FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Monday, June 13, 2016

Hillary suddenly decides the phrase ‘radical Islamism’ is ‘helpfu

Demands new assault weapons ban

Hillary suddenly decides the phrase ‘radical Islamism’ is ‘helpful’


You may recall that, in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, Hillary Clinton famously said that using terms like “radical Islam” was “not particularly helpful.”  Despite radical Islamists killing 130 people at the Bataclan, Hillary apparently felt that acknowledging the ideology of the killers was a bridge too far. She made basically the same argument after the San Bernardino shootings, claiming that such language would spawn a “clash of civilizations.” Yesterday, like all liberals, she did her best to once again tiptoe around it - instead directing her focus toward her crusade to gut the 2nd Amendment.

Within a few hours, she’d issued a statement that managed to call the massacre an ‘act of terror,’ but failed to identify the ideology responsible.  Instead, she politicized the horror by reiterating her desire for a new “assault weapons” ban.

Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.
  This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.
First, the term “mass-shooting” has emerged as the standard language progressives use to soft-peddle the terrorism angle.
Second, “weapons of war” is the left’s new gun control boogeyman. Anti-2A talking heads have been using the phrase in a coordinated manner since they took to the airwaves yesterday. Get used to it.  You’re going to hear it a lot because, like “assault weapon” it sounds scary even though it’s absolutely meaningless. “Weapons of war” is another catch-all term that’s so incredibly broad that it could reasonably be used to describe anything.  After all, knives are weapons of war. 
More importantly, Hilary was - once again - blaming inanimate objects instead of identifying ideological issues that progressives dare not face.  Today however; something has changed, if only just a little. 
Suddenly, the term “radical Islam” is A-OK, and Hillary is happy to use it.  CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked her the following:
  “One of the criticisms in these situations is that President Obama won’t use the words ‘radical Islamic terror.’ That it seems to be either a fear or a protective instinct about blaming the religion. You are now coming under scrutiny about what you will call this, what this means to leadership. Do you believe that this is radical Islamism and or radical Islamic terror? Will you use those words, and if not, why?”
To which Hillary replied:
  “Well, first of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. And I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. And, you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing, I’m happy to say either.”
 You’ll note that she walks a razors edge there with the phrase “use Islam to justify.” This is her way of perpetuating the old “Islamic terrorists aren’t really Islamic” canard. It’s pathetic, but it’s what progressives do.
So, suddenly, the woman who ONLY helps herself feels the term “radical Islam” is helpful? What could possibly have changed?
The answer is obvious. Hillary’s attitudes and agendas certainly haven’t been altered, but her position in the presidential race has.  She’s a damaged candidate who couldn’t put away Bernie Sanders and is struggling against Trump, despite her supposed foreign policy gravitas. Yesterday, Trump called out her ongoing reticence to name Islam and he’s obviously eager to launch a double-barreled assault on her record of failure. Today, she decided she had to get out in front on this.
Don’t allow yourself to believe - not for a second - that she’s had some sort of change of heart.  She hasn’t. Her “radical Islam” flip flop is an act of political self-preservation, not newfound clarity.

Demands new assault weapons ban

Hillary suddenly decides the phrase ‘radical Islamism’ is ‘helpful’


You may recall that, in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, Hillary Clinton famously said that using terms like “radical Islam” was “not particularly helpful.”  Despite radical Islamists killing 130 people at the Bataclan, Hillary apparently felt that acknowledging the ideology of the killers was a bridge too far. She made basically the same argument after the San Bernardino shootings, claiming that such language would spawn a “clash of civilizations.” Yesterday, like all liberals, she did her best to once again tiptoe around it - instead directing her focus toward her crusade to gut the 2nd Amendment.

Within a few hours, she’d issued a statement that managed to call the massacre an ‘act of terror,’ but failed to identify the ideology responsible.  Instead, she politicized the horror by reiterating her desire for a new “assault weapons” ban.

Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.
  This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.
First, the term “mass-shooting” has emerged as the standard language progressives use to soft-peddle the terrorism angle.
Second, “weapons of war” is the left’s new gun control boogeyman. Anti-2A talking heads have been using the phrase in a coordinated manner since they took to the airwaves yesterday. Get used to it.  You’re going to hear it a lot because, like “assault weapon” it sounds scary even though it’s absolutely meaningless. “Weapons of war” is another catch-all term that’s so incredibly broad that it could reasonably be used to describe anything.  After all, knives are weapons of war. 
More importantly, Hilary was - once again - blaming inanimate objects instead of identifying ideological issues that progressives dare not face.  Today however; something has changed, if only just a little. 
Suddenly, the term “radical Islam” is A-OK, and Hillary is happy to use it.  CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked her the following:
  “One of the criticisms in these situations is that President Obama won’t use the words ‘radical Islamic terror.’ That it seems to be either a fear or a protective instinct about blaming the religion. You are now coming under scrutiny about what you will call this, what this means to leadership. Do you believe that this is radical Islamism and or radical Islamic terror? Will you use those words, and if not, why?”
To which Hillary replied:
  “Well, first of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. And I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. And, you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing, I’m happy to say either.”
 You’ll note that she walks a razors edge there with the phrase “use Islam to justify.” This is her way of perpetuating the old “Islamic terrorists aren’t really Islamic” canard. It’s pathetic, but it’s what progressives do.
So, suddenly, the woman who ONLY helps herself feels the term “radical Islam” is helpful? What could possibly have changed?
The answer is obvious. Hillary’s attitudes and agendas certainly haven’t been altered, but her position in the presidential race has.  She’s a damaged candidate who couldn’t put away Bernie Sanders and is struggling against Trump, despite her supposed foreign policy gravitas. Yesterday, Trump called out her ongoing reticence to name Islam and he’s obviously eager to launch a double-barreled assault on her record of failure. Today, she decided she had to get out in front on this.
Don’t allow yourself to believe - not for a second - that she’s had some sort of change of heart.  She hasn’t. Her “radical Islam” flip flop is an act of political self-preservation, not newfound clarity.


No comments :