Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

And we thought it couldn't get any worse four years ago?

It has been a notably odd mixture of both pride and prejudice in all things, as we sentimentally noted the solstice measurably giving way to the equinox of 2012, and the long shadows gathering which signal the seasons of harvest.

However, within this endless seasonal cycle of reaping, certain of the historically inclined also recently read, with alarmed trepidation, a largely unnoticed Aljazeera report that ran shivers up many a spine, some of those being not quite ready for this particular brand of reaping.

You see, the Saudi's, for the first time in modern history, and especially as a US ally, announced plans to hold an Islamic summit of virtually all the Muslim nations in August, 2012. The chief concern to the ruling Saudi elites for this gathering?

"Sedition and fragmentation" were the keywords alluded to in the report, along with a desire to "solidify" the Islamists.

Now, if these descriptive words seem rather innocuous, try looking at the world from our own seemingly peculiar angle, which often provides a certain richness in alternative meanings. The opposite meanings of sedition and fragmentation are "obedience and submission."

But it gets better.

The opposite of fragmentation? Entirety, total, whole. So, what if we take each keyword, within all of this, and derive a more intellectually directed meaning?

"Concern" as used in this multi-national context, points to something to be avoided or done away with; sedition and fragmentation are the elements to be corrected or eradicated, the subsequent vacuum being replaced by a more desired obedience and submission, which just so happens to be two primary elements of Islamic fundamentalism.

The final ingredients are entirety, total and whole, indirectly meaning, in essence, one all-encompassing Islamic world predicated on obedience and submission. Now, where have we heard that before?

Could this, in fact,  actually be the initial cornerstone being laid of a dreaded Islamic Caliphate? If so, what might that mean to the free world? Indeed, this is but one piece of the increasingly resolving puzzle and its rather fatalistic inclinations.  The possibilities to bear in mind regarding the establishment of an Islamic Federation are several. Numerous ancient texts of both Christian and Islamic origins  point to the coming of a central figure who will rise to a position of multi-national leadership and make war on those nations who fail to capitulate.

The Islamic world, in many cases, refers to this figure as the 12th Imam, or Al Madhi, while adherents of Christianity and Judaism call a similiar central figure the Anti-Christ. Either way, many believe that a caliphate is one of the earliest ingredients involved regarding the ascendancy of this mystical figure.

However, the interesting question between these two major world belief systems is: Could these two prophesied leaders, The Anti-Christ and the 12th Imam,  possibly be both one and the same?

Resolving the Connections

So where might we locate the next hidden piece?

Well, how about a recent but concerted, while insulting, failure from the leader of the free western world to recognize the avowed capitol of the Islamic world's greatest and most hated enemy, who also just happens to be our closest Mideast ally. Obama Regime spokesman, Jay Carney made it very plain to the White House pool of reporters that the Obama administration did not recognize Israel's Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.

Now, that should make the Islamic world cheer quite loudly....or should that be jeer?

But what exactly does this mean? Essentially, it means our own government-sponsored brand of solidarity appears to be wavering that much more with regard to Israel, for one thing.  So, what other detached elements are there of recent events?

Enter former Presidential candidate, Rep. Michele Bachmann who, on a wholly unconnected note, and among a host of House Conservatives, issued a letter of warning to the State Dept., which was entered into the congressional record, concerning the Muslim Brotherhood and its insider connectivity to the US State Department.

The Enemy Within

"Oh, come on," was the injured and choir-like laugh of the usual inner beltway stalwarts, as the Middle-worlders, along with the Left, vehemently condemned our intrepid Congresswoman . The question of  "Who," within the State Dept. could possibly have a definitive Muslim Brotherhood connection (?)  initially occurred to all of us. Unfortunately, the answer is none other than the very powerful First Lady of US politics herself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In fact, according to the letter, it was Clinton's chief personal assistant, Huma Abedin, the wife of failed Liberal Militant, Rep. Anthony Weiner, of weinie-wonking fame, who held the direct connection to the Islamic operatives.

Huma Abedin's late father, mother and even brother, each apparently participated in the Islamic practice of "Civilization Jihad," which is a technique designed to destroy a targeted civilization from within. The letter was not at all hazy with regard to the stated outcome of Huma's connections, denoting chiefly:

- A personal intervention by Secretary Clinton on behalf of Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan who is an essential jihadist for the cause of Shariah.

- A series of State Dept. meetings with the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) designed to find ways around the US Constitution's Freedom of Speech. The Islamic technique involved in this machination is called the "Istanbul Processes" according to the letter. In this case, it provides a way around the free speech clause to prevent Blasphemy to Islam and its practitioners.

- Efforts to having the US officially recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate political entity rather than a root organization of terrorism.

Bachmann's Conservative Congressional cadre' went on to request a response, which sought an agency-confirmed correction of these unconstitutional practices by our leaders.

In order to learn more about this, we would urge you to read Andrew McCarthy's recent piece in "Ordered Liberty" giving full explanation as to why this is so completely and utterly wrong.

I Will Stand With Them Should the Political Winds Shift in an Ugly Direction~ Barack Obama

But then, unfortunately, the pieces of the puzzle didn't end even there.

There was also a recent admonition, appearing in the media, which concerned Obama's ignominious lack of a visitation to Israel. In fact, despite playing nearly 100 games of golf as President, and traveling the world, bowing copiously to world leader after world leader, the President has yet to visit our closest ally in the Mideast, the nation of Israel.

Oh, but he has and many, many times, stated consistently wrong and very,very, wicked witch of the west, Nancy Pelosi, who practically swore on a Bible, and on video (or was that a Koran?), that Obama had repeatedly visited Israel time and time again, despite the fact that he quite obviously had not.

So, why all of the defensiveness, anyway?

Could this lack of setting foot in the holy land, for Obama, be a part of the disconcerting Islamic-Obama puzzle, one might ask?

This particular fact speaks volumes, not to mention the odd bit of lacking Presidential decorum associated with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's last couple of visits. There is a reason why many suspect the President of being just a wee bit more than sentimental regarding his Islamic fundamentalist roots, as opposed to his espoused, and yet ostensibly lacking, Judeo-Christian values.

So, might anyone still think that the pieces aren't resolving into a definite pattern?

Also, in the hard-to-find news, was this little gem concerning how the Obama White House refused to label as terrorists a Nigerian Cult of Muslim fundamentalists whose chief occupation appears to be the killing of Christians in Africa. The group, who call themselves Boko Haram, which means "western education is evil" primarily kills Christians on behalf of organizing Shariah law in the most populous nation in Africa.

So, a White House that hesitates for not even a moment on scripting DHS bulletins warning one third of America that the other two thirds could be Right-Wing Terrorists, because of their scandalous patriotism, but then later balks at labelling an avowed Christian-hating sect of murderous Islamists as terrorists, should leave more than a few some reasons to begin doubting that the Messianic illusion might now be falling apart.

I think we're slowly beginning to get it, now....

But the irony at play in America, praising Islamification and Shariah, while railing against Judeo-Christian values, only got that much worst, as the Axis Press then took to berating, what might have appeared to some, as a new sect of Christian fundamentalism, apparently only dedicated to consuming vast amounts of chicken, when it came under severe attack.

However, it wasn't the Restaurant that did anything, but rather, it was the Chief Executive officer, by stating the following in an interview:

“Guilty as charged,” when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Dan Cathy was quoted as saying.

So, with all of the Islamic love flowing around like the oily smoke from a Hookah, why the militant response to the Chick-Fil-A leader's gay marriage haraam?

And why is the high-quality fast food restaurant, Chick-Fil-A, now ostensibly  known to those swarmingly obnoxious Liberals as the Christian Church of Chick-Fil-A and being pilloried to the point of its spokesman even falling suddenly dead.

Adding to the outrage, the radical Mayors of both Boston and Chicago even euphemistically tied themselves to the tracks of religious freedom, when they began searching for ways to refuse to allow the southern-based Restaurant, dedicated only to the extreme mastication of fricasseed foul and waffle fries, to pass unassailed into their cities.

By the way, could anyone ever forget the Liberals' grand acceptance response to the Ground Zero Mosque, by any chance?

However, in yet another grand piece of the puzzle, we personally found it well beyond ironic, that the same morning Chicago's Mayor Emmanuel, a former Obama Chief of Staff, had forged an alliance with a racist sect of Islamic fundamentalism and Jew-hating Islamists, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, to actually help Emmanuel defend the streets of Chicago against future thuggery, of all things.

Notable also is the fact that Chick-Fil-A, which is being viciously attacked by the Left for coming out in defense of "Family Values," has been vilified and ostracized, while an anti-Semitic, if not anti-Christian group,  dedicated to radical Islam, is being embraced and asked to actually help the city defend against the ruined inner-city detritus of Liberal collectivism's failure.

But, then the religious persecutionof Chick-Fil-A had become so legion, that the ACLU and the GOP actually joined the fight together in raking the Chicago machine over the coals for their felonious government assault against Judeo-Christian religious freedom.

Should Chick-Fil-A, perhaps, incorporate a Mosque into their marketing scheme, in order to gain acceptability in Liberal strongholds? Well....we already know an evangelical church is definitely out...but in fact, a severe comeuppance to the intolerable Leftists was delivered by millions of concerned Conservatives on August the first. Virtually every Chick-Fil-A across the nation was overwhelmed with concerned Americans in heartfelt support of Chick-Fil-A's stance on traditional American values.

It just doesn't get any better than that, ladies and gentlemen......

All of this, retrospectively, is almost enough to make anyone wonder if the end of days are not rapidly approaching, as good increasingly becomes bad and bad becomes supernaturally good. Oh, and within this grand scheme, let us not forget Obama's war against the Catholic Church in the birth control embroglio and his edict to pay-up or else.

Obama's War On Individual Success

To that end, we did have yet another example of topsy turvy values. You see, there was an additional element of radical political, anti-American extremism, this time concerning Presidential politics. Granted, much has been written by the Conservative Media, and not a few others, on the President's most recent foray into non-teleprompted nincompoopery.

But when I personally heard El Magnifico's enthusiastic utterances in Virginia, along with his laying of a claim to virtually everyone's individual success on behalf of an imaginary, jealous proletariat, rather than being stunned, shocked or even angered as many quite obviously were, a resolute, if not unnatural calm settled over me, along with a feeling of complete justification for the long hours endured in the Battle for America over these past three years.

You see, being an ingloriously web-based "Conservative Zealot," as I was recently labeled, out of Carolina, as counterpoint to those obnoxious Liberals and the media, does have its largely covert advantages, especially in the context of being informed.

But, in fact, Obama's uber-silly Marxist musings were no surprise to any of us, at least not to those of us who have been watching "The one we've been waiting for" very pensively. Oh, many have known and largely understood Obama's collectivist goals from the first few days of his autocratic administration, and even well beyond that. But in Obama's Roanoke campaign speech, he uttered what will probably become some of the most notorious remarks, ever, by a sitting US President.

The President began his Totalitarian Toddy with a draught of class warfare, and then threw in a dash of Marxist ideology: it went partially like this:

"If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own."

Now, at this point, we could see that something very insidiously wicked might be headed our way. And even those few words led me to recall the most basic of age-old retorts as I listened, that being, indeed, "success knows many fathers, but failure is an orphan." So Obama is telling us...what exactly? That our individual success is really not ours? That it belongs to others? That it takes a village, maybe?

But then, Mr. President, who does our success belong to and are we not also responsible for our own personal failures by that same measure? Do we lock perpetrators up for their own law-abiding failures, or do we penalize society as culpable, allowing the perp to walk free?

Granted Obama's penchant for blaming other people, other things, or even other events, both natural and not, are famously well-publicized. But as the President was clearly laying the Nation's individual success at someone else's feet, I hearkened back to the time when Obama had delivered his speech on the killing of Bin Laden and how the personal pronouns flowed like aspartame syrup that night in May, belying virtually everything the President actually stated in Roanoke with regard to individual success.

In fact, here were the terms that Obama uttered, as he described his personal brush with destiny in general, in the demise of Mullah Osama Bin Laden:

I can report

I directed

I was briefed

I met repeatedly

I determined

at my direction

I've made clear

I've repeatedly

I called

I, as Commander-in-Chief

I know

 

So...what's all of this "I" stuff from Mr. " You didn't get there on your own" Obama?

According to the "Messianic Magi's" own apparently budding Bolshevist philosophy, we must point out:

"You didn't do that, somebody else did that, you didn’t get there on your own, Mr. President, you didn't kill Bin Laden."

However, this dichotomy in existentially flawed reasoning by the President probably does speak to that age-old Marxist quandary, "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine." So, here and once again, I think we get it, now.

However, there was another side to this argument.

At this point, many businessowners, both large and small, must have remembered the great and terrible trail of tribulation brought upon each of us over the last four years under the assault of collectivist theory, which economically amounts to the age-old definition of combat, that being "Long periods of boredom accentuated by brief moments of sheer terror." Life has not been easy under the capitalist-despising "Messianic Mangler" and his insane Leftist posse; no, not for any of us, to be sure.

But in his speech, it actually got worse from there, as the words plopped out of Obama's mouth and splattered obscenely upon a fawning audience:

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen."

At this, many surprised and not a few probably struggling businesowners' eyebrows immediately shot-up in furrowed consternation, most uttering the highly colloquial, "Huh?"

No, indeed, and to explain, what Obama was trying to stealthily say was, We the Government and the collective, as a whole, are solely responsible for your success. You see, the whole premise of Obama's diatribe was tied into taxing the wealthy confiscatorially, so that more fictitious "bridges and roads" could be built, while requiring the government to take more from the job creators, so that the Statists could work more of their already terrible wonders on an increasingly suspicious America.

In essence Obama was trying to say that, from Government flows all things, while nothing could be further from the truth. The Government has nothing, you see, before it collects its sustenance from the people. The government doesn't make anything in the private sector "happen" beyond maintaining an environment that allows business and individuals to thrive, but this is purely why nations establish governments, in the first place.

However, if we take Obama's arguments one step further backward, it's the government that derives its consent and authority from the people, not the other way around. We authorize the power centralized within our government, at least we do  in America. We do not consent to be completely and totally controlled by our own government in America, and yet, currently, that's precisely what's happening.

When a government becomes so large and burdensome that it creates economic upheaval and uncertainty, that government has simply become too large and needs to be reined in. Unfortunately, this line of thinking has now become something approaching a sin against Statism, which necessitates the need for confession, however uncontrite, these days.

Regardless, all of this is rather depressingly, where we are in America....where apparently, the entire political left and its leaders are now in support of a radical new philosophy:

"If you build it, we will come...and tell you that you didn't."

 

Facebook Group