Posts Tagged ‘Islamic fascism’

Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same

May 15, 2014

It’s really an amazing thing to see: the love affair between Islamic fascist jihadism and the progressive left.

I long ago documented Barack Obama’s LONG association with radical Islam.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

Khalid al-Monsour and Rashid Khalidi are bad, bad news if you AREN’T a radical Muslim who is very, very comfortable with terrorism in the name of your ideology.

And the left’s intimate love-affair with radical extremist (violent as hell) Islam run deep, deep, DEEP.  Just recently the uberleftist Brandeis University “disinvited” a female Muslim who has refused to shut her mouth about the viciousness of Islam toward women.  And the soon-to-open 9/11 Museum is taking a lot of flack because it has words such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihadism.”

This brave Muslim woman wanted to tell the truth about what is going on in the lives of these poor, oppressed women who are forced to undergo genital mutilation, endure rapes without having the right to report crimes against them, not be able to drive, not able to even leave the house without an escort, wear a giant tent called a hijab that covers everything but their veiled eyes and the tips of their feet, etc.

And how DARE she do that!  It’s an OUTRAGE!  And liberal Democrats are FURIOUS.  Furious enough to attack her for the cardinal sin of being “intolerant.”

Hint: it sure aint Republicans getting behind these Muslim whitewashers of truth and reason.

So there’s a good question for discussion: why the hell would liberals (well, PROGRESSIVE liberals given the fact that these cockroaches have nothing to do with ACTUAL liberalism) would be such ardent supporters of the people who quite possibly despise them even more than I do.

The answer is actually very simple.

The most fundamental reason is the fact that progressive “liberalism” is based on racism and the fabrication of various racial minority groups into a voting bloc.  Basically, if you recognize and affirm what a truly inferior and pathetic human being you are, and therefore see yourself as a victim of everybody and everything you disagree with, you too can be a “liberal.”

And radical Muslims – yes, terrorists like Osama bin Laden – very much and in the exact same “liberal” tradition view themselves as “victims” of the same “capitalism” and “Christendom” that progressive liberals so ardently despise.

Given that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and given that jihadist Islamic fascists hate most of the same things that progressive liberals hate, they are bedfellows.  Even though these Muslim fanatics would love nothing more than to slit the throats of every progressive liberal on the planet when they’re through using them as useful idiots and ideological human shields.

It boils down to this: if you’re a black Muslim in America today, which party and which president do you vote for?

I’ll leave it to Nation of Islam founder Lois Farrakhan to put that one to bed for me:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Oh, yes, when Obama campaign chief David Axelrod called Obama “black Jesus” and when liberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama is “sort of God” and when liberal idiot Spike Lee said you can divide history into BB before Barack and AB After Barack; when Obama literally has such a God-complex that he made the whole nation and the flag which symbolizes that nation about himself, when senior Obama White House advisors literally go to churches to preach Obama; and most definitely when liberals are selling “artwork” that pictures Obama’s face and phrases such as “prophecy fulfilled,” they are mouthing Louis Farrakhan.

But you’ve got to ask, why do liberals love Islamic radicals so much?  Why are the two ideologies bedfellows?

Because they’ve got an awful (and I emphasize these people are truly “awful”) lot in common besides the fact that Muslims tend to be racial minorities and therefore are held sacrosanct by the Democrat Party no matter how utterly wicked and violent and rabid they are.  Not that being wicked, violent or rabid in any way, shape or form is a barrier to being a Democrat, mind you.

Other than the racial minority thing, which is frankly enough to solidify the connection between liberal Democrats and the radical jihadist fascist left all by its lonesome, Islamic fascist have three other things that progressive liberals hold dear:

The second thing that binds Islamic fascists and liberalism together is a love of fascism and the exaltation of the State as God.  That is a cornerstone of both fanatic Islam and fanatic progressive liberalism alike.

Muslims refer to the concept of Khilafah.  Basically, think of the world as one Muslim Caliphate.  And you have the dream of Muslims.

Liberals want the same damn thing: they want one-world government.  They want a mega-socialist all-powerful totalitarian State.

Now, progressive liberals might argue that Muslims want to rule in the name of God and liberals want a godlike all-powerful State that has absolute authority over human lives entirely apart from God.  But in point of fact, the two become the same thing.

In North Korea, dictator Kim Il-Sung, then Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong-Un are worshiped as GOD in their atheist state.

In the atheist state of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao was likewise worshiped as GOD.

Leftists cannot help themselves.  In order to BE a leftist, you have to have the insanely arrogant belief that YOU should be the one to pull or push up or down all the levers and YOU should be the one who pushes or doesn’t push all of the buttons of state.  Liberals don’t believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to govern their own lives and their own affairs; rather, they feel that THEY ought to have the power to FORCE individuals to comply with what THEY want.  Or else face the power of their State.

The most rabid Muslims really aren’t very different.

Put another way, both the Ayatollah AND Barack Obama love to dictate government by use of “executive orders.”  See here and here for just two of myriad examples of our Thug-in-Chief’s abuse of power, of the separation of powers and of the Constitution.

The third thing both the progressive liberal left and radical Islamic jihadist fascism have in common is an utter contempt for and hostility to Christianity.

Piss Christ was the result of a liberal “artist” being paid government dollars from a VERY liberal National Endowment for the Arts program created by DEMOCRATS.

I wonder how Democrats would have voted for “Piss Mohammed.”  I think all reasonable people know what these cowardly liberal cockroaches would have done.

Progressive liberal Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to advance an anti-Christian agenda to overthrow Judeo-Christianity as the moral framework for society.  Because they think they’ve got a far better framework.

The fourth thing that progressive liberal Democrats and their jihadist Islamic fascists both have in common is a rabid intolerance of free speech.  You need to understand why both come to the same exact perspective from opposite ends of the spectrum: for Muslims, the suppression of free speech and individual freedom and liberty is all about the fact that in Islam the individual is nothing and the Islamic State is EVERYTHING.  And thus you have the right to shut up in Islam if you disagree with Sharia or the Khilafah Caliphate State.  In progressive liberalism, the suppression of free speech and individual liberty is based on the opposite of Christianity: in Christianity, you are created in the image of God and you have God-given rights, including the right of free speech and individual freedom and liberty.  Under progressive liberalism, you are nothing but DNA (i.e. chemicals) conditioned by your environment; you have no free will; you are merely a herd animal.  And liberals view themselves as your masters who reserve for themselves the right to make all of your herd decisions for you.  And so under progressive liberalism, you have the right to shut up if you disagree with political correctness or the Socialist Welfare State.

What the left has done is as fascinating as it is dishonest and hypocritical.  Think of 1978 and the ACLU-backed ruling that Nazis had the right to march through a town (Skokie, Illinois) that was heavily populated by Jewish death camp survivors.

This was, of course, racism at its worst and its ugliest, given the history of 6 million Jews murdered like insects during the Nazi Holocaust.

But, under the guise of liberalism, free speech was so sacred, so sacrosanct, that even the very ugliest speech needed to be protected at all possible costs.

Now, fast forward a few decades to Donald Sterling, a man whom the left wants to strip a one-billion-PLUS dollar franchise from against his will because he said a bunch of ugly racist garbage over what he thought was a private phone line.

Let me explain what happened: liberals took advantage of free speech to get their feet and their ideology in the door and then they slammed that door shut.  They don’t need it any more.  You have the right to shut up.  Or lose your property (like Donald Sterling) or your career (like the Mozilla CEO who committed the unpardonable sin of believing he had the freedom to donate to a political cause liberals don’t support).

Don’t tell me that the precedent of going after a racist like Sterling won’t soon be exploited to go after Christians like me who believe God rather than Obama when it comes to homosexual marriage.

Think of the bastions of liberal progressivism otherwise known as “universities.”  Think of what recently came out of a liberal progressive student who basically has the same job that Obama had when HE was a liberal fanatic at Harvard:

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

Stop and think (liberals being incapable of either being that as fascists they love to rush to exploit the emergency of “crisis”): liberals love the idea of destroying a Donald Sterling because, racist (LIBERAL) roach that he is, they know that they can exploit the legitimate moral revulsion against racism to “progressively” demonize OTHER areas – such as opposition to homosexuality or opposition to big government, or support for voter IDs, etc., etc. ad nauseum – to their heart’s content.

Progressive liberals, if anything, are even MORE rabidly intolerant against free speech than the most fanatic Islamic fascists.

So you see, on numerous fronts, to be a radical terrorist Muslim jihadist fascist is to be a radical totalitarian liberal progressive fascist.  The two have the same basic worldview and it is therefore no surprise at all that one protects the other.

If you get in the way of the machinery of either one, they will crush you.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama

October 12, 2008

There is a direct relationship between American liberals and Islamic fascism.  At first glance, someone might say, “This can’t possibly be.  Islamic extremists commit all these acts of violence in the name of Islam, and liberals profess peace and secularism.  How can the one have any relationship with the other?”  Read on.

It’s one thing to realize who has most most aggressively opposed the war on terror, where even the term “terrorist” – along with “war on terror” itself – gets purged in a politically correct manner to be replaced by the more neutral term “insurgents.”  In the words of one New York Times writer:

The war over words and definitions is not a new one. The current administration has fought to maintain custody of the Iraqi conflict by defining insurgents as “terrorists” and prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” During Vietnam, the administration defined civilian casualties as “collateral damage.”

What Democrats and liberals have done to oppose the “war on terror” is largely a matter of history.  They opposed the Patriot Act; they opposed the monitoring of calls to the United States from identified terrorists; they opposed the ability of the United States to detain combatants fighting against United States troops; they tried to force time tables that would have resulted in the United States withdrawing in defeat; they literally proclaimed – in the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – that the United States had lost. They voted for the war before they voted against it.  In large part, they have claimed that it has been American imperialism, rather than growing Islamic fascism, which caused the upsurge of violence.  In short, the view is that they are attacking us because we are killing them.  We’re the bad guys.  We’re the force for evil in the world.

The following audio quote comes from Democrat Parker Griffith via Redstate.com:

I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its imperialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.

It’s hard to fight and win any kind of conflict when half the country questions whether the war should even be fought in the first place and believes that we are the bad guys.

Hence we have Michael Moore – a hugely popular liberal filmmaker (though I prefer the more accurate label of “propagandist”) saying:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

The people Bush and his “neocons” (whatever that means) calls “terrorist murderers” who are killing American soldiers with land mines liberals like Michael Moore and many others compare to our Minutemen who won American freedom in the Revolutionary War.

For this reason alone, there is a direct relationship between the Islamic fascists and American liberals: they both agree that we shouldn’t be fighting them, and that the United States is the greater evil.

But the relationship is actually much deeper than that.  The liberal’s opposition  to the war on terror, and their de facto support for the “insurgents,” is a result of a common belief system directly linking American liberals to Islamic fascists.

One writer put it this way:

Through a Marxist lens, the world is divided into rich and poor, owner and worker, exploiter and exploited. Therefore, if a person or a nation is poor, it is always due to the oppression of the richer person or the richer nation. This simplistic view of the world is the main reason for leftist support of Palestinian terrorism… Israel is perceived to be Western and rich, while the Arabs are perceived to be poor and downtrodden; therefore the Arabs are right. Never mind that the Palestinian Arab Muslims treat women like property, use intimidation and violence against religious minorities, openly call for the rule of Sharia religious law, severely persecute gays, and generally conduct themselves in a way that liberals would find abhorrent if it were being done in their backyard. The Palestinians are poor, therefore they are justified in anything they do, including murder of “Zionist” children.

Those nasty elements that routinely characterize Islam in so much of the world are conveniently ignored in the name of “multiculturalism,” “pluralism,” and “global harmony.”  And since traditional Christianity is the real boogeyman of secular humanist liberalism, anything that is hostile to the Christian world view is regarded positively.  Bush is the real terrorist; al Qaeda and the Taliban are “insurgents,” “freedom fighters,” or even “Minutemen”-type heroes.  The forces of global jihadism are depicted as forces that we can negotiate with if only Bush were out of the picture.

Liberals, who routinely demonize the rich as evil in a clearly Marxist-inspired version of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, use almost the exact same language and the same arguments to attack their “neocon” opposition as the Islamic fascists use to justify their violence.  It makes it hard to disagree with their arguments and justifications when you are essentially using the identical arguments yourself.

The only real difference, then, is the use of violence as a political tool.  And it is a fact that liberal groups – such as the Weathermen, and such as one William Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and killed policemen –  have employed precisely the same sort of violence as the “insurgents” – a.k.a. the Islamic fascists – have used.  Liberals who employed violence as a political weapon went too far; but liberals who refuse to make the distinction between force and violence and embrace the weakness and non-action catastrophically championed by Neville Chamberlain go too far as well.

As Robert Heinlein once put it, the sad fact of reality is that:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

It is vital that we realize that the refusal to fight evil is itself evil.

Democrats initially supported the war on terror and the Iraq War.  But they turned against the war the moment that it was in their cynical political interests to do so.  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared American defeat; Barack Obama still refuses to support the surge strategy even when it is clear that the surge was the only path to victory.

Many liberals and Democrats claim that the war on terror has only strengthened the terrorists.  That claim is tantamount to the argument that Hitler would have preferred a Winston Churchill to a Neville Chamberlain.  It is both contemptible and irrational.  But that is where we are.

And the fact that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wasn’t sufficiently troubled by the violent terrorist actions of such a man as to refuse to serve on a board with him – a board that carried out Ayer’s radical educational vision (which is frankly nearly as radical as was his violent political vision) – ought to be more than troubling itself.  Similarly he likewise isn’t so troubled with the vile actions of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea that he isn’t willing to boos their international profile by directly negotiating with them as President.

There is also a direct relationship between Barack Obama and pro-Muslim sources.  Barack Obama doesn’t actively embrace their support because of the political liabilities, but Muslims clearly believe that a Barack Obama presidency will be a pro-Muslim presidency.  Further, millions of dollars have poured into the Obama campaign from overseas – and been laundered by breaking it into less-than-$200 increments to avoid detection – and there is no question that a great deal of that money is coming from Islamic sources.  This, also, ought to be extremely troubling.

But most troubling of all should be the nuclear weapon-bound Iran.  Iran is clearly determined to puruse a full-fledge nuclear capability, and in spite of Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to imagine how he could possibly be willing to take his pledge of preventing the regime from developing such weapons to the point of forceful confrontation (which is clearly the only way that Iran will blink).  Obama couldn’t even bring himself to vote for a bill that labeled Iran as a terrorist organization, and in fact publicly opposed it as “excessively provocative.”  Given his grounds for opposing the Iraq War, how can he possibly support an Iran War?  We won’t be ever be certain that Iran has developed the bomb until we see the first mushroom cloud.

The only way we will be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to state categorically that we will go to war with them if they continue in their present course.  Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 only because we had invaded Iraq and they thought they would be next.  They began it again when they saw the U.S. effort bog down both militarily and politically.  They began it again when they saw Democrats treacherously turn against a war they had once supported the moment it was in their political advantage to do so.

If Barack Obama believes he will be able to inspire Europe to unite with America in a war against Iran, he is naive to the point of criminality.  Most of Europe depends on Russian and Iranian oil, and Russia and Iran are key allies.  And the fact of the matter is that Russia is using its UN veto to block any United Nations measure condemning Iran.  If the United States acts, it will basically be on its own – again.

The financial crisis and the massive bailout package will also force the next President to make very tough spending decisions.  John McCain promised to build the military and freeze other spending programs; Barack Obama could not identify one of his huge social spending initiatives he would actually cut.  We will not be able to confront Iran without building our military to make it even stronger than it is today.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile delivery systems that they are likewise working on, they will be immune from any direct attack.  A regime that has called the United States “the Great Satan” and Israel “a rotting corpse” will literally be able to mount 9/11 style terrorist attacks (or should I say “insurgent” like the mainstream media?) with impunity.  It will be able to launch direct or indirect attacks against Israel with impunity unless we are willing to risk a nuclear war that could easily become global.  A nuclear-armed Iran is a looming reality too terrifying to fully contemplate – but contemplate it we must.

Another reason that terrorists regimes would want to see a Barack Obama Presidency is because he has stated that he would reduce the size, sophistication, and power of our military at the very time that we need it the most.

Mark my words: if Barack Obama is elected President, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons during his administration.  Obama supports the philosophy that links American liberalism with the justifications of Islamic fascists.  He has spoken of American soldiers as “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  His opposition to the war in Iraq – which was based on the identical rationale that any war against Iran would have to be based upon – virtually precludes direct military confrontation.  And his belief that he will be able to persuade Western nations to join a “Gulf War”-style coalition (which his running mate Joe Biden still refused to support) is simply naive beyond belief.

A vote for Obama will become a de facto vote for a nuclear Iran.  Muslim extremists may want that, but Americans certainly shouldn’t.