Pork and Islam

Pork and Islam

Let's hear it for a Quebec mayor...WAY TO GO QUEBEC.......

MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN MENU... EXPLAINS WHY

Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb. The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval,has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...

Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate. They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec. They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them. They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).

That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.

And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebec is people as a whole.

Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain. The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.

If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.

Ask yourself the question, just once,  Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?

Does anyone know or care that Jews do not eat pork?  That and they love this country!

Our law makers should take a lesson from this and not give in to Islamic extremist groups.

If you feel the same like or share!

Christians living in fear of violence

Christians living in fear of violence

Attacks by Islamic State send many fleeing for safety

CAIRO As the fate of more than 250 Christians abducted by the Islamic State in Syria remains unknown, frightened fellow Christians are fleeing in search of a haven in a region known for persecuting them.

“With all this hatred against Christians — I don’t know, I’m so afraid,” said Osama Edward, founder of the Swedenbased Assyrian Human Rights Network. “I feel the whole religion is threatened.”

More than 1,300 Christian families fled their homes in Syria this week after the Islamic State kidnapped Assyrian Christians from four villages. Now, many of those families are seeking refuge at a cathedral and a church in the nearby city of Al-Hasakah, while others have gone to Al-Qamishli, both in the far northeastern corner of Syria, Edward said.

Christians and Muslims alike have suffered widespread instability since the Arab Spring movement began toppling longtime autocratic regimes in the region more than four years ago.

This week’s abductions, though, highlight the plight of members of the Christian community, especially in light of an Islamic State video released earlier this month that showed the beheadings of 20 Egyptian Christians.

The events are part of a historic attack on Christians in the Middle East — “a very silent genocide,” said Habib Ephrem, head of the Syriac League of Lebanon, a non-governmental group that supports the Syrian people in Lebanon.

“What will be the fate of the Christians? I think this is a big question,” Ephrem said.

In the past seven months, many Iraqi Christians in or near Mosul have fled their homes after Islamic State militants gained control of the city. Some moved to the Jordanian capital of Amman, where they have taken refuge in churches, said James Stapleton, international communications coordinator at the Jesuit Refugee Service, which works in 47 countries including Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.

While they’re safe in Jordan for now, there’s always a threat the situation in that nation could change, Stapleton said.

“What we’re seeing at the moment in many parts of the world is that the security situation can be very localized and the situation can change quite rapidly,” he said.

Threats posed by fluctuating levels of security are something Christians in Egypt know well. After an uprising pushed a longtime leader out of power four years ago, the nation’s Coptic Christians, who make up roughly 10% of a mostly Muslim population, faced heightened violence amid a broader breakdown in security. Then in 2013, mobs attacked dozens of churches nationwide as another leader, an Islamist, was ousted. The attackers blamed Christians in part for his removal.

Some say hostility toward Christians is common only in specific nations or communities.

“There is no general anti-Christian sentiment in Libya,” said Claudia Gazzini, a senior analyst on Libya at the International Crisis Group, which works to prevent and resolve conflict. “After spending several years in this country, I have never heard any remark against Christians and I still don’t — and that is by and large the prevailing vision here.”

Recently, violence aimed at Christians in Egypt has slowed, said Mina Thabet, an Egyptian Christian and a researcher at the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms. But problems remain: Copts face discrimination and are restricted in their right to build and restore places of worship, among other issues, he said.

Thabet is wary of the future if the Egyptian government continues repressive policies amid a widespread crackdown on dissent, and if economic conditions don’t improve.

“I think someday we may face the scenario of chaos. And the biggest victim will be Christians,” he said.

If we're genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight

If we're genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight

by Christina Hoff Sommers

Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:

MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.

FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.

Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.

MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.

FACTS: This sensational claim is a favorite of politicians, celebrities and journalists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore turned it into a cause célèbre. Both conservatives and liberal reformers deploy it. Former President Jimmy Carter recently said that the sexual enslavement of girls in the U.S. today is worse than American slavery in the 19th century.

The source for the figure is a 2001 report on child sexual exploitation by University of Pennsylvania sociologists Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner. But their 100,000–300,000 estimate referred to children at risk for exploitation—not actual victims. When three reporters from the Village Voice questioned Estes on the number of children who are abducted and pressed into sexual slavery each year, he replied, “We’re talking about a few hundred people.” And this number is likely to include a lot of boys: According to a 2008 census of underage prostitutes in New York City, nearly half turned out to be male. A few hundred children is still a few hundred too many, but they will not be helped by thousand-fold inflation of their numbers.

MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%–35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence.

FACTS: This claim has appeared in countless fact sheets, books and articles—for example, in the leading textbook on family violence, Domestic Violence Law, and in the Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. The Penguin Atlas uses the emergency room figure to justify placing the U.S. on par with Uganda and Haiti for intimate violence.

What is the provenance? The Atlas provides no primary source, but the editor of Domestic Violence Law cites a 1997 Justice Department study, as well as a 2009 post on the Centers for Disease Control website. But the Justice Department and the CDC are not referring to the 40 million women who annually visit emergency rooms, but to women, numbering about 550,000 annually, who come to emergency rooms “for violence-related injuries.” Of these, approximately 37% were attacked by intimates. So, it’s not the case that 22%-35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for domestic violence. The correct figure is less than half of 1%.

MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted.

FACTS: This incendiary figure is everywhere in the media today. Journalists, senators and even President Obama cite it routinely. Can it be true that the American college campus is one of the most dangerous places on earth for women?

The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses:

“The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.”

Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.

Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But these studies suffer from some or all of the same flaws. Campus sexual assault is a serious problem and will not be solved by statistical hijinks.

MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work.

FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. [meaning they are not smart enough to make good choices]  In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.

Conclusion:

Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.

My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth.

JESUS VS. MUHAMMAD: 33 Striking Differences

JESUS VS. MUHAMMAD: 33 Striking Differences

1) Their Sin:

Firstly, Jesus, according to the Biblical record, was sinless whilst Mohammad, according to the Koranic record, was sinful. In Mecca Muhammad received a command about his sin:

“Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours.”(Surah 40:55)

2) Their tombs:

It is a historical fact that Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty by some of his women followers, as the Austrian scholar Jacob Kremer notes: “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Yet Muhammad’s body is still in his grave. Although Muslims may claim that his soul has gone to heaven none to my knowledge claims that his tomb is empty or that he was bodily raised like Jesus.

3) Their deaths:

According to the Biblical and Koranic records respectively Jesus died for the sins of the world whilst Muhammad died from poisoning.

4) Their dealing with sexual sins:

In Surah 24:2 Mohammad says:

“The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law.”

Muhammad as portrayed within the Koran and within the Hadiths paints a rather brutal scene, yet we see a vast difference with Jesus. Firstly, Jesus explains why there are vices such as adultery. In the Sermon on the Mount, regarding the sins of adultery and lust, he says:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28)

5) Their Violence:

Jesus sets a very high standard for his followers to emulate if they are to “take up his cross and follow” him (Matthew 16:24). When Jesus was interrogated by the authorities he says:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” (John 18:36)

Muhammad paints for us an altogether different picture as, which the Koran attests to, he committed assassinations, as well as threatened to murder over ten people. These threats stemmed from the fact these people offended him in some way, some, for example, wrote satirical poems about him. In Surah 33:60-61 Muhammad says:

“If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed.”

6) Their confrontation with Satan:

Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, a well-known Islamic commentator, says that the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment, and influences from magic, are evident: “As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed.” According to the Hadith traditions Muhammad was negatively affected by magic.

On the hand Jesus exercised a great authority over powers of darkness, as well as took Satan head on. In Luke 4:33-35 we read on Jesus’ encounter with a demon:

“In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an evil spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, “Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God! “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.”

7) Their religious freedom:

Jesus says: “If anyone comes after [follows] me” . . . (Matthew 17:24). Jesus let people decide for themselves, if they refuse to follow him then so be it. The word “if” implies freedom in choosing to either accept the way of Jesus or to reject it. Unlike Muhammad there was no army or power that tried to force people to believe.

Whereas Muhammad forcefully imposes his will, we read in Surah 9:5:

“Then, when the months made unlawful for fighting expire, kill the mushriks [polytheists] wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish Salat [prayer five times a day] and pay the Zakat dues [charity tax], then let them go their way.” (Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 175; insertions mine).

8) Muhammad said that Allah does not love those who reject Islam (Koran 30:45, 3:32, 22:38), whereas Jesus said that God loves everyone whether they believe in him or not (John 3:16). The Christian God is all loving and is unconditional in his love, whereas Allah’s love is strictly conditional.

9) Jesus condemned stealing: “Thou shall not steal” (Matthew 19:18), whereas Muhammad permitted stealing from unbelievers: “The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty)” (Bukhari 44:668).

10) Muhammad permits lying (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857) whilst Jesus does not: “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Matthew 19:18).

11) Jesus never owned slavers, or traded them, whereas Muhammad did: “Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me” (Sahih Muslim 3901).

12) Whereas Jesus preached forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38), Muhammad did not. We saw above that he assassinated those who mocked or ridiculed him.

13) Muhammad taught revenge: “If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him” (Koran 2:194), whereas Jesus did not: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

14) Their personal and private relationships differed greatly. Jesus was celibate, whereas Muhammad Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves (Bukhari 5:268, Koran 33:50).

15) Muhammad had sex with a nine year old (Bukhari 5:268, Koran 33:50) whereas Jesus never had sex with children.

16) The peace factor of their teachings were staunchly antithetical, according to Muhammad jihad in the way of Allah elevates one’s position in Paradise by a hundredfold (Muslim 4645), whereas Jesus says: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).

17) Their approaches to women was different. Jesus forgave prostitutes, and even had women followers. However, Muhammad murdered women (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995).

18) Jesus never commanded or ordered combat campaigns or war on unbelievers, whereas Muhammad order at least 65 such campaigns in the final ten years of his life (Ibn Ishaq).

19) In those final years Muhammad killed many captives in battle: “ Then a man drew his sword and cut off his son’s foot so that he fell down and Umayya [the boy’s father] let out a cry such as I have never heard… They hewed them to pieces with their swords until they were dead.” (Ibn Ishaq 451, Ishaq/Hisham 449), whereas Jesus never captured or killed anyone.

20) Jesus never enslaved women or ever raped them, whereas Muhammad did (Abu Dawood 2150, Koran 4:24).

21) Muhammad was never tortured, but did torture others (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764), whereas Jesus never tortured anyone, but was tortured himself.

22) Jesus instructs us to love and pray for them (Matthew 5:44), whereas Muhammad did not: “And fight them until there is no more persecution and religions is only for Allah” (Koran 8:39)

23) Muhammad celebrated and blessed the murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440), whereas Jesus healed a blind man (Mark 8:28).

24) Muhammad and Jesus had an antithetical views on what were the greatest commandments. According to Jesus the greatest commandments were to “Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:34-40), whereas Muhammad believed that it was “Belief in Allah and Jihad (holy war) in His cause” (Muslim 1:149).

25) Muhammad demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship (Koran 4:102), whereas Jesus did not (John 18:10-12).

26) While Jesus gave his life for others (John 18:11), Muhammad had others give their lives to him (Sahih Muslim 4413).

27) Although we have already seen many of Muhammad’s murderous tendencies we also see that he consented to the crucifying of others (Koran 5:33, Muslim 16:4131), where Jesus was himself crucified to save mankind from its sinful nature.

28) While Jesus’ followers were persecuted and never used force, Muhammad’s followers, and many to this day, forcefully persecute and execute those who do not believe.

29) According to Muhammad: “He who fights that Allah’s word should be superior fights in Allah’s cause” (Bukhari 53:355), whilst Jesus instructs his followers to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Matthew 15:16).

30) While Jesus’ followers gave their possessions to those in need (Acts 2:44-5),Muhammad’s followers stole, and lived off the wealth of others. Many times Muhammad in his war against Mecca he hijacked caravans that transported goods in the desert.

31) While Muhammad emphasizes his kingdom on Earth: “And Allah has made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property” (Koran 33:27), Jesus declares that his kingdom is not of the world: “Mine is not a kingdom of this world” (John 18:36, Luke 14:33)

32) Jesus’ followers shared their faith proudly yet with gentleness and kindness (1 Peter 3:15), whereas Muhammad’s followers were instructed to Kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews (Koran 9:29). Both teachings respectively stem from Jesus and Muhammad themselves.

33) Whereas Jesus’ legacy was that of mercy, forgiveness, love and righteousness, Mohammad’s was not. The Islamic texts instruct men to beat their disobedient wives (Koran 4:34, Sahih Muslim 2127), whilst the Christian texts instruct men: “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (Colossians 3:19).

Conclusion:

I think what these 33 above points have shown is just how different Jesus and Muhammad were as people, how much their messages differed, and how antithetical their teachings were to one another. We can also see the legacies they have left within the activities of their followers. While it is very common for Muslim Jihadists to strike terror into the hearts of people via terrorism, we see an altogether different picture with Christians who give their lives to helping those in need, and thus are often killed for doing so. Such activities stem from the very founder of each of the religions. In my view I don’t think Jesus and Muhammad are even remotely comparable to each other, it is probably an insult to Jesus to compare him to Muhammad. I also think if we had to choose between the two of them and who really was the one bearing God’s true message it would be, without even batting an eyelid, Jesus through-and-through. Nevertheless, in concluding Wafa Sultan, who labels herself as a Muslim but does not adhere to Islam, says:

“The problem with Christians is they aren’t as good as Jesus.  But thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad.”

I have this theory about Barack Obama

I have this theory about Barack Obama

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House. 

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author. 

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal. 

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before? 

He out maneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance. 

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat. 

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary. 

Now, 6 full years into his presidency, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters. 

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain. 

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions. Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues. 

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot. 

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame. 

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth. 

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life. 

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden. 

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States . 

Pat Condell kicks major Islamic ass in this video. Enjoy!

BOOM: ‘There’s Nothing On This Planet Less Deserving Of Respect Than Muslim Outrage’ Watch!

https://dotsub.com/view/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79

A message from Dr. Alveda King

A message from Dr. Alveda King

You may be wondering if the American Dream is still alive. The answer is a resounding yes! The good news is that RESTORE THE DREAM 2015 is poised to help you advance the cause of American rights and liberty.

RTD is the brainchild of my friend Niger Innis who is the Executive Director of the TeaParty.Net. I'm honored to be a part of the team in an advisory capacity to address concerns about the seemingly downward spiral of our national security, stability of a healthy economy, moral turpitude and other concerns.

The problem? Too many Americans are obsessed with identity, race, and class warfare, while at the same time are offering America's disadvantaged urban communities more entitlement, more dysfunction, and more misery.

Decades of misguided policies have pushed America's poverty-stricken communities to the breaking point — and as we've recently seen in Ferguson, Missouri, these communities are about to explode.

If you could do something to reverse this downward spiral — before it's too late — would you take that opportunity to act right now? There is something you can do — join me and support The Restore the Dream campaign today!

From New York City to St. Louis and beyond, these past few months have seen a perilous escalation of tension. If we don't act now, the hot days of summer could see a simmering situation boil over. That's why we're redoubling our efforts now.

Your immediate support will help us reach out to our suffering brothers and sisters trapped in the paternalistic extremists' failed cycle of dependency politics.

People don't want or need a hand out — but a hand up!

The prosperity lost by African Americans and actually much of all middle class America under the current DC administration's failed leadership is a serious injustice. After record voter turnouts to support this administration, Many American people are, simply put, worse off than before.

That's why we're bringing the tried and true principles of economic and political independence to struggling American families and individuals through our Restore the Dream campaign. Sharing free market principles, personal empowerment, and motivation with our inner-city minority young people and neighborhoods — to live and grow and have dreams of their own — what could be a more fitting tribute to MLK's dream than this?

If you agree, I hope you'll step forward and join me in the indispensable work Restore the Dream, under Niger's leadership, is doing today.

From unemployment to foreclosures to falling income, to an iffy health care reform, this current administration has failed too many Americans — red and yellow, black and white — and all the while, people were and still are desperately seeking real solutions. That's what RTD aims to provide.

How do we do it? By showing how "Hope and Change" liberalism has failed the American people, especially in the Black community. By encouraging citizens to become captains of their own fate, to share with them how to vote for a better life, a better community, and a better country.

RTD is bringing this message of optimism and resourcefulness to action-based community unity events, in cities across America. There is no admission fee for these opportunities. Why? Because we want to give the people a gift of hope and transformation for elevation of quality of life.

This administration has failed the people with taxed-and-borrowed billions thrown at failed Big Government programs.

Your generous support to Restore the Dream will help my uncle's legacy live on.

Sincerely,
Dr. Alveda King

1701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 300, PMB-433
Washington, DC 20006
United States

Income Fairness and justice are not easily determined

Fairness and justice are not easily determined

By Walter E. Williams

Oxfam reports that the richest 1 percent of people in the world own 48 percent of the world’s wealth. Many claim that we should be alarmed by income inequality because it hampers upward mobility. Others argue that because income is distributed so unevenly, justice and fairness require income redistribution.

Let’s look at fairness and justice.

What constitutes fairness and justice has been debated for centuries.

Widespread agreement has proved to be elusive at best. However, I think that an important part of an intelligent discussion about fairness and justice is the recognition that knowing results of a process cannot establish whether there is fairness or justice.

Take a simple example. Suppose Tom, Dick and Harry play a weekly game of poker. The game’s result is that Tom wins 75 percent of the time.

Dick and Harry, respectively, win 15 percent and 10 percent of the time.

Knowing the results of the game permits us to say absolutely nothing about whether there has been poker fairness or justice. Tom’s disproportionate winnings may be a result of his being an astute player or a clever cheater.

To determine whether there has been poker justice, we must ask process questions. Was there obedience to neutral game rules, such as those of Hoyle’s? Were the cards unmarked and dealt from the top of the deck?

Did the players play voluntarily? If the answers to these questions are affirmative, there was poker justice, regardless of the outcome, including Tom’s winning 75 percent of the time. Similarly, a person’s income is a result of something.

Knowing that one person’s yearly income is $500,000 and another’s is $12,000 tells us nothing about economic justice or fairness. To determine whether there has been economic justice, one has to ask process questions. Most people – including economists, much to their shame – who discuss income inequality fail to acknowledge or make explicit that income is a result of something. As such, a result cannot be used to determine fairness or justice.

To determine whether there has been economic justice or fairness, we must go beyond results and examine processes.

Let’s look at a couple of examples, among hundreds, of processes that cause economic unfairness. Taxi owner- operators can earn an annual income of $70,000 or more. Many people can manage to buy a car and the necessary items to become an owner operator for less than $30,000. Here’s the unfairness: In order for someone to operate a taxi legally, many cities require the owner to purchase a license, or medallion. In Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and New York, medallions cost between $350,000 and $700,000. The effect of these licensing requirements is to close the market to most prospective entrants and thereby create economic injustice.

There have been instances in which managers of Housing and Urban Development low-income housing projects have wanted to repair dilapidated units by employing residents to perform some of the unskilled work, such as pulling out unsalvageable parts of the building and assisting skilled craftsmen. However, the Davis- Bacon Act, which covers federally financed or assisted construction, requires that the workers be paid union wages. If high union wages must be paid, the manager is forced to hire only skilled laborers, very few of whom are residents of the project.

That means these workers earn less.

It is economic injustice to deny a person who is ready, willing and able to work the opportunity to do so.

There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of examples in which the economic game is rigged. Instead of focusing on what’s claimed to be an unfair income distribution, we need to examine whether there is injustice in the rules of the economic game. But that’s whistlin’ “Dixie.” Politicians receive large financial contributions from vested interests to write laws that rig the economic game.

Impose burdens on people's faith and you get sued

RELIGIOUS-RIGHTS BILL PUTS TEETH IN 1ST AMENDMENT

Impose burdens on people's faith and you get sued

For the first time ever, a bill proposed in the Utah House of Representatives could place freedom of religion above other constitutionally protected rights and recognize religion as a defense against allegations of discrimination. That in truth should not be needed if we had an Honest, Constitutionally Educated, Apolitical Judiciary. Unfortunately that is not the case. Instead we have weasel-wording, shysters trying to undermine the RIGHTS of the Citizenry at every turn.

The "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion has been abused by state and Federal Judges for decades and that should cease! Forcing someone to do something that is clearly against their Verifiable Beliefs should be a Crime.

Sponsored by LaVar Christensen, a Republican, and known as the Religious Liberty Recognition and Protection Act, HB 322, would allow people of faith to sue others for imposing on their beliefs.

The bill is a bid to give sweeping protection to religious liberties. Analysts say because it goes further than any other state, it may raise significant constitutional issues and be susceptible to a court challenge on multiple fronts.

One of the provisions requires “government and private individuals that impose a law or action that substantially burdens another’s religious liberty to balance certain requirements in order to lawfully enforce or recognize the law or action.”

“The proposed act may be subject to challenge in court because it expands religious protections to an extent not currently recognized by the courts,” wrote legislative attorney Eric Weeks in the memo obtained by the Salt Lake Tribune. “Consequently, it is impossible to effectively evaluate its constitutionality or its practical effect on the balance between civil rights and the free exercise of religion.”

“We are working closely and very carefully to make sure that these protections are fairly applied and balanced for the benefit of all,” said Christensen.

Because the measure restricts actions by private entities and individuals that might influence another person’s religious beliefs, many of Christensen’s colleagues are not in favor of the bill. Lawmakers are looking for a way to balance religious liberties and protections from employment and housing discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Utahns, after the LDS church called for a pairing of the two.

Top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced last month they supported both the passage of statewide nondiscrimination protections for gay and lesbian Utahns and the religious freedom of those who oppose homosexuality. The LDS church is caught in an intensifying conflict between LGBT advocates and the religious right.

“We’d like something that reflects … the sentiment from the [LDS] church about how we treat everybody with respect and dignity,” said House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper. “I believe we have a bill that is beginning a process.”

The analysis details numerous ways HB 322 goes beyond religious-freedom laws in any other state, including significantly expanding what constitutes a burden on an individual’s religious beliefs, in a way that “potentially extends religious freedom protections to arenas of public commerce, property, individual freedoms, and fundamental rights that have not traditionally been subject to religious exercise exemptions in this manner.”

By elevating religious protection above other rights, the bill may violate the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. [Not when other rights are allowed to trump religious rights routinely]

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, another Republican, expressed concerns about whether Christensen was inclusive of other viewpoints in drafting his bill.

“My question would be: How involved was the LGBT community in that bill?” he asked. [why should they? [They are at the forefront of religious intolerance.]

Nearly 20 religious leaders joined Equality Utah Executive Director Troy Williams in asking the Utah Legislature to support Republican Sen. Steve Urquhart’s non-discrimination bill, SB 100, which offers protections for LGBT people from discrimination in employment and housing. Williams added the body should reject Christensen’s bill, which would recognize religion as a valid defense against claims of discrimination. [what he really is supporting is reverse discrimination against the religious.]

“His bill would allow employers and landlords to impose their faith on their workers and their tenants,” Williams said. “It would allow people to pick and choose what laws they want to follow.”

Christensen indicated he sincerely wants to make sure all persons are fully respected and protected in the vital areas of housing and employment. House and Senate Leaders say they’re likely to come up with a single bill that balances religious and LGBT protections. [why not include preferences like pedophiles, people that like to kill and polygamist?]

Legislative attorney Eric Weeks issued a memo detailing numerous ways Christensen’s law goes beyond any religious-freedom law in any other state. For example, HB 322 explicitly restricts actions by individuals and private entities that might impact another’s religious beliefs.

In essence, Christensen’s bill would allow a person of faith to sue another person or business if the religious person contends his or her beliefs have been burdened. And the church-goer would win the suit and be awarded damages unless the defendants could clear an exceptionally high bar — showing that the actions they are accused of taking were the only available to prevent a grave risk to public health and safety.

Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams, Republican, who has a bill filed on religious liberties and will be central to the negotiations on the discrimination issue, said Christensen’s bill is “well-intentioned,” but talks are just beginning.

Christensen was a sponsor of Utah’s 2004 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that was struck down by federal courts.

The Husband Store

The Husband Store

A store that sells new husbands has opened in Manchester, just off Deansgate where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:

You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!

So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

Floor 1 - These men Have Jobs

She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads:

Floor 2 - These men Have Jobs and Love  Kids. ‘That’s nice,’ she thinks, ‘but I want more.’

So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads:

Floor 3 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking.

'Wow,' she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads:

Floor 4 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework…

'Oh, mercy me!' she exclaims, 'I can hardly stand it!' Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads:

Floor 5 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads:

Floor  6 - You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor.. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.

PLEASE NOTE:

To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opened a New Wives store just across the street with the same rules.

The first floor has wives that love sex.

The second floor has wives that love sex and have money and like beer

The third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited.

Is this willful blindness or just ignorance?

Dear Fellow American,

As Obama huddles in closed door meetings this week with Muslim American leaders and his Administration lies about secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood, one has to wonder if Obama really has his eyes targeted on the real problem facing our nation. In the face of mounting Islamic terror, is this willful blindness or just ignorance. Either way, we are in great danger.

You know that the jihad has reached America's shores. Many potential attacks have been thwarted. But some have not. Little Rock, Fort Hood, the World Trade Centers, the Boston Marathon bombing; the list of terror incidents keeps growing. It may be a slow motion war, but it is here. Our president doesn't believe it is happening.

It is a chilling fact that many of those who will lead the next attack on America have grown up and gone to school here. But they have never really become a part of our country because they have spent years getting religious instruction in one of the thousands of radical mosques that have sprung up across our nation. That's what really frightens me. Our government is standing idly by while the terrorists who want to destroy it are manufactured day in day out in the radical mosques that teach the destruction of America.

This is no secret. FBI reports and eyewitness accounts have made it clear that a large number of the mosques in the United States urge their congregations to wage jihad against the infidels (us) and impose Sharia Law first on all Muslims and then on all Americans.

This is sedition, not religion!

Sharia Law is not only barbaric--justifying murder and the oppression of women and annihilation of other religions--but also incompatible with the United States Constitution. One cannot be a strict adherent of Sharia Law and still swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, we allow Sharia to be advanced on a daily basis in hundreds of mosques across America.

Three major studies in the last 10 years have all found the same results. Over 75% of the 2,000 mosques in America are 'radicalized.' And what does radicalized mean?

• That of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and only 19% had no violent texts at all.
• That in 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.
• That mosques, which are Sharia adherent, were more likely to feature violent texts than their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts and that leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violent texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques.

Freedom of religion does not include the right to openly preach the destruction of the U.S. Constitution or violent jihad. Mosques that preach godliness and tolerance must be protected; but those that preach hatred and violence must be revealed for what they are--threats to our national security.

So why do I tell you about these centers of hatred in our midst?
The radicalized young Muslims who hear this message of sharia and anti American hatred day after day are acts of terror waiting to happen.

Obama - The Architect of Destruction

The Architect of Destruction

By Maureen Scott

Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That was instilled in him by his family and mentors...it seems to have never left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. Or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," (no he gets goose bumps when he hears the ''Muslim call to prayer" (his words) or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of " America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America , penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.

He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many. Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.

Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America,  rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.

Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of government.

- Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.

- Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.

- Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!

Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America , and the epitome of a Demagogue.

Barack - The Islamophile

Barack - The Islamophile

Islamophile: One who is so enchanted by Islam as to be under the influence of its tenets.

In 2009, I noted that Barack Hussein Obama's remarkably brief White House bio began with this fallacious assertion: "His story is the American story -- values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family..." And you can make up the rest.

Amazingly, his BIG Lie bio page has not been altered since then.

So, in an effort to better understand who Obama really is, and where his religious alliances fall, let's briefly review.

Barack was conceived to unwed parents, Ann Dunham and his Kenyan father, BHO senior, both atheists. They were later married and then divorced. When Obama was four, his mother remarried, this time to an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. In his 1995 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama wrote that Soetoro subscribed to "a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths."

At the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who might best be described as agnostic. There, he would fall under the spell of an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis.

As a young adult and budding "community organizer," Obama was taken under wing by a radical black supremacist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and his wife, Michelle, baptized their children and stewarded BO's "faith" for 20 years. For those two decades, Obama also developed close associations with many other leftist radicals, including Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer, Edward Said, Roberto Unger and others.

That is the real Barack Obama bio, and those are his "values from the heartland." Further, while he self-identifies as "Christian" rather than Muslim, that claim may be as deceptive as his bio.

With that in mind, in this seventh year of Obama's seemingly limitless foreign and domestic policy failures, despite the ominous and impending threats from resurgent al-Qa'ida terrorist networks, the Islamic State, and clear evidence that Islamist Jihadis are targeting the USA, Obama never mentioned al-Qa'ida or Islam in his 2015 SOTU address three weeks ago.

Nor did Obama mention Islam when referencing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in early January, except to insist again that Islam is the "Religion of Peace."

British journalist Douglas Kear Murray, an expert on Islam, asserts that many Muslims today subscribe to "a creed of Islamic fascism -- a malignant fundamentalism, woken from the dark ages to assault us here and now." He notes, "The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent."

More recently, Obama dismissed the subsequent slaughter of Jews in Paris as an act committed by "a bunch of violent vicious zealots who ... randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli." Obama's spokesman Josh Earnest demonstrated a heroic display of verbal contortionism in endeavoring to explain Obama's assertion that the attack was random. Those "violent vicious zealots" were Islamists, and there was nothing "random" about terrorists targeting a kosher Jewish deli.

Last week, Obama used a Christian forum, the National Prayer Breakfast, to sanctimoniously denigrate Christians. The theme for this year's event was "Remembering the Armenian Genocide of 1915," when more than a million Christians were murdered by Muslims. That notwithstanding, he claimed Christians and Muslims are equal partners in murder and mayhem: "Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place -- remember that the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." He added, "Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Really? For the record, Obama has ordered drone strikes against Islamic targets that have killed more Muslims in six years than were killed during three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. (Look it up!) And the Crusades were, arguably, undertaken in the name of "the church," not Jesus Christ. As Islamic scholar and historian Bernard Lewis notes, "The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad -- a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war."

Clearly, there is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that advocates or could even be loosely construed to advocate violence against non-Christians. However, there is plenty in the Quran and the Hadith (the teachings of Muhammad) advocating death to infidels. As Franklin Graham reminds us, "Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give his life for the sins of mankind, not to take life."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the child in Indian immigrants, rebutted Obama's assertion, saying, "It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam. ... The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today."

As to Obama's reference to slavery, the abolitionist movement to end chattel slavery in the United States 150 years ago was led by white and black Christian men and women, as was the movement to end segregation 50 years ago. Christians of yore were at the forefront of these sweeping changes, while Muslims today are at the forefront of murderous global Jihad.

This metastasizing Islamic threat advocates for a "master race," much as did Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. However, rather than a world dominated by Aryans, Islamists seek a worldwide caliphate of Islamists, or "Jihadistan."

And on the subject of percentages, some have suggested that because only 10 percent of Muslims are extremists we need not worry. However, in 1940 only seven percent of Germans belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party. How did that work out?

Notably, the 2014 Global Slavery Index reports that of the more than 29 million humans held today in captive slavery -- defined as "the possession and control of a person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of his or her individual liberty, with the intent of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal" -- more than 18 million are being held in Islamic countries, primarily (and ironically) in Africa.

Indeed, ISIL has institutionalized slavery in the Middle East.

In an interview this week, Obama delusionally insisted that concern about [Islamic] terrorism is simply media-driven hype: "If it bleeds it leads, right? ... It's all about ratings."

When asked why Obama would posit such a ludicrous assertion, my favorite psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, said flatly, "Because he believes it. ... If he was just being cynical as a way to dismiss this because of the failure of his policies, that would be one thing. I think he believes this. ... This is what is so terrifying about the man who is commander in chief of a country, essentially a civilization, under attack."

Krauthammer added, "For the last six years Obama has acted as if the biggest threat American security [in the Middle East] is the Israeli government."

Curiously, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama asserted, "We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends." Whose religion was he referencing?

Perhaps the answer is found in Obama's many words of praise for Islam since 2009:

"I will stand with [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. ... The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. ... We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. ... As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. ... Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. ... Islam has always been part of America. ... We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. ... These [Ramadan] rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. ... America and Islam ... share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. ... America is not and will never be at war with Islam. ... Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace. ... So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. ... In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. ... Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. ... That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. ... Islam has always been a part of America’s story."

So, why does Obama refuse to mention Islam in connection with worldwide Islamic Jihad that is at our doorstep?

I believe it is because he is, first and foremost, an Islamophile, and thus he has what is almost a pathological blindness to the threat posed by Jihad.