Watch Eric Holder Squirm Because He Can’t Say "Radical Islam"

What a jerk! He has been so brainwashed by his bosses not to say “Radical Islam” that he can’t get it out. How can you protect against a force you can’t say the name of?

The truth is, that it is not “radical” Islam. It is the true Islam that promotes violent jihad. Holder seems to erroneously think that jihad is practiced by those who have “distorted” the religion. Obviously he has never read the Qur’an just as he never read the Arizona law.

Teacher Says Student Drawing of American Flag is "Offensive"

A California teacher banned a student’s US flag picture that she drew for art class.
She said the US flag picture with “God Bless America” written on it was offensive. The same teacher praised a picture of Obama drawn by a different student in the class.

How did we get to the point where a teacher considers a painting of the American Flag offensive? I consider the teacher offensive!

Via Fox News

Obama Eradicates Islamic Terrorism – From NSA Documents Only

From the Middle East Forum:The Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all words that allude to Islam from important national security documents. Put differently, the Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all knowledge and context necessary to confront and defeat radical Islam (news much welcomed by Islamist organizations like CAIR). While this move may reflect a naively therapeutic administration — an Obama advisor once suggested that Winnie the Pooh should inform U.S foreign policy — that Obama, the one U.S. president who best knows that politically correct niceties will have no effect on the Muslim world is enforcing this ban, is further troubling.

An Associated Press report has the disturbing details:

President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

First off, how, exactly, does the use of terms such as “Islamic radicalism” indicate that the U.S. views “Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called “Muslim street” can be antagonized by accurate words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use “Islamic radicalism” to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims “through the lens of terrorism”? Just as surely as we can use words like “Nazism” to define white supremacists, without viewing all white nations through the lens of racism?

The AP report continues:

Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

The analogy is flawed. For starters, in Reagan’s era, the Soviet Union, not China, was America’s prime antagonist — just as today, Islamic radicals, not Muslims, are America’s prime enemy. Moreover, unlike Obama, who would have the U.S. bend over backwards to appease Muslim nations— or, in his case, just bend over — Reagan regularly lambasted the Soviet Union, dubbing it the “evil empire.” Finally, the Chinese never attacked America, unlike Islamic radicals, who not only have attacked it, but daily promise it death and destruction — all in the name of Islam.

The ultimate problem in the White House’s new “words-policy,” however, is reflected in this excerpt from the report:

The change [i.e., linguistic obfuscation] would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

Read the whole article.

Victory means winning no matter what it takes

Victory means winning no matter what it takes


This war will either be won by those who shout “Death to America” or won by those who fight for our survival and the survival of civilization as we know it. Too bad, but there is no room for the politically-correct. To win in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or wherever the jihadists may take us, we must fight a politically incorrect war as we did in World War II in which world opinion and winning hearts and minds were not issues until after victory was achieved. Today, the politically-correct ask, “Ahhh, but what is victory?” Weird question. Victory means winning no matter what it takes. Otherwise, in this case, all is lost. All.