You Don't Need to See His Papers ....

Just when I thought my jaw couldn't hit the floor any harder, I ran across these headlines yesterday:

 

This is insane.

It really illustrates that the truth in this spoof video is really pretty much on the money.


Of course, we're not saying that having an Arab name makes you a terrorist. But there is a pattern, and it's a pattern that people are apparently more than just a little eager to refuse to see. Political correctness has rendered our news media impotently incurious when it comes to certain subjects.

I have a Muslim co-worker who told me, not terribly long after 9/11, that her teenage daughter had come to her and said, "Mom, I know not all Muslims are terrorists, but it does seem like most of terrorists are Muslim".  So it's not just me.

There is a difference between religions. Even staunch Atheists Bill Maher and Penn Jillette acknowledge that.  Sure there are crazy people of all faiths and non-faiths who have murdered and who were even inspired by their beliefs in many cases -- but there is only one major world religion that has an extremely well-established pattern based not only on the relgious writings upon which their religion is based, but is rife with religious leaders who preach violent jihad and has myriad organizations world-wide to do violence, in the name of their God and their religion and who regularly carry it out.  Can we just say that?   Really?  We can't?

It now appears that our well-mannered Chechens who blew the legs off of Boston Marathon spectators and acually killed three ... were likely recruited as disaffected teens with Muslim sympathies by a Saudi Islamic Radicalizing agent Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi.  This is exactly what terrorist organizations do in the middle east.  Now they're finding ways of getting it done here (helps get around immigration inquiries if your disaffected youth are already here before they are radicalized).

But you're not hearing about Al-Harbi in the media, because ... the Media is deeply invested in this idea that Islam is just like any other religion when it comes to violence, and it is also in thrall with this administration and will apparently do anything to protect it.

We are in big trouble, folks.

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

Ah, it's that facebook friend I have agreed to stop booing when all he wants is applause again.

This time, he posts a link to this story

This is just funny. How can we have an atheist country dominated by religion? Oh well, at least his child bride is hot.

My urge is to post a comment: is that a rhetorical question, or did you really want it answered?  I realize you don't like to have your statements challenged, but that does look suspiciously like a question.

Of course, the answer is --- well first, this is not what Gingrich said.  He said a secular, atheist country dominated by radical Islamists. Which are people, not a religion.  They also happen to be a particularly dangerous strain of people because they have a ~1,300 year history of imposing their religion on others at the tip of a sword.  If you don't share that religion, you convert, accept dihimitude, or die. 

The real answer, then, to the question "How can we have an atheist country dominated by religion?" is -- rather like a body that looses its immune system can be dominated by disease.

Nature abhors a vacuum.  When we, as a nation, lose the ability to discern good from evil by supposing that one man's evil is another man's good and vice versa - we stand for nothing.  

If we stand for nothing -- if we are not willing to defend our ideals -- remember that ideology itself is demonized in our new society -- a group with strong ideals and a willingness to impose them by force will come in and impose away.

That is what Gingrich is talking about, irrelevant comments about his  45-year-old "child" bride aside.

The person making this statement is 47.

For someone who is in favor of letting people use the government to re-define marriage as being between any two people, I find it rather odd that he would imply there is something wrong with a man marrying a woman 23 years younger than he is, but nonetheless two consenting adults.  And I take it as an insult, as my wife is 14 years older than I am.   See, it's apparently ok to take snarky jabs at people, as long as those people are ideologically opposed to yours and aren't members of a progressively-sanctioned Victim™ group.   Otherwise, you're ... oh what's that word?  Oh yeah.  Intolerant.

Stop Booing When All I Want is Applause

Well I guess it came to a head with that liberal friend over on Facebook.  I got a note from him yesterday basically saying why don't we just talk about the things we have in common.

We're not close, but we go way back.  I don't know why that makes a difference to me, but it does.   Part of it is that I know he's intelligent and I have hope that he'll snap out of it.  Which is one reason I challenged his constant dribble of links to articles telling everyone how stupid conservatives are.   He says he posts them because he finds them "interesting" or "amusing", and the gist of his message was, between the lines as my buddy in KC observed, "Stop Booing When All I Want is Applause".

I said I would respect his wishes and basically stop countering his posts on his wall with my opinions.  I'll stand by that.  I'm a man of my word.

But Morgan had a good point when I talked to him about it.  He said in situations like that he just politely tells in a world where  silence=consent and he does not consent -- if they want his silence they need to post it somewhere where he can't see or comment on it.  Force them into the shadows for a change.

So ... that dude's granfathered in.  Unless and until he breaks his own part of the bargain.

But ... it goes against my Stop An Echo campaign.  So  I'll need to watch my acquiescence in the future.