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 a little Memo to Mitt: Outsourcing from the Source at Benghazi Thing

Dear America,

So, do you wanna know where outsourcing and beefed up enhanced security in Benghazi meet?

@Blue Mountain, a private security firm based in the U.K.

Memo to Mitt:

THIS is where Monday's debate should begin, and if you ask me, end; that is if you should have permission to speak freely without interruption and without the moderator moderating your fair share and fair shake.

The story is ripe for blasting the Obama Administration considering the British crew -- and not an American outfit -- took over in March of 2012; the contract mandated the hiring of Libyan workers, who as it turns out, were difficult to train, but even harder to trust -- and for some reason, the work attracted a rather questionable element; and lo and behold, the security personnel were entrusted with nothing more than a billy-club!  I kid you not -- they were just told to "sound the alarm over the radio and run for cover" if they got scared.

"We used to tell the Americans who spoke to us on many occasions that we needed more support in security, because it felt thin on the ground. But they didn't seem to be so worried, and (were) confident that no one will dare to come close to the consulate," one guard said.

THIS news is fresh off the press from Reuters, go here for the entire post:  For Benghazi diplomatic security, U.S. relied on small British firm  [should have been titled, Obama Blue It....badump ba]

And it's funny, because this explains everything....except for that pesky little detail of yesterday left hanging out to dry:  just who did deny enhanced security and WHY?  

I am just astonished at the brute honesty here...    Let's take a moment and thank the journalists @ Reuters who threw all of this together --- (Hadeel Al Shalchi reported from Benghazi; Additional reporting by Marie-Louise Gumuchian in Tripoli, Mark Hosenball and Lucy Shackelford; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Paul Simao)

And why Blue Mountain?

"'Blue Mountain was virtually unknown to the circles that studied private security contractors working for the United States, before the events in Benghazi,' said Charles Tiefer, a commissioner at the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which studied U.S. contracting in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars...

Fred Burton, vice president of intelligence at the Stratfor consulting firm and a former U.S. diplomatic security agent, said he did not know Blue Mountain, but it likely got State Department work because it was already working in Libya.

'They may have been the path of least resistance.'"

really?

So Mitt: let's review, our fine president OUTSOURCED the Libyan Ambassador's protection at the consulate to a British security firm, filling a void in the short term, and continued to deny the need for anything more serious and more able...even after the compounds were bombed.


Again, pointing to the assist by Reuters:

"Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer for the U.S. Embassy in Libya, testified at a congressional hearing last week that contracting out for security in the eastern Libyan city 'was largely based on our concern of how long we would be in Benghazi. We were concerned that if we retained or brought on board full-time employees we would have to then find a position for them if that post ever went away.'

In describing the challenges of hiring private security at Benghazi, he added: 'It's my understanding that there was a very high turnover with those people'."

 I am ill, just ill.

The more we know, the more we wish we didn't know; what kind of confidence in our leadership is this?

Let me answer that for you -- none, nada, zilch, a big fat ZERO.  I mean, seriously, who still has any confidence left?  Surely, it must be stuck somewhere deep in the intestinal tract.

AND ANOTHER THING

 -- Same Bonehead, New Subject --

Something else with regards to the debate...

SO, if I am hearing you pundits correctly, the president gets points, props, for telling straight out lies with a pointed index finger, a chorus of "not true, not true," and getting all up in Mitt's grill now?  That counts as honest debate?  He gets credit for finally showing up and speaking with firm reliance, liberally distributing his own shovel-ready BS?  Is that  how far we've come?

Oh the things this guy can get away with.

But back to Reuters:

"In a July 9 memo approved by the late ambassador Stevens, regional security officer Nordstrom said his office hoped to shore up defenses at U.S. compounds in Libya and would consider partial arming of some local guard supervisors, without being more specific."

Little late now, isn't it.

Just as it's a little late for Obama to correct the horrific turn of events in Libya, along with the evolution of a  great miscalculation -- misleading the American people with a false narrative each and every day for an entire two weeks thereafter.

There are simply too many mistakes to count, but here's a few:

• the Chevy-Volt trade off, here.
• bombs bursting in air, here.
• denied enhanced security, here.
• and fresh from Reuter's, just today:  OUTSOURCING our consulate's defense, essentially turning into "security by mall cop"
• and the lies...lots and lots of lies.

The president should be brought before a congressional hearing tomorrow; or, to save himself from further embarrassment, just walk away.

But MITT -- this is your time to take it away...go get 'em.

Make it a Good Day, G 

Epi-Blogue

The next debate will be on foreign policy.  So get ready, Mitt, for more of the same from bonehead and polish up on the ugly trail of details:

• the apology tour beginning in Egypt
• the Leading from Behind Obama Doctrine, the overall perception of weakness
• the lack of conviction and early signs of the direction waning and the continuing wishy-washy stance in Afghanistan
• Syria...where to begin....
• Iran, when the president had a chance to support the protesters and failed; school him on real sanctions
• Destroying the relationship with Israel, and specifically Bibi
• Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood -- within the administration! and out! see Michele Bachmann and Hillary Clinton's Huma...
• Interfering with Mubarak, leaving Egypt completely vulnerable to the Muslim Brotherhood, opening the door to "arab spring"
• jeopardizing relationships in Poland, see missile defense
• oh and don't forget *** important *** ask him what he means when he told Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after the election.... 
• oh and this is unrelated, but ask him about that rich Carlos Slim billionaire dude, the entrepreneur backing the Obama phone, would ya? it's not that serious, but it is suspect...and it's also an  issue of outsourcing with a foreign billionaire instead of one of our own...Nod to Roger Hedgecock where I heard this first/and HuffPost for this little tidbit..
• To Libya -- dating all the way back to the "Kinetic Military Action" all the way up to the Lies of today and to the issue of OUTSOURCING security...of all things, Mr. President....
• and all this, from the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, nominated only two weeks into his administration...something is not quite right

Matter of fact -- I would just start the night ignoring the question altogether and do what they do -- just begin listing everything right off the bat -- with color charts and red lines, if you can -- perhaps more eloquently stated, of course. But you already do that  :)  Remember now -- he's called you a fraud, a tax cheat, a felon, a murderer, and a liar, throughout this campaign -- go after him on his mis-characterizations directly.

So there you go, pleasantly armed and dangerous, what a great combination; no question, you can take him yet again.

 GOSH

Are debates super fun, or what?!

 [and if you say that like Elle Woods,
you get me, you really get me...]

oh my.
look at me now...
carrying on like there is no tomorrow...
ciao.

It's A Going ALL In Thing. It's a pretty big deal

Dear America,



happy hump day.

speaking of humps...are republicans/conservatives finally determining to go All In?

a stunning three sweep for Santorum changes everything (maybe).

THREE takes:

TOWNHALL.com

CNN.com

Reuters.com

For an added bonus -- featuring an array of opinion about Santorum's sweep and much more -- go to The Patriot Post's Wednesday Chronicle.  Here.  If there is one site that gives you perfect pitch conservative opinion day in and day out, it is The Patriot Post.  love, love, love you guys.

I have two initial thoughts -- utter happiness and extreme panic; are we winning the battle only to lose the war?


I seriously don't know.

Now, it should be noted that less than 2% of the vote came out last night in Colorado  -- meaning,  the "enthusiasm gap" is creeping around and amounts to something of great concern.  It seems to be stalking us, like something sinister and unnerving. For me, I can't shake the feeling that something remains off.


I don't think it matters what conservatives want in this present moment; what will make all the difference in this decision is how Independents feel -- how the coalition of 'undeciders' will decide for all of us.  And THAT reality is disconcerting enough, in and of itself.

what are we doing? and where are we going?

Monday, it was all about being 'half-time' in America -- revolving my swirling thoughts around the Clint Eastwood commercial.  It was Karl Rove who thought the ad had an underpinning of support for another round of Obama, that somehow this commerical, promoting the American brand along with a certain spirit of coming back from behind was something reminiscent of pure evil (or thereabouts...maybe that is a slight exaggeration).

Anywho, old G begged to differ.

And G was correct.  Clint came out saying nothing of the sort the very next day, in response to the false premise going into the start of the 'day after'  (G loves talking about the Day After)  (and isn't G annoying going into third person).  Here is Clint's official response to the spin...

The thing is, the talking heads, the pundits who have reigned for decades in and around the media -- both sides -- are not always right, are they?


They can easily succumb to their own individual urge to argue something, for political points, whether true or false.  They find a way to circumvent truth and come out flying off the mouth anyway.

The last thing on the day: Conservatives just need to think for themselves.  Independents need to think for themselves.  Democrats need to think for themselves.  While the mainstream media just needs to return to critical unbiased thinking and reporting (even getting just two percent of them might be enough).  And maybe -- just maybe -- America can come to their senses and see this administration for what it really is.  Extreme.  Progressive.  Ruthless.  Fraudulent. and really really dangerous.

America needs all of us to go All In to save her.

Make it a Good Day, G