An Informative Weblog

Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

NINETY Year Old fledgling Editor of Snake Hunters. Combat Veteran of WWII, 10th Mountain Division, Italy. AAU Swim Coach, 29 Palms, Yucca Valley, Calif. Mobile Park, Retail Furniture, Indian Gaming Casinos in San Diego County,Concessionaire/ CO + State Fair. This Editor is.Never "too busy" to confront enemies here at home, , or foreign enemies that hate our 1st Amendment Freedoms. IF YOU WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD... START BY READING THE VIOLENT HISTORY OF ISLAM... Read > Continuum Of Wars < in the Archives, dated March 25, 2010 - Then Print It, and pass along to folks you care about. Read great articles by Marshall Frank & Andrew C. McCarthy. Vigilance Is The PrIce We Must Pay To Save This Republic. Learn more about 'The Enemy Within'; Research 'StealthJihad' - - - > - PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH - YOUR UNWAVERING VIGILANCE WILL PROTECT THIS REPUBLIC - ' ***** Jerimiah 50.6 My people have been lost; their shepards have led them astray...

Monday, May 25, 2015


By Marshall Frank
Most of my readers know that I strive to research and verify before posting facts and opinions. Once in a great while, a reader will come up with one of those “gotchas” which causes me to restudy a point of view. The few times that has happened, I accept as a learning process by which to do even better.

We all naturally harbor views and opinions that may not be completely verifiable, yet very possibly true. As experienced police detectives are aware, hard evidence is not always left behind, though the circumstantial body of information may point to conclusions that offer solid information and prime suspects.

The following list of views and opinions are based on my own insights, research, a plethora of dot-connecting and plain common sense. This time it’s just me; Thinking Out Loud

I believe the global warming issue is a political sham. Indeed, some science reports espouse warming as a global problem, but the politicians on one end of the fence do all they can to cash in politically. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been on-going since the beginning of planet earth. It wasn’t man who created the ice age, nor other shifts in geological or meteorological phenomena. Of course, it’s important do all we can to preserve a good environment. But whenever I hear someone like the president tell us that climate change is more serious than ISIS or international terror, the first thing that comes to mind is; Is he purposely lying? Is this a political detraction?

The rise of ISIS rivals the rise of Nazism in the early 1930’s. It started with a band of brutal radicals, to which the general populace turned a blind eye until the treachery overflowed into their world. Our president originally dismissed ISIS as a JV unit, unimportant. The mission of ISIS is establishing fundamentalist Islamic states to blanket the entire world which will entail mass terror; it is only a matter of time. It’s destined to grow huge and not just in the middle-east. The radical Islamists and the Nazis each worshiped a god: One who could be seen, and the other who cannot be seen. But the fascist ideology is very similar. The only thing that will stop the march of fascism is a defeat from which they cannot recover. Like it or not, that could mean D-Day.

We know that – for many years – Barack Obama’s most influential mentor, and father figure, from ages ten to eighteen was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed, card-carrying communist who hated the United States. We know that Barack Obama was indoctrinated at an earlier age with Islam. And, we know that Obama’s friends and associates throughout his early life were confirmed anti-Americans, communists and Islamists to which he owed his friendship and loyalty. Thus, we have elected into the White House, a man who was marinated in two ideologies which have, at one time or another, sworn to destroy and conquer the United States. It’s clear the American voters had no clue as to who or what they were voting for.

Race relations were at an all-time pinnacle in America until 2009, when – ironically – a black president took office. Barack Obama, and his ideology and his cronies (Holder, Sharpton, etc.) have set back race relations 40 years, or more. Could it be that it is all part of a grander plan to establish anarchy in America, thus the divide?

Consider the possiblity that Barack Obama may attempt to remain in office. Outside of repealing a constitutional amendment, that can be achieved one of two ways: 1) He can have Michelle Obama run for president, and if elected, he would remain president by proxy or 2) Obama can declare Martial Law. That can be accomplished for a number of reasons; Out-of-control border crossings, war with Iran or other major countries, anarchy in major cities, etc. On March 16, 2012, the White House released an executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” which expands and reaffirms a previous action giving the executive branch such powers to protect national security. Basically, the federal government has the authority to take over many aspects of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction – all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama.

I believe the current wave of assaults and demonstrations against police is an organized effort to create anger, hatred and disorder by hired anarchists, as part of a grander plan to one day declare police incapable of maintaining the peace. That could also provide a motive for Martial Law. Hopefully not.

I believe Barack Obama is at the least, a sympathizer with the Muslim Brotherhood, or at the most, a stealth agent. Every action he takes in regards to the middle-east is to the advantage of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the uprising and installation of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt in 2011.

I believe Obama will, while president, stand by and do little or nothing to prevent an Israeli catastrophe as Iran or other proxies embark upon an overt destruction of Israel.

I believe Hillary Clinton (and possibly the president) was likely aware of the scheme prior to the Benghazi attack of 2012. Her actions, or inactions, prior to and following the attack, aided and abetted which could be considered “Obstruction of Justice.” Certainly the actions following the attack rivaled that of many past criminal suspects; Lie, duck and get lost.

For one reason or another, I seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton will make it to an election day. There are too many hammers ready to fall, and she is a grossly dishonest person. And, she is inevitably going to come under fire for so many of her major actions and inactions as debates near. It’s unthinkable that any informed American citizen could cast a vote for this woman, regardless of party.

Click here: Did Obama sign a martial law executive order? — RT USA

Monday, May 18, 2015

Isaiah 10.1 - Woe unto those
that make unjust laws

Take the time to read thru this. It is very scary how one madman can destroy a Great Nation!

​We are all aware that a significant number of U.S. military high ranking officers have been relieved from duty since BO took office in 2009. What I didn't realize is how extreme this has been. ​

Below is a list of Generals, Admirals and Navy officers who have been fired under the Obama administration because they disagreed with his policies and handling of the armed forces.

​So who the hell is protecting our country?

(Read to the end...print it for aware friends.)

• General John R. Allen - U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
• Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star) - U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
• Major General Michael Carey (2 Star) - U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
• Colonel James Christmas - U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit
• Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
• Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus - U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
• General Carter F. Ham - U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
• Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr. - U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point , NY (2013)
• Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan - U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
• General James Mattis - U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
• Colonel Daren Margolin - U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico 's Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
• General Stanley McChrystal - U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
• General David D. McKiernan - U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
• General David Petraeus - Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012
• Brigadier General Bryan Roberts - U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
• Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant - U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command
• Colonel Eric Tilley - U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
• Brigadier General Bryan Wampler - U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Navy Admirals fired:

• Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette - U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)
•Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star) - U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)

•Captain David Geisler - U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)
• Commander Laredo Bell - U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs , NY (Aug 2011)
• Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch - Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
• Commander Nathan Borchers - U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)
• Commander Robert Brown - U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story , VA (Aug 2011)
• Commander Andrew Crowe - Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)
• Captain Robert Gamberg - Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)
• Captain Rex Guinn - U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)
• Commander Kevin Harms - U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)
• Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin - U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)
• Captain Owen Honors - U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)
• Captain Donald Hornbeck - U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011)
• Rear Admiral Ron Horton - U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011)
• Commander Etta Jones - U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
• Commander Ralph Jones - Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)
• Commander Jonathan Jackson - U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)
• Captain Eric Merrill - U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)
• Captain William Mosk -U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota , U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)
• Commander Timothy Murphy - U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)
• Commander Joseph Nosse - U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)
• Commander Mark Olson - U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)
• Commander John Pethel - Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)
• Commander Karl Pugh - U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)
• Commander Jason Strength - U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)
• Captain Greg Thomas - U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)
• Commander Mike Varney - U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)
• Commander Jay Wylie - U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)

Naval Officers fired (All in 2012):

• Commander Alan C. Aber - Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012)
• Commander Derick Armstrong - U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012)
• Commander Martin Arriola - U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug2012)
• Captain Antonio Cardoso - U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012)
• Captain James CoBell - U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station's Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012)
• Captain Joseph E. Darlak - U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
• Captain Daniel Dusek - U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme
• Commander David Faught - Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012)
• Commander Franklin Fernandez - U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012)
• Commander Ray Hartman - U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012)
• Commander Shelly Hakspiel - Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012)
• Commander Jon Haydel - U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012)
• Commander Diego Hernandez - U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012)
• Commander Lee Hoey - U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012)
• Commander Ivan Jimenez - Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
• Commander Dennis Klein - U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012)
• Captain Chuck Litchfield - U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012)
• Captain Marcia Kim Lyons - U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012)
• Captain Robert Marin - U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012)
• Captain Sean McDonell - U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012)
• Commander Corrine Parker - U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012)
• Captain Liza Raimondo - U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River , MD (Jun 2012)
• Captain Jeffrey Riedel - Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012)
• Commander Sara Santoski - U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012)
• Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff - Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012)
• Commander Sheryl Tannahill - U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville , TN (Sep 2012)
• Commander Michael Ward - U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012)
• Captain Michael Wiegand - U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012)
• Captain Ted Williams - U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012)
• Commander Jeffrey Wissel - U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)

Naval Officers fired (All in 2013):

• Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen - Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
• Reserve Captain Jay Bowman - U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix , NJ (Mar 2013)
• Captain William Cogar - U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy's medical treatment facility (Sept 2013)
• Commander Steve Fuller - Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013)
• Captain Shawn Hendricks - Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013)
• Captain David Hunter - U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12
• Captain Eric Johnson - U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013)
• Captain Devon Jones - U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro , CA (July 2013)
• Captain Kevin Knoop - U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort's medical treatment facility (Aug 2013)
• Lieutenant Commander Jack O'Neill - U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island , IL (Mar 2013)
• Commander Allen Maestas - Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013)
• Commander Luis Molina - U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013)
• Commander James Pickens - Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013)
• Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice - U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
• Commander Michael Runkle - U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013)
• Commander Jason Stapleton - Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013)
• Commander Nathan Sukols - U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
• Lieutenant Daniel Tyler - Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
• Commander Edward White - U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013)
• Captain Jeffrey Winter - U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013)
• Commander Thomas Winter - U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013)
• Commander Corey Wofford - U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)

(Note): This trend continues in 2014 !

Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented.

Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the 'purge' of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place. As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years.

So why is this happening? What is going on right now is absolutely crazy especially during a time of unrest. Is there a deliberate attempt to reshape the military and remove those who don't adhere to the proper 'viewpoints' ? Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won't cooperate out of the way?

Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a military purge is never good. Perhaps you are reading this and you think that 'purge' is too strong a word for what is taking place.

If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?

Just consider the following quotes from some very highly decorated retired officers:

- Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely: “The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, the Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

- Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: “There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.”

- Retired Army Lt. General William G. Jerry Boykin: “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.”

- Retired Navy Captain Joseph John: “I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.”

A Pentagon official, who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, said even young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job just keep your mouth shut. Now this trend appears to be accelerating.

General Vallely's comment: “Absolutely every communist regime on the planet did this as soon as they got in power.”


Saturday, May 16, 2015

Well Spoken - Worth Keeping

Editor's Note: Maybe you've seen this's 100% accurate, but not believed by most voters, especially Millennials. BHO is not America's first African-American president (1/8th African)...he's more accurately America's first Arab-American president (3/8ths Arab), assuming that his mother Stanley was 100% "White-American," as reported. And, thanks to ever-increasing government entitlements, the African-American descendants of African slaves, brought to the U.S. by Arabs, are still enslaved.

Probably the best description of Barack Obama ever written. Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well-structured and informative. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.
The first paragraph of Mr. Wheeler's statement is perfect.

by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides, but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is "African-American," the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah. It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

And yet he got elected, not once but twice. Thanks to those who did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those who were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.

Remember, you don't have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave; if you are dependent on government entitlements, then you just have a different slave owner.

Thursday, May 14, 2015



Editor's Note: Just before the 2008 national elections, Obama promised
 his mesmerized fans that he was about to "fundamentally change" this
unique republic. Seven years into his outrageous foreign & domestic
agenda, he arrogantly believes that he has also been given a legal right
to change the mainstream media, and especially the top FNC reporters
 and commentators that lead the field with 'fair & balanced' views. - reb

For going on seven years we have learned three things about President Obama: 1) He loves the poor so much he continues to create more of them. 2) He loves the poor so much he does everything in his power to keep them poor. 3) He doesn’t see the opposition as loyal, but as bad players — his enemy. This is especially true of Fox News, which Obama ripped as anti-poor bigots during a Wednesday afternoon summit on poverty.

We’re used to this Obama, the forever-partisan who has never seen himself as president of all the people but only of those who worship him.

What was most revealing about the president’s comments was his expressed desire to “change how the media reports.”

Speaking of Fox News, the poor, and the way GOP leaders think, Obama said, [W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”

Here is the full transcript:

I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

After seven failed years, to watch Obama sit there and discuss the poor as though he is part of the solution and not the problem, is laughable.

And let’s not forget that Obama knows nothing about poverty. He has lived a privileged life.

Obama attended prep schools as a child, lived with his well-to-do grandparents in Honolulu as a teen, where he attended Panahou, a fancy private school. Both of his grandparents were well educated; she even worked as the vice president of a bank. For a time, Obama had a nanny! From there Obama attended Occidental College in California, was well off enough to visit Pakistan for 3 weeks; he then attended two of the most prestigious colleges in the country: Columbia and Harvard.

The closest Obama has ever come to experiencing anything close to poverty was during his time as a community organizer in Chicago. And in that dynamic, the poor were just pawns for Obama to manipulate to achieve his political ambitions.

Obama knows nothing of struggle, or what life is like for those who do. And after 7 years of his failed economic policies, we also know he doesn’t give a damn enough about the poor to change his policies in a way that might actually help them.

Obama likes poor people fine — he likes them dependent on the government.

He also likes the news media to do what it’s told.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015


Would you believe that Lee Iacocca is 91 years old and is still KICKIN’ butt? Check out his latest rant.

Just as true today as it was when his book first came out. He was, and still is, a brilliant businessman!

Often we need to be reminded of Iacocca's words, Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes?

He's now 91 years old and has a new book

, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.

Lee Iacocca Says:

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president?

We should be screaming bloody murder!

We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff,

we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car.

But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say,

'trust me, the economy is getting better..

' Better ?

What the Hell ! You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic'.

I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out, along with Obama!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.

While we're fiddling in Afghanistan, Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do.

The liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of
asking hard questions.

That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.

I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged.

This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself.

It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001 , we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes.

We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving, but our soldiers are dying daily.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day!

We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.

This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the tree-hugging environmentalists.

Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers' union.

Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare.

The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.

These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: Where have all the leaders gone? Where are the curious, creative communicators?

Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense?

I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy. Deal with life.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing.

Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it.

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening.

But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress.

We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state.

What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here.

I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America...

In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments.

I've also experienced some of our worst crises:

The 'Great Depression,' World War II,' 'the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.

Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about.

For, it is your country, folks, and it's your future and your progeny.

My / Our future is at stake!

Monday, May 11, 2015

WSJ: Arab Rulers Snub Obama's Summit

[Who would have thought it? Some of America’s most important Middle East allies flipping the bird to Barack Hussein Obama, preferring instead to ignore his assurances about his nuclear deal with Iran! They’re signaling they no longer trust Obama’s America, and they are unwilling to put their lives in the hands of the serial betrayer. Instead, they will make other arrangements to protect themselves. Would that Americans should “get it” too. df]

by Dan Friedman NYCWSJ, May 10, 2015

Rulers Snub Arab Summit, Clouding U.S. Bid for Iran Deal

Saudi monarch’s decision signals that the Arab states aren’t on board with nuclear accord

By Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee in Washington and Ahmed Al Omran in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

WASHINGTON—Saudi Arabia’s monarch pulled out of a summit to be hosted by President Barack Obama on Thursday, in a blow to the White House’s efforts to build Arab support for a nuclear accord with Iran.

King Salman’s decision appeared to ripple across the Persian Gulf. Bahrain said on Sunday that its ruler, King Hamad bin Isaa Al Khalifa, had opted not to travel to Washington.

The only two monarchs from the six countries confirmed to attend the summit at the White House and the presidential retreat at Camp David, Md., were the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait.

At stake for the White House is Mr. Obama’s key foreign-policy initiative, an Iran pact that is proceeding toward a June 30 deadline without support from regional powers. King Salman’s decision signals that the Arab states aren’t on board and could continue to act on their own to thwart Tehran, as Saudi Arabia has done in leading a military coalition against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen.

Senior Arab officials involved in organizing the meeting said not enough progress had been made in narrowing differences with Washington on issues like Iran and Syria to make the Saudi ruler’s trip worth it.

“There isn’t substance for the summit,” said an Arab official who has held discussions with the Obama administration in recent days.

Senior U.S. officials said as recently as Friday that they expected King Salman, who took power in January, to travel to Washington.

The Obama administration planned the summit as a way to build Arab support for the Iran nuclear deal by giving more arms and security guarantees to members of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman.

The White House on Sunday sought to play down any rift with Riyadh or the other GCC countries, stressing Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and his deputy would be at the meetings.

“We look forward to the attendance of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, with whom the president has met on several occasions, including in the Oval Office in December 2014 and January 2013,” said Bernadette Meehan, spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said King Salman was staying in Riyadh to focus on the Yemen cease-fire and humanitarian aid effort.

“Minister Al-Jubeir reiterated King Salman’s commitment to achieving peace and security in Yemen and his eagerness to the speedy delivery of humanitarian aid to the brotherly people of Yemen,” Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry said.

The Obama administration has cited the GCC summit as crucial for building regional support for the U.S.’s Middle East policies, particularly its diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Saudi Arabia has been sharply critical of the White House’s efforts to curb Tehran’s nuclear capacity in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

Riyadh has also pressed the U.S. to take more-aggressive steps to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s closest Arab ally, and to push back the Tehran-supported insurgency in Yemen.

Secretary of State John Kerry met with King Salman on Thursday in Riyadh to discuss the Camp David agenda, U.S. officials said. He then met with the GCC’s foreign ministers in Paris, where he offered to give the GCC countries non-NATO major-ally status, said a senior U.S. official. But the Arab diplomats showed “very, very tepid interest,” the official added.

“It’s something we’re prepared to consider, and we had raised it with them,” the U.S. official said. “But they seemed to think it was not that critical or even important a step.”

Last Monday, French President François Hollande met in Riyadh with King Salman and other Gulf Arab leaders to discuss regional security matters. Within the international bloc of countries negotiating with Iran, France has emerged as the most critical of the effort.

Saudi officials told Mr. Kerry on Friday that King Salman would attend the Camp David summit, U.S. officials said, and that the overall message in Paris was positive.

The White House said that day that the Saudi monarch would meet President Obama on Wednesday ahead of the dinner.

“We have heard nothing negative about what we are trying to do,” the U.S. official said on Sunday.

In Paris, Messrs. Kerry and al-Jubeir agreed on a plan to forge a cease-fire in Yemen and to promote a political transition in the Arab country.

The Obama administration also pushed for better integrating the U.S.’s and GCC countries’ missile defense systems as a way to contain Iran.

“Whoever comes will be empowered to speak in the name of their government and will sign onto whatever‎ is agreed to at Camp David,” the administration official said. “So the dynamics may change based on who’s there and there will have to be maybe some adjustments.”

Some Arab officials said they didn’t believe the agenda at Camp David would go far enough to address their concerns about Iran.

Some of the Arab states said they were hoping the GCC could sign a mutual defense treaty with Washington, similar to South Korea’s and Japan’s.

Such treaties would bind the U.S. to defend the Persian Gulf states if they faced Iranian aggression.

The White House, however, didn’t believe it could win congressional approval to back such a treaty, said U.S. and Arab officials involved in the discussions.

Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Qatar also are seeking more-advanced weaponry to counter Iran, including surveillance equipment, cruise missiles and drones.

These countries also have expressed interest in buying the Pentagon’s more-advanced jet fighter, the F-35.

Sales of such military gear are complicated by the U.S.’s strategic alliance with Israel, these officials said. Congressional legislation mandates the Jewish state must maintain a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia.

Two people briefed on the presummit negotiations said the Saudis ultimately decided the agenda wasn’t substantive enough to require the attendance of 79-year-old King Salman.

The Sultanate of Oman, which hosted secret negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in 2012 and 2013, said its deputy prime minister, Sayyid Fahd bin Mahmoud al-Said, would lead his country’s delegation. The country’s ruler returned home in March to Muscat from Germany, where he had received months of receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness.

The U.A.E. is sending a delegation led by Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

A Sobering Prediction

Rec'd from D/F Top-Copy, NYC

In the coming years, it will be harder and harder for Americans to remain indifferent to Islamic terrorism, because so much of it will be close to home disrupting our daily lives and dividing the nation along a deep ideological fault line. We’ve already seen the split that followed in the aftermath of the Texas cartoon contest - as many condemned Pamela Geller as praised her.

That’s only a sample of things to come. As terrorist attacks in our nation become more frequent and more deadly, American thinking will become more sharply divided, pitting one side blaming the victims for being “provocative” against the other side blaming the Islamists for being terrorists. Depending on which worldview prevails, an oppressive atmosphere could settle over the USA – and for all and intents and purposes that would mean the terrorists have won a decisive battle in their Jihad to destroy our society and way of life.

The wild card in this is the outcome of the 2016 election. It is probably our best (or last) hope.

Americans are not quick studies, and are easily distracted. 9/11 was a warning most of us have already forgotten. If we don’t elect a president who loves our Constitution, shares our values, and is willing to do the hard work to reverse Obama’s damage, we will suffer a slow death like the frog in the kettle. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015


Meet Sheriff David Clarke in 'David Clarke Speaks'

Born and raised in the City of Milwaukee, I played on the championship varsity basketball team at Marquette University High School. I went on to earn a degree in Criminal Justice Management from Concordia University Wisconsin, graduating summa cum laude. As part of my ongoing educational studies, I also graduated from the prestigious FBI National Academy and the National Executive Institute in Quantico, Virginia.

Over the past three-and-a-half decades, my career in law enforcement has spanned multiple assignments. My journey of service began with the Milwaukee Police Department in 1978, where I helped protect the city for 11 years as a patrol officer on the streets. After promotion to Detective in 1989, I was assigned to the Homicide Division, investigating close to 100 homicides a year as part of a team and making arrests in over 80% of cases.

My leadership was recognized again in 1992, with a promotion to Lieutenant of Detectives, and in 1996, when I was promoted to the rank of Captain of Police, with assignments as Commander of the Crimes Against Property Division, the department’s First District (downtown), and the Intelligence Division.

In 2002, I won my first election as Sheriff with a margin of 64%. In 2006, I garnered 73% of the vote, proceeding to win 74% in 2010.

The fight has always been in the primary election as it tends to be hyper-partisan.
Like me, most people question why the Office of Sheriff is a partisan election. I have never asked a person to vote for me because I run as a Democrat. I ask them to vote for me based on my 35-year commitment to keeping citizens safe. Most voters get it when it comes to public safety. There is no Democrat or Republican way to be a sheriff. The enemy is not the opposing party; the enemy is the criminal.

South Milwaukee National Night OutSheriff David Clarke doing literal outreach
The line between security and privacy is as thin as it is sharp. Early in 2013, I received an M.A. in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security, completing my thesis on domestic intelligence operations and protecting privacy and civil liberties. The co-existence of freedom and safety may be the greatest challenge any leader will face, yet the balance is attainable. As an elected officer, I’ve devoted my entire life to finding and implementing this balance.

I firmly believe law-abiding American citizens do not deserve to be treated as random statistics. The Milwaukee Sheriff’s web page features an electronic Citizen Complaint Form where an officer from Internal Affairs will contact you to ensure those in authority are held accountable. The form reads, “Your input is a valuable tool that we use in order to provide the exceptional service that you – the taxpayer – pay for and should expect.”

My wife Julie and I continue to make our home in the City of Milwaukee.

Note: Here Author Kevin Cirilli gives our readers another perspective... See 1/28/13

SHERIFF DAVID CLARKE JR (EXCERPT): "Skip 911, Defend Yourself!"

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. said on Monday, in a radio ad, in which he urges residents to take a safety course in firearms because "calling 911..and waiting is no longer your best option."

Clarke Doubled Down On CNN's "Starting Point" saying that "there are certain instances where calling police would be of no use."

"There are certain situations -- and I think most people would get that -- For instance, once the wolf is at the door, once the intruder is in your home... once your on the street and someone sticks a gun in your face to take your car or your wallet, you don't have the option of calling 911," Clarke said.

"You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm... so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself, and your family. We Are Partners Now; Can I Count On You?"
___ ___

Friday, May 01, 2015

Senator Ted Cruz, Candidate

Part 1 - Note to Snake Hunters Website from D/F Top Copy, NYC

Toss the stale thinking and tired political clichés aside in favor of this simple fact. Senator Ted Cruz is the only one on the horizon who is equipped with the talent, ideology and conviction to repair the damage caused by eight destructive years of the Obama regime. So today, I am planting a stake in the ground. I support Senator Cruz for President of the United States of America in the coming election. Watch him speak before the Senate a few days ago, and see if he doesn’t move you toward the same decision I’ve made.

Enough of the fence sitters and naysayers! Senator Ted Cruz is the genuine article, and believe me, they don’t come along everyday.

Part 2
To: Dan Friedman - Thank you... and I certainly agree that Senator Ted Cruz is among the top brainy candidates with the potential to lead this nation out of the dreadful six years of Obama-mania (and guided every step of the way by "senior advisor" Valerie Jarrett). The G.O.P. has at least two dozen highly qualified people capable of providing this unique nation the opportunity to recover the moral high ground in both our critical domestic legislation, and in regaining lost ground in international affairs. The importance of a business friendly environment is essential to begin lowering the crushing effects of the $18,000,000,000,000.00 national debt; our 'military-industrial-complex' is suffering with an unresolved budget deficit... and the only viable solution is Energy Independence from O.P.E.C. and that obviously translates to Saudi Arabian Oil Wealth.

Today, the U.S.A. is Number One in Natural Gas Production, and very soon, thanks to Hydro-Fracturing Technology we will lead the world in Oil Production.

Part 3


Today I rise to talk about what has come to define the Obama Administration, which is a consistent pattern of lawlessness that disrespects the Constitution, that disrespects the congress, and that disrespects the people of the United States. In any administration under any president, the person charged with being the chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general. I've been blessed to work
in the U.S. Department Of Justice and there is a long tradition, a bipartisan tradition of attorneys general remaining faithful to the Law and to the Constitution, and setting aside partisan considerations of politics. Unfortunately, that tradition has not been honored during the Obama Presidency. Attorney General Eric Holder has been the most partisan attorney general the United States has ever seen. This Attorney General has systemically refused to do anything to seriously investigate or prosecute the I.R.S. targeting citizens for expressing their First Amendment Rights. Indeed, he has assigned the investigation to a major democratic donor and partisan democrat who has given over $6,000 to President Obama and the democrats. Eric Holder has abused the office, and has turned it in many respects into an arm of the democratic party. He is the only attorney general in the history of the United States to be held in Contempt Of Congress. And so there are many, including me, who would very much like to see Eric Holder replaced. There are many, including me, who would like to see an attorney general who will return to the traditions of the Department Of Justice, of fidelity to law, and that includes most importantly, the willingness to stand up to the president who appointed you, even if he or she is from the same political party. During the conformation hearings I very much wanted to support Loretta Lynch's nomination. Bringing in a new attorney general should be turning a positive page in this country, but unfortunately the answers that Ms. Lynch gave at the conformation hearings, in my opinion render her unsuitable for conformation as Attorney General Of The United States. That was a shame. Ms Lynch's record as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York had earned her a reputation as a relatively no nonsense prosecutor, so it was my hope we would see similar approach and similar answers from Ms Lynch at the conformation hearing. Instead, she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the Holder Justice President. When she was asked whether she would defend President Obama's Illegal Executive Amnesty, which President Obama himself has acknowledged no fewer than 22 times... that he had no constitutional authority to undertake, and which a federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded affirmatively, saying she thought the administration's contrived legal justification was-- Quote-- reasonable. The nominee went on to say see sees nothing wrong with the president's decision to unilaterally grant legal status and work authorizations although explicitly barred by federal law, to nearly five million people who are here in this country illegally. When asked further -- Quote -- Who has more right to a job, A United States citizen, or a person who came to this country illegally, she responded -- Quote -- I believe that the right and obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Well, Mr. President, a very large majority of the American citizens would beg to differ. Rule of Law matters. When she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion, the dubious theory that President Obama has put forth to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty, she could give no limits to that theory. When asked if a subsequent president could use 'prosecutorial discretion' to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws, and to collect no more Income Taxes in excess of 25%, she refused to answer. When asked if a subsequent president could use that same theory to exempt the State of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor law and environmental law, she refused to answer. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a G.P.S. censor on the car of every single American without 'probable cause' she refused to answer. That extreme view was rejected by the United States Supreme Court, Unanimously. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment give no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church or synagogue's choice of their own Pastor or their own Rabbi, she again refused to answer. Likewise, that extreme view was rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama said that the Holder Justice Department says nothing about religious liberty, or a church or synagogue; Justice Kagan said, "I find your position amazing". Well, I'm sorry to say that Ms Lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing position that the First Amendment does not protect the religious liberty of people of faith in this country. Then asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a United States citizen on U.S. Soil, if that individual posed no imminent threat, she refused to answer. When asked if she would be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the I.R.S. Targeting of Citizens and Citizen Groups for their political views, something which President Obama said he was -- Quote -- angry about, and the American People had a right to be angry about, and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at a minimum not a major Obama donor, she refused to answer. This nominee has given every indication she will continue the Holder Justice Department's lawlessness. That was here testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wanted to support this nomination. I wanted to see a new Attorney General who would be faithful to the law, but her answers made that impossible. And I would note there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the Constitution after he was confirmed as our Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has told the Senate that's what she's going to do. And that means each and every one of us bears responsibility. In my view, no Senator can vote for this conformation consistent with his or her oath, given the answers that are given. And I would note a particular onus falls on the new Republican majority. For several months, I've called on the Republican majority to block the conformation of President Obama's Executive and Judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the President rescinds his lawless amnesty. I'm sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. The Republican majority if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed. I would note there are more than a few voters back home what exactly is the difference between a democrat and a republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as our Attorney General, promising the exact same lawlessness, what's the difference? That's the question each of us will have to answer to our constituents when we come home. In my view, the obligation of every senator to defend the Constitution is front and center why we are here. We have a nominee who has told The United States Senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the President of the United States in the next 20 months. We are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness, more recklessness, more abuse of power, more executive lawlessness. Now, more than ever we need an Attorney General with the integrity and faithfulness of law to the President Attorneys General in both parties, Republican and Democrat, have done so, when credible allegations of wrong-doing by Richard Nixon were raised, his Attorney General, Elliott Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to investigate, regardless of partisan politics. Likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing by Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General Janet Reno, a Democrat, appointed Robert Fiske the Independent Council to investigate those allegations. Eric Holder has been unwilling to demonstrate that same faithfulness to law, and unfortunately Ms. Lynch has told the senate that she too is unwilling to do so. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote No on Cloture, and to insist on an Attorney General who will uphold her oath to the Constitution, and to the people of the United States of America.
I Yield The Floor.

REUTERS/Jason Reed
by Matthew Boyle24 Apr 2015Washington, DC367
The vote that mattered in confirming Loretta Lynch to become the next Attorney General was not her actual confirmation vote, but the cloture vote that set that up, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Friday. Cruz said:
Yesterday I gave an impassioned floor speech calling on Senators to stop this confirmation. The place to stop it was the cloture vote. Cloture requires 60 votes. Republicans have a majority. We have 54 Republican senators. Had Republicans simply stood together, Ms. Lynch would not be attorney general today. But unfortunately Republican leadership decided that it was not worth fighting to defend the rule of law. Loretta Lynch is attorney general today because Republican leadership decided they wanted her to be attorney general. And I said on the Senate floor yesterday there are a great many people across this country wondering why exactly did we have an election when we fought so hard in 2014, when a Republican Senate confirms the exact Attorney General Harry Reid’s Democratic senate would confirm?
While 10 Republican senators voted for Lynch’s final confirmation, it was the cloture vote—which had a 60-vote threshold—where Senate GOP leadership could have stopped Lynch if they wanted to. A whopping 66 senators voted for cloture, which means 20 Republicans technically voted for Lynch’s nomination—and by extension, for President Obama’s executive amnesty in doing so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell personally whipped votes for Lynch’s nomination, and for the cloture vote, according to a report from The Hill‘s Alex Bolton.
Those Republicans who voted for cloture alongside all 46 Democrats are: Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Thune (R-SD) and Thom Tillis (R-NC).
Cruz said those Republicans responsible for confirming Lynch and all the Democrats violated their oaths of office, since Lynch has guaranteed that she will uphold President Obama’s lawlessness, including especially his executive amnesty. Cruz said:
For several months, I have been leading the fight to stop the confirmation of Loretta Lynch—and the reason is simple: Ms. Lynch came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to articulate any constitutional limits whatsoever on the authority of the president. When asked how she would differ from Eric Holder, the most partisan attorney general this nation has ever seen, she refused to state even a single difference. I had wanted to support Ms. Lynch’s confirmation precisely because Eric Holder has so undermined the Department of Justice, and like many others I was eager to see a new attorney general sworn in. But the answers Ms. Lynch gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee over an extended period of questions refused to acknowledge any limits on the president’s power, and she made clear that she intended to be a rubber stamp for unlimited executive power in the hands of President Obama. In my view, no senator—Democrat or Republican—could vote to confirm Ms. Lynch consistent with his or her oath of office. Some say, confirming Loretta Lynch means Eric Holder is no longer Attorney General. But there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the law and abusing his office after he was confirmed. Ms. Lynch looked senators in the eye and told us she intends to disregard the law. For senators to vote to confirm an attorney general in that circumstance means they are complicit in the lawlessness.
Cruz was not present for the final vote—meaning he didn’t cast a vote on final confirmation—and he told Breitbart News that’s because cloture is where it could have been stopped. He went on to say:
I would note that some of the press had a field day that I was not physically present for the final confirmation vote. For two months I led the fight to stop her confirmation. I voted against confirmation in the Senate and repeatedly questioned Ms. Lynch. I urged my colleagues in writing, in public, in private and on the national stage not to confirm Ms. Lynch. I flew back to Washington to cast the vote that mattered, the cloture vote, yesterday morning. That was the 60-vote threshold that could have stopped Ms. Lynch and I was there to cast that vote and I spoke on the Senate floor urging my colleagues to vote no. Once Republicans had invoked cloture, her confirmation was a done deal. The final vote was a 50-vote threshold and there were ample votes to confirm her. I had a scheduling conflict that did not enable me to be there for what was in the end a meaningless vote because leadership had already decided to give President Obama and Harry Reid what they wanted. So while I was not physically present, under Senate rules being absent is the same thing as a no vote.

When Breitbart News noted that his not voting on final confirmation bolsters his argument that the real vote was cloture, he added that “that’s exactly right.” “The fight to defeat this nomination was on cloture, and Republican leadership did not want to fight that fight,” Cruz said

Wednesday, April 22, 2015



The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

- >>> Think of it: The Council of American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.)
Has Said: "We Are Not Here In America To Be Equal To Other Religions...
We Are Here To Dominate!"

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem


They're not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan

* So, where are they happy?

They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happiest in almost every country that is... Not Islamic! And who do
they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... Not Their Imam...

They're "Conditioned" To Blame The New Country They Just Immigrated To! Yep, These Knuckleheads BLAME THE HOST COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPIEST IN!

A Muslim Here wants to "fundamentally change" this nation so that  immigrant muslims
that are happy with their new home, can again be unhappy... like they were before they arrived here. So, to keep them "inspired and loyal" to their death cult, it's mandatory that they pray... five times each day, listening to inspirational chats from a charismatic Imam.

All Of This Jihad Holy War Stuff Takes Decades Of Dedicated Effort On Many Fronts,
From Many Organizations....





And Some Bonehead Infidel Non-Believers Here... can't figure out who's causing the

problem, because we're "too busy" to read 109 Violent Verses in their Holy Qur'an!

Click here:

( Print and Distribute To The Folks You Care About. Thanks,  reb )
___ ___

Saturday, April 18, 2015


Terrorist attacks that involve bombings and shootings are just one component of the jihad, or holy war, that Islamists are actively waging against infidels all over the world. Another component of that jihad consists of nonviolent initiatives which can be classified as stealth (or "soft”) jihad, whose goal is the imposition of Islamic law, Sharia, over every region of the earth by non-confrontational means. Under the banners of "tolerance" and "civil rights," stealth jihadists introduce, in piecemeal fashion, elements of Sharia into Western societies and then demand that non-Muslims make allowance for those elements. Moreover, stealth jihadists smear those who dare to discuss the negative aspects of Sharia (and Islam) as "racists" and "Islamophobes."

Some examples of how stealth jihad has made inroads into U.S. and Western culture include the following:
Ever since 9/11, political leaders, educators, and media personnel -- bowing to pressure from Muslim advocacy groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- have gone to great lengths to emphasize the notion that Islam itself is a "religion of peace" and tolerance; that jihad in its truest sense is nothing more than an inward quest for spiritual tranquility and moral purity; and that those who promote violence in the name of Islam are merely fringe extremists who have "hijacked" an otherwise peaceful faith.

In recent years the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada has led a movement to push for the installation -- in the rest rooms of universities and colleges nationwide -- of foot baths for Muslim students who wish to practice the ritual washing of their feet before praying on campus. As of July 2007, at least 17 universities already had installed, or were in the process of installing, such foot baths.

Contending that American Muslims are victims of wholesale repression, advocacy groups like CAIR have conducted sensitivity-training programs for police departments across the United States, instructing law officers in the art of dealing with Muslims respectfully.

A highly vocal Islamic group in England has demanded that British public schools reshape entire curricular and extra-curricular structure to conform to Islamic beliefs and attitudes, so that Muslim students will feel comfortable. Among the demands are that schools should be required to have separate swimming times for boys and girls; that the children should be required to wear swimsuits covering from the neck to the knee; that certain sports (such as tennis) and other recreational activities that are alien to many Islamic countries should be prohibited; that time should be set aside for Muslim students to pray each day; that designated Islamic prayer rooms should be constructed on campus; that no meat should be served in school lunchrooms during the month of Ramadan; and that pork should be banned from the menu throughout the entire school year.

In February 2008, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said that the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in Britain "seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system." Advocating "plural jurisdiction" (where different subsets of the population would be governed by different sets of laws), Rowan added: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.... In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."
As of June 2009, at least 85 Sharia courts were operating in Britain.

Hani Ramadan, a prominent Muslim leader in Switzerland, was dismissed from a teaching position in Geneva after publishing an article in the French journal Le Monde in September 2002, defending stoning as punishment for adultery. After his dismissal, Swiss courts, swayed by arguments about “democratic pluralism,” ruled twice in Ramadan’s favor.

Stealth jihadists seek to transform Western economies by promoting the spread of Islamic banking systems that are consistent with the principles of Sharia, which forbids the payment or acceptance of interest fees for money loans, and prohibits investing in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to Islamic principles. According to a 2008 International Monetary Fund report, Sharia-compliant financial institutions in non-Muslim countries (including the United States) have been proliferating at an annual rate of 10 to 15 percent in recent years. A 2009 report in The Banker estimated that Sharia-compliant assets worldwide had grown by 29 percent over the preceding year, to $822 billion.

Ultimately, stealth jihadists seek -- by exploiting the West’s respect for minority rights and cultures -- to transform pluralistic societies into Islamic states and to gradually sweep away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and more. Giuseppe Bernardini, a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Turkey, notes that Saudi “petro-dollars” have been used "not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration." This "program of expansion and re-conquest," says Bernardini, was given voice by a Muslim leader who had candidly told him:  "Thanks to your  odd democratic laws we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you"

The stealth jihad plan for the West was enunciated by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mohamed Akram, who explained that the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Akram’s directive came in a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum from May 22, 1991, entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” In that document, Akram laid out a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States -- as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of ultimately establishing “the global Islamic state.”

In America, Akram explained, it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the Brotherhood’s priority would be to "settle" Islam and the Brotherhood movement in the United States -- by way of Islamic organizations posing as civil-rights groups -- so that the Muslim faith would be incrementally accepted and "enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country."

Adapted from "Stealth Jihad," Jamie Glazov's interview with Robert Spencer (December 2, 2008), and "What Americans Need to Know about Jihad," by Robert Spencer (2007).

Thursday, April 16, 2015

A "deadly" article regarding Obama

Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Alan Caruba:

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley'sformidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He out maneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, 6 full years into his presidency, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions. Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States .

We the people are coming!

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

The Iran ‘Agreement’ Charade


By abandoning virtually all its demands for serious restrictions on Iran’s nuclear bomb program, the Obama administration has apparently achieved the semblance of a preliminary introduction to the beginning of a tentative framework for a possible hope of an eventual agreement with Iran.

But even this hazy “achievement” may vanish like a mirage. It takes two to agree — and Iran has already publicly disputed and even mocked what President Obama says is the nature of that framework.

Had Iran wholeheartedly agreed with everything the Obama administration said, that agreement would still have been worthless, since Iran has already blocked international inspectors from its nuclear facilities at unpredictable times. The appearance of international control is more dangerous than a frank admission that we don’t really know what they are doing.

Why then all these negotiations? Because these charades protect Barack Obama politically, no matter how much danger they create for America and the world. The latest public opinion polls show Obama’s approval rating rising. In political terms — the only terms that matter to him — his foreign policy has been a success.

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular — hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own — as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler’s signature on it, and proclaiming “Peace for our time.”

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country — Israel this time — to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: “The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion.”

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair — to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a “citizen of the world,” or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country’s military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

Secretary of State John Kerry, and other members of the Obama administration, are saying that the alternative to an agreement with Iran is war. But when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors, back in 1981, Iraq did not declare war on Israel. It would have been suicidal to do so, since Israel already had nuclear bombs.

There was a time when either Israel or the United States could have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, with far less risk of war than there will be after Iran already has its own stockpile of nuclear bombs. Indeed, the choice then will no longer be between a nuclear Iran and war. The choice may be between surrender to Iran and nuclear devastation.

Barack Obama dismissed the thought of America being vulnerable to “a small country” like Iran. Iran is in fact larger than Japan was when it attacked Pearl Harbor, and Iran has a larger population. If Japan had nuclear bombs, World War II could have turned out very differently.

If anyone examines the hard, cold facts about the Obama administration’s actions and inactions in the Middle East from the beginning, it is far more difficult to reconcile those actions and inactions with a belief that Obama was trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons than it is to reconcile those facts with his trying to stop Israel from stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

This latest “agreement” with Iran — with which Iran has publicly and loudly disagreed — is only the latest episode in that political charade.

Thomas Sowell - Born on June 30, 1930, an American Economist,
Social Theorist, Political Philosopher, Author. A Senior Fellow at
the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Born in North Carolina,
grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school, joined
the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War. Received a Bachelors
Degree from Harvard, graduating magna cum laude; Masters Degree
from Columbia U in 1959,, earned his Doctorate in Economics from
University of Chicago in 1968.

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

Why Islam Needs a Reformation
To defeat the extremists for good, Muslims must reject those aspects of their tradition that prompt some believers to resort to oppression and holy war


“Islam’s borders are bloody,” wrote the late political scientist Samuel Huntington in 1996, “and so are its innards.” Nearly 20 years later, Huntington looks more right than ever before. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims. In 2013, there were nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks world-wide. The lion’s share were in Muslim-majority countries, and many of the others were carried out by Muslims. By far the most numerous victims of Muslim violence—including executions and lynchings not captured in these statistics—are Muslims themselves.

Not all of this violence is explicitly motivated by religion, but a great deal of it is. I believe that it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.

When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

It is not just al Qaeda and Islamic State that show the violent face of Islamic faith and practice. It is Pakistan, where any statement critical of the Prophet or Islam is labeled as blasphemy and punishable by death. It is Saudi Arabia, where churches and synagogues are outlawed and where beheadings are a legitimate form of punishment. It is Iran, where stoning is an acceptable punishment and homosexuals are hanged for their “crime.”

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts. It simply will not do for Muslims to claim that their religion has been “hijacked” by extremists. The killers of Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram cite the same religious texts that every other Muslim in the world considers sacrosanct.

Instead of letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace, we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts.

As it turns out, the West has some experience with this sort of reformist project. It is precisely what took place in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries, as both traditions gradually consigned the violent passages of their own sacred texts to the past. Many parts of the Bible and the Talmud reflect patriarchal norms, and both also contain many stories of harsh human and divine retribution. As President Barack Obama said in remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, “Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

Islamic State militants marching through Raqqa, Syria, a stronghold of the Sunni extremist group, in an undated file image posted on a militant website on Jan. 14, 2014. ENLARGE
Islamic State militants marching through Raqqa, Syria, a stronghold of the Sunni extremist group, in an undated file image posted on a militant website on Jan. 14, 2014. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Yet today, because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence. There are literalist fringes in both religions, but they are true fringes. Regrettably, in Islam, it is the other way around: It is those seeking religious reform who are the fringe element.

Any serious discussion of Islam must begin with its core creed, which is based on the Quran (the words said to have been revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad) and the hadith (the accompanying works that detail Muhammad’s life and words). Despite some sectarian differences, this creed unites all Muslims. All, without exception, know by heart these words: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is His messenger.” This is the Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith.

The Shahada might seem to be a declaration of belief no different from any other. But the reality is that the Shahada is both a religious and a political symbol.

In the early days of Islam, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s messenger.

After 10 years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith if they submitted to paying a special tax.)

No symbol represents the soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims.

The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.

I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it.

It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.

Muslim children carry torches during a parade before Eid al-Fitr, at the end of the holy month of Ramadan, on July 27, 2014, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. ENLARGE
Muslim children carry torches during a parade before Eid al-Fitr, at the end of the holy month of Ramadan, on July 27, 2014, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta.

Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.

It is my hope to engage this second group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the meaning and practice of their faith. I recognize that these Muslims are not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel. But they may reconsider if I can persuade them to think of me not as an apostate but as a heretic: one of a growing number of people born into Islam who have sought to think critically about the faith we were raised in. It is with this third group—only a few of whom have left Islam altogether—that I would now identify myself.

These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue to be believers; yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. The majority of dissidents are reforming believers—among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

How many Muslims belong to each group? Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that only 3% of the world’s Muslims understand Islam in the militant terms I associate with Muhammad’s time in Medina. But out of well over 1.6 billion believers, or 23% of the globe’s population, that 48 million seems to be more than enough. (I would put the number significantly higher, based on survey data on attitudes toward Shariah in Muslim countries.)

In any case, regardless of the numbers, it is the Medina Muslims who have captured the world’s attention on the airwaves, over social media, in far too many mosques and, of course, on the battlefield.

The Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself.

For the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change.

Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims need to make a conscious decision to confront, debate and ultimately reject the violent elements within their religion. To some extent—not least because of widespread revulsion at the atrocities of Islamic State, al Qaeda and the rest—this process has already begun. But it needs leadership from the dissidents, and they in turn stand no chance without support from the West.

What needs to happen for us to defeat the extremists for good? Economic, political, judicial and military tools have been proposed and some of them deployed. But I believe that these will have little effect unless Islam itself is reformed.

Such a reformation has been called for repeatedly at least since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent abolition of the caliphate. But I would like to specify precisely what needs to be reformed.

I have identified five precepts central to Islam that have made it resistant to historical change and adaptation. Only when the harmfulness of these ideas are recognized and they are repudiated will a true Muslim Reformation have been achieved.

Here are the five areas that require amendment:

1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran.
Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a premodern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.

2. The supremacy of life after death.
The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter.

3. Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.
Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.

4. The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.
There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics.

5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.
Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.

I know that this argument will make many Muslims uncomfortable. Some are bound to be offended by my proposed amendments. Others will contend that I am not qualified to discuss these complex issues of theology and law. I am also afraid—genuinely afraid—that it will make a few Muslims even more eager to silence me.

But this is not a work of theology. It is more in the nature of a public intervention in the debate about the future of Islam. The biggest obstacle to change within the Muslim world is precisely its suppression of the sort of critical thinking I am attempting here. If my proposal for reform helps to spark a serious discussion of these issues among Muslims themselves, I will consider it a success.

Let me make two things clear. I do not seek to inspire another war on terror or extremism—violence in the name of Islam cannot be ended by military means alone. Nor am I any sort of “Islamophobe.” At various times, I myself have been all three kinds of Muslim: a fundamentalist, a cocooned believer and a dissident. My journey has gone from Mecca to Medina to Manhattan.

For me, there seemed no way to reconcile my faith with the freedoms I came to the West to embrace. I left the faith, despite the threat of the death penalty prescribed by Shariah for apostates. Future generations of Muslims deserve better, safer options. Muslims should be able to welcome modernity, not be forced to wall themselves off, or live in a state of cognitive dissonance, or lash out in violent rejection.

But it is not only Muslims who would benefit from a reformation of Islam. We in the West have an enormous stake in how the struggle over Islam plays out. We cannot remain on the sidelines, as though the outcome has nothing to do with us. For if the Medina Muslims win and the hope for a Muslim Reformation dies, the rest of the world too will pay an enormous price—not only in blood spilled but also in freedom lost.

This essay is adapted from Ms. Hirsi Ali’s new book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now,” to be published Tuesday by HarperCollins (which, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp). Her previous books include “Infidel” and “Nomad: From Islam to America, A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.”