The Naturalization of Islamic Terror

I’ve lost count now…

Is anyone still keeping a tally? Time to reset the board. We have had zero days without a terrorist incident. 

It has become a regular part of our lives now. Every few days we get to see the BREAKING NEWS of another display of monstrous sadism courtesy of the same group of people that are pouring into our countries aided and abetted by a populace too thick to see the clear and present danger they pose to society.

While the fan has become too gummed to move due to repetitious blasts of shit that have continued to hit it; those of us possessed with the understanding that THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING have to continually be on guard lest said shit fall onto our heads as we attempt to move about.

The western world has become the hostage of militant Islam. The situation is made worse because many of our fellow hostages are ensnared in the tendrils of a sociopolitical Stockholm Syndrome that has them completely convinced that the only problem with radical Islam is their justified animosity caused by intolerant individuals who embrace nationalism and patriotism rather than sympathize with the cultures of the Arab world.

Imagine sitting next to a fellow hostage in a bank robbery. Imagine them looking over to you and blaming you for the robbery because you made the thieves feel less valued as human beings. This scenario, while ludicrous, is the reality we face everyday. As a great number of us look on with horror, confusion, contempt and fear; there are those who rationalize that we are now reaping what we’ve sown. They want us to believe that radical Islamic terror is the just desserts of colonialism.

Women and children raped, murdered or sold into slavery. The sacred places of other faiths desecrated and defiled. Mass beheadings. Televised immolation . Vehicles used as weapons, driven through crowds of innocent people; their broken bodies strewn across sidewalks like a child’s doll forgotten in the haste of play. Blood and death.

Every week, we march through the same scenarios with the same images. The victims taken from their families, maliciously. The survivors all have the same face it seems..the same twisted face of anguish that begs the question. WHY? No one has bothered to give them a suitable answer; because “This is what we deserve, because we are infidels.” is not an acceptable answer.

I see this most recent episode of the bloody montage of quranical hyper-devotion, and I have to wonder. How did one of the greatest empires the world has ever known allow itself to be hamstrung by popular opinion and good intentions?

In a horror movie, when the monster is hunting you and the group you are with, who is the most dangerous? It isn’t the monster. The monster is simply doing what monsters do. What they’ve always done. What they will always do. They want your blood secondly, but first they want you to fear them. This does not make them the most dangerous part of the situation though.

The most dangerous party in the horror movie is the foolish person hiding with you. The one that sneezes and gives away your location. The one who makes too much noise with their breathing. The one who thinks that the monster can be reasoned with, so they welcome it with open arms; as one might a stray dog. The fool’s actions bring the danger right to you.

There are so many fools, we cannot hope to hide.



Pic Credit: Waffles At Noon


Judicial Obstruction: A Tale of Leftist Desparation

Photo Credit: Arab News

For the second time in as many attempts, President Trump’s executive order; designed to safeguard against the infiltration of our country’s potential enemies, has been temporarily derailed due to an order from a US District Court ruling. The ruling by Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson echoed the same flawed and disjointed legal rationale that was the basis for the original stay issued by the 9th circuit ruling in February.

In both cases, these court rulings have exemplified the last remaining death throes of Obama Era lawlessness employed by said late administration in its attempts to marginalize and invalidate the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s early efforts to take the helm and sail the country into safer and more prosperous waters.

The modus operandi of leftist thought in the past eight years takes out all surprise from these utterly embarrassing court rulings. Operating under the belief that they alone have a mandate to rule, they are willing to go to any and all lengths to prevent a Trump administration from gaining traction. These lengths currently include ignoring the constitutionally designated separation of powers, federal statute and existing precedent set by prior and the most recent administrations.

Andrew McCarthy’s January 28th article in The National Review provides a very pragmatic dissection of the various avenues which provide validity to the legal soundness of the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce policy of the same nature as Trump’s two travel bans.  Says he:

Let’s start with the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president. Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, “the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.”

The rare exceptions Jefferson had in mind, obviously, were such matters as the approval of treaties, which Article II expressly vests in the Senate. There are also other textual bases for a congressional role in foreign affairs, such as Congress’s power over international commerce, to declare war, and to establish the qualifications for the naturalization of citizens. That said, when Congress legislates in this realm, it must do so mindful of what the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), famously described as “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.” In the international arena, then, if there is arguable conflict between a presidential policy and a congressional statute, the president’s policy will take precedence in the absence of some clear constitutional commitment of the subject matter to legislative resolution. And quite apart from the president’s presumptive supremacy in foreign affairs, we must also adhere to a settled doctrine of constitutional law: Where it is possible, congressional statutes should be construed in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts.

McCarthy goes on to explain that Trump’s travel ban does not violate the 1965 Immigration Act because Trump’s act does not attempt to restrict a race of people or nationality, but to prevent potential crisis caused by the threat to national security that is Islamic Terrorism.

As we come to the most obvious statement of executive power to set limitations regarding immigration, we must review the most commonly repeated evidence offered by the Trump administration.  Federal Immigration law Section 1182(f): “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

The simplistic wording of the passage is purposeful in its intent. The most effective way then to test the necessity of its application is to objectively determine whether the entry of immigrants from regions and nations known as hotbeds for terrorism could be of potential detriment to the United States. At that point, we look to the wording again and are reminded that the true issue is whether or not the President finds the entry of those individuals detrimental or not. In this case, our nation’s executive has found it necessary to exercise his constitutionally allocated authority to enact measures imposing restrictions on this class of individuals until sufficient precautions have been taken to make certain there is absolutely no danger the United States or its citizens.

There is no room for an interpretation of this passage that would in any way justify the two court rulings preventing President Trump’s executive actions from being carried out. Which is the reason both decisions are very careful to avoid any reference to Section 1182(f) altogether.  There  should be no question as to whether the judicial branch has authority to allow or disallow an executive order containing a measure to ensure national security; as that power is expressly granted to the executive branch for the very purpose of carrying out the mission of the executive office.

In closing I wish to leave you with the remarks of Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after his meeting this week with President Trump as reported by Jason Howerton of Independent Journal Review:

” Saudi Arabia does not believe that this measure is targeting Muslim countries or the religion of Islam. This measure is a sovereign decision aimed at preventing terrorists from entering the United States of America. President Trump expressed his deep respect for the Religion of Islam, considering it one of the divine religions that came with great human principles kidnapped by radical groups.”


Is the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince a liar?

From A Brown Conservative

Let me address the group of people who believe my skin color should dictate my political beliefs:


Rather than be so appalled and offended that I differ in opinion concerning who should be running this country, spend some time actually learning how this country should be run. Rather than use shallow and groundless arguments to “explain” to me why I’m wrong, research the last 100 years of political history and discover the reasons why America has been taken advantage of by those sworn to protect and uphold its values. Rather than blast and defame me by saying I’m a race traitor or a house nigger, examine yourself and see who is still in chains and ask yourself who put those chains on you.

I am my own master. I do not rely on the whim and passion of the majority to define my core values. I do not pledge my loyalty to a winning smile and a bag of goodies and “promises”. I work for everything I have, and for things gifted to me I show gratitude and respect. My moral compass is not founded in a national convention, nor does it contain a storm of conflicting beliefs. I will not give up my freedoms for the sake of pacifying a whining special interest group.

If these things make me brainwashed..  you have been told to believe it is so.

If these things make me bigoted.. it is because of the rhetoric they’ve programmed you with.

Call me what you will. I will own the title, and wear it as a badge of honor. Unlike you, I cannot be told what I am by somebody else. Bring on your hate speech and your slurs. Bring your slander and your ignorant epithets. They refine me, and define you.

I would rather be an Uncle Tom than an Aunt Jemima.