More Mush From the Wimps

I’ve been a little “out of pocket” with a family emergency lately so I’m playing catch up (and I might be for some time).

I’m not surprised at the endless news stories on all the various “candle light vigils” and other memorials set up in cities, most of them not Orlando, to “show solidarity” with the “LGBT community” post-Orlando. People, usually “LGBT”-types proudly boasting that they “will not be intimidated.” One lady quoted several times on CBS Radio during the week clucked in typically Obama-esque pseudo’Hood lingo that terrorists (er, ‘haters,’ that is) couldn’t “come to my town and get away with this.” But I seriously doubt she was joining the war effort. More likely she was heading for some kind of “LGBT” “rights” rally. She was going to demonstrate her disapproval and that was really going to show those terrorists who was boss.

And it would.

You can give the “LGBT community” (a phrase uttered ad nauseum this week) all the “rights” its most radical members desire and that won’t do a thing to stop terrorism.

Terrorists know that they can inflict damage and death with relative safety under the Obama Regency. They laugh at a people whose response to a mass attack is to collect in saccharine gatherings where everyone stands around and congratulates themselves on how superior the departed were, how those in attendance are really caring and essentially find reasons not to respond “with more violence” or simply change the subject completely (looking at you Obama, Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, Chris Murphy, whole Democratic Party, et al). “Gun Control is what we need!” “We need more special rights for the ‘LGBT’ community!” “This happened because the haters won’t let the trannies into the women’s room!” etc.

To do anything but mention the perpetrator and his reasons. If we refuse to analyze the reasoning of our opponents and then devote our efforts to eliminating the reasons and/or the opponents, we’ve lost.

Our intellectual elites seem to think that they can shame the terrorists into changing their behavior. That they can cast their eye of disapproval and sign a petition that will stop the terrorists. That these terrorists are no different than the lone Republican at the city council meeting or the Christian florist down the street who can be bullied into submission.

The terrorists actually like this response. It plays right into their hands. Have all the candle light vigils and petition-signing KY parties you want, terrorist command functionaries cheer. Show that “solidarity with the LGBT community!” It’s easier to kill you in unarmed groups and that is our job and only goal, they plot.

It’s like sheep gathering out into an open field and promising to do even less in their defense. “Feast away wolves! You’ll eat so many of us that you’ll get sick and who’ll have the last laugh then! ‘We shall overcome…’”

And, of course, these sheople are at constant war with their shepherd dogs. “Why must you be so violent?” “Why can’t you get along with the wolves?” “Have you tried a vegan diet? “You’re no different than them anyway…” “The cycle of violence…blah, blah, blah.”

I’ve gone through this whole screed doing something similar to what Obama, Hilary and most Democrats have done in the wake of the Orlando shootings, not mention Islam. Fail to point to the prime cause of this attack.

So I will make this clear, we are at war with Islam. Call it a “radical” branch of Islam if you wish but it is an Islamic cause. The people involved in this branch are very serious. They take their cause very seriously. They are devoting their lives to it. They have one goal — Islamic domination. In their view you either, join, submit or die. There are no other options.

There terrorists will not be softened or persuaded by our attempts to reason with them, “understand” them or accommodate them. This is not a debate (for them). This is not a city council vote concerning new designs for crosswalks near a school. They view such responses as weakness and conclude that such responses are proof that the terrorists have the true cause. After all, they reason, if the effete people and leaders of the west (or the Crusaders) don’t have strong feelings for their cause or even their own survival, why should they be spared?

This group likely numbers in the upper tens of thousands with tens of millions of sympathizers across the world. And as long as they can do what they did in Orlando (or Paris) with no push back, they’ll have more sympathizers. A lot of people like to follow the winner. There might be hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not follow these people but as long as they keep quiet (possibly intimidated), they need to be understood as unallied with us.

Failure to identify and acknowledge an enemy is a recipe for disaster. As long as the willful blindness of the intelligentsia continues, these things will continue.

Advertisements

Is Obama a Terrorist Sympathizer?

After his, to be generous, rote performance concerning the Orlando shootings, it seems clear to me that President Obama has sympathies for terrorists of a certain flavor.

We know from his past that he has ex-Weather Underground terrorist friends and political allies (e.g. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn). He’s almost certainly met with others such as Angela Davis, surviving Black Panthers, and many of his early mentors in the “community activist” world have questionable pasts. Obama, no doubt, views these people as noble and working for good causes. He accepts that they needed to break a few rules to do the greater good — AKA, the ends justified the means. So starting at this point, Obama, certainly further than any president ever, does not find terrorism to be an unacceptable or disqualifying activity (at least for those doing what he wants). He likely sees the need to go that far as demonstrating one’s true commitment to a cause (if it’s one he agrees with, that is; Tea Party people, for instance, are not considered in the same way).

Of course there’s Obama’s whole academic career, transparent and dark at the same time. Academia is a cesspool of terrorist worship, especially in the elite schools.

Moving on another line, I think that Obama’s charitable view of Islam is dominated by his own experience as a child in Indonesia. He spent a few years in a Muslim-dominated community and, as we have seen in numerous cases, considers himself an expert on Islam. This leads to his inability to attribute the actions of Muslim terrorists to Islam, no matter how many times they say the are motivated exclusively by Islam. Obama, in his Pope of Islam mode, feels he knows more about what is true Islam than these people who have spent their whole lives as Muslims. Obama looks back to his own past and sees his young play chums. He just can’t imagine they’d grow up to be bad people therefore there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist, in his reasoning. He pushes it a little further and, voila!, he absolves Islam of being responsible for any terror or any bad conduct anywhere — because, tautologically, that is not “true” Islam!

And, naturally, reinforcing these leanings, is the standard liberal hate-America, America-is-responsible-for-all-that-is-bad mindset, which causes him to look everywhere else for the cause of a terrorist act other than the one obvious explanation. In many cases the exact causation is provided by the perpetrator but Det. Obama is on the case and he’ll find the “one true” cause. Hence we are constantly subjected to Obama’s refusal to name Islam as any kind of motivating force but rather the problem is guns or American diplomatic, military and business activities in the Middle East or insufficient spending on educational opportunities or… Well… anything but Islam.

A Few Thoughts on the Orlando Shootings

Remember after the maniac Dylann Roof killed those people Charleston, since he had some vague interest in the Confederacy it was deemed that all references to the Confederacy needed to be uprooted from every nook and cranny of the United States — ASAP? All ancestors who had served in the Confederate Army were immediately rendered unpersons. All because it was immediately determined that the Confederacy did it.

We also see the same “rush to judgment” with any crime involving someone claiming to be a “Christian.”

Contrast that with Omar Mateen’s Islamic religion. One can watch the intellectual gymnastics news hosts, reporters and guest go through to avoid equating Islam with the terrorist act. “No need to ban anything Muslim” everyone insists. Islam couldn’t have had anything to do with it. This created and absurd dance by news readers, various reporters and guests desperately trying to avoid saying the “I” word. They were willing to say ISIS, because Mateen had mentioned it but they wouldn’t offer that Islam’s dislike of homosexuals contributed to the choice of targets. The phrase “hate crime” was trotted out regularly, as if there was some form of terrorism that didn’t involve hate.

Of course King Barry I, the self-identifying Pope of Islam, saw no Islamic connection but knew that “hate” was involved. In his mind all Muslims are exactly like the cute little Muslim kids he hung around with as a child. He can’t comprehend them growing into the mad dogs they are.

On my local news, WUSA, a CBS affiliate, there was a strong stress on this being an anti-gay hate crime. A “gay pride” parade got a lot of attention from the news crew, with lots of weepy, “Why won’t people accept us?” Then at numerous press conferences and “vigils” gays and several Muslim groups got together to share their mutual victimness.

As long as we are unwilling to identify the enemy, we can’t win the war.

Why B-52s and B-1s are not cratering known ISIS camps at this moment is beyond me.

On the gun front, of the 50 dozen times I heard Mateen’s AR-15 mentioned on CNN and CBS (local and national) , maybe twice it wasn’t described as an “assault weapon.” I know most reporters know little to nothing about guns so they go with what Handgun Inc. tells them to say but when a “former FBI” guest or a “security consultant” and others like Pete Williams (former Navy) do this, it’s clearly purposeful misreporting. It’s not an “assault weapon.” It simply looks like the M-16 and the M4. Double bonus for the clown who called it a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”

Remember, these are reporters purposefully misreporting this issue.

And the most ridiculous response is that the Broadway play “Hamilton,” about Alexander Hamilton (not George Hamilton), has now decided to do the play without the Revolutionary-era muskets they use in some of the numbers. Maybe they’ll use mops instead.

The Conspiracy to Keep You Stupid (and Liberal)

Power Line’s John Hinderaker catches NPR’s Terry Gross (surprise!) and the New York Times’ Nicholas Casey  (double surprise!) playing dumb about socialism and the effects of it. Obviously, acknowledging the failure of socialism, in Venezuela in this case, would scotch the whole grand socialist plan, currently in its “Elect Hillary” or “Elect Bernie” edition.

Check out “NPR + NYT: A Recipe for Cluelessness” and spread it around.

Take special note of their attempt to equate Donald Trump with Venezuela’s failed socialist enterprise.

This is one way the leftists and their media attack dogs keep people ignorant of what leftism is about.

Oh, and it’s also a reason to make sure we stop funding and never further develop national “public broadcasters” of any kind. Make NPR survive on its own. There are plenty of wealthy socialists out there that could spend their dime, not mine, to keep it afloat.

Obama Displays His Sense of Humor

King Barry I doesn’t get enough credit for his wicked sense of humor. I’m not talking about the stiff “White House Corespondents’ Dinner” shtick he trots out every year or his ham-handed use of black slang like “okie-doke.” I’m referring to a higher-level humor — for instance displayed in his recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

“I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office,” he effervesced, in describing the likely Democratic nominee and felony-committer. Now that’s comedy gold.

He probably laughed his hienie off after he said it. I’m sure the gathered VIPs were laughing too.

Right?

Wait, you think he was serious?

Nah, no human being even remotely intelligent could think that a woman who was one of the most divisive First Ladies ever, with barely one Senate term under her belt and a disastrous four-year run as Secretary of State is the most “qualified” person “ever” to run for office.

Hold on, maybe there’s something I’m missing. Lessee, she chaired the board of the liberal activist make-work agency the Legal Services Corp. for a few years during the Carter era. She was a partner at an important Little Rock, Ark. law firm, the Rose Law Firm. During that time laws were broken by the firm and many of her clients went to jail while she actually didn’t seem to do any real work on her own (but billed some big dollars). Her big deal there was being married to an up and coming state politician named Bill Clinton. Then as First Lady she tried to nationalize the health care industry and was unceremoniously told to return to her normal duties. And snipers shot at her in Bosnia. Or something like that.

Hey, she has a law degree from Yale!

Sure sounds like most-qualified to me.

I mean all Jefferson had was lead author of the Declaration of Independence; delegate to the Virginia House of Burgesses for six years; delegate to the Virginia House of Delegates; a co-author of the Virginia state constitution; two-time governor of Virginia (one-year terms); delegate to the Congress of Confederation; diplomat to France during the revolution; the second Secretary of State (1791-93); second Vice President of the United States (1797-1801); and author of numerous historical, philosophical and political tracts (not to mention dabblings in a wide range of sciences). Those are the highlights before he was elected third President of the United States (two terms).

Yeah, Hillary’s got him beat.

Okay, that wasn’t fair — all those guys back then such as Washington, Adams, Madison, even Aaron Burr, appear to us as giants.

Let’s pick on some of the presidents usually seen as less-qualified.

William Henry Harrison had a cup of coffee in the White House in 1841. He served as a territorial congressional delegate from the Northwest Territory; governor of the then Indiana Territory; Representative and Senator from the new state of Ohio; minister to Colombia; and was a successful general in a number of battle in conflicts, including the War of 1812.

Hmmm.

Okay, how about a definitive non-entity, Franklin Pierce? He was a delegate to the New Hampshire House of Representatives (eventually becoming speaker); was a state militia reformer; Representative from New Hampshire for two terms; was a Senator but resigned for political reasons before his term ended. He served ably in the Mexican-American War; or rather his commands did while he seemed to be personally snakebit.

That non-entity might have Hillary beat.

Okay, here’s a slam-dunk, the oft-derided Warren Gamaliel Harding. Harding started out as a journalist and newspaper owner. He was a one-term state senator in Ohio; lieutenant governor of Ohio; one-term Senator from Ohio. Not the most sterling resume but it’s equitable to Hillary Clinton’s, and Harding is considered at the lower end of qualified. Ironically, Harding’s strong-willed wife Florence, similar in many ways to Hillary Clinton, was a highly-competent mate (businesswoman and political advisor) and a better First Lady than Hillary Clinton ever was. Also ironically, Harding was dogged by the accusations of an affair with an infatuated young woman, Nan Britton. He likely was a philanderer of ALMOST Clintonian proportions.

One more note of irony, Teapot Dome took place under Harding, though he was not involved. It looks absolutely quaint compared to what happens these days. Here’s something that cropped up recently on Hillary’s watch.

So what is the guy considered the smartest occupant of the White House talking about if he was being serious?

Riddle Me This — BuzzFeed Discrimination Edition

So now the pop entertainment website BuzzFeed will follow in the footsteps of Google in discriminating between clients (or prospective clients) based on “beliefs.” BuzzFeed has announced it will refuse ads from the Republican party because of Donald Trump. It may have stepped away from $1.3 million of ads that the party may have committed to.

But apparently BuzzFeed will accept Democrat ads.

BuzzFeed founder and CEO Jonah Paretti explained, “The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs.” Well, that wasn’t what Trump said, Trump was talking about immigration, especially illegal immigration, not Muslim international travel. A rather ill-informed response by the supposed head of a news website that wants to be taken seriously.

Paretti added, “We don’t run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won’t accept Trump ads for the exact same reason ” Okay, that’s just silly. But it gives you an insight into the mind of the liberal and BuzzFeed that is, if anything, a pack of liberal media jackals. Liberals view anything nonliberal, insufficiently liberal or anti-liberal as needing to be shutdown. And they will shut it down when they can.

BuzzFeed is privately held but a number of its owner/investors have public arms. They need to be pressured, ahem, NBCUniversal. I wonder if all the private equity investors are cool with BuzzFeed possibly walking away from $1.3 million and likely souring the milk for millions of dollars more while Paretti just insulted a large portion of the U.S. population?

Having said that, I actually feel that BuzzFeed is within its to choose what ads to run. But then I also think that bakers and florists and photographers can choose who they’ll provide services to.

Yet, somehow, I don’t think BuzzFeed, always eagerly polishing its liberal bonafides, would grant the same right of discrimination to, say, Masterpiece Cakes or Arlene’s Flowers or the other small businesses that have found themselves under the boot of the government when they exercised a right that BuzzFeed just claimed. Like Google, I suspect the answer from BuzzFeed is “Rights for me but not for thee.”

Does anyone think the Dept. of Justice will be paying a visit to BuzzFeed? That’ll be the day.

Trump’s Presidential Dynasty

One thing that I hope could be a palliative for the Republican/conservative/independent anti-Trumpers is that Trump is not a movement man. He merely reflects a highly emotional movement.

By that, I mean that there is no person following Trump. There is no coherent “Trumpism” movement or “Trumpist” philosophy (whatever that might be). There are no junior Trumps that will be running down-ticket in 2016. Trump is the one and only Trumpist. There is no Octavian. When he’s defeated or serves his presidential term(s), there will be no Trump-like successor (that I can see).

Reagan headed a movement and while George H.W. Bush was not a Reaganaut, Reagan’s election was part of a tectonic shift in American politics. It isn’t as effective at the presidential level but it still percolates further down the ticket, with conservative Republicans picking up more and more offices at the state and local levels.

Trump is not like that.

On the other hand, a Hillary Clinton victory presages our further slide into socialist anarchy. Yes, once she moves on, she and her awfulness are gone but behind her are hoards of like-minded socialist Democrats looking to consolidate their power over America.

So anti-Trumpers, suck it up and vote for him knowing that once he’s moved on, there won’t be anyone else like him and we can get back to trying to elect movement-style conservatives or something similar. A ringing endorsement!