No comments necessary: just this video – since we’ve been getting called “tea-baggers” by the left for the last few years.
It seems to me that the radical Islamic anger is very much like the same kind of anger as being demonstrated in Ferguson, MO.
We’ve been watching copious amounts of violence in the last few weeks, between Hamas and Israel fighting things out and the growing levels of violence in Ferguson. And I don’t know about you but I see a lot of parallels based on the notion of “justified hate”, or “rationalized violence”.
In fact, they’re beginning to look a lot alike, which is kind of scary.
Radical Islamists have been at it for centuries. Ever since Mohammad made the first appeals to begin raiding caravans in 623 because he felt justified in his perception of Meccan oppression of early Muslims, Muslims have always used violence as a means to an end – first to end oppression, then as a means of subjugation and conquest (the driver for the Islamic State), Muslims have always referred back to verses like Quran 22:29 and 22:39-40 that permit oppressed Muslims to fight if they are oppressed.
Where I take issue is how very easily that Muslims claim “oppression” and justify their violence. It’s pretty much become a natural reaction for them – claim oppression, cite the Quran, throw a brick, bomb a plane. And then when the oppressor becomes the oppressed, the roles reverse and the cycle continues.
Michael Brown raided a convenience store to steal some cigarillos and got physical with the clerk, despite his reported overall gentle nature. Darren Wilson was, no-doubt unaware that Brown had robbed a liquor store, but I can see how someone who just committed a violent crime would be hostile towards police. As the testimony alludes, Brown attacks the cop, pushes him into the cruiser, they both fight after the gun; gun goes off, Brown runs, cop yells “freeze”, he turns on the cop, cop puts him down.
Then the “rationalized violence” ensues because it was a white cop and a black perpetrator. Al Sharpton starts preaching his hate sermons again and riots akin to the LA riots over the beat down of Rodney King ensue, because of the message of how black people are still “oppressed” – or at least the ones protesting certainly feel that way.
But it seems to me that in both of these situations, whether it’s groups like Hamas that feel like they have to launch rockets into Israel, or ISIS beheading Americans or a group of thug punks throwing bricks through storefront windows, they believe their violence is justified, despite what anyone else thinks.
This is disturbing, particularly in Ferguson where they are calling it “Civil Disobedience” – even though there is very little in the line of civility where a Molotov cocktail is involved.
So where am I going with this? Not too sure – perhaps it’s only to draw the similarities to see what can be learned by it. Is it because people are oppressed or they just feel that way? Is it oppression or a deep seeded sense of entitlement that has been preached to them all their lives that says they are entitled to loot businesses or decapitate someone? Am I drawing comparisons that thread into a wider view of the human condition?
What do you think? Post below in the comments. This should be interesting.
To my friends.
I want to take a quick second and congratulate my friend and fellow blogger Lady K on her newest writing gig with OUTSET Magazine. She presently writes for Pocket Full of Liberty and various other places, commenting on culture, politics, anti-feminism, and of course, coffee (very important here at TRC). You can follow her on Twitter.
Obama’s tepid approach these days shows a man disinterested in his job for which he’s being paid. I think he feels his job description should include the title of “rockstar”. I’m beginning to think that Obama could care less about his role as president.
We sat back and watched him do very little with respect to responding to all the scandals that have come down his way. Benghazi, still no real investigation of what happened there. Bergdahl, in the rearview, out of sight, out of mind. IRS scandals, bah, let Koskinen handle it. Obama’s got very little to do with any of this, except spend time playing golf.
Then there’s Obama’s reactions and responses to Vlad Putin’s actions in Ukraine. This has been such a dismal lack of real leadership. We all know that Russia’s stirring up the unrest in Ukraine – and yet, we’re just taking Putin’s word for it.
And there’s the current flareup in Gaza. Obama probably thinks it’s all Israel’s fault and they should just give up, have all the Jews gassed, and let the Palestinians come in so ISIS can check the block on their whole “world domination” theory. However, even Obama is missing the point on this one – if Hamas stops the rockets, Israel would leave Gaza alone. But that’s not good enough for Hamas. And Obama, in showing lack of support for our “ally” treats them no better than the “adversary”.
And with respect to ISIS, where are we with that? Obama sat back and with 300 military advisers and maybe a few drones here and there (oh, those are popular now?). So instead of US aid, where we have only been working Iraq as our pet politi-forming project for over a decade, in comes Iran. Wow. That’s a switch.
Back home, Obama couldn’t be troubled from all his fundraising activities for Udall in Colorado (which Udall didn’t show up for, by the way – totally funny). He’s been jet-setting all over the country for photo opportunities while his latest sock puppet, Josh Earnest answers any questions we might have.
No, while we have people into the tens of thousands streaming across the border, he couldn’t be bothered to go to the border himself, since he said it would just be a “photo op”, yet he posed for a pic with Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, since Hick is facing getting his own clock cleaned soon.
And with the recent downing of Malayian Air Flight 17 in Ukraine yesterday with 23 Americans on board, Obama couldn’t be troubled to leave a fundraiser event in New York to return to the White House with nothing more than “it looks like a terrible tragedy”. He seemed to be more concerned about Bowe Bergdahl, who could still face charges for desertion (and who is happening to get a new posting back in the Army) than 23 innocents.
And back to the fundraising.
I’m really thinking Obama has no desire to be the President anymore. I think he’s really tired…really tired of being beaten up by the GOP and the Tea Party, even his own party. I think he laments having only a 41% approval rating, which continues to fall. I think he would rather be out playing with the Hollywood elite and standing for photo ops with fellow Democrats than go see the tragedy at the border. He doesn’t have the machismo to go toe-to-toe with Putin.
No, he wants to go out and soak up the love from the Obamadrones that are still out there going “Mmm, Mmm, Mmm”, play community organizer, and cap it all off with a round of golf.
It’s real sad, really. Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. And with his attitude, he’s showing it though his lack of real leadership in any thing.
To my friends.
If you’re like me (a thinking American with a good sense of true American values), you would be seriously saddened by the lack of concern that our President continues to show with regards to the US border. I am so sick of hearing how it’s “discriminatory” and “racist” whenever we talk about securing the border.
Well, now Barry is trying to talk all tough, telling the Mexican president that they “won’t be able to stay”, even though we’re finding out that most of these people aren’t actually from Mexico – they’re from Latin America countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
Interestingly, though, Mexico has some pretty anti-illegal immigration laws, which should have prevented people non-Mexican Hispanics from entering Mexico, just so they could sneak into America. But it’s pretty obvious that there is no real interest by Mexico in preventing this problem.
Back in March, an Obama-appointed judge Beryl Howell, made the audacious ruling that the US border fence was “racist”. She wrote in her decision, that it might “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”
In other words, she agrees with University of Texas professor Denise Gilman to get the names of the landowners on whose property the border fence would be erected. But how does a fence discriminate against our landowners – unless that’s not who these women are trying to prevent the discrimination.
It’s all very simple. They don’t want a border fence going up. The discrimination thing is all a nonsensical ruse. The fence keeps out non-Americans.
I guess Howell wants to get out of all the flak she gets for conflicts of interest stemming from her rulings regarding P2P sharing, given her wide background as a RIAA lobbyist.
Obama is so weak on all of this. His position on Iraq to send in 300 “advisers” to help the Iraqis fight against ISIS that’s threatening to take over the country and now, he is “encouraging” the Mexican president to stop the stream of illegals coming through Mexico into America. Why would he do that? Very simple – because he doesn’t want to suffer the political back-lash that would ensue from building the border fence. The only reason he’s saying, “they can’t stay” is the amount of pressure being put on him from the, now very overworked Border Patrol – who can’t look after the border, since they are playing caretaker for the thousands of people, mostly kids and pregnant mothers who hope to have their anchor-baby in America.
Now some readers may think me heartless – that we should treat these people as refugees from hostile countries. It’s sad that women are basically being raped and slashed within all the gang violence in places like Honduras, so they come up here to escape it. But the thing is, these people abandon their home country, rather than doing something about it.
Same problem in Iraq, by the way.
Until the people in these hostile countries get so fed up with their corrupt governments that they take the initiative and secure their own blessings of liberty, they will never know it for themselves. They will only seek to steal ours (because they are overwhelmingly not interested in becoming Americans outright).
Otherwise, they would come here legally and not under the guise of asylum. I have a few friends that came to the US from somewhere else – but they did it according to the rules. They didn’t find loopholes or try to work the system. And they are on their way to Americanizing, which, to me, is a fundamental question in all of this.
In the last six months, around 120,ooo people violated our border and entered this country illegally – many just walk up and surrender, knowing that they won’t be sent back home for some time. The Border Patrol is overwhelmed.
I think it’s time to militarize the border. Use the Coast Guard for waterways and put the National Guard down there. And incorporate the Border Patrol as part of the Department of Defense, because they have to defend the border from the thousands of people who are being allowed to invade.
To my friends…
A special shout out to Mr. Alfonzo Rachel (it’s ray’-chel, people) and his very cool band, 20lb. SLEDGE. It’s great to hear some positive music with a powerful sound. Zo was on PolitiBunny’s (@politibunny) show last night and had some really good words that got a few *wow* comments from the chatroll. Keep on playing, guys!
I swear, the White House and Barack Obama’s entire foreign policy people are sick in the head. Deranged and totally clueless with a sincere loss of perspective.
As I read the news, I keep seeing more and more nonsense – it’s like someone just opened the spigot and let all the stupidity just dump on in. Perhaps I’m just overly sensitivie to it, but let me see if I have this right:
We give up five high-priority prisoners, very valuable detainees that had a lot of clout with our enemy,
because we are so concerned over a guy who is basically a disgrace to his uniform – a suspected deserter and a Coast Guard washout…
We leave behind an honorable Marine in Mexico in a brutal stinking hole for simply making a wrong turn, in possession of lawfully purchased weapons, and ended up on the south side of the border.
President Obama tries to utter the words, “leave no man behind”, like he even has the honor to make such a statement, yet he left four to die in Benghazi, including our ambassador.
And while Sgt. Tahmooressi sits in a cell, held and potentially being mistreated by the Federalis, we collect up lots and lots of illegal refugees because the President refuses to control the border.
Then Crazy Uncle Joe goes on record saying, “We need it badly from a purely — purely economic point of view”. So in other words, we use cheap illegal foreign labor to fill jobs and keep costs yet we still have a glut of Americans who need to work.
(yet, these same idiots want to raise the minimum wage which kills jobs and puts more people out of work – but that’s domestic policy)
And this just in – a group of bikers are now set out to go retrieve Sgt. Tahmooressi. Good hunting, guys.
Also this week, we’re sitting back watching more and more cities fall in Iraq to the Islamo-facist insurgents – a decade of work done by our military being undone because we refuse to do anything about it now. But then, I can’t say that’s our problem, since it’s clear that the Iraqis are more interested now at squandering the freedoms they had. But sadly, many of our guys are awaiting medical attention while VA senior executives rake in bonuses – money that could be spent on our boys in civilian hospitals, if the VA were that backlogged.
I swear this administration is so screwed up in the head. And it’s like they don’t care. They…just…don’t…care.
Or is this how we “fundamentally transform the United States of America”? By taking a steaming poo on the Constitution and change American exceptionalism into global mediocrity?
I keep saying it – the Founders would have already started shooting over this stuff.
I’ve not written much for TRC lately, mostly due to being short on the time to actually write something of interest. But today, I want to address this Washington Examiner article regarding establishing regulation against the media because of the rising tide of right wing and conservative media.
1) First, once again, we see that while Congress isn’t making any laws about freedom of the press, we see that the Executive Branch is talking about “regulation” – which effectively carries the same end result – putting the kibosh on news outlets putting out articles that might be considered by someone else to being inappropriate for the news. (not that other sites like HuffPo, Kos, and the like aren’t slanted??)
“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,
2) Why is this suddenly an issue? Seriously. For over 15 years, the liberal media has dominated the airwaves – and they have enjoyed the fact that have been able to squelch out conservative view points. But as Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman has pointed out, the conservative media has grown in its size and influence and it shows when you see liberal media types griping, “we should have the ‘Fairness Doctrine’” which really means, we can’t allow these conservative types to promote their ideas without at least responding. We see it when FoxNews continuously dominates the cable airwaves, pushing CNN and (P)MSNBC into the lower echelons of the ratings rankings. We watched as the very pointless Air America went silent in the wake of conservative talk radio. And back then, no one even considered that the liberal media needed regulation to prevent it from talking about issues or promoting candidates.
But now we need regulation – because the right wing news feeds are catching up and even overtaking their liberal counterparts? And Drudge and Hannity need regulating because they are more popular and are able to influence the masses away from the liberal thought process?
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press – US Constitution, Amendment One
When we look at the First Amendment, it does point the finger at Congress as its subject. And since we’re dealing with rulemaking coming from the Executive branch, we trace those rulemaking abilities to powers that Congress can delegate to the Executive. However, this also means then when the Executive makes a rule that carries the force of law, Congress is STILL responsible because they delegated powers to the Executive.
We’ve seen this before when it comes to the Establishment Clause for religion. Whenever we see a school graduation where the valedictorian gives credit to Jesus Christ for his accomplishments and the ACLU begins going crazy, it stands to reason that delegated power is still OWNED by the Congress. There is plenty of precedent on that.
So if the FEC wants to regulate media outlets and get them to self-censor in order to stop the discussion of issues or of positions of politicians/candidates, that is, transitively coming from Congress. The case can be made that its abridging the Freedom of the Press.
What do you think of all of this?