It's a Demi-Dhimmi Dumb Day Thing

Dear America,

this girl might be going heavy today, being weighted down by something virtually intangible; the hidden conflict between its very existence and its peculiar evanescence expanding by the minute.

but just today I believe I caught a glimpse of what we might call it.

It's called demi-Dhimmi.........

and it's a form of Dhimmi much uncommon and unrecognizable and unimaginable, really, given that its origin comes from within the boundaries and statutes of a nation made by revolutionaries for religious freedom, not to mention, in a land built upon the rights of the individual.

and yet, here we are. 

and it's totally uncharted territory [or so we are led to believe, anyway].

Recently, Jon Stewart spent part of his opening monologue poking fun at this very thing, as he chained together snippets from the Fox News Channel headlining "the war against religion" -- mainly, Christianity -- complete with his sophomoric ripping and mocking narrative by the nanosecond.  [the whole thing becomes even more annoying realizing how much I LOVE this guy...and thoroughly enjoying the enigma that I am, just  now]

I wonder what Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz,  I mean,  Jon Stewart, would have to say about this study?  [read more here]

 We won't dwell.

Back to the demi- Dhimmitude we got going on...

After this week -- after keeping a watchful eye upon Arizona --  after having already seen what happened in New Mexico -- and while keeping tabs on the assault against our religious freedom through such reprehensible legislation like Obamacare and the mainstream acceptance of conservative targeting by the IRS  -- let me tell you, America, we are not that much of a far cry from Syria.

What G?

oh you laugh.

oh okay.

This is Dhimmi in Syria --

"Reuters reported that the Islamist militants said that Christians would no longer be allowed to renovate churches, display religious symbols outside churches, pray in public, ring church bells, sell wine to Muslims or drink wine in public. Christians would now also be prohibited from owning weapons."

[and]

given three options: to convert to Islam; to remain Christian but pledge submission to Islam; or to ‘face the sword. They opted for the second of those choices, known as dhimmitude.

[and] 

Every Christian man was now to “pay a tax of up to 17 grams of gold, a levy that was common in Muslim states centuries ago,” Reuters reported, adding, “The concept of dhimma, governing non-Muslims living under Islamic rule, dates back to the early Islamic era in the seventh century, but was largely abolished during the Ottoman reforms of the mid-19th century.”

You see, people, within the Islamic community there is no co-existence with non-Muslims -- not now, not then, not ever.

That is their law.

and wait, there's more:

Other restrictions reported by the Times of Israel included the prohibition on reading scripture “indoors loud enough for Muslims standing outside to hear,” allowing any Christian who wants to convert to Islam to do so, and to not say anything offensive about Muslims.

do you get it now?

The thing is, what actually happened in Arizona should never have happened, on a number of fronts.

But allow me to offer you a wonderful explanation for what did happen, along with  answering some of the deeper questions stifling us from having a real, open, community discussion about the whole entire thing.  It's found at The Foundry, from The Heritage Foundation...Questions You're Asking About Cakes, Gays and Religious Freedom by Amy Payne.

Quoting the bottom line now:

"When it comes to this particular issue, all Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty."

thank you.

As a matter of fact, our Constitution is enough to guarantee it.  And we shouldn't need no stinkin' new law.

And for added reinforcement, let's swing over to another gthing favorite hang-out, at The Patriot Post:

In truth, the bill was written in large part because the homosexual agenda seeks to discriminate against Christians. Witness the numerous lawsuits around the country against bakers, florists and photographers who wish not to condone same-sex weddings by providing services for them. Would these same thought police force a Jew to cater a Nazi event? Or a black person to dry clean KKK robes? Yet when it comes to the homosexual agenda, where leftists can’t win affirmation they want coercion; intolerance in the name of tolerance. Religious liberty is sacrificed at the altar of that agenda, which aims to radically redefine civilization’s centuries-old building block

And here's a good one to add:  should  a Muslim baker be expected -- no threatened --  to bake a cake for say a homosexual couple, or dare I say, a Christian wedding?

[For more thoughts from The Patriot Post, go here.]

Now I believe it is quite possible to create a pretty hefty batch of bad juju over turning away clientele with good money.   How can that be good?  How does that support the circulation of money and capital gains and put food on the table?  But be that as it may.   Everyone, as individuals, should have every right to decide that for themselves and their own personal welfare.   

We MUST figure out how to co-exist within the framework of "the free exercise thereof" of our religious liberties and nothing else.

Otherwise, we are no better off than the Christian community in the province of Raqqa, Syria.

Demi-Dhimmi is dumb and is a state of terrorization that has no place in America.

And Jon Stewart can joke around all he wants -- but believe you me --  look around, read the news, see the highlights, follow the threats, unveil the underlying nature of  the war against people of faith, and notice that we are there already.

 Make it a Good Day, G

 

It's from Belly Laughs to a NewsBusters Thing

Dear America,

"oh and by the way, 

in the spirit of tonight 

we are brought to you by 

the letter O and the number 16 Trillion"

Romney

I am out of breath; not sure if I can keep up; between binders and big bird, from Biden to Benghazi, there is not enough time in the day, nor enough space on a page, to record everything, everyday, in the day and the  life of America.

But it's days like this, when we get to report seeing both candidates acting out of character and yucking it up at the annual Alfred E. Smith dinner in New Yarrrk last night -- and we suddenly find ourselves getting rewarded with a few giggles right smack in the middle of a rather contentious campaign.   We are joyfully reminded of our connection to one another, along with our ability to laugh at ourselves......and we feel good.  We feel genuinely, whole-heartedly really good.

The feeling lasts about a nano-second in 24/7 news cycle, but no matter.

Fast forward to a little visit with Jon Stewart -- aka the exact same day -- take it away Mr. President --

"Here's what I'll say: 

If four Americans get killed, 

it's not optimal. 

We're going to fix it. All of it."

what?

"It's not optimal."  ah no you di-dint

I'm sorry, did I fall down a rabbit hole again?  How did we get here?  We go from shock and horror, to two full weeks of falsely blaming a reprehensible video made by some idiot and throwing him in jail for his rightful expression of free speech, to 'no, no, I said it was a terrorist attack from day one'...to today...and this:  "it's not optimal."

I guess the notion of getting to the end of the Libyan fiasco will have to wait to see the light of another day.

The president also added this:

"Every piece of information that we get, 

as we got it 

we laid it out to the American people. 

The picture eventually gets fully filled in."

Seriously?

Earth/Satellite communications to Obama:  A DRONE filmed every minute of the attack upon our consulate as it happened -- aka real time on the day of.  And you know what else?  Your Situation Room knew it.   But heck, to save us all a whole lot of time in the future -- especially yourself -- why wait?  Why not just flick a switch and air it in real time on cable?   Or would you rather me say, on our "Black & White TV's"?   You know, America really loves it's reality show.

For a real live take, read the post of Eli, here.

A drone knew more than the president; all he had to do, as duly noted by Bryan Preston of PJ Media/PJ Tatler, was stay up past his bedtime to watch the real live feed.

So let's review, on one hand we get the message 'still not ready to call it a terrorist attack' -- this on September 13 -- aka the day after the infamous Rose Garden speech; while on the other hand, we get 'nine days later, same verse same as the first.', thus, per communication well received from the president via the second debate, taking a position in direct contradiction of his own White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney.

Memo to Mitt for Monday:   track the two week "terrorist" time-line to the day of it's true presidential debut (October 16) and take us all through it, one by one, in real time.  See also, The Hill; Family Security Matters; the Heritage Foundation for any extra help.

And then, go back to the question posed at the second debate that was NEVER answered by the president:

Who was it that denied enhanced security [in Libya] and why?

The thing is America --  if ordinary people in ordinary time can piece together the truth and make grand overtures to what really went down and when, then why can't a president?  Right, of course he can; so why the delay, why the denial, why the deliberate decoy by distraction?  [see also Rules for Radicals]

Intelligence matters; truth matters.  But to coin a phrase well worn by the president, making up stories to enhance optimal support and perhaps save a re-election campaign "is not what we do."

And  Mitt -- Make him say it; on behalf of the American people, make him adMitt that he made a big mistake and that the video was not part of the truth coming out of Libya.

AND read this stunning piece from Krauthammer, here.

The reality is, you kinda sit in the catbird's seat; you're like a drone flying at 10,000 feet with the amount of information at your fingertips.  Even though the next debate is focused on foreign relations, I wanna give you some something good to read that centers on the general essence of the president's agenda and you.   But first, speaking of you, you really rock when you are direct, speaking in simple terms, breaking things down when your naturally genuine, thoughtful, experienced background rules the day....And now here's some opinion to hopefully pump you up, offering more talking points just in case your people are running a little low -- it's from Rich Lowry:

"President Barack Obama has been onstage with Mitt Romney now for a collective three hours and has yet to enunciate anything within hailing distance of a second-term agenda.

He wants to “win the future,” he just doesn’t have a very clear idea about how to do it. His slogan is “forward,” but his campaign is unmistakably backward-looking. His case for reelection has about as much to do with the last four years of the Bush administration as the next four years of the prospective second Obama administration."

Continue Reading

Convince us of the bigger, brighter future that awaits, foreign and domestic, as you let this final thought from Rich sink in:

"Obama hasn’t taken his opponent or the public seriously enough. He has allowed his reelection to be driven by his barely concealed personal contempt for Romney, and has assumed that what voters most need to hear from him is fusillades against the other guy. It can’t be pleasant for Romney to be at the receiving end, but the president has inadvertently handed him an incalculable gift: He has ceded him the future."

Obama is spending millions of dollars on an empty, childish, yet calculated, rhetoric relying on ridicule to rally another four more years, or one thousand two-hundred twenty-four days in the life. Binders, Big Bird, Benghazi, and Bain -- a re-election bid brought to you by the letter B and the number 19 days left.  The voters are beginning to realize he is not the man of substance they thought he was; and he is certainly not bringing the change in Washington many believed he was capable of bringing; it's a let down and it's a pretty big deal.

By the way, don't do anything extreme with what I am about to say -- like don't quit your prospective day job -- but you seem to have a wee bit of a comedic genius inside you... you so funny...gosh, I needed that.

[while our president is just so predictable, give him a day in New York, he hits the circuit...Jon Stewart, Dave Letterman...flashing his smile, making things up as he goes along, making up lies to cover up everything we already know]

Make it a Good Day, G

"get the transcript"

post script

AND one more thing.  Did Candy Crowley actually have the Rose Garden transcript with her at the debate?  Wide speculation is that she sounded like she did. Hence, the in-your-face moderator collusion with President Obama happening on the fly, in real time.   She appeared to have had the answer at her fingertips, confirming that Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism.

My take, after delving in, it seems she was talking out the side of her big fat mouth, having noted after the debate she had 'studied up' -- see here...

Candy to Anderson, via NewsBusters:

"Well, you know again I heard the president's speech at the time. I sort of re-read a lot of stuff about Libya, I knew we'd probably get a Libya question, so I wanted to kind of be up on it. [OR DID YOU get a message to THE PRESIDENT to redirect the Libyan question his way? ?] So we knew that the president had said these acts of terror won't stand or whatever the whole quote was. And I think actually, because right after that, I did turn around and say you were totally correct. They spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and you know this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. You know, they're going to parse and we know about what the definition of 'is' is, but you know in the end, I think John's probably right. I think there is a lot more to do with jobs and the debt crisis, and all of that kind of stuff. I just think probably it was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here. You know, when you say something, it's just that was the natural thing to come out of me. Actually he did call it an act of terror, and when you know, when half the crowd clapped for that, and the other half clapped for, but they kept telling us this was caused by a tape. In the main and the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that. But I just think he picked the wrong way to go about it. If that makes sense?"

What is even more questionable, as it would turn out, is WHY would the president even say "get the transcript" at all?  Why like that? Why turn to Candy for a little help, when she is supposed to be taking the role of an UNbiased moderator?  More important, who talks like that in the middle of a debate?

So, are we to understand, transcripts and back up material from memory, are all doable in a debate now?  Going to the audience, phoning a friend, like we are playing Who Wants to be a Millionaire, is fair game?

Really, Mr. President?  No, seriously, why would you 'go there' in the first place...Let's say if you wanted  all of us to follow up at our leisure later on this issue -- wouldn't you have directed your words out to the audience better and chosen a slightly different tact?

But nooooo, you kept going after her, didn't you?

For you add only seconds later..."Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"

What is that?  What a fool you made of yourself and the office of the presidency...am I the only one in the world who sees it?

 Here's more on the whole charade.  And Here.  And Here.

Dear America,

"30 MILLION people are gonna get health care as a consequence."

Has the president ever heard of the long time running show out of the seventies, Truth or Consequences?

Ah, mr. president, a consequence is not usually a good thing.  hello.

And don't you just love Jon Stewart, with his deadpan but biting quips and jabs -- he is a master at what he does; while the president just walked right into the middle of his arena, not once, but a couple of times -- like when responding to Jon's wondering about how he might change the campaign slogan of YES WE CAN...out of the canon he went, well, uh, sure, it is "YES we can...[awkward long pause]....but" -- to a round of laughter from the audience, and Jon smirking with an added twinkle in his eye...brilliant.  Of course, the remainder of what the president said there was, "but it's not going to happen overnight."  Yes, indeed and thank God for that.

While telling Obama his health care plan was a wee bit "timid" -- that was enough to set him off.  Now, "Jon, I love your show... but this is something where I have a profound disagreement with you."


Profound.  oooh, that got Jon wondering if he might have overstepped his bounds,  not.

I can't wait for the body language segment on The O'Reilly Factor, that's gonna be good; talk about the president being on his hunches like crouched tiger sitting dragon, ready to pounce, but not really -- gazing at the look of fear upon a president's mug is an oh so uncomfortable feeling; while his expressions were tight, uptight, and wound tight, so out of character from his usual positioning in front of an audience of hungry admirers who gobble up his every word like an eight ounce sirloin with extra sauce, even though he was. Did you here that ovation at the start? 

He reeked uneasy; and consequently, his visit with Jon was a mistake; it made that timid little health care legislation appear out of nowhere with lioness prowess and expertise -- making the pundit slaughterhouse of a sitting president look all the more like child's play... cat and mouse, if you will.

The bad news:  this is our president;

setting himself apart from all other presidents who have come before -- entertaining us now, in a desperate attempt for attention, to gain a more favorable public opinion, while he will say anything, he will go anywhere, he will disenfranchise 65% of the population if he has to, he will divide and conquer if it gets votes, he will become his own spin master, and even go so far as make a mockery of his presidency making stoic, serious responses in an evening of what otherwise is reserved for more of a comedic venue and exchange.


Mr. President, if you do a show like this, you gotta expect Jon's gonna come after you and poke fun -- at you, no less -- for this is what he does.  To not be prepared for that, to be on those back legs like whoa, hold up there, Jon, I beg to differ -- and profoundly, too -- its worse than just rolling over, buddy.  Where is that bedazzling smile of yours; where is that poking fun right back -- like with how you do it with your overrun car metaphors and get to the back of the bus stuff -- where is that natural spunk to just take it like a good sport?  To laugh at yourself and The Situation... not to be confused with Snooky...where is that president?

It's not like we expect you strut your stuff like out of the surf at Waikiki all the time -- yeah, I'm a stud muffin, kind of thing, I'm bad, I'm the president...actually, come to think of it, most of the time, you are that president.  But if you are going to do Jon, as in Stewart, then if you can't bring it there, we have doubts you can bring it anywhere -- especially to places where it really counts...like at a G20 meeting, a UN rendezvous, a sit down with Saudi Arabia or Iran or China.  You know?  I mean. this is just little old Jon -- he's nice, he's funny, he's smart, and he's cunning.

I mean, you are innately sharp as a whip when dealing with oil spill companies, health insurers, chamber of commerce's,  republicans, stupid police officers, Arizona immigration laws, and "tea baggers" -- nothing gets past you.  While even, the more you talked, the more you slip up, the more you go in circles, the more you sound like every other politician -- if I may "lump you in" all together...

The thing is, when it came time for The Daily Show, I guess I was just expecting you to be more cunning, that's all I'm sayin'...but feel free to profoundly disagree, maybe its just me.

And truth be told, when its all said and poked fun, this isn't exactly the best time to make light, is it.  is it?

Make it a Good Day, G

oooh and looky here, we are just five days away from fundamentally transforming America back!

maybe we can get that before Obama changes the Senate rules to allow for simple majority, instead of requiring 60 votes to pass legislation...as he duly noted, is not in accordance to The Constitution (as if that would stop him), it is just a stupid standard of the rules and regulations to run the senate...