Carl Davidson – 6/21/16

 


This page was last updated on August 4, 2016.


IN CASE YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY ISIS DOESN’T REPRESENT ISLAM; Carl Davidson; Facebook; June 21, 2016.

You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here.  “Leftster” is the combination of leftist and gangster, inspired by the left-originated “bankster.”


They know they can’t win if they don’t lie #15. (links to the other episodes in this series)

On his Facebook page, Carl Davidson (KD) of Beaver County Reds (BCR) wrote, “IN CASE YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY ISIS DOESN’T REPRESENT ISLAM, check these pastors out and see if you think they represent Christianity…”  KD referred to a Raw Story (a leftist propaganda outlet) piece entitled “‘God will finish the job’: Texas pastor prays for injured Orlando survivors to die.”  The story appears to be legit. 

KD and I had a decent discussion thread on the “ISIS DOESN’T REPRESENT ISLAM” topic during January 2015.  The thread starts with KD commenting on a BCT letter-to-the-editor entitled “Jews have more to fear than Muslims.”  I recommend you read the thread at the end of this review for detailed info.  If you’re pressed for time, however, my comments below should suffice.

Getting back to KD’s current posting, he encountered some pushback from a reader.  KD responded, “Why, Scott [Gilly], did my Protestant and Catholic ancestors in Ireland fight for so many 100s of years?  There was plenty of blood spilled.  Christians killing in the name of God?  We wiped out our Native Peoples under that flag, seized their children and put them in religios [sic] schools, forbidding them their language, ‘Killing the Indian’ in them to save a soul for Jesus.  I could go on and on …”  Mr. Gilly replied, “Carl, we are in the 21st century now.  A tad more civilized than 500 years ago.  All accept Islam that is.  I could on and on and on.”  KD replied, “500 years?  The truce on Ireland is only a few decades old, the ‘Indians War’ less than 150, and Leonard Peltier is still in prison.”  Mr. Peltier is an American Indian activist convicted of murdering two FBI agents in 1975 and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences.  According to Wikipedia, “in his 1999 memoir, Peltier admitted that he fired at the agents, but denies that he fired the fatal shots that killed them.”  As KD knows, the incident had nothing to do with religion or an “Indians War.”  The FBI agents “were on the Pine Ridge Reservation searching for a young man named Jimmy Eagle, who was wanted for questioning in connection with the recent assault and robbery of two local ranch hands.”

KD knows the on-again, off-again Ireland/UK fighting was primarily a political conflict.  Catholics and Protestants weren’t fighting over their beliefs.

In her attack on Mr. Gilly, KD follower Penelope Mace wrote, “OH dear god in f****** heaven are you an idiot ! The RCC for example is the oldest and best financed global terrorist group that ever existed - take your pick - torturing Spainish jews until they converted or torturing scientists or the many many many abuses of women and children -- GOD YOU ARE THE IGORNANT ONE. … So called xtians have invaded, burned, slaughtered, exploited and conquered in every corner of the earth - you are so deluded that it is sad.”  “RCC” is the Roman Catholic Church.

KD’s and Miss Mace’s comments are typical in that they compare today’s Islamists with alleged RCC behavior centuries ago.  For example, when was the last time the RCC allegedly “tortur[ed] Spainish jews until they converted or tortur[ed] scientists?”  When was the last time the RCC sent two gunmen to a Normandy Mosque and cut the throat of the imam?  Wait, I got that wrong.  On 7/26/16, two Islamists stormed a Catholic church in France and cut the throat of an 84-year-old priest celebrating morning mass.

They also omit something very important.  Who stopped the institutional abuse by segments of Christianity?  Hint; it wasn’t atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and so on.

Here’s an excerpt from a CNN piece: “And [Khizr Khan] warned that Trump’s attacks on Muslims are boosting terror recruitment.  Khan said it is good Muslims who are the ones who can help stop terror and make American safer.  ‘We are the solution to terrorism,’ Khan said on CNN Monday.”  Mr. Khan is the father of a Muslim U.S. soldier killed in Iraq in 2004.  First, if you listen to leftists, what doesn’t “boost [Islamist] terror recruitment?”  Second, I agree with the remainder of the excerpt.  If “[‘good Muslims’] are the solution to terrorism” and “good Muslims … are the ones who can help stop terror and make American safer,” that would be great.

Despite Mr. Khan’s words, U.S. Muslims aren’t helping their cause.  Time and time again, Muslims (U.S. citizens and not) attack this country in the name of Islam and kill our citizens.  After each attack, we get the obligatory “Islam is a religion of peace” and individual condemnations of the killings.  It’s one thing for Muslims to claim they mourn non-Muslim victims, but what are U.S. Muslims doing to stop the attacks so none of us have to mourn Muslim and non-Muslim victims of Islamists?  More specifically, what is Mr. Khan doing to stop future Islamist attacks on Americans?

By all accounts, Mr. Khan’s son, who gave his life to save his fellow soldiers, was a hero deserving of our gratitude and respect.  Mr. and Mrs. Khan, however, are allowing their son’s sacrifice to be used by Hillary Clinton (HC) for nothing more than cheap political purposes, just as the left used Cindy Sheehan against then-President George W. Bush.  You could say Republicans did the same with some of the parents of the Americans killed in Benghazi.

There’s a big difference in how the Khans and Benghazi parents have been treated, however.  The press is all over DT’s comments about the Khans, but the press said nothing when HC called two of the Benghazi parents liars, albeit in nicer terms.  According to at least two of the Benghazi parents, HC told them privately their sons died, not because of Islamist terrorists but, because a peaceful demonstration about an anti-Muslim Internet video went awry.  This was on 9/14/12 when the bodies were returned home.  HC claims she did not say that because “If you go back and read everything that I said that day, I quoted people who talked about it being terrorism.  I had already said it was terrorism.  There was no doubt it was terrorism.”

HC’s assertion appears to be another lie.  While it’s true “There was no doubt it was terrorism,” that’s not what HC said in public.  A mere two days after HC now claims “[she] had already said it was terrorism,” the White House sent Susan Rice (then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN, now Mr. Obama’s National Security Advisor) to be interviewed on five Sunday news programs regarding Benghazi.  On all of these shows, Ms. Rice told the “demonstration gone awry” and unplanned attack story.  Mr. Obama would not have Ms. Rice make “an appearance at the request of the White House” on five national news shows without telling her what to say and without the Sec. of State’s (HC) input.  Also, there’s no way the Obama regime would allow Ms. Rice and HC to present contradictory positions less than two months before the election.

So, when did HC first state in public the Benghazi incident was a “terrorist attack?”  According to FactCheck.org, “Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a ‘terrorist attack’ for the first time” on Sept. 21, 2012.  Mr. Obama, however, continued to refer to “killers,” not terrorists, through at least September 25th during a speech before the United Nations, a full two weeks after the attack.  In that speech, however, Mr. Obama found time (eight paragraphs) to talk about “a crude and disgusting video” and freedom of speech.  Finally, on September 26th during a briefing on Air Force One, the White House spokesman said, “So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”  The $64,000 question is, why was Mr. Obama so set on blaming an “anti-Muslim video” instead of the attacking terrorists?

During the speech he presented at the Democrat convention, Mr. Khan attacked Donald Trump’s (DT) immigration comments, especially those about Muslims.  Among his comments about DT, Mr. Khan said, “He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.  Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future.  Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?”  Mr. Khan should take his own advice and do some reading himself.  I don’t know if it’s constitutional or not, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA) appears to give the President the authority to do what DT says he wants to do.  Since Mr. Khan is a lawyer who routinely works with immigration law, it’s difficult to believe he didn’t know about the provisions of the INA, passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president (LBJ).  Less than a week after his speech, it appears Mr. Khan removed his law practice’s website from the Internet.  Here’s a snapshot of Mr. Khan’s website before he deleted it.

Toward the end of the speech, Mr. Khan said, “We can’t solve our problems by building walls and sowing division.  We are stronger together.”  Perhaps.  If you’re going to attack DT for “sowing division,” however, that’s supreme hypocrisy by Democrats.  A major leftist tactic is to divide people into classes and grievance/victim groups along lines of age, education, ethnicity, income, religion, sex, skin color, wealth, et cetera and promise each group some kind of special treatment.  As for “stronger together,” I’m sure it’s coincidence the Clinton campaign slogan just happens to be the family motto of Krypton’s House of El.

In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>


© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.