How The Left Uses Ridicule To Smear Trump

Jimmy Kimmel pulls another specious hit job on Trump, comparing his words on the Baghdadi operation to Obama's Bin Laden Death announcement (see below).

Cherry picking words out of context is cheap and very dishonest. People that are smart and educated know exactly why Trump says what he says. He's talking to the Jihadists when he says Baghdadi died like a dog. It's psychological warfare to liken their leader to a dog (dogs are despised in Islamic lands). It's demoralizing to them. It demystifies the appeal of ISIS to young recruits.

This is something Obama never understood. Obama said it would take generations to destroy ISIS and Trump did it in 3 months. That's the difference between a feckless, lawyer, robot like Obama and an actual businessman that takes care of business.

When Trump says he didn't get credit in Kimmel's mash up, it was for a book he wrote a year before 9/11 where he predicted that Osama Bin Laden was going to do something terrible, and he should be killed before it happens. But in Kimmel's video, Kimmel makes it look like Trump was trying to garner adulation for the death of Baghdadi.

Obama took no questions after his Bin Laden Death announcement, but Trump took many questions and gave many details and thanked many people for the Baghdadi operation. Trump makes himself far more available to the press than Obama ever did. When Trump gives a long press conference it's easy to take words out context. Obama did less than 2 and a half minutes, Trump did 50 minutes. Kimmel represents the sound byte generation, that don't pay attention to details and think superficially, which ironically, is their own projection on Trump. These are dumb people that don't have the attention span to actually listen to a full press conference.

Below is Kimmel's pathetic attempt at ridicule, and below that, Trump's full press conference about the Baghdadi.

Indicrat Policy On Religious Tests For Immigrants And Citizens.

If a U.S. citizen said that a very important requirement of his religion was to eat a human heart once a month, would Liberals allow it? Or would Liberals say there's a limit to that particular religious freedom? What if there were 5 million adherents of this hypothetical religion living in the United States and another 10 million living in other parts of the world? And some had the desire to immigrate to America. How would Liberals wish to process them into the country?

Koran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There are MANY kill commands in the Muslim holy book, far more than in the holy books of other major religions. Some adherents to this religion (Islam), commonly known as "Radical Islamic Terrorists", act on the commands of their religion.

In U.S. we have "Freedom of Religion", but what does that mean exactly?
We also have "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech", but Liberals and Conservatives alike have settled on the premise that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There are LIMITS. We have limits to all our "Freedoms".

The intention of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. was for people to be able to practice their religion

peacefully, without hurting others.

But religions have physical rituals that can impact society at large. What if a ritual was so unsanitary it spread a biological contagion? Would that be permitted?

The answer, even for Liberals, is of course no.

But what about a thought contagion? What if the doctrine of a religion was so virulent that on average, one out of a thousand adherents would be seduced to act out in some physical form to comply with that virulent doctrine?

Well, there seems to be no answer from Liberals about how to deal with this type thought contagion, just denial. Ironically, a "racist" or "sexist" thought contagion is attacked relentlessly by Liberals. Also, Liberals will mock and criticize a Christian thought contagion, but will not attack a "Muslim" one.

If someone wants to practice their right to free speech by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, what do the authorities do? They stop him. They shut him down. They remove him from public places.
They confine him. They extricate him from places where he could do harm.

If this person belonged to a cult that commanded in their doctrine to do this, but most members did not have the proclivity to act on it, should theater employees knowingly allow members of that group into their premises without anyway of determining if one or more of those visitors intended to disrupt their establishment? And allow them in for the sake of politically correct inclusiveness?

Common Sense dictates the owner of that theater has the right to deny service to help insure the safety of all his costumers, staff and property. And that owner is backed up by legal precedent.

The Muslims that act on the kill commands of their holy book are at war with the U.S., therefore we must defend ourselves.

So, is it constitutional to ban Muslims if an unknown, hidden element of them are at war with us?

The writers of the constitution left a document that had to be interpreted with common sense by
future U.S. citizens. It is beyond human capacity to anticipate every contingency.

When the Founders wrote about "Freedom of Religion", apparently, they failed to make it abundantly clear if that applied to all religions, or only to religions that did not have a significant portion of their adherents bent on the destruction of the American way of life.

That question was left for future generations to answer just like the meaning of the "right to bare arms" has been. Some Liberals will tell you that the "right to bare arms" only applies to militias. Conservatives say it means that individuals can have arms to protect themselves and their property.

So the question is - Can we have a RELIGIOUS TEST for immigrants if there are existing religions that not only threaten national security, but have sects that have either declared war on us or engaged in war on us?

THAT IS THE KEY.

Should the limit to religious freedom be where the religion in question, either fully or in part, declares or conducts war on the rest of society?

The founders never answered that question. The Founders left it up to future generations
to answer that question.

For an INDICRAT, the answer is YES.

The Founders said we cannot favor one religion over others. They did not address what to do if we are forced to have more circumspection towards a specific religion because it is so damn virulent.

If you have 3 kids and one of them is out of control, so much so you have to send them to boarding school, that doesn't mean you necessarily favor your other two kids more. It just means you did what you had to do.

We did not let Germans into our country during WWII because some of them might be Nazis. "Germany" is not a religion but the comparison applies because both Nazism and Religion are, for better or worse, forms of ideology. Why do we have to treat religious ideologues differently than political ideologues when they have declared and conducted war against us?

Or to frame it a different way...

Suppose all religions were as violent and problematic as Islam is in this day and age.

Then, we would be treating them all with the same level of circumspection. There would be no accusations that we were "favoring" one, or some religions over others.

This distinction illustrates that it is not our intention or purpose to treat Muslims a certain way that is different than the way we treat Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc. 

The fact is, we are forced, by some Muslims, to treat them differently with no prior intent of favoritism. All Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. It is the Islamists we have a problem with.

If a cop smells alcohol on a driver he stopped, there's noting wrong with drinking alcohol per se, but the cop gives them a sobriety TEST to makes sure they are not too inebriated and are safe to drive.
In the same, way if we know someone is Muslim we should have a religious TEST to see if they are not too radical, not a jihadist, not an Islamist, and are safe to be in our country. Immigration authorities should be allowed to examine their social media, personal connections and past activities. This would be similar to checking out why a German is entering the United States in WWII. We were at war with Nazis and we are at war with Islamists. It's that simple.

It is not a violation of the constitution to examine a person's background with regards to religion
because scrutinizing a person's religious fervor is not the same as favoring one religion over another.

Once we accept the notion that it is okay to apply reasonable discretion and judgement

on a problematic religious faction because they forced us (in the same way that prosecutors use their discretion whether to prosecute a criminal case), then we can tackle this problem in logical and humane way that just makes sense.

~ by Dhruva Aliman

Harems and the Muslim Slave Trade - Art Montage

In the U.S. we are all keenly aware of our history of black slavery. Also, on average, there is a general understanding of slavery in ancient history, Rome, Greece, etc. However, less is known about the extensive history of Blacks enslaving Blacks, Blacks enslaving Whites, and Muslims enslaving both Blacks and Whites. Between 1500 and 1800 A.D. there were so many white slaves in North Africa it was said you could "swap a Christian for an onion" because the price was so low and the supply was so high. Some European painters romanticized Harem life with a blasé or laissez faire attitude towards slavery with very little suggestion of the sorrows those young women repressed within themselves for fear of a beating, or worse. Yet, there are instances where you can almost detect a gloominess behind the forced smiles in some of the more detailed portraits. Glimpses of this obfuscated helplessness and despair may be due to the artist's talent or more likely one's own imagination. You make the call. A gilded cage is still a cage. Just as a rose, by any other name, is still a rose.

Ex-Muslim Psychologist Debates Radical Cleric On Sharia Law

Dr. Wafa Sultan, a courageous and thought provoking ex-Muslim, recently debated Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad. Dr. Sultan listened patiently (while the Sheik expressed without equivocation his pious views—in full accord with classical, mainstream Islamic doctrine on jihad) and then politely added her own plain spoken commentary in response.

Jew walking in Paris with Hidden Camera: Anti-Semitism Exposed

Reporter: Zvika klien - Photographer: Dove Belhassen Editor: Adi kenan -- 10 hours of fear and loathing in Paris... One month after the terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, NRG's correspondent, wearing a tzitzit and a kippa, took what proved to be an intimidating walk across the French capital. "What is he doing here Mommy? Doesn’t he know he will be killed?" one little boy asked, saying it all-- READ MORE AT- www.nrg.co.il