Category Archives: Islam

Terrorists Buy iPhones Too

I was recently reading an article in the Wall Street Journal. It was one of those typical “Tech Execs Criticize Trump Travel Ban” pieces that’s all the rage for the sophisticates who are suddenly concerned about business these days.

I was struck by the segment on Apple’s Tim Cook. Cook is probably the second smartest guy to run Apple (after Steve Jobs). It quoted Cook characterizing the ban, or rather mischaracterizing as is the wont of critics and the press.

He lamented how this would affect Apple recruitment for talent and how it was just awful that we consigned so many people to doom. He especially worried about families unable to simply come to America.

I thought to myself — Cook is bound to know what the ban is specifically about so he’s purposefully mischaracterizing it as an all out ban against immigration in general.

It is sad that Cook deceptively implies that this small number of refugees contains many potential Apple employees. Unless Apple has gone into the home-made bomb business, mid-level hacking business or simple low-level mercenary business then the number of potential employees is limited within this group. There just aren’t a whole lot of software engineers or politically correct marketing boffins coming out of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia…

One of Cook’s problems is that he sees these immigrants in question mistakenly. He sees them as no different from the urbane, worldly, almost agnostic Middle Easterners he went to school with, has dinner with at swanky international hotels, meets with in Dubai, London, Paris, New York, speaks to at conferences like Davos and sees on boards of businesses everywhere.

Does he not know that most of these “refugees” and immigrants from the countries in question are young males of military age? They aren’t coming to the U.S. for midnight basketball or to work at Apple (or some other tech firm). Looking at how they behaved in Europe it would seem clear that they wish to not assimilate but rather create their own little rotten boroughs. I’m sure our Democrats are all for this since they’d make an alliance with these indigestible potatoes.

The number of cute and photogenic families is small and most now seem to have agents peddling their likenesses to the highest bidder.

One also has to wonder whether the openly homosexual Cook even understands what the more dedicated Islamists that he wants to import do to people such as he. People like him go nuclear instantly when a Christian opens their mouth to utter some meek platitude. What are they going to do in the face of a deep-believing hardcore Muslim that feels empowered to bend people to his will. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Mr. Cook.

Much of Cook’s lament seems to gloss over these prospective reality problems. He refuses to acknowledge that there could be a problem at all. Other than with the bigots in America, that is. They are the real problem in his eyes.

No, Cook, seems to see this all as a stumbling block to more Apple business. If everyone just had an iPhone and an iPad they could communicate so much better (no doubt terrorists would love to have some iPhones and iPads, the better to plot and plan).

Then there would be no problem at all as everyone holds hands in an Apple-ized version of the famous Coca-Cola commercial. (I can’t believe Apple hasn’t ‘rebooted’ this commercial for their own cynical, craven use!)

CBS Radio News Goes There

You knew it was probably just a matter of time before one or more of the titans of the American news media would make the charge.

In Wednesday morning’s 8 a.m. segment, CBS Radio News declared the maniac who killed a half-dozen people at a Canadian mosque as a Trump supporter.

I was busy getting ready for work but I believe I heard Frank Settipani say killer, Alexandre Bissonnette, had expressed support for Trump online.

However, they failed to mention that this kid is a useless-degree sociology student and a product of the modern hypersensitive special snowflake academic culture.

Interestingly, CBS Radio News, like its other media brethren, was slow as cold molasses in labeling Muslim terrorist mass killers such as those in San Bernardino and Orlando as Muslim. “We don’t want to rush to judgment or prejudice anyone,” they said in their defense. Hhhhmmmmmm.

They also had no hesitation about labeling Dylann Roof as a right-winger and Confederate-sympathizer after his spree. Am I seeing a pattern here?

The Madness of the Liberal

The Post Drops Into St. Cloud is one of those must reads from Power Line that has to be read to be believed for its description of pure idiocy. The Washington Post story in question is truly Olympic Gymnastics Gold Medal-winning in its ability to twist logic into a pretzel and turn the world upside down.

The Washington Post reporters do everything but say that the horrible, bigoted people of St. Cloud, Minn., had it coming to them because they’ve been so mean to and misunderstanding of those kind, harmless, pacific Somali immigrants.

It would be impossible to find a better example of typical, daily modern journalistic malpractice. Journalists are completely clueless on how much they are despised, not trusted and they are similarly clueless on how most Americans live and feel. And they wonder why their subscribers, readership and audiences have dropped over the last few decades. Washington Post circulation was plummeting even before the internet started hollowing it out. Treating a substantial portion of your readership (i.e. conservatives in the Washington area) as fools, idiots, bigots, etc., is a recipe for disaster. And that happened. The internet simply meant that conservatives didn’t have to bite the bullet to get sports, classified ads and movie reviews. The internet also hammered its loyal liberal readership.

The reporters seem to be from a whole ‘nother planet and see something completely different than what the rest of us see.

Media bias aside, there remains the question — What are they thinking?

It’s clear that the Somali immigrants, at least some of them, are ingrates. An American community has taken them in, provided them with homes, education, charity, welfare and opportunities. And they’ve given them safety. Had they stayed in Somalia where would they be? How many would be dead? Enslaved? Press-ganged into a Muslim militia or warlord gang? How many would be living day-to-day, just trying to eke out a life? Very likely most if not all.

Did I mention these people are ingrates?

It is also clear that a significant portion of the St. Cloud Somali “community” hasn’t assimilated into the local actual St. Cloud community. It seems to be that the Somalis have no interest in assimilating.

So why did we/do we import people unwilling to integrate? It’s one thing to allow in the cream of the crop — those who want to come to America because they want to change their lives for the better and understand America’s greatness. That may have been 10,000 or so but mass immigration from people who will brook no assimilation and plan to simply move their physical presence from a hellhole to a nice place and then take advantage of the generosity of America, the local hosts and glom onto every welfare benefit they can – enabled and encouraged by bureaucrats and Democrats — is a recipe for disaster.

We did not allow the immigration of millions of communists during the cold war – that would have been foolish (even most Democrats, then, did not want that). We took in the refuseniks and objectors not the ones wanting to turn the U.S. into a copy of the home they left. So why are we practically begging to bring in hundreds of thousands, nee, millions, of Muslim immigrants, most of whom have no interest in assimilating?

This is madness. What is wrong with you, liberals?

Why import people who hate us? Do you think it really makes you superior? It only makes you a delusional fool. Along with suicidal and dangerous.

Do you travel to the tropics and eagerly seek out pestilential mosquitoes? Would you have eagerly sought out AIDS? Ebola?

Stop it!

One final point, Hillary Clinton wants to continue this suicidal parade. Donald Trump has questioned it.

Khan’s Con

A couple of thoughts on Khizr Khan and his spat with Donald Trump.

Mr. Khan, who killed your son? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Animists? Zoroastrians? Unitarians? Secular Humanists? No, your co-religionists – Muslims.

Mr. Khan doesn’t seem to care that his son was killed by the very people that Mr. Khan is defending as peaceful. Does that not strike anyone as ironic?

Mr. Khan seems to see the enemy not as Muslim radicals seeking to enslave all to a Muslim caliphate but rather as someone who wants to stop that. In Khan’s eyes Donald Trump is the real enemy.

That of course follows in the wake of the traditional leftist, who sees the real enemy not as someone outside of the country seeking that country’s destruction or conquest, but instead sees his fellow citizens resisting that course as the true enemy.

Mr. Khan seems to be using his son’s noble death for cheap political purposes. Is that what his son would have wanted? His son was trying to prove that Muslims can be enlisted and trusted in the war against Islamofascism. Mr. Khan is arguing the opposite. He’s actually making the point that he is a Muslim first and an American second. He saves his anger and energy for attacking Americans with whom he disagrees rather than his son’s killers.

Oh, and Mr. Khan, I too have a copy of the Constitution. It allows for Congress to set the guidelines/restrictions for immigrants. Pray, tell, what does yours say? Do you think there can be no restrictions on immigration? If so, you’ve been grossly misinformed or have erroneously interpreted the Constitution. Don’t worry, those of us born here can guide you, if you’d let us, rather than fight us.

My final note is to direct you to this awesome piece from Ray Starmann and this one from Chris Mark.

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.

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.