Obama Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term ‘Radical Islam’

[TheAtheist]

The lady in Regular Atheist’s video did at any rate.
To paraphrase, she said that she didn’t need liberals in America defending her religion.
What she needed was liberals in America defending her from those who threaten her from death.

Her name again is Raheel Raza

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I know most folks are far more interested in arguing over the minutiae of Trump/Obama/etc. but I feel like a statement like this has to be made.

There is a segment of the Political Left who feels utterly abandoned by the people who supposedly share their values and norms.

Ms. Raza is of Pakistani descent, but she lives in Canada and has been a lifelong Muslim Liberal Feminist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raheel_Raza#Activism

And yes she’s received the whole “Death Threat” line from the Radical Islamists AND the Cold Shoulder from the Political Left.

And she’s by far not the only one.

This Tarek Fatah - Pakistani, Secularist Muslim (Believes in Islam, but heavily prefers a Secular government), Writer, Author, and again Canadian

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here’s him getting into a short scuffle while addressing the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defense

Small Relevant Excerpt:

youtube.com/watch?v=VzvJI7l4bLU

Whole 45 Minute Discussion

youtube.com/watch?v=NkBAH0Znm-g

---

I can keep on going on and on and on with this… I can even make it more relevant, but you know what? I’ll let another perceptive thinker from this Strand of Liberalism speak.

This is Omer Aziz… young rising Liberal Muslim intellectual hanging out with Cornel West…

http://www.omeraziz.com/uploads/2/5/8/9/25899106/2087615_orig.jpg

This is Omer Aziz’s article entitled Orlando Exposed Islams Huge Homophoba Problem in the New Republic.

Cornel West, New Republic… I mean has the proper Liberal Credentials…

and what is one of the largest taglines in the article?

Direct Quotation:

A shield of white liberal guilt protects socially conservative minorities from having their positions challenged, and this shield is harmful.

Full Article

newrepublic.com/article/134311/orlando-exposed-islams-huge-homophobia-problem

---

So again… to Hammer Home a Point - LIBERAL MUSLIMS With Good Proper Liberal Credentials… who get Death Threats from Jyhadists or Veiled Threats from Islamists…

…whose voices get squelched by Mainstream Media.

 

[Ridgerunner]

President Obama’s policies or those of the Democratic party bear no resemblance whatsoever with what you have branded “leftist ideology.” Where do you get this stuff? It’s just wrong.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton, for example, believe that American identity and power are important and want to increase it internationally. However, they disagree with the GOP in how to do so. Invading Iraq, for example, was intended to be an exercise of American power but ended up reducing it in the Middle East. The slower, more patient exercise of gaining and building alliances, using diplomacy to the fullest extent and using our military might more surgically will not satisfy the neocons but is more likely to achieve American aims and improve American influence.

If Hillary was a conservative, she would be the most “neocon” of all “neocons”. When most people talk about “neocons” they mean conservatives who are interventionist. Hillary Clinton is an interventionist in every bone in her body.

She just couldn’t keep herself from claiming a role in the war on Serbia, so she invented being in a danger zone when she wasn’t.

She engineered the war on Libya for reasons that are still unknown, but might come out in the emails with Blumenthal. Even Obama now admits that was a mistake.

She was party to the takeover in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, and opposed Al Sisi.

She was in the business of running guns from Libya to questionable organizations in Syria, which is how Amb Stevens got killed.

After being an Iraq hawk, she endorsed Obama’s cut and run strategy in Iraq, knowing full well what all the intelligence agencies and the Iraqis themselves were telling them; it would turn into a war between Iran and Sunni radicals.

She was an early party to the enhancement of Iran’s power. If anything on this earth could have been invented to anger Sunni Arabs more, I can’t imagine what it would be.

Democrats who don’t like “neocons” for being interventionist ought to run from Hillary Clinton, but they don’t. Otherwise, she stands for nothing but abortion on demand. And maybe that tells us something about the wellsprings of Dem loyalty.

 

[irishpatrick]

Same lock step thing can be imagined about some Republicans. But some people are not one issues voters and although abortion is an important issue it is established law now since 1973. So all other issues are held hostage by this one that has not changed in 43 years? Meanwhile…

How can there be anything more important than savings millions every year? I wish someone would give me a sound answer to the that question.

How can we ever expect help or blessings from God when we keep slaughtering the most innocent among us–and in numbers that would make Sodom and Gomorrah blush. We are so steeped in sin that we cannot even tell what sin is anymore.

 

[TheAtheist]

If Hillary was a conservative, she would be the most “neocon” of all “neocons”. When most people talk about “neocons” they mean conservatives who are interventionist. Hillary Clinton is an interventionist in every bone in her body.

She just couldn’t keep herself from claiming a role in the war on Serbia, so she invented being in a danger zone when she wasn’t.

She engineered the war on Libya for reasons that are still unknown, but might come out in the emails with Blumenthal. Even Obama now admits that was a mistake.

She was party to the takeover in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, and opposed Al Sisi.

She was in the business of running guns from Libya to questionable organizations in Syria, which is how Amb Stevens got killed.

After being an Iraq hawk, she endorsed Obama’s cut and run strategy in Iraq, knowing full well what all the intelligence agencies and the Iraqis themselves were telling them; it would turn into a war between Iran and Sunni radicals.

She was an early party to the enhancement of Iran’s power. If anything on this earth could have been invented to anger Sunni Arabs more, I can’t imagine what it would be.

Democrats who don’t like “neocons” for being interventionist ought to run from Hillary Clinton, but they don’t. Otherwise, she stands for nothing but abortion on demand. And maybe that tells us something about the wellsprings of Dem loyalty.

Interestingly enough - Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam completely agrees with your take on things.

youtube.com/watch?v=cu41CPQw0hg

… a Decade ago i though i finally understood Left/Right politics in America.

IN the last 2 years I realized - i think i know absolutely nothing at this point…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

How can there be anything more important than savings millions every year? I wish someone would give me a sound answer to the that question.
.

Voting Republican has not saved a single one.

 

[xNoOnex]

How can there be anything more important than savings millions every year?

We’ve had conservative, pro-life presidents between 1981-1993. And a conservative pro-life president from for another eight year beginning 2001. If Wikipedia’s numbers are a correct, abortion rates in their country were at their highest during the first Bush administration…

So I’m curious as to how voting Republican will save lives.

 

[musivc]

We’ve had conservative, pro-life presidents between 1981-1993. And a conservative pro-life president from for another eight year beginning 2001. If Wikipedia’s numbers are a correct, abortion rates in their country were at their highest during the first Bush administration…

So I’m curious as to how voting Republican will save lives.

Ok- first off- everyone knows that it takes more than just an executive in the White House to ban abortion… A lot more. Both with a super majority (which republicans have not had), and the will of the people. I have faith in the people if they were properly educated, but we have too much bread and circus here to convince me that the day will come.

On infanticide there have been improvements thanks to Conservative Republicans- bans on partial birth abortions, late trimester infanticide, born alive infanticide,… Others here can really take that further.

Perhaps I should phrase it this way… How will voting Democrat save lives?

Democrats are currently harassing Catholic groups over contraception- as if there aren’t bigger problems. No radical Islam but the Sisters of Charity better comply OR ELSE!!

This is stupid. I love the Catholic faith, it’s contributions to humanity, and all my brothers and sisters. If there is anything I have learned it is that you are not going to convince anyone to change their mind politically on a message board- ego wins over common sense. Both ways.

 

[Crossbones]

Ok- first off- everyone knows that it takes more than just an executive in the White House to ban abortion… A lot more. Both with a super majority (which republicans have not had), and the will of the people. I have faith in the people if they were properly educated, but we have too much bread and circus here to convince me that the day will come.

On infanticide there have been improvements thanks to Conservative Republicans- bans on partial birth abortions, late trimester infanticide, born alive infanticide,… Others here can really take that further.

Perhaps I should phrase it this way… How will voting Democrat save lives?
.

It might keep the US out of unjust wars like the one is Iraq.

 

[musivc]

It might keep the US out of unjust wars like the one is Iraq.

Or Vietnam?

 

[musivc]

More people have been killed by infanticide than all our wars combined- you do think a baby in the womb is a person, right?

 

[Crossbones]

Or Vietnam?

Exactly.

 

[musivc]

More people have been killed by infanticide than all our wars combined- you do think a baby in the womb is a person, right?

Well? 50 Miilion dead?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You may want to square this with Obamas creation of the JV team and his victory lap 48 hrs ago about Isis.

our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach," Brennan said. “The resources needed for terrorism are very modest, and the group would have to suffer even heavier losses of territory, manpower, and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly.”

ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West,” Brennan said, using another acronym for the group. He said IS probably is working to smuggle them into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel.
Brennan also noted the group’s call for followers to conduct so-called lone-wolf attacks in their home countries. He called the attack in Orlando a “heinous act of wanton violence” and an “assault on the values of openness and tolerance” that define the United States as a nation.
He said IS is gradually cultivating its various branches into an interconnected network. The branch in Libya is likely the most advanced and most dangerous, but IS is trying to increase its influence in Africa, Brennan said. The IS branch in the Sinai has become the “most active and capable terrorist group in Egypt,” attacking the Egyptian military and government targets in addition to foreigners and tourists, such as the downing of a Russian passenger jet last October.
Other branches have struggled to gain traction, Brennan said. “The Yemen branch, for instance, has been riven with factionalism. And the Afghanistan-Pakistan branch has struggled to maintain its cohesion, in part because of competition with the Taliban.”

“Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” he said.
“In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”

washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/john-brennan-cia-chief-islamic-state-working-send-/

Notice “Libya” and think “Hillary”.

The branch in Libya is likely the most advanced and most dangerous,

Threats of attacks on US soil is at an all time high. And…

perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly.

A direct result of the Democrat lies as you see they have a bad habit of that as today.

nytimes.com/2001/06/29/opinion/lying-about-vietnam.html

The Pentagon Papers, published 30 years ago this month, proved that the government had long lied to the country. Indeed, the papers revealed a policy of concealment and quite deliberate deception from the Truman administration onward.

A generation of presidents, believing that the course they were following was in the best interests of the country, nevertheless chose to conceal from Congress and the public what the real policy was, what alternatives were being pressed on them from within the government, and the pessimistic predictions they were receiving about the prospects of their chosen course.

Why the lies and concealment?

 

[Crossbones]

A direct result of the Democrat lies as you see they have a bad habit of that as today.

nytimes.com/2001/06/29/opinion/lying-about-vietnam.html

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Democratic Presidencies of the time lied about the Vietnam War, much like the Bush Administration either lying or being incompetent and dragging the US into the unjust Iraq War.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Voting Republican has not saved a single one.

On the state level, Republican legislators have certainly curtailed it to the extent they could. When something is declared a “constitutional right” it’s hard to even minimize it.

voting for Bush meant something, as little as some might like it. In Carhart vs. Gonzales, the question was whether states could ban partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court upheld the bans. In that vote, all five Republican appointees voted to uphold partial birth abortion bans. All four Democrat appointees voted against allowing states to ban partial birth abortion. Two of the five Repub justices were appointed by George W. Bush.

So, like him or hate him, Bush did do something to save the lives of the unborn, as have other Repubs on the state level.

If Clinton is elected, she’ll appoint at least two justices and the Supreme Court will be totally pro-abortion for a generation and more. They’ll reverse Carhart vs. Gonzales for sure.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Democratic Presidencies of the time lied about the Vietnam War, much like the Bush Administration either lying or being incompetent and dragging the US into the unjust Iraq War.

Just saying the Iraq War was unjust doesn’t make it so. There are those who argue, credibly, that it was just.

But if one wants to look at unjust wars, none could be more unjust in recent decades than the war on Libya. Bush at least got congressional approval for Iraq Phase II. Obama/Clinton didn’t even tell congress in advance of attacking Libya. They just did it. So no legitimate authority. The “evil” of Khaddaffi was replaced by the greater evil of ISIS. So it fails there too. The harm that it did was greater than the harm it caused. And never did it present a reasonable probability of success, another failure under the Just War doctrine.

Now, even Obama admits Libya was a mistake. Hillary Clinton doesn’t, though.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t think there is any doubt that the Democratic Presidencies of the time lied about the Vietnam War,

I like to tell you thats a point that matters but I’m independent and concerned with “today;s” lies by Obama.

I mean so what about yesteryear? We are in the situation we are and its Obamas responsibility and has been. If we were back with Bush or Johnson and McNamara I would be telling you they are liars just I am with Obama. Its unacceptable right? So why pray tell do you think its acceptable with Obama and Hillary?

 

[adowcday]

We’ve had conservative, pro-life presidents between 1981-1993. And a conservative pro-life president from for another eight year beginning 2001. If Wikipedia’s numbers are a correct, abortion rates in their country were at their highest during the first Bush administration…

So I’m curious as to how voting Republican will save lives.

The crucial difference is that Bush and other Republicans – Donald Trump included – claim to be pro-life and oppose abortion. They say the words, and apparently that’s enough to make them the choice of Catholics, now matter what they do or how their policies impact people. See? Now, Donald Trump, despite years as a supporter of a woman’s right to choose, now claims he’s strongly pro-life and against abortion. Therefore, all Catholics must vote for him, despite his racism, anti-immigration policies, support for torture, etc., etc. That’s how Catholic voting works under “Faithful Citizenship.” Understand?

Yes, that’s right. I’m being snarky. But this is the logic I see used over and over on the CA Forums. You don’t have to weigh all the issues, you don’t even need to match a candidate’s words to their actions or the real-life consequences of their policies. You simply take what they say about abortion at face value and vote for them if they say – rightly or wrongly – that they are pro-life. Frankly, that doesn’t seem logical or sensible or in keeping with the Church’s teaching on morality and social justice, but that’s what people say on these Forums consistently. And if you don’t accept such nonsense, then you are directly and personally responsible for the death of millions of innocent babies and you endanger your salvation. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est…

 

[FollowChrist34]

The crucial difference is that Bush and other Republicans – Donald Trump included – claim to be pro-life and oppose abortion. They say the words, and apparently that’s enough to make them the choice of Catholics, now matter what they do or how their policies impact people. See? Now, Donald Trump, despite years as a supporter of a woman’s right to choose, now claims he’s strongly pro-life and against abortion. Therefore, all Catholics must vote for him, despite his racism, anti-immigration policies, support for torture, etc., etc. That’s how Catholic voting works under “Faithful Citizenship.” Understand?

Yes, that’s right. I’m being snarky. But this is the logic I see used over and over on the CA Forums. You don’t have to weigh all the issues, you don’t even need to match a candidate’s words to their actions or the real-life consequences of their policies. You simply take what they say about abortion at face value and vote for them if they say – rightly or wrongly – that they are pro-life. Frankly, that doesn’t seem logical or sensible or in keeping with the Church’s teaching on morality and social justice, but that’s what people say on these Forums consistently. And if you don’t accept such nonsense, then you are directly and personally responsible for the death of millions of innocent babies and you endanger your salvation. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est…

I actually sort of agree with this … and I support Donald Trump and am a Republican. I don’t like the idea of single issue voting. You need to look at the candidate in totality - in balance which candidate is better for the common good, and that means all of us. They are a lot of incredibly bad policies embraced by both parties. Right now I think the GOP has the edge - I don’t always choose them though.