"Danish linguist Tina Magaard and a team of researchers spent three years examining the texts of the 10 largest religions to see if any incite violence. 'The texts of Islam are clearly distinct from the other religions' texts, as they, to a higher degree, call for violence and aggression against followers of other faiths,' she concluded. 'There are also direct incitements to terror.' ...
"Islam is not a 'religion of peace,' and won't be until most of its followers -- the Taliban, the Ayatollah, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the mullahs of Saudi Arabia -- reject tenets like jihad. To suggest otherwise is naive. Virtually everyone is hacking at the branches of this growing menace, and almost no one is striking at its root."— Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution
Shortly after the San Bernardino shooting, the New York Times made a big deal out ofposting an editorial on the front pagefor the first time in nearly a hundred years. The article was a scathing condemnation of our nation’s gun laws, as well as America’s gun culture. However, their impassioned plea for more gun legislation hasn’t had its intended effect. For 20 years the New York Times has periodically surveyed their readers, asking them if they would support an assault weapons ban. For the first time since 1995, a majority of their readers opposed the ban. In January of 1995, 67% of readers supported the ban, and 27% opposed. By 2011 there was a slight shift, with 63% in favor and 34% opposed. By 2015 there was a dramatic change with only 44% in favor of a ban, and 50% opposed. The numbers suggest that support for the ban is falling even faster than its opposition is rising, with 19% less support than in 2011, and 16% more in opposition. The gun control crowd should be deeply concerned. If a majority of the readers for a dying, left leaning, pro-government rag no longer support more heavy handed gun regulations, then clearly the gun grabbers are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of America.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous. - Paul E. Marek
Republicans want to make the Chicago mayor's woes a political liability for his former boss and a “massive liability” for Democrats in next election if Obama leaves him to twist in the wind and abandons him to the
gangsters of #BlackLivesMatter:
"Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s struggles are reverberating in Washington, where he’s causing headaches for his most powerful of close friends and former bosses, the Obamas and the Clintons.
Republicans are eager to make Emanuel — who worked in both the most recent Democratic administrations — a political liability for President Barack Obama and the campaign of Hillary Clinton, both of whom have resisted calling for his resignation over the handling of a video showing a police officer shooting a retreating black teenager. And even among the president’s allies, the famously profane Emanuel is a polarizing figure after playing a key role in the tough-on-crime legislation of the mid-1990s that Obama has made his mission to undo. Emanuel, who has a reputation for his loyalty to friends as fierce as his vindictiveness for enemies, was already doing some damage control on Thursday to better align himself with Clinton. His administration refused for more than a year to release what turned out to be a damning dashboard camera video of an officer shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald 16 times, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.
Emanuel has cited his recent reelection as reason to stay in office, and so far White House spokesman Josh Earnest has echoed that rationale — resulting in a less-than-full-throated endorsement of Emanuel’s tenure.
Few of the people who worked with Emanuel are left in the West Wing. The president is the most important exception, of course, but White House aides say the two Chicagoans haven’t spoken in recent days...."
Caution: Be advised by following this LINK may put you off food for a while. We strongly suggest you not view it immediately following a meal as it is a well-documented emetic and/or harsh chemical laxative. In fact, it’s probably best if you just don't click it at all.
