Caliphate vs Caliphate - What The Charlie Hebdo Massacre Exposes

Spanish cartoonists are sharing this image with the message: "To arms, companions!" via @sicevis #CharlieHebdo pic.twitter.com/RZTitxGTZp #tcot

Caliphate vs Caliphate - What The Charlie Hebdo Massacre Exposes

The world is run by ideas and the people/forces that back them. Throughout time, the human effort of governance has always been held by ideas backed through force.

Most of the noise that consumes the information airways since 12 people who were involved with producing the cartoon based opinion publication "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris, France were murdered in an effort to silence their opinion that religion, any religion, and religious ideas that govern human behavior and social roles are not serious and a source for humor.

The Muslim religion, and its enforcers (informed through Sharia Law) are busy at the business of shutting down all parts of organized humanity, that do not agree with their view on how humanity should be governed, in order to set up their own structure of governance that is not based in geographically defined countries - a Muslim Caliphate.

Their most recent target in the Western world was aimed at one of the human freedoms modern society agrees is most important ... the freedom of speech.

Once one peels back the layers of commentary, however, this freedom is not as important to many of those this attack was aimed at, which is the current political leadership force that has formed over putting forward a non-religion/secular based human governance and control over activity - a Progressive Caliphate.

On this side of the struggle, Progressives are choosing not to look at these terrorist murderous acts in France as a war against their governance but more as a small outlier of activity performed by, as one news/opinion broadcaster (Christiane Amanpour) put it, "activists."

Many secular reporters are suggesting that if only Charlie Hebdo placed curbs on its freedom of expressing its secular opinion, these bloody murderous acts of killing 12 people, because the image Muhammad (the leader, through his teachings, of the Muslim religion) was defamed through published cartooning, would not have taken place.

Due to the lack of seriousness of religion and its effects on the formation of culture and governance, the Progressives who govern France have allowed a flood of immigration without an insistence on integration to the existing culture. What France now sees are a series of over 750 "NO GO ZONES" where the people who choose to live in these zones are governed through the Muslim based Sharia Law. If a fire, or murder, or other acts of potential criminal and/or damaging human activity to other humans happens, French first responders are never dispatched and control in these areas is abdicated to the current Muslim Caliphate that resides there.

This type of Muslim governance takeover is not just happening in France. The rest of Europe is at risk with this same set up of takeover through population concentration through immigration and non-insistence of cultural integration. A clash of civilizations.

AZTLAN Movement targeted at reclaiming control over the Western United States. The Mexican Cession (1848) is shown in red with the Gadsden Purchase (1853) in orange.
© 2004 Matthew Trump.

Europe is not the only group of countries at risk because the Progressive political leadership structures in Canada and United States are open to these same tactics.  Open borders policies aided by government welfare, health benefits, and legal driver's licenses to non-documented/illegal aliens are nothing new to our combined Progressive political landscapes.

We, at MAXINE, believe it's Caliphate vs Caliphate - Progressives vs Muslims - in an effort to establish a "New World Order", and what had been created in the establishment of a Constitution of governance (here in the United States) that was based in the idea that all Human rights, which also includes the Freedom Of Speech, are not granted to man from man (not a Monarch, a Prophet, or a Progressive government) ... but through God (a power greater than man), is in peril.

The “I”- “Me”, uh, Barack, uh, Oba, uh, ma

Barack Obama sits down to speak with the editorial board of The Military Times. Image Credit: YouTube Account, pe11201 - Video by M. Scott Mahaskey / Military Times Staff

The “I”- “Me” (monopolistic thinking of), uh, Barack, uh, Oba, uh, ma

Somebody please ask junior Senator Barack Obama what he means when he says that contract worker support of our war effort should be just used for kitchenwork and automobile repair. Does Barack Obama actually know what kind of invaluable service outfits like Blackwater perform in the support of our efforts in ferreting out zeolots who want to do harm to the Iraqi citizens we are trying to liberate?

This is what Barack said to The Military Times, July 2, 2008:

There is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall, providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past. I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements... I think it creates some difficult morale issues when you've got private contractors getting paid 10 times what an Army private's getting paid for work that carries similar risks…

Does Barack even understand what Blackwater does ... they are NOT mercenaries. They do not replace the activity of our armed forces but actually complement the effort through special tasks best left to security professionals.

But Barack continued:

… When it comes to our special forces, what we've seen is that it's a potential drain of some of our best-trained special forces, and you can't blame them if they can make so much more working for Blackwater than they can working as a master sergeant. That, I think is a problem.

Q: Blackwater would argue that they're a bargain: that you get a higher level of ability, that they can put people there, they can keep top-level talent there perpetually.

A: I am not arguing that there are never going to be uses for private contractors in some circumstances. What I am saying is if you start building a military premised on the use of private contractors and you start making decisions on armed engagement based on the availability of private contractors to fill holes and gaps that over time you are, I believe, eroding the core of our military's relationship to the nation and how accountability is structured. I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence. And to set those kinds of precedents, I think, will lead us over the long term into some troubled waters.

Barack Obama doesn’t know… what he doesn’t know. What does he mean when he says I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence. WHAT?!

War is war and to be truthful, there is no monopoly of violence when bullets start flying or when people are strapping bombs to themselves to blow innocent citizens up. What does exist is an environment where specialized talents are placed into use to enable our effort to push back and win more efficiently and effectively. This is not much different than how American Rules football is put together, where specialized talent helps to move the ball down the field.

The same interview showed that Barack also does not understand the difference between an ally and an enemy.

He continued, And if you look at costs and benefits and if you look at the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, overall I think it was a bad decision on the part of our commander in chief.
----
Those are the kinds of decisions that are going to be coming up in the future.

We're going to have to make decisions about Iran, we're going to have to make decisions about Pakistan.

The capacity of the next commander in chief to forge alliances so that we can, when we act militarily, act in the ways that we did during the first Gulf War, a war in which, not only were our casualties kept low, but it effectively cost us almost nothing in terms of taxpayer dollars.

For us to think in a forward-looking way about energy, and understanding the strategic geopolitical implications of our failure to implement a serious energy strategy in this country.

Our ability to engage the Muslim world in a serious way so that we are tamping down anti-American sentiment even as we recognize that there is always going to be an element of extremism that can only be dealt with militarily.

Pakistan is an ally … Iran is an enemy. Also, what happened to Mr. Negotiation when he now comes out and says - Our ability to engage the Muslim world in a serious way so that we are tamping down anti-American sentiment … is this type of comment an example of his famous promise of “CHANGE”?

We, at MAXINE, must add that Barack has become increasing difficult to listen to . He used the “uh” transition filler eleven times in a single 90-second segment of this interview (as observed by Hugh Hewitt on his program this afternoon). I do not care if this becomes Obama's first term or Carter's Second Term if Barack gets into office ... four years of listening to him alone without a teleprompter will ruin the country.

The audio of this interview is very telling as to the level of what the junior Senator Barack Obama does NOT know.

Additional proof on how hard it is to listen to Senator Barack Obama - he says "uh" nine, or ten times in this fifty-five second clearification of his position on Iraq (some would say flip-flop).

Video Credit: YouTube account 3873uj201, added July 07, 2008

Quoted & Comments At Gateway Pundit:
Gateway Pundit: And, Here's Obama's Gobbly-Gook, Mumble-Jumble, "What the H*ll Is He Talking About?" -Video Clip of the Day#comments