Saturday, May 8, 2010

Saturday Sage

Would this bother you if it was in your neighborhood?  It is here in the United States, and there are others just like it popping up all over the country.  Islam is not just another religion.  You are extremely foolish if you think we can in any way co-exist with the followers of Mohammed.

Bet you've never heard this from the State Controlled Media;

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude;

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . 
Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the Muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"

While we watch the flow of countless illegal aliens continue unabated, our government puts all other American Citizens through the alleged "security" ringer.  The following excerpts are from a longer article by Ann Coulter:

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not to refer to tea-party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that – contrary to the terrorists' wishes – Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.

There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)

Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds – Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.

Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.
To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.

If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?

Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?

Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more.
Mark Twain


  1. "First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away," et al. Didn't that happen on President Bush's watch?

  2. Probably, but it is still missing the point. We should be looking for likely terrorists instead of fingernail clippers and shampoo bottles. The old "it happened on Bush's watch" has run out of steam. The idea is to improve, not continue with proven failed policy.

  3. Sorry, Pappy. There is still plenty of steam in the "it began on Bush's watch," because it is a truthful statement and does have a bearing on what is happening today.

    You are correct. It doesn't excuse the continuation of such policies. All of those infringements on our freedoms that came to exist during the last administration, and administrations before it, should be examined and most of them expunged.

  4. Bush no longer there, and it didn't begin on his watch. It began many years ago and was only interrupted by the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

    After the insipid bumbling reign of the Clintons, the bravado of Islam had an easy creep into a country sliding further into the abyss of socialist philosophy and backwater politics. We'll probably never know what Bush would have done had he not immediately had to deal with the bold attacks on the U. S. by crazed Jihadists.

    Bush in my opinion did what was necessary to satisfy the challenge. Even his political enemies were in agreement. However, like the cowards they are, they chose to make political hay out of the situation when it didn't end in three weeks.

    In times of near peril, law must be suspended to maintain order. This is never pleasant. I'm certain Bush made errors, but who knows what he was being told and why. We'll probably not know in our lifetime. Progressives were disappointed because the cost of protecting our country by fighting on foreign soil cost so much that their social experiments (which had failed everywhere they had been tried previously) could not be financed. However, they didn't stop, and the democrat controlled congress drove us to the brink of bankruptcy. A fact which they refuse to admit or accept. Their constant denials don't make it any less true.

    We are now faced with a serious imbalance in our system of checks and balances. The incompetents who have taken the reins of government are once again spending us into oblivion. I think more people are seeing the light and opting to vote out those who have become haughty and unresponsive regardless of party affiliation. I hope we can restore our balance of power and regain the balance of our republic.

  5. When President Bush sent troops to Afghanistan after 9-11 Americans were solidly behind him; in fact, the world was behind him. Had he committed an adequate force to do the job the support wouldn't have waned because it was the right thing to do.

    Instead he made a full scale incursion into Iraq, probably the only place in the Mid East that did not harbor terrorist, and created a nightmare. (No, that does not mean S.H. didn't need to be deposed. Just not then and not by unilateral action from the U.S.)

    Incompetents have been making law for more years than I care to count. The situation grows worse with every election. It has nothing to do, per se, with either the democratic or republican party. It has to do with the people we elect.

    As far as suspending the law in times of near-peril or peril I scream "No Way!" It is neither warranted of acceptable. It does not justify the suspension of the 4th Amendment. We are either free Americans, protected by the Bill of Rights, or we are a lackey of a tyrannical government.

  6. I missed those briefings myself, so I can't say for sure just why things were done the way they were. In fact I don't personally know anyone who was asked to attend.

    As far as the suspension of certain laws, its done all the time. When bad things happen and the general public, (to include any number of politicians) scream for something to be done. What they are really screaming for is order, and a return to the homeostatic state of perceived security. Laws are modified to achieve the desired state. But, who decides when we've reached that state of Nirvana? We can't have freedom and order together. We must opt for one or the other. Like you, I prefer freedom because I realize that security and order are illusions. However, most folks don't.

    I am for a return to a more sensible and stricter interpretation of things constitutional. Our founding document has been so misused during my lifetime that it is hardly recognizable anymore.


I encourage your comments. Keep the language civil and you will be published.