this is a man who believes in just letting the chips fall as they will. And for every American that spells BIG trouble.

A Test of U.S. Mettle


Two Iranian warships travelled through the Suez Canal on their way to Syria with weapons material on board in defiance of American government restrictions and there is barely a word of denunciation from our State Department.

Radical Sheikh Yousef al Qaradawi spoke to a million Egyptians in Cairo’s Tahrir Square urging the new Egyptian government to open the Rafah border into Gaza so that “we can facilitate aid to our brethren” in their effort to defeat our enemy (Israel) and “capture Jerusalem.” Qaradawi extolled the Muslim Brotherhood calling for “freedom and democracy” as a vehicle for an “Islamic state based on sharia.” Yet remarkably neither the State Department nor most intellectuals condemned Qaradawi’s speech.

In Libya Colonel Muammar Khadafy has used overwhelming force including air bombings to resist the national movement of rebellion. Despite the use of military weapons to kill his own citizens, it took five days before the Obama administration responded to the bloodshed, and even then the response was divided with Secretary of State Clinton saying the U.S. would consider a “no fly zone over Libya” and Secretary of Defense Gates arguing that is not a policy option.

In his 1928 book La Trahison des Cleres(The Treason of The Intellectuals) Julien Benda explained how the abandonment of truth abetted totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century. He noted with prophetic accuracy how a denial of reality led directly to World War II. Clearly one can extrapolate from this analysis 93 years ago to the present, a present in which intellectuals and government leaders deny the reality of radical Islamism, including sharia, jihad and infidel hatred.

With Arab government roiled by rebellion, the question that emerges is whether this is the moment for the efflorescence of democratic sentiment or a slide back into a past in which violent theological states are created for the essential purpose of creating caliphates. How conditions will unfold remains unclear, but on one matter there isn’t any confusion: the United States has a stake in the outcome.

Yet to the regret of many the U.S. has not asserted any leadership. It is as if we are mere observers of a revolution that has the potential to alter international relations permanently. The level of institutional blindness was evident when intelligent chief Clapper argued the Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular organization. I wonder if Mr. Clapper asked why it is not named the Secular Brotherhood.

This response may not be treasonous, but it assuredly is inept. The lack of coordination; the many voices claiming to speak for the administration and the striking and conspicuous silence of the president have produced an air of uncertainty.

Most significantly, it has produced in the mind set of our enemies in Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and even Turkey a U.S. that is weak and ineffectual. Its rhetoric is inconsistent with its action or lack thereof.

In the film “First Knight” an antagonist of the hero played by the late Heath Ledger says “You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.” The hero’s courage and will were being tested. It is not farfetched to contend that our national will has been weighed and measured and it appears as if we have not met the challenges of our time.

Instead of playing the role of a key protagonist, we are mere spectators confused by what we see on the global stage and in a state of denial. History is passing us by the way it did for a generation in the 1930’s that had the opportunity to forestall war, but couldn’t marshal the will to do so. This drama has not yet reached its final act and it is certainly not too late for decisive action. However, the curtain may close soon enough revealing a world condition distinctly inhospitable to our interests.

How America Surrendered Space Exploration To the Russians and Chinese

I think most of us will remember how in 2010 President Barack Obama basically sealed the fate of America's space program by basically issuing its death sentence and in the wake of NASA's neutering, we have seen the Russians become number one in space exploration and unbelievably, we are seeing third place China now poised to surpass the U.S. in the area of space.

Personally, I never thought I'd see the day that proud Americans...the people who sat around television sets in office buildings and schoolrooms to watch the moon landing ...sit idly by and let America's status as the supreme leader in space technology and exploration simply fade away like a retired horse put out to pasture.

A lot of this has to do with dreams of men. Along the way, and this goes back nearly 8 years ago, we started seeing the dreams of American leaders shift - shift away from putting men on Mars, putting more probes on Saturn. And what we see now is an American President whose dream of union workers rejoicing in victorious revolution in the streets is more important than millions of school children huddled around plasma tv's as American astronauts set foot on Mars.

It seems we no longer can look to space for some of the answers to our biggest problems...unless, that is, we want to rely upon handouts from the Russians and Chinese.

Here's the article from Family Security Matters:

Forfeiting U.S. Leadership in Space


The space shuttle "Discovery" is scheduled to complete its 13 day supply mission to the International Space Station (ISS) on March 9. It is the 135th space shuttle mission since the "Columbia" first lifted off on April 12, 1981. There are only two missions left in the program, one in April for the "Endeavor" and one in June for "Atlantis." The shuttles will have flown for over 30 years, during which time it should have been expected that a replacement system would have been developed. But it has not been. Even the loss of "Challenger" in 1986 and "Columbia" in 2005 did not spark action. When the shuttles are retired this summer, there is nothing to replace them; indeed, there is not even anything close to being ready. Presidents George W. Bush (2003) and Barack Obama (2010) cancelled shuttle replacement programs. The great lead that the United States has enjoyed in space since the first Moon landing on July 20, 1969 has been thrown away due to a lack of imagination in Washington.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has put out its 2011 Strategic Plan. Its first goal is to "extend and sustain human activities across the solar system." As the lead civilization of the current era, it is America's duty to advance human achievement. Yet, there is very little in the NASA plan or budget to fulfill this noble goal. The NASA plan relies first and foremost on "expanding efforts to utilize the ISS as a National Laboratory for scientific, technological, diplomatic, and educational purposes and for supporting future objectives in human space exploration." But without the shuttle or a replacement space vehicle, the U.S. will be dependent on the Russians for access to the ISS.

Yes, the Russians, who lost both the Space Race and the Cold War in the last century, are now poised to control the ISS. The Russians, it should be remembered, were invited into the ISS because the U.S., even though it was the richest nation on the planet and the world's most advanced scientific state, was looking for other countries to put up money for the ISS to lighten its own "burden." It would be hard to find a better example of the old adage "penny wise, but pound foolish."

NASA notes the danger. Its strategic plan has as a goal "reducing the risk of relying exclusively on foreign crew transport capabilities." But the road to that goal will be a long one. The report talks about creating"architectures" that will then lead to a "roadmap for affordable and sustainable human space exploration." So after 30 years of relying on shuttles that were designed in the 1970s, NASA is back to square one.

NASA knows, "The core elements to a successful implementation are a space launch system and a multipurpose crew vehicle to serve as our national capability to conduct advanced missions beyond low Earth orbit. Developing this combined system will enable us to reach cislunar space, near-Earth asteroids, Mars, and other celestial bodies." Tragically, no one higher up in Washington, either at the White House or in Congress, has cared enough about the nation's future in space to do anything about funding such a project. As long as there are still satellites that can beam down episodes of "American Idol" to a nation of couch potatoes, who cares about achieving anything more?

NASA is one of the few government programs than actually deserves to be called an investment. Its 2012 request of $18 billion is only 0.4 percent of a $3.7 trillion Federal budget. The bailout money given to the AIG insurance company would have funded NASA for a decade. Yet, the technology the space program has generated for society has rewarded taxpayers many times over. And developing new generations of scientific breakthroughs will continue to be a major strategic goal of the program.

NASA's role extends beyond the agency's own work. It has served as a stimulus for education and industry. It's 2011 report states, "One of NASA's top strategic goals is to Inspire students to be our future scientists, engineers, explorers, and educators through interactions with NASA’s people, missions, research, and facilities." At a time when the performance of American students in math and science has fallen behind that of most of the world, there needs to be a new push to stimulate the public imagination and to provide rewarding careers for a new generation of innovative thinkers. But with NASA doing less in space, from where is the inspiration to come? Designing more video games?

The NASA report raises concerns about how to keep even its current high-skilled workforce employed, noting. "The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011 is ushering in a tran­sition period for the Nation’s human space flight workforce." New programs, such as "development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to carry explorers beyond Earth’s orbit, including a mission to an asteroid next decade" are supposed to provide some jobs, but not enough. Shifting work to "green technology" and the study of "global warming" will not lead to new adventures in manned space exploration

Meanwhile, China is positioning itself to lead humankind' further into space. The state news agency Xinhua reported Friday, "The world's largest design, production and testing base for rockets is being built in Tianjin" as part of China's expanding space program. Twenty of the 22 plants have been completed, and some of are ready for operation. The base is designed to meet China's growing demand for space technology for the next thirty years. By integrating the industrial chain, the base will be able to produce the whole spectrum of rockets for China's lunar missions, its own space station and other ambitious projects according to Liang Xiaohong, deputy head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology.

China is still behind the United States, having only sent its first multi-man orbital mission aloft in 2008, but it has big ideas. Beijing plans 20 space missions this year, and wants to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon in 2013. China sent a spacecraft to orbit the Moon last October.

The stirring vision of giant space stations, commercial shuttle flights and extensive moon bases given to the public in the classic 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey has become a sad testimony to three decades of lost American opportunities. I have seen this once great American spirit of adventure reborn in China. I have been amazed (and alarmed) by displays of Chinese plans to build bases on the Moon, then move farther into the solar system. I grew up in a confident America animated by futuristic thinking, but that drive has faded. Beijing is now the home of energy and ambition.

What happens in space is not divorced from what happens on Earth. Though clearly helpful to military space projects, NASA is charted as a civilian organization in line with idealist notions about the heavens being a clean slate free of power politics. There are no such illusions in China. Beijing's manned-space program is placed under the General Armament Department within the Ministry of Defense. The Long March rockets used for space launches are similar in design to China's nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. More important, is the spirit demonstrated in the space effort. History has not been kind to nations that stagnate in the face of a rising competitor. The desire to succeed is the most important element in any strategy.

The NASA strategic plan claims, "Humanity’s interest in the heavens has been universal and enduring. Humans are driven to explore the unknown, discover new worlds, push the boundaries of our scientific and technical limits, and then push further. NASA is tasked with developing the capabilities that will support our country’s long-term human space flight and exploration efforts." But where is the higher national leadership with the vision to back these efforts? The frontier spirit that built America has waned. Both political parties are too busy looking at the mud around their feet to look up at the sky.

So much for the "giant leap for mankind" so bravely stated over 40 years ago. But what can be expected in a country where Buzz Aldrin, who with Neil Armstrong were the first men to walk on the Moon, ends up on "Dancing with the Stars" performing for an audience most of whom had never heard of him. Nothing could better portray the decline of American civilization.

Just How Does America Fight the Threat of Islam?

This truly is an excellent article at Family Security Matters that gets to the heart of how to best battle the threat of Islam upon America. It not only points out how seemingly impossible it is to denounce Islam in America by anyone, it digs into how Islam can be revealed to all Americans - once you really KNOW your enemy, you can defeat them.

This article takes on the hardcore and necessary myths...like the fact that Islam is NOT a religion:

Muslims, under the banner of religion, are infringing blatantly on the rights of others, not only in Islamic countries, but also in much of the non-Muslim world. By their acts of dogmatic barbarity, Muslims are slowly awakening the non-Muslim democracies to the imminent threat of Islamic terrorism keen on destroying their free secular and free societies.

As more and more Muslims arrive in American land, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine a serious challenge to the American system of governance—democracy. As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at all.

And another key aspect to defeating Islam is to understand that this made up aspect of a "radical" Islam is just that - made up. The minute you believe that there is a radical element to Islam, that is the minute you are agreeing that the rest of it is "normal."

From the article:

Therefore there is no such thing as “radical Islam.” And those who take a “liberal” view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation with unabrogated scriptural facts. Unless such “reformists” can denounce fascist Islam with scripture, they are the true radicals, which is why we never see them pointing to scriptural arguments against jihad...they cannot because they are lying. Islamic terrorists are only doing exactly what Muhammad demanded, and his demands were not suggestions and they were not ephemeral. They were “perfect,” eternal ultimata. Let us not forget that the terrorists are faithful and true to what is written in their holy book.

The best defense for America against Islam is simply education - we have seen the tremendous strides that the "islamophobia" gang has had in this country in furthering that "hate speech" scenario. Until we understand just WHY these advocates of Islam are spouting that word, islamophobia, we will be defenseless against it. And finally, it's not like we in America haven't had a set of previews to the effects of embracing this fake religion - the litany of documented destructive advancements in Asia, Europe and Africa are there for all to see, but we have to reveal it all in stark terms and not dance around it.

America: Break the Silence on Islam


The American people must hear the truth about Islam continually until they are completely aware of its dangers. Sadly, our Churches dare not speak up for fear of being accused of intolerance toward another religion. Our academia, the university professors, left or right, dare not, because, most likely, they would lose their salaries. Our politicians dare not because they are master practitioners of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception, and they need your votes as well as your money. Our editors dare not because they would lose subscribers and fear of being shut down. Businessmen dare not because they might lose customers and clientele. Even ordinary clerks dare not because they might be discharged. So I thought I would tell you.

My fellow Americans, America is faced with a formidable enemy. This enemy has a name: Islam. I think it is time to revisit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and see if Islam is qualified as a religion. Is this an outlandishly absurd proposal? Not at all, serious problems require equally serious solutions. The call for evaluation of the First Amendment may be seen as an attempt to curb Islam or other militant cults. The truth is: it is. It is truly a matter of survival of the United States and the free world.

It is time to take a stand and shift the debate to orthodox Islam. We do not have to investigate every other religion on earth in order to compare them or offer opinion about their relative “goodness” in order to declare that on the whole Islam perpetuates evil. Let others devolve into religious disagreements. But for those commentators who would respond: “OK great, so now what...you claim Islam is evil. How do we combat that?” Your response is already clear: Through the spread of truth, not deceit. Through voluntary social sanctions and laws in every civilized country that forbid evil practices like Sharia, coercion and violence against women, threats against those who disagree, honor killings, apostasy and other hate crimes. Let the world know the truth and decide for itself. Let Muslims who come to their senses opt out.

Islam is not a religion

America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition for religion: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do—and some do so at significant costs to others.

Muslims, under the banner of religion, are infringing blatantly on the rights of others, not only in Islamic countries, but also in much of the non-Muslim world. By their acts of dogmatic barbarity, Muslims are slowly awakening the non-Muslim democracies to the imminent threat of Islamic terrorism keen on destroying their free secular and free societies.

As more and more Muslims arrive in American land, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine a serious challenge to the American system of governance—democracy. As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at all. Muslims believe that Allah’s rule must govern the world in the form of Caliphate—a theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working, and ignoring its provisions is a Muslim’s way of falsifying what he already believes to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.

Quran 5:50 "Do they then seek the legislation of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in legislating than Allah for a people who have Faith."

Quran 5:45 "And whoever rules not by what Allah has revealed, those are the wrongdoers."

Quran 12:40 "The rule is only for Allah."

Quran 18:26 "And He (Allah) allows none to share in his rule."

A consortium composed of pandering liberal politicians, blinded by short-term self-interest and egotism, attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima donna professors; and, bastions of useful idiots, are the witting or unwitting promoters of Ummah-ism.

Christianity and other peaceful religions:

Unlike some peaceful religions such as Baha’i, Buddhism, Hinduism , Zoroastrianism and Christianity which advocate universally understood principles of good within their Holy books, and perhaps other religious doctrines (with which I am not personally familiar), Islam cannot be reformed. An example, when the Christian Catholic church was reformed, it was the church that was found to be in violation of Biblical teachings. It had in many ways become anti-Christian.

Reform restored orthodoxy to the plain and well-understood concepts revealed by Christ and the disciples (one of the reasons it took so long was the church forbade lay-people from reading the bible or translating it from the dead language Latin...so Europeans were largely ignorant except for what they were told...see the story of Martin Luther). Some evolutionary ideas such as abolition of slavery were not addressed in the Bible (in part because Christ was after the souls not the bodies), but the other teachings such as compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love are and were always incompatible with slavery. Therefore it should be no surprise that eventually Christians in Europe and America led the abolitionist movement (they were scripturally correct). If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, there is no scriptural commandment supporting this. It is unchristian (however, it is not unchristian to denounce abortion and seek to make it illegal and thus prevent abortionists from practicing their craft).

It is sad when the counter-argument to this definition of Christianity is lame references to Old Testament violence. Old Testament stories are taught in Christianity as historical fact, not prescriptions based on Christian ethics. If to a Christian, God is sanctioned a violent act, it is 100% irrelevant to the New Covenant that is taught by Jesus. So to say...yeah but the Bible has violence in it too is insultingly banal and misleading.

If some Christians abused their doctrine and hid behind the Cross to justify their personal desire to kill, enslave, and conquer, then they are and always were sinners and they are wrong; and this is why Christianity has taken the natural form it has today...as a religion of peace and compassion (even if many supposed Christians continue to sin). This is not to say that Christians are unable to defend themselves, or intervene to stop injustice. Christians are taught to hate the sin and love the sinner...period! The decision to become aggressive is always a burden on the Christian conscience.

But Islam does not tolerate revisionism in its beliefs or practices over time. Reform is not at play, because one cannot point to Jihadists or terrorists and say Muhammad did not advocate it. He most certainly did, and delighted in his evil thoughts. Islam is a literal religion, taking unabrogated scripture as eternal and absolute. Moreover, there are no calls in Islam for compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love. Instead there are specific prescriptions for retain evil with evil, eternal warfare, religious hegemony, slavery, killing Jews, taxing nonbelievers, stoning, promulgating terror, establishing a caste social system, and perpetuating discrimination against women. The only way to reform Islam is discarding Sharia, but also purging the Quran itself of enormous suras that are not only patently false, but totally repugnant to a civilized humanity. This line of thinking, to sanitize Islam is explicitly forbidden in the Quran:

Quran 2:85:”Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection; they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.”

What about radical Islam?

Therefore there is no such thing as “radical Islam.” And those who take a “liberal” view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation with unabrogated scriptural facts. Unless such “reformists” can denounce fascist Islam with scripture, they are the true radicals, which is why we never see them pointing to scriptural arguments against jihad...they cannot because they are lying. Islamic terrorists are only doing exactly what Muhammad demanded, and his demands were not suggestions and they were not ephemeral. They were “perfect,” eternal ultimata. Let us not forget that the terrorists are faithful and true to what is written in their holy book.

The notion that only those who denounce what is plainly Islamic (and just as plainly repulsive) are therefore the tools of Jews, or right-wing, paranoid, NASCAR-loving, gun-rights-worshipping, evangelical Christians must be exhaustively combated and rejected. This politicizing and obscuring reality only keeps people confused, inured, and numb.
But because both those who believe Islam is defective and those who believe it has been hijacked are equally in opposition to terrorism and coercion, there is confusion about how Islam should be regarded. Perhaps the contrasting viewpoints should be named so they can be referred to as valid concepts. The notion that Islam is peaceful, but that only “radicals” are usurping and distorting the “peace-of-Islam” should be called: Islam-revisionism and advocates called Islam-Revisionists.

The notion that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, harsh, Jihad-oriented...and that it advocates slavery, intolerance, and inequality...and that such traditional and realistic interpretations cannot be reformed should be called Islam-realism and such advocates called Islam-realists.

Once the side of realists has a name and can distinguish itself from wishful revisionists, the public can begin to see that there are many voices which (without advocating a specific competing religion) can denounce Islam per se, and can speak to the real reasons. Islam continues its onslaught, and can counter any senseless position, such as reforming them and bringing democracy and tolerance to their lands (the RINOS position).

What do our elected official say about Islam?

Recall how many times former President George W. Bush praised Islam? Recall President George Bush’s love affairs with the Shaikh Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Obama’s bow to the Saudis’ Shaikh? Apparently, both presidents were/are unaware of the existence of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans in the United States military, though the entire 8 years of the presidency of George W. Bush consumed around the 9/11 tragedy and Islamic terrorism. Next in line to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia is the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Go figure!

Please tell the American people what has been done since this Muslim-American Maj. savagely killed 14 people while shouting Allah-o-Akbar (one unborn child) and hurting 30 others? As I noted, the recent dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be forgotten by the public before very long. Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by agents of death, Islamists. Only the families who lost their loved-ones and those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with incapacitating injuries and, in the main, won’t be able to put the episode behind them.
Those who claim that they want to reform Islam want to transform it by stripping it of a great many provisions that are anathema to civilized humanity. These people are, in fact, trying to make a new religion out of the old with no divine authority that was, supposedly, bestowed upon Muhammad to launch his religion.

If I am right, then Islam will always be a bête noire to the West. Even dopey secularists and leftists will realize that fact one day, perhaps only after their delusions sink all of us. But realizing the fact that this religious power is at eternal war with you is not an act of hopelessness, and therefore it is not a call to pollyanishness. It simply means we must always be on our guard and never self-deluded. It may mean we have to leave the Islamists alone and hope that their people slowly convert to another religion or become unaffiliated. Until then, we should keep our powder dry.

There is no such a thing as radical Islam!

I have refused to accept several organizations that seek to combat or expose the antics of “radical” or “extreme” Islam, because I know that it is not extremism that is causing the violence...it’s mainstream, typical, normal, traditional, specified, canonical Islam.

There are those who with a wink and a nod understand this but continue to work as revisionists because they are afraid of starting a religious war, even as they feel compelled to do something. They tell me, “You can’t openly accuse an entire religion of being evil! That would just incite them and make them hate us even more." My response: the war started in the 7th century, and if in the 21st century we still refuse to accept that reality, then there is perhaps no hope at all for civilization. Nothing good can come from deception.

I argue that any belief system that licenses murder in the name of Jihad and the conquering and subduing of the world of the infidels by the Ummah, should be outlawed. Prophet Mohammad brewed up a militant, radical and extremely irrational imperialistic cult that sought world dominance. My fellow travelers, let us make one thing clear; Islam is no more a religion deserving our respect or legal recognition than is cannibalism.

What can the American people do?

It is time for the Americans to call upon the lawmakers of the United States of America to immediately create a safety board and commissioner to study and examine the dangers of Islamic dogma in our society. In the monumental task of dealing with Islam, every individual, group and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. The destiny of the civilized life hangs in the balance. Shirking responsibility is an unpardonable act of every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.

Nullification and Partition - Are the States Really Ready To Stand Up To Obama's Federal Government?

I think one thing many conservatives and patriots across America have had in common the past couple of years is the extreme sense of frustration as we saw instance after instance where the Obama administration and the Congress led by uber progressives, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, rattled off an onslaught of over bearing and unconstitutional legislation down the American peoples' throats.

In just the past couple of weeks, many of us discovered the horrible news that in fact, the behemoth of unconstitutional laws of the past decade, Obamacare, had been insidiously positioned so that it could not be defunded by a new Republican House and quite frankly, was written to withstand defunding at ANY time in the future.

So, this article from Family Security Matters comes along at a very opportune time to discuss two remedies that the Founding Fathers left to us, the American people, to fight back against a federal government that has become tyrannical. Nullification and Partition.

From the article:

According to Thomas E. Woods, Jr., the author of Nullification – How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, the nullification concept has its origins with Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1789. Woods explains:

“Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect… [I]f a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the (U.S. Constitution), to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it… Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.”

A number of states are already engaged in the early stages of nullification. For example, the lawsuits by 28 states, asserting that the mandates contained in the Obama healthcare law are unconstitutional, are a last ditch effort by the states to work within the system to put the federal government in its place. Failing that, the states’ primary option will be outright nullification.

So, what is left as an option if even nullification doesn't fend off the onslaught of the federal government? Well, there's the choice by a state or group of states to recreate some geographic boundaries and borders...per the article:

But what happens when an outlaw federal establishment, led by Chicago street thugs in Armani suits, refuses to recognize the limitation of its powers, refuses to recognize the right of the states to nullify federal law, refuses to recognize orders of the federal courts, and not only supports, but encourages, mass insurrection by union thugs against state and local governments? Where then do the states go to seek justice? In such an event they have little choice but to seek “partition”… “a politically imposed alteration of geographic boundaries, creating two or more separate political entities under different sovereigns and authorities.” (The best known partitions of the 20th century are those of Ireland, India, Palestine, Cyprus, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam.)

In the context of 21st century America, partition would likely occur following a constitutional crisis in which a state, or group of states, declared federal mandates to be unconstitutional and the federal government refused to recognize their right to do so, or when the federal courts attempted to impose an unconstitutional mandate on the states. While it is unlikely that the federal government would attempt to enforce its will by force of arms, it is possible to develop a scenario in which two or more states would find continued membership in the federal compact to conflict with the best interests of their people.

I think the illegal immigration situation could lead to the greatest call for some sort of partition - if we were to see southwestern states continue to be economically harmed by the masses of illegals flowing across a border left unprotected by the feds and if things took a turn for the ugly with cartels and revolutionaries preying on citizens of those states, it may take this severe message for such states to protect their citizens.

Leave it to the likes of Barack Hussein Obama to have brought this country to a point where a blogger like me is putting up posts about nullification and partition. The great "Uniter" has done nothing but clearly define the biggest divisions in this country since the Civil War and what is left to be seen is just how much will is left in the individual states.

Nullification or Partition - The Choice is Ours


Listening to the news reports out of Washington, especially in the wake of Obama’s weak-kneed budget proposal, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the early decades of the 21st century in the U.S. will be characterized by one of two governing principles: nullification or partition.

According to Thomas E. Woods, Jr., the author of Nullification – How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, the nullification concept has its origins with Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1789. Woods explains:

“Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect… [I]f a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the (U.S. Constitution), to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it… Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.”

A number of states are already engaged in the early stages of nullification. For example, the lawsuits by 28 states, asserting that the mandates contained in the Obama healthcare law are unconstitutional, are a last ditch effort by the states to work within the system to put the federal government in its place. Failing that, the states’ primary option will be outright nullification.

Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) has filed suit against the federal government seeking to force the Obama administration to police the US-Mexican border and to enforce our national immigration statutes. Should the courts refuse to demand compliance by the Obama administration, the next step in the nullification process would be for Governor Brewer to announce that she will enforce Arizona’s own laws against illegal immigration… the federal government be damned.

Governor Butch Otter (R-ID) and the Idaho legislature are contemplating nullification in response to actions by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA. Following reintroduction of the Canadian gray wolf by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995, increasing numbers of the predator have spread to Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, killing large numbers of cattle and sheep and decimating wild game herds. When the EPA criminalized hunting of the animal by placing it on the endangered species list, farmers, ranchers, homeowners, and sportsmen found themselves defenseless, unable to legally protect themselves, their families, or their livestock. Gov. Otter has asked the federal courts to de-list the gray wolf so that they can be hunted and killed. Failing that, the issue will be ripe for nullification.

In Oklahoma, voters went to the polls in November and overwhelmingly approved (70%-30%) State Question 755, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of foreign law, including Shari’a Law, in state courts. Muslim activists filed suit and a federal judge, a Clinton appointee, issued an injunction against implementation of the amendment. However, if the courts should ultimately rule against the people of Oklahoma, Gov. Mary Fallin would be within her rights to invoke nullification, informing the court that, inasmuch as State Question 755 is not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the court order is unconstitutional and that the state will rely, instead, on the will of the people.

There is no clearer principle in our federal system than that the federal government is created as an instrument of the fifty sovereign states, in which the states have delegated certain limited powers to the federal government… powers which the states cannot or ought not perform for themselves. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 78:

“… there is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

As Woods suggests, “The controversy arises when we consider how and by whom any unconstitutional law should be declared void… It was Hamilton’s view that the courts would put things right. But what if they didn’t?” Indeed. What if they didn’t? It is then that states have a duty and an obligation to nullify the laws they find to be unconstitutional.

But what happens when an outlaw federal establishment, led by Chicago street thugs in Armani suits, refuses to recognize the limitation of its powers, refuses to recognize the right of the states to nullify federal law, refuses to recognize orders of the federal courts, and not only supports, but encourages, mass insurrection by union thugs against state and local governments? Where then do the states go to seek justice? In such an event they have little choice but to seek “partition”… “a politically imposed alteration of geographic boundaries, creating two or more separate political entities under different sovereigns and authorities.” (The best known partitions of the 20th century are those of Ireland, India, Palestine, Cyprus, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam.)

In the context of 21st century America, partition would likely occur following a constitutional crisis in which a state, or group of states, declared federal mandates to be unconstitutional and the federal government refused to recognize their right to do so, or when the federal courts attempted to impose an unconstitutional mandate on the states. While it is unlikely that the federal government would attempt to enforce its will by force of arms, it is possible to develop a scenario in which two or more states would find continued membership in the federal compact to conflict with the best interests of their people.

For example, if the federal government adamantly refuses to defend U.S. borders against foreign invasion; if the federal government stubbornly impedes access to the energy supplies needed to maintain economic vitality and the American way of life… even to the point of ignoring court orders, as the Obama administration has done in refusing a court order to abandon its moratorium against oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico; if the federal government attempts to deny basic property rights of the business community, as in the Obama administration’s efforts to impose union-friendly representation rules via executive order, all without the consent of the governed… then that government calls into question its right to exist.

In such event, the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming may see partition as their only long term alternative. These twenty-two states would make quite a nice country, completely self-sufficient in food and energy and fully prepared to defend their respective borders.

With the exception of a few brief periods of sanity, liberals and Democrats have maintained control of our public institutions for the past seventy-eight years, from FDR through Obama, while the hard-working, freedom-loving people of the country have had to sit by and watch their country torn apart by politically-inspired class warfare. But now we’ve arrived at the tipping point; there is no longer any “give” in our economy, our foreign affairs, or our social systems.

In an essay titled, “I’m 63 and I’m Tired,” actor Robert A. Hall expresses the feelings of most Americans. He says, “I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.”

Thirty years? Look around you, Mr. Hall. Madison, Wisconsin now looks more like Cairo or Mogadishu than a city of the American Midwest. In Wisconsin, Democrat members of the state Senate have fled the state in order to prevent Governor Scott Walker and legislative leaders from limiting the run-away power of public employee unions and requiring union members to pay a modest portion of their retirement and healthcare costs. Police officers have been dispatched to bring the Democrats back to the capitol and the governor has put the National Guard on alert in the event of violent insurrection by unionized public employees.

When one political party is willing to resort to that level of lawlessness in order to deny the will of the people, in open defiance of the rule of law, and when a President of the United States takes sides with lawbreakers, in defiance of the authority of the elected officials of a state government, then we must concede that we are treading very close to the outer limits of civil society.

When a major political party is willing to commit suicide before the eyes of the world, for no better reason than to show their solidarity with special interests to whom they’ve sold their soul; when leftist political agitators are so dedicated to the rightness of their cause that they would gamble the peace and tranquility of the nation in order to win undeserved economic advantage, then the people are left with limited alternatives. We have a choice between nullification and partition and many patriotic Americans may actually prefer partition to living under a regime designed by those who now occupy the White House and the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda. The choice is ours.