Tag Archives: terrorists

Left Fixated on Mythical, White, Right-Wing Extremists!

The Left has gone bonkers again, this time over the Oregon rancher standoff.


As reported by Infowars (emphasis added):

“Numerous voices are calling for a literal bloodbath in Oregon – and the exercise of unilateral government power to kill the individuals involved, including supporters. It is an armed and highly-charged, but so far peaceful situation that is, nonetheless, rooted firmly in civil disobedience and principle. But that hasn’t stopped opponents from calling for them to be treated like domestic terrorists.”

The Left is incoherently outraged, making spurious racial charges and demonizing whites, conservatives, law enforcement, and the media over alleged racial and political bias in favor of whites and conservatives. (What world do they live in?)

In the Age of Islamic Terrorists, the Left continues to be obsessed with alleged white, right-wing extremists! Why this obsession? Two reasons. One – they are white.[1] Two – they are conservative. But are they extremists? In the mind of the Left, yes. To more rational human beings, no.

Salon Leads the Charge!

Headline: “No happy ending in Oregon: We can’t reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence”

How is not wantonly killing protesters engaged in legitimate, peaceful, civil disobedience rewarding them? They have a right to protest! (First Amendment: “the right to peaceably assemble.”)

How often do “white, right-wing extremists” “pull a gun and threaten violence?”

The writers at Salon apparently think it is very often.

But, are these justice-seeking ranchers really extremists? And, are they threatening violence? No and no. They are engaged in a peaceful protest, an act of civil disobedience which, if conducted by liberals, would be treated as a noble act of social justice.

Salon’s lead paragraph claimed that the ranchers “are protesting perceived overreach from the federal government.”

Except, of course, the federal overreach is far more than perceived. It is very, very real. The convicted ranchers have already served time for trumped-up charges.

Salon graciously declined to call them “terrorists,” preferring the term “separatists,” because of “the group’s refusal to acknowledge the federal government”

Except, of course, the so-called “separatists” want neither separation nor an emasculated federal government. They want a federal government which operates within the framework of the Constitution.

Salon then compared these white “separatists” “with black protesters and Occupy Wall Street.” Salon claimed that the encampments of “peaceful, unarmed [Occupy Wall Street] protesters” “were brutally dismantled by law enforcement. Police didn’t hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and batons to clear them out.”

Except, of course, Occupy Wall Street activists were far from peaceful and it often took weeks for the government to respond. Indeed, OWS encampments occupied entire parks in the nation’s capital, and other U.S. cities, for months!

Salon also claimed, “Nor was there any hesitation to call in the National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in Baltimore. So far, the Malheur occupiers are meeting no such resistance.”

Except, of course, the Baltimore “protesters” were violent rioters and looters committing mayhem while Baltimore authorities actually dillydallied in seeking assistance, choosing instead to give them “space to destroy.” The rioters wanted to purge the city.[2] In contrast, the so-called “separatists” have harmed and threatened no one.

Having made a false equivalence while distorting the facts, Salon then pitched its message:

“This discrepancy is important. Peaceful, left-wing protesters are fair game for state violence. But when armed anti-government zealots seize federal property and promise to defend themselves, law enforcement takes time for tact, maybe even negotiation.”

Salon fabricated so-called “state violence” against allegedly “Peaceful, left-wing protesters.” The actual violence of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter is uncontestable. Moreover, their violent rhetoric encourages more violence as they call for the assassination of their foes and the burning of cities. Their nihilistic sense of “justice” is the killing of those they hate.

In contrast, the “separatists,” as Salon calls them, are defending themselves from government overreach.

Salon concluded, “more important, we cannot reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence. And if there is bloodshed, there is real danger it will spread like the Hammonds’ own fire.”

If only Salon had the courage to challenge left-wing movements which really are violent! And what do we make of Leftists who want these “separatists” to be killed? Are Leftists really peaceful and supportive of the rule of law? Or are they selective in the law’s application?

Protester, Separatist, or Terrorist?

At least Salon did not call the ranchers “terrorists!” Others on the Left were not so sanguine.

As pointed out by Tammy Bruce, “No one’s at risk. There’s no one in the vicinity. They happen to have their firearms. That’s their lifestyle.” In contrast, “the 2011 takeover of Wisconsin’s capitol building by union activists resulted in millions of dollars in damages, yet no one considered referring to them as terrorists.” (Did you see the video at the time? Anarchy and wanton destruction!)

Alan Colmes, on the other hand, focused on race and ethnicity, claiming, “If you had Muslims here it would be called domestic terrorism,” apparently believing the white “separatists” should be called “terrorists.” In fact, Islamic terrorism is the terrorism threat endangering Americans today.[3]

The Left continues to be obsessed with the race of individuals,[4] rather than the nature of their actions. If whites or conservatives do it, it must be bad; if minorities or liberals do it, it must be good.

Justified Civil Disobedience

David French made some salient observations. Having analyzed the original court case, French observed, “What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.” It’s all about a land-grab by the government.

According to the ranchers, in the 1990s, “the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two ‘arsons’ that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.”

French added, “There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. … To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.”

Unlike Leftist protests this decade (think Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, various college campus protests), these ranchers are occupying “a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders.”

Yet, some on the Left want the federal government to crack down on the ranchers with “shoot to kill” orders because they are white conservatives who do not fit the liberal narrative for social justice activists.

French concluded: “Yet now they’re off to prison once again – not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves. They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.”

Are these ranchers “right-wing extremists” and “terrorists” as the Left would have you believe? Or are they simply American citizens seeking justice from a tyrannical government through peaceful civil disobedience?


[1]               See “Guilty of Being White” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-17.

[2]               See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.

Compromise is Defeat

Americans are almost literally up in arms over the radical transformation of America into something she was never intended to be – and the GOP compromises with those spearheading that transformation!

The GOP leadership rails against Obama’s appeasement of terrorists, tyrants, and criminals, yet that very same leadership capitulate to the Left and the media (redundancy alert).


At the very moment of victory in 2014, Senate Majority Leadership Mitch McConnell conceded defeat. McConnell pledged to forego any government shutdowns. That’s right: Conservatives won, so McConnell started throwing down our weapons.

The Iranian Nuclear Arms Treaty (in everything but name) should never have passed. The Senate should have insisted that this treaty go through the normal treaty process. Instead, succumbing to political expediency, RINOs in the Senate shirked their constitutional duties and enabled the worst deal in American history to give our enemies the upper hand.

Planned Parenthood should have been defunded. The American people were utterly disgusted (by vast majorities) with the barbaric atrocities taking place in Planned Parenthood facilities across the nation. Investigative videos are still be released to the public and are all available online. Boehner and McConnell failed to seize the moment – this unique moment in history – to cripple the industry which epitomizes the Holocaust of our times in our nation.

The recent two-year budget deal also conceded defeat to Obama and his left-wing agenda. Utter capitulation.

The Spirit is willing, but the Senate is weak. Far too many Republicans are willing to go along to get along.

Moreover, those self-same representatives of the People actively oppose those who are actually doing the work of the People. The Quislings in our midst treat the patriots – who are defending the Constitution and who are in alignment with the will of the People – as if they were the enemy.

Like Patrick Henry, Ted Cruz is unwelcome by those who have aligned themselves with the status quo. The Resistance is always hated by the Establishment.

Mitt Romney, the Republican standard-bearer in 2012, recently lamented the very existence of conservative talk radio and right-wing blogs because they make it harder to forge friendships with our adversaries to get things done in Washington.

Romney and his cohorts believe that “getting things done” means enacting laws and growing the government. Stopping bad laws is at least as important as enacting good laws. (Don’t we already have enough laws?)

Our Founding Fathers would be horrified to see the lack of vision and grit within the ranks of the so-called conservative leadership. Ronald Reagan had both vision and grit.

Reagan spoke in bold terms, clearly distinguishing himself from his opponents. He forthrightly stated that government was the problem. He clearly expressed his love of America and her people, extolled American exceptionalism, and championed what America could accomplish.

Reagan denounced and defeated the Evil Empire when none thought that possible. Reagan reignited the free market and restored the American military, often in opposition to those on his own team. He did so with a deep grasp of our nation’s history, Constitution, People, and destiny.

Moreover, Reagan routinely made his case to the People. He connected with them in a powerful and personal way. He made his ideas (which were distinctly American in nature) easy to understand and support. His courage and optimism won the day and it was Morning in America once again.

Not so with today’s GOP leadership. Few of our elected leaders have either the vision or the courage to do what the American people elected them to do (or what Reagan would choose to do). What would Ronald Reagan do?

Stand Up and Fight!

Hillary Crazy about Crazies

We Must Empathize With America’s Enemies

Say what?

Hillary Clinton, the as-yet-unannounced Democratic front-runner for president spoke at Georgetown this week to express her vision “to advance peace and security.”[1]

Attempting to seize the moral high ground, Hillary’s strategy for world peace is hilarious: empathy. (This is reminiscent of that quintessential quality Obama seeks in Supreme Court justices – empathy, not legality.)


In Hillary’s world, Clinton calls this “smart power” which leaves “no one on the side lines.”

(I would think we would want terrorists and other evildoers to be “on the side lines,” but the Obama administration has been known for negotiating with the worst of the worst.)

Eschewing military action, Hillary seemingly contends that diplomacy will solve all of our problems and lead to global peace. “That is what we believe in the 21st century will change – change the prospects for peace.”

Clinton’s approach to resolving tensions with our enemies is simplistic, naïve, and dangerous: “Showing respect even for one’s enemies.”

And what does that entail? “Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

Empathize? With terrorists and tyrants?

Having run the State Department for so many years, one would think that the smartest woman in the world – who oversaw the dismantling of peace around the world – would know what the perspectives and points of view our enemies possess.

ISIS and other Islamic terrorists want to create a worldwide caliphate and, to do so, they must convert or kill every other person on the planet, especially us. That is their perspective and point of view.

Does Clinton, like Kerry, think we can talk ISIS into peace?

How do we show these butchers, beheaders, and barbarians “respect?” Through negotiation? With appeasement?

How are we to empathize with butchers and barbarians? Will that empathy dissuade them from further butchery? Genghis Khan was undeterred by pleas for mercy.

Vladimir Putin wants to restore the old Russian Empire. He seized the Crimea despite world protests and he is hell bent on absorbing the whole of the Ukraine. Virtually unopposed by Obama and his diplomacy. How did that reset button work out for you, Hillary?

Iran is unalterably resolute in its desire to develop nuclear weapons and the Obama administration’s policy of appeasement will never contain that threat. Indeed, for all these years, negotiation has always worked to Iran’s advantage.

Instead of acknowledging evil where it exists and taking action to protect Americans, Obama talks, talks, talks. And Hillary Rodham Clinton – the presumptive POTUS in 2016 – apparently supports that policy.


[1]               Daniel Harper, “Hillary: We Must Empathize With America’s Enemies,” Weekly Standard, 12/4/14, http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/04/hillary-we-must-empathize-americas-enemies#.

Obama’s Muslim Roots and Sympathies

Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim? Or does he merely sympathize with adherents of that faith?

Why has Obama initiated a plethora of outreach programs to the Muslim community, defending Islam at every turn, but turned his back on Christians and Jews?

How have Obama’s political and religious beliefs informed his public policy decisions and how have they determined his course of action in the war on terror which he denies exists?


Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has begun a five-part series examining Obama’s Muslim connections. Also a must read, author David Horowitz offers a detailed examination of Obama’s Islamic ties and interests on his website.

Obama Insists ISIS is not Islamic

Utterly denying self-evident truths, Obama insists that ISIS is not an Islamic organization. Just as Obama denied the existence of a war on terror (banning that term for most of his presidency), Obama continues to uphold Islam as a religion of peace – a religion integral to America’s very existence.

Theodore Shoebat explains how Obama’s claims contradict the truth (see also the graphic below).


Murphy Donovan highlights the rise in Islamic jihadism in the wake of Obama’s refusal to admit its existence.

Obama on Islam

Now The End Begins posted twenty quotes of Obama praising Islam. Though all of them are enlightening, following are a few of my favorites. They show Obama’s love of Islam and desire to portray it as always sharing the American experience. (He is right, of course, if he’s referring to the Barbary Pirates.)

Obama and Islam 1

#3 “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.”

#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

#6 “Islam has always been part of America”

#10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

#11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

#12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

#18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

#20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

The People’s Cube humorously combats Obama’s claim that Islam built America.

Obama’s War … on Global Warming!

The Obama administration refuses to “label” our ISIS conflict a “war” just as it refuses to call Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine an “invasion.” The world is threatened not by Islamic jihadists but by a “global network of extremists.” But “extremists” – in Obama’s lexicon – are Tea Party members.

Obama claims Republicans are waging a “war on women” while his colleagues admit to waging a “war on coal.” James Carville’s 1990s “war room” permeates the entire federal government.

But Obama refuses to fight America’s actual enemies (not just enemies of his state).

Finally, Obama has declared war – on global warming!


Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute writes, “The fact of the matter is that Mr. Obama is obsessed with climate change, even as the voters of this country, who speak through their legislatures, most assuredly are not.”

As a consequence, Obama’s infamous “war on coal” (not terrorists) continues unabated.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserts, “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face (9/4/14).”

Even more so than ISIS? Many far left environmental zealots concur with Clinton’s assessment.

Current Secretary of State John Kerry certainly agrees. Even as the world was becoming engulfed in flames and ISIS was gaining strength, Kerry claimed, “The bottom line is this: it is the same thing with climate change. In a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction (2/16/14).”

Global warming = weapon of mass destruction?

Employing apocalyptic language to induce fear is a common Orwellian strategy used by Obama, Clinton, Kerry, and the reigning godfather of Chicken Little fear-mongering – Al Gore.

Just last week, with the beheadings of two American journalists fresh in our minds, Kerry quoted Scripture to urge Americans to join with Muslims to combat our common foe: global warming. Kerry said, “Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures, clearly, beginning in Genesis (9/3/14).”

It sounds like Kerry and Clinton shared notes.

But science is not on their side. The American people have little concern over the apocalyptic doom-saying prophesied by the likes of Kerry and Clinton. But Americans are concerned about the extravagant measures being taken to solve an environmental myth, and they are even more concerned about the real enemies threatening and attacking America.

Instead of placating your environmentalist base (thereby squandering are dwindling resources and distracting us from our real enemies), Mr. President, why not put the needs of America first? America first! What a concept!

Update: Since publishing this column, almost daily reports in the media demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the global warming myth, even as the Obama White House escalates its promotion of that hoax. But the global warming deniers – those Obama calls unpatriotic and others want put in jail – are being proven right every day.

Obama Swaps Jihadist “Dream Team” for Deserter

Such a deal! That’s Obama’s notion of “’fair trade practices” as applied to national defense.

The Obama administration’s vapid anti-terrorist record gains its weakness from Obama’s deeply-flawed grasp of terrorism. Last weekend epitomizes Obama’s myopia.

Obama negotiated with terrorists for the release of an American held prisoner by the Taliban, using five of America’s most dangerous foes as pawns in his personal chess game. Obama released these war criminals in exchange for a deserter who deserves to be court-martialed.


The Taliban’s “Dream Team”

Dana Perino accurately characterized these five terrorists – which the Taliban desperately sought to free – as the “Dream Team of the Taliban” (Special Report, FNC, 6/2/14). Of course the Taliban wanted its leaders back again – to return to the battlefield. And Obama accommodated them.

Hearken back to the Civil War. Can you imagine the Union Army capturing Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson only to have President Lincoln let them go?

Bowe Bergdahl and His Father, Robert Bergdahl

What did America get in return? A deserter who is disgusted by America.

Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter, said “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. … The horror that is America is disgusting.”

Yet, despite knowing of Bergdahl’s record and his views, the White House sacrificed America’s safety and security for a deserter who values neither. Whitewashing the truth, National Security Advisor Susan Rice asserted, “He served the United States with honor and distinction.” No, he didn’t. Bergdahl deserted his comrades in arms and he abandoned the country he was ashamed of.

As a direct consequence of his desertion, at least six soldiers were killed searching for him.


His father, Robert Bergdahl, in a meeting with President Obama, actually thanked Allah. Moreover, “the first word’s that … Bergdahl’s father uttered when speaking at the White House were an Arabic prayer which a CIA expert on the Middle East says was meant to “’claim the White House for Islam.’”

This is significant! Robert Bergdahl planted the Islamic flag! The tenets of Islam declare that once territory has come under Islamic control, it will remain so in perpetuity. Jihadists will forever point to that ceremony with Obama as proof of Islam’s subjugation of America’s capitol.

Robert Bergdahl, who converted to Islam, sides with the Taliban.



Many have addressed the far-reaching ramifications of Obama’s blunder which will reverberate around the world far beyond his presidency. Critics assert that this “prisoner exchange” will:

  • Set precedent for negotiating with terrorists
  • Encourage terrorists to capture Americans for future “prisoner exchanges”
  • Legitimize the Taliban
  • Return five senior al-Qaeda leaders to the battlefield
  • Create a moral equivalence between jihadists and American soldiers

Obama’s extra-constitutional action will ultimately endanger every American – 1) anyone who travels overseas or has a loved one who does so, and 2) American servicemen who become engaged in future extraction operations to liberate those who have been captured/kidnapped.

But why should Obama care? After all, he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. Moral equivalence pervades his worldview and his administration. As a senator in post-9/11 America, Obama notoriously refused to wear a flag on his lapel or place his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

Obama said:

“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.”

Obama doesn’t “want to be perceived as taking sides?” Then why did he take the oath of office as a senator, and later, president? If he won’t take sides – be on America’s side – then why is he president?

Faulty Rationale by White House

Obama has always failed to grasp the nature of the terrorist threat facing America and the world.

During his predecessor’s presidency, Obama opposed virtually every anti-terrorist measure. Obama’s own presidency began by denying the existence of a “war on terror” (expunging that term from his administration’s lexicon), employing euphemisms (e.g., man-made disasters, workplace violence), intending to dismantle everything Bush accomplished, and treating terrorism as strictly a criminal justice matter.

Obama and his Justice Department are confused about how to combat terrorism because they 1) virtually deny its existence and 2) treat it as criminal activity instead of acts of war.

Was the 2009 Ft. Hood massacre “workplace violence” or an act of terrorism? Most people recognize that this jihadist intended to kill as many people as he could to help destroy the United States, all in the name of Allah.

Obama’s Justice Department thinks otherwise. It quickly Mirandizes terrorists, foregoing interrogations which could otherwise produce useful intelligence information in our war on terror. It insists on jury trials in America instead of military tribunals in Gitmo.

The “prisoner exchange” – and, indeed, Obama’s worldview – offers a moral equivalence between U.S. and its adversaries. Some on the Left actually regard terrorists as “freedom fighters” and “patriots,” while conversely viewing American patriots in low regard.

Where Do We Go From Here?

How the Justice Department proceeds in handling the criminal case against Bowe Bergdahl will demonstrate its commitment (or lack thereof) to the rule of law and the military “code of honor” which has been bandied about by supporters of Bergdahl.

Obama is surely tidying up loose ends for his future legacy, ending two wars and getting our troops out of harm’s way. (Except, his actions have placed even more people in harm’s way!)

Having released the worst of the worst from Gitmo argues for releasing the rest, enabling Obama to fulfill that campaign pledge as well, albeit a few years late.

But does any of this make America safer?

In exchanging war criminals for a deserter, Obama sacrificed America’s security and standing in the world. What will he do next?


Bergdahl made the news again in January 2015, and the Left continued to defend both Bergdahl and the terrorist exchange. Juan Williams provided a typical rationale on The Five:

Williams: “We bring home American soldiers and I think we’ve done that from the day of the founding of this great country. … Yes [even a deserter]. … He’s a crazy kid. … He made a mistake. If it’s my kid and my kid makes a mistake, I want my child back. If he is in the army uniform of the United States military, bring the kid home. … Hey, they were soldiers. They know what they’re in for. Bergdahl made a mistake. … You don’t think mistakes are made — you think mistakes are made in the course of war?”

First, Williams claimed we always bring our soldiers back – even deserters. Wrong. Deserters?

Second, he employed the insanity defense.

Third, he repeatedly claimed Bergdahl made a mistake. Bergdahl’s desertion was not a “mistake” – it was a deliberate, calculated, planned, and surreptitiously executed action. One which cost the lives of his fellow soldiers who sought to find or rescue him.

Fourth, Williams personalized the situation: what if it’s your kid or my kid? No standards are ever enforced in these kinds of arguments. “What if your child _____ ?” Whatever is filled in that blank is justified by the argument that it is your child. Merely an emotional appeal to justify breaking the rules.

The bottom line is that five top-tier terrorists were released back into the battlefield to wreak havoc all over again. For a deserter.


In late March 2015, Bergdahl was charged with desertion. We now know – as we always suspected – that several of the five swapped Taliban war cabinet are preparing to return to the terrorist battlefield. And the mainstream media continue to cover-up for the White House’s hero’s welcome for Bergdahl. Moreover, the Obama administration still champions the exchange.

Under the Obama administration, words have lost their meaning and/or taken on an Orwellian construction. The most “transparent” administration in history is the most deceptive. “Patriotism” no longer means love and defense of country but, rather, supporting the growth of government. And “honor and distinction” are reserved for those who oppose America.