RUTHFULLY YOURS

When you’re a Muslim, you’re a Muslim all the way, from your first shahada to your last dying day?

Not necessarily. Islam hasn’t such a strong death grip on the minds of most Muslims that it can’t be broken, provided one exercises a little thought and courage. There are numerous ex-Muslims – unfortunately, only a comparative handful out of the reported 1.3 billion – who have renounced Islam, repudiated it, abandoned it, and left the beard-and-burqa fold as apostates for other faiths and even to become atheists. These are individuals whose faculty of reason was never completely crushed or voluntarily surrendered by them to the toxic mare’s nest of Islamic theology and ethics. They have independent minds that have freed them to live life unburdened by fear of a vengeful ghost and the hard looks of neighboring Muslims.

It is the premise of this writer that Islam is evil – evil in its beginnings, evil in practice, evil in its epistemology and metaphysics, evil in its ethics. Islam is a nihilist, anti-life system, heads and tails, obverse or reverse, its politics and its religion. I’ve discussed this numerous times, for example, here, here, and here.

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/07/24/muslim-activist-isa-hodge-vs-ex-imam-mark-christian-on-jihad-in-chattanooga-on-the-glazov-gang/

On this special edition of The Glazov Gang, Muslim American Activist Isa Hodge went toe-to-toe with Dr. Mark Christian, a former Islamic Imam who converted to Christianity, an act for which he now lives under the perpetual threat of death.

They debated the causes of the Jihadist attack in Chattanooga, what needs to be done to protect American lives from Jihad, why each of them left their religions, and much, much more.

Don’t miss the fireworks!

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spent more than four hours trying to defend the nuclear deal before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Grilled by Republicans furious at the Obama administration’s total surrender to Iran, Kerry remained true to character: He doubled down on meaningless platitudes with self-righteous indignation.

In fairness to America’s top diplomat, whose stupidity is only matched by President Barack Obama’s evil, how else could he respond to rational concerns but to get on his high horse? Indeed, all he had at his disposal in the face of the emerging details of the agreement, each more shocking than the next, was a feeble attempt to invert reality and ridicule his critics in the process.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/24/justice-department-asked-to-probe-hillary-clintons-email-use-n/21213484/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D107114074

The U.S. Justice Department is weighing a request by two government inspectors general to open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account for her work as secretary of state, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

The inspectors general, who were not clearly identified in the Times’s report, have asked the Justice Department to decide whether Clinton, the leading Democratic contender for the 2016 presidential election, mishandled classified information while she was the nation’s most senior diplomat.

The Justice Department has not decided whether it will pursue a criminal inquiry, the Times said in its report published online late Thursday night, which cited unnamed government officials.
Clinton has repeatedly said she broke no laws or rules by eschewing a standard government email account for her State Department work in favor of a private account linked to a computer server in her New York home. She has also said she sent no classified information through email.

Her exclusive use of a private email account first came to public attention in March, opening her to a volley of criticism from political opponents as she began her presidential campaign that she was sidestepping transparency and record-keeping laws.
She says she last year gave the State Department all the work-related emails she had, amounting to some 55,000 printed pages covering her four-year tenure beginning in 2009, although her staff have recently acknowledged there are gaps in the records she retained.
The State Department is now obliging her request to make public as many of the emails public as disclosure laws allow, and is regularly releasing them in batches through to next January.
Some of the emails have been retroactively marked as classified or containing some sort of sensitive information, according to the State Department, although the department says this does not mean the information was classified at the time an email was sent.
The inspectors general behind the complaint sent a memorandum to the State Department last week saying that at least one email already made public contains classified information that was apparently not properly redacted, the Times reported. Which email they had in mind is unclear.

The Justice Department and spokesmen for Clinton did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday night.
While Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s nomination, several recent polls have found a majority of voters find her untrustworthy, a feeling likely to be exacerbated by a criminal investigation by the federal government.
(This version of the story corrects paragraph 9 to show memo was sent last week, not last month, and was sent to State, not Justice, Department)

Stop Donating to Jewish Establishment Organizations

After the Iran deal, American Jews turned to the “Establishment” of liberal Jewish organizations to whom they had written out so many checks over the years expecting them to do something about it.

And the organizations did what they do best. They expressed concern.

The ADL was “deeply concerned” about the Iran nuclear deal two years ago. It announced that it now has “cause for concern”. It’s unknown whether the next ADL boss, Obama crony Jonathan Greenblatt, is also concerned, but it doesn’t matter since the ADL’s concern and five bucks can get you an Iced Cinnamon Dolce Latte at Starbucks.

AIPAC is also “deeply concerned” about the deal. So is John Boehner. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was “deeply concerned” about Iran’s nuclear program eight years ago. The IAEA was “deeply concerned” about it four years ago. And Obama is now “deeply concerned” about the Americans in Iran he didn’t bother rescuing. The last time he was “deeply concerned” about the subject was two years ago.

Expressing concern, deep or otherwise, is a meaningless formula that reassures the people actually upset about an issue that they are being taken seriously, by the organizations otherwise ignoring them.

The last time Kaukab Siddique, a Pakistani Muslim professor at Lincoln University, a taxpayer funded black college in Pennsylvania made headlines, he was denying the Holocaust and calling for the destruction of Israel. On his Facebook page he states, “Know the Jews and you’ll know your enemy”.

He’s only grown more charming ever since as he is once again in the news for explaining that unlike Muslim women, American women are “sluts”.

Kaukab Siddique obviously views Americans and American women with contempt. He views Muslims as superior. His comments echo those of Muslim Brotherhood figure Sayid Qutb in “The America I Have Seen”. This view of American (and non-Muslim) women as immoral is how Muslims justify the rape of non-Muslim women.

President Obama and other administration officials continue to push their thumb-in-the-eye approach to legal and illegal immigration with a series of unilateral moves that once again reveal their contempt for the American public and the rule of law—when they’re not busy engaging in outright extortion.

The first insult comes courtesy of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This week they “clarified” the requirements necessary for becoming naturalized citizens. The clarification involved modifications to the Oath of Allegiance every would-be citizen must recite. The USCIS determined that two clauses contained in that Oath, as in the promise “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by law, are no longer operable.

Did Islam grow softer throughout the Obama years?

The presidential election of 2008 seems so long ago.

When Barack Obama first ran for the presidency, he and his legions of supporters at the time assured us that if only we would elect him, the first black American president with an Islamic-sounding name, that “the world” would love us once more (as if those against whom we were fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq ever loved us to begin with.

If only Barack Hussein Obama would become the 44th president of the United States, the murderous hatred of Islamic militants for America (and her allies) would all but vanish as America assumed a new course in foreign relations generally, and a new course vis-à-vis the Islamic world specifically.

“In an interview with the comedian Jon Stewart, the president stated his hope that Americans and their elected representatives will come to see the wisdom of the Iran deal, and then added: “despite the money, despite the lobbyists.” Lee Smith responds:

On Tuesday, the President hinted broadly at anti-Semitic conceits in order to scare off Democrats tempted to vote against nuclear agreement with Iran

Last night, Barack Obama took to The Daily Show With Jon Stewart to promote the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the White House, along with its P5+1 negotiating partners, signed with Iran earlier this month. It’s a good deal, Obama told the host, it will resolve the issue diplomatically and keep us out of another Middle East war. The president said that hoped the American public would respond positively. “If people are engaged, eventually the political system responds,” said Obama. “Despite the money, despite the lobbyists, it still responds.”

“What do you mean by lobbyists?” the man some viewers regard as the Cronkite of our age never asked the president. It was a lost opportunity to gain some clarity into Obama’s thinking about America’s Middle East policy since he has used the formulation often. For instance, in a press conference following the signing of the JCPOA, Obama said that he hoped Congress would evaluate this agreement fairly, “not based on lobbying, but based on what’s in the national interests of the United States of America.”

It has been well documented that the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons against its own people before and after the agreement in which it promised to give them up. President Obama famously proclaimed a “red line” that was never solid, resulting in the Assad regime’s engaging in the use of these weapons with impunity.

In an effort not to be outdone by their enemy, ISIS — the terrorist organization that was allowed to transform into an insurgent rogue regime notorious for beheading, torture, rape, and mass killing — has now one-upped itself by using chemical weapons as well. The American national-security nightmare was always a terrorist organization possessing and using weapons of mass destruction. Some on the left postulated that not even terrorist groups would be bold enough to do so, since the Western powers would surely react with swift and decisive action. The admittedly small example of ISIS’s unabashedly using chemical weapons suggests that the United States cannot be spurred to real action even in the face of such horrendous crimes.