Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

There’ve been other examples of the “they had it coming/they deserved it” theme in the last week, but I think this is probably the worst, a hit piece on a terrorism victim written by a woman with the extremely apt last name Stasi:

Stasi: San Bernardino killers were radical, ISIS-loving monsters — but one of their victims was just as bigoted
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, December 5, 2015, 7:57 PM BY Linda Stasi

They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

Basically the whole piece is: “See!  Muslims and Jews and Christians are the same because that horrible Messianic Jew said bad things on facebook!  That’s why he deserved it!”

One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)

Based on the tone of the article and other writings by Ms. Stasi (for those who don’t know, that name is hilarious… it’s like getting lectured by Ms. Gestapo), I suspect the real reason not to write “Syed Rizwan Farooq and Tashfeen Malik” is not because of a concern about adding fame.

The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.

Bonnie and Clyde were robbers who killed people as part of their chosen criminal profession.  They were not terrorists.

bonnie clyde 1967

They probably also won’t get a Hollywood movie glamorizing them… for at least a few years, anyway.

Pam Geller wrote a blog called Atlas Shrugs for years, and now writes with her own name.  She just writes things that aren’t PC.  As far as I know, she’s never killed anyone, but she’s had people try to kill her because they don’t like what she says.

Frau Stasi’s opinion of Geller has been noted in the past.

Geller, like ISIS and al Qaeda, revel in hate and nothing would make any of them happier than to be the catalyst for the killing of hundreds of innocent Americans to prove a point. Geller would be a hero to the hateful. Damn the cost in innocent lives, damn the heartache.

Don’t think for a minute that violence isn’t what she, just like the murderers of ISIS, want. Suppose there was a contest to draw God in defiance of Jewish laws? Would that be free speech or hate speech? What about cartoons of Jesus with his genitals up in the air?

While we have freedom of speech, we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.

Yeah, imagine if it were so bad that taxpayers had to subsidize some kind of offensive art against JesusOr how about this, if a well-known cartoon show drew Jesus offensively?  Oh yeah, that’s right… if you make fun of Christians or Jews (or Buddhists or Shintos or Animists or Sikhs or atheists or Hindus or deists or Zoroastrians or Pastafarians), they don’t go kill you.

If it weren’t for the tyrannical oppressive patriarchal genocidal theocracy that Islam is and demands throughout much of the world, she wouldn’t care.  It’s the nature of the religious/ideological institution that is Islam that brings its critics.  It’s like how rigid dogmatic Catholicism or more extreme Evangelical Christianity brings in the atheists to criticize it.  Difference is, after he made Dogma, Kevin Smith didn’t end up like Theo Van Gogh.

theo van gogh telegraafFrau Stasi continues:

As Americans, we have the right to mock anybody’s God, yes, but except for the vile few like Pamela Geller, and murderous religious fanatics among us, it’s just not what we do or what we celebrate.

Well, except for shit-tons of musicians.  Trent comes to mind immediately.

All that, in the Stasi’s view, makes people who say bad things basically the same as those who do bad things.

Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that. But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway.

The first part of that opening sentence can be translated as “I have a black friend” used as a shield, followed by the predictable racist comment.  She may as well be saying “as bad as those child-rapists were, those kids were also total brats.”

Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.

His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”

Um… he worked in government.  And most people are anti-government, just different parts of it.  And what’s wrong with being anti-theocratic patriarchy?  Or being pro-individual citizen self-defense rights?  Or opposed to killing infants still in the womb?

This is just Stasi making the victim an “other” and a political opponent.  She can’t critically dissect his positions because someone who’s anti-PP is pro-life and is… well, pro-life – and is opposed to abortion on moral grounds that it’s killing innocent people.  Someone who is for the NRA is for self-defense and is for… well, self-defense – which would be protecting oneself and other good people and defending against bad people who actually have to commit attacks against you first.

Ann Coulter is also a NYT best-selling author.  She’s actually much less “hateful” than she is a cultural provocateur.  She trolls.  People with coherent philosophies and arguments have little to fear from her, because most of her schtick is humor and absurdity.  Those with emotional arguments find themselves pulled in, and easily destroyed.  Those with coherent views defuse her joking invective and then it’s just a regular discussion.  Admittedly her humor is hit-or-miss, even for those who often agree with her.

Factoring in the recent baby-parts-for-cash videos showing Planned Parenthood haggling over prices (a practice they defended against “extremists” and then suddenly stopped… which seems like an odd thing to do if it’s completely above board), comments from somebody with a particularly religious objection to abortion condemning Democrats for supporting abortion providers and making taxpayers subsidize abortions seems not very extreme.  (It doesn’t take much to understand the point if one looks at it a different way, either – if a feminist found out that her tax dollars went to fund abortions for culturally sexist parents from the third world who aborted only girl babies, do you suppose she might be upset at the political party that supports that program?)

Thalasinos’ comment on the scheduled for the Million Muslim March isn’t very far out, either.  The Million Muslim March was even condemned by CAIR (who themselves were co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case, and cry “Islamophobia” almost every time they speak).  And considering the Million Muslim March was supposed to take place on 9/11 (intentionally to offend, but whatevs) in 2013 – it shows you Frau Stasi had to go back two years to find something offensive.

Complaining about politicians being bought & paid for and morons is now bigotry?  Complaining that they’re racist against your ethnic group is bigoted?  Stasi better get going after the Black Lives Matter movement and pretty much every ethnic identity with any kind of advocacy group.  Seriously, the Stasi is saying politicians are a protected class that can’t be criticized now without the critic being a bigot?  Bigoted against what?  Politicians?

Considering that the media will go out of its way to find the absolute worst that people they want to demonize say, and that she had to dig back at least two years for the one line… Thalasinos actually sounds pretty sedate, considering the level of stupidity people post on Facebook.

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry. Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs.

Public bigotry against what?  Against politicians, Democrats, jackass Muslim groups that even far a left terrorist-apologist Muslim group condemns?  Bigoted against the Iranian regime supports global terrorism and shot Neda dead in the street?  Against an institution called out for selling baby parts?  I wasn’t aware those are equated with racism and sexism now and meant the victim deserved it.

Damn, Stasi.  Don’t you know?

full retard

Because you just went.

Even if one were to run with Stasi’s blame-the-victim scheisse and assume that one of the victims somehow deserved it because he disagreed verbally with his murderer, what did the other couple dozen people killed or wounded do to deserve it?

Well, that’s because they made fun of his beard.  No, really:

ca san bernadino shooting made fun of beard

Not sure if I’ve seen that kind of media response before, ever.  I don’t remember CNN having a banner like that during Columbine that said “teens were rejected by their peers”, or one during Newtown that said “First-graders called killer a poopie-head”.

The whole crux of this is the “victim had it coming/victim deserved it”, by showing how horribly oppressed that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were, seeing as how people… made fun of him for his beard… and disagreed with him (and Frau Stasi) and posted things on Facebook.

I am reminded of Evan Sayet’s story of a guy who says “I hate my wife”.  Frau Stasi is that guy.

I scrolled through some of Frau Stasi’s other posts and stumbled on this one, which should serve as another example of why to be wary of any calls to use the no-due-process secret terror watchlist for just about anything, least of all removal of citizens’ rights:

Stasi: State Department must list gun-loving NRA as terrorist organization

One terrorist group is responsible for more civilian deaths since December 2012 (the Sandy Hook massacre) than Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Taliban. Yet it is the only nearly-state sponsored terrorist group that is not listed by the U.S. State Department as such.

It is the National Rifle Association and for their unending lobbying that’s kept a lid on gun control we now have 428 times more American deaths by gun than deaths by foreign terrorists.

Easy as that – list it as a terrorist group, disarm those who resist the state.  Now stand by for a further example of “figures lie, liars figure”:

No? Between 2012 and 2015, according to University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, ISIS has murdered approximately 12,138 civilians, Boko Haram,10,092, the Taliban 9,427 and Hamas, 85.

In that time, Americans have murdered or spree killed via gun and assault rifle, 87,423 people in the United States.

nra blamed for actions none of its members commit

To Frau Stasi, the NRA is worse than ISIS.

Let’s check on that 87,423 number of hers.

The CDC says only 11,000 people were murdered with firearms in 2013.  The FBI says about 8,900 in 2012 and about 8,500 were murdered with firearms in 2013.  Interesting that in 2013 there were 687 people murdered with hands and fists and only 285 murdered with rifles – those evil assault murder guns.

Assuming her numbers are correct at 87,500 (rounding up) people murdered with firearms between 2012 and 2015, and with the FBI able to confirm that only 8,900 and 8,500 were murdered with firearms in 2012 and 2013, then that leaves us with about 70,100 murders for 2014 and 2015… so about 35,000 murders a year, roughly the same number of murders as Nigeria.  Let’s say we roll with the CDC’s number and assume 11,000 for 2012 and 2013, that still leaves us with 55,500 murders for 2014 and 2015 – about 28,000 murders per year (rounding up some more in her favor).

The violent crime rate has been dropping for years, and there weren’t 35,000 murders in 2014 or 2015, nor were there 28,000 murders in 2014 or 2015.  Frau Stasi is full of scheisse.

The (FBI) report says that in 2014 the U.S. recorded the fewest murders since 2009.

What she might be lying about are suicide deaths with firearms. Those numbers account for many deaths, but aren’t indicative of anything but suicides.  Japan, with limited firearms access, has a much higher rate of suicides.

But 21,000 depressed people killing themselves per year isn’t reason to care about mental health to Frau Stasi, while under 9,000 (many of those are dirtbags killing dirtbags, and there are some more that are dirtbags killed by people defending themselves) is reason to have the boot of government stomp on the rights of individuals and leave them defenseless against criminals who will never follow the law, as well as defenseless against governments that will eventually become like… the Stasi.

While you weren’t looking, the Obama administration made sure not to let a crisis go to waste and the SECDEF opened all combat positions in the military to women.

Washington (CNN)All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men — including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

“This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They’ll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

They won’t meet the standards because the current standards are “too high”.  Once the standards are lowered (or men not wanting to be accused of sexism let failures pass) they won’t contribute to the mission because they’ll be – by definition – substandard, and they won’t be able to drive tanks, give orders, or lead infantry soldiers into combat as well as the men currently in those jobs.  Also, the men who come in after the adjusted standards will also be substandard.  The entire military will suffer.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said.

Carter’s historic announcement comes after years-long reviews, and after public push-back from the Marine Corps, which had sought exceptions to keep positions such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support and reconnaissance to men. A Marine Corps study suggests all-male squads are more effective in combat and less likely to be injured than integrated groups.

Carter acknowledged the Marines’ resistance, but said he’d decided to set a policy that covers the full department.

“We are a joint force, and I’ve decided to make a decision that applies to the entire force,” Carter said.

He will never be laying in the street bleeding and needing someone to carry him to safety.

“Moving forward,” Dunford said, “my focus is to lead the full integration of women in a manner that maintains our joint warfighting capability, ensures the health and welfare of our people, and optimizes how we leverage talent across the Joint Force.”

Ah, moving forward – the relentless march of progressivism.  It will not maintain warfighting capability, will not ensure health and welfare, and will not “optimize leveraging talent”.

He acknowledged that “some service members, men and women, have a perception that integration would be pursued at a cost of combat effectiveness.”

And they’re correct.  Combat effectiveness is meaningless to a man who will never face combat and whose world consists of what’s best for the party.

However, Carter said: “The military has long prided itself on being a meritocracy.”

It’s only been a partial meritocracy recently, and now it’s not a meritocracy at all.

Standards will drop, combat effectiveness will fall, the hard scientific biological differences of men and women will be ignored in the name of progressively harming the US and all its institutions, and the military and the US will suffer.

blog us light inf

There’s been so much about this in the last couple days, and I’ve read so many news stories that just to keep some of the running stories, data, info, and editorials/reactions together, I’m going to dump a bunch in one big field day post.

Right now, reporters are going through the home of the terrorists, because while other mass killers have their homes sealed off for weeks while they’re searched, this one has been breached by the media a couple days after the event.

“I don’t know what’s going on,” Deputy Olivia Bozek, a spokesperson for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department told Grasswire by phone. “That is not a cleared crime scene. There’s still an active investigation going on.”

There are reports about a neighbor seeing Arab men going in and out of the house at all hours of the night, but that the neighbor didn’t report it for fear of being called racistAgain, the kind of self-censorship that makes people not believe their own eyes:

A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said.  “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”

And now the media has gone through the house and trashed it digging up anything they want to get their mitts on, meaning that any fingerprints of any other suspects will not be found.

It’s led to some speculation already that the whole investigation is being handled in a shoddy way in order to taint evidence and deflect away from the fact that these terrorists were in fact terrorists.  Mass killers like the killers from Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, had their homes sealed for weeks while authorities went through those homes with fine-toothed combs.  Here we have many reports of other suspects and the crime scene is being destroyed.

The female terrorist, Tashfeen Malik, pledged loyalty to ISIS just before the attack.

And it is terrorism with all the hallmarks of an ISIS attack – the name Tashfeen Malik also has some interesting history discussed at the link.

We’ll also probably never see the video from the terrorists’ GoPro cameras, which were reported widely and then suddenly disappeared.  That’s an odd thing for a police department to report and then turn around and deny.

The idea of this being a directed failure by the FBI; allowing the crime scene to be destroyed might not be too far off the mark.  The political ramifications can be pretty severe, as easily illustrated:

ca san bernadino shooting safe from isis

When the president declares that we’re safe from the junior varsity team after they pull off a successful terrorist attack in a western capitol and then they proceed to pull off one in the US the same day… it makes him look phenomenally incompetent to the low-info people who still think he actually cares about the country, and it makes some of them start questioning why he’d let that happen.

I guess the photoshop offensive of putting ducks on the faces of ISIS fighters didn’t work so well.

The Daily Beast has a piece that gives some timeline, but leaves out a lot of relevant data – some of it not known at the time, some of it due to simple political bias.  It sums up with this:

Other plots have reminded us that we are at war. This one tells us that we are in a war like no other, a war in which a couple drops their baby with grandma, then goes to a holiday party to murder co-workers who not long ago threw them a baby shower.

At war with what exactly?  You better not say at war with jihadis or islamists!

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, (Attorney General) Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

Well, at least her greatest fear isn’t global warming anymore.  Now it’s people who talk bad about muslims.

Of course, you’d best not talk to muslims in any way that might offend them, because then it’s your fault they killed you:

The media response has mostly been the standard leftist response – “ban all guns”, with an emphasis on blaming the NRA for everything.

nra blamed for actions none of its members commit

For example: “Why does the NRA allow guns for terrorists?”  First off, the NRA doesn’t allow anything, because the NRA doesn’t control anything.  The government allows or disallows – and the people allow or disallow the government.

In light of the horrific shooting in San Bernardino, California, that killed at least 14 people, President Barack Obama spoke on Wednesday about the need to reform gun laws.

He also added, “For those who are concerned about terrorism of, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no fly list where people can’t get on planes, but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them.”

There are 700,000 people on the terrorist watch list, and when these people tried to legally purchase guns, they had a success rate of 91%.

“Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” the GAO warned back in 2010.

This situation has a simple solution: Pass a law that stops known and suspected terrorists from buying guns.

I mentioned some of this yesterday, but being suspected of being a terrorist can be as simple as having a name like a terrorist… which happened to former Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy.  It also means that the government has a secret list that you can be added to arbitrarily and have your rights taken away with no explanation.

Even if one were to ignore the ramifications of basically making a right that “shall not be infringed” into one that is constantly and totally infringed, it’s worth looking at “would it have helped?”  In the case of the two San Bernadino terrorists, they weren’t on watch lists.  They weren’t on no-fly lists.  The proposed change would have done nothing to stop them.

Much like laws proposed after Dylan Roof killed people in a church in South Carolina after buying a gun illegally – he lied on the form 4473 (the background check) – and the FBI didn’t do their job and catch it – there’s nothing that any of these new laws would do to change things.  Stopping 700,000 people on a secret watch list from exercising a constitutional right without any kind of due process or oversight is not only abhorrent, but also it wouldn’t have even worked.

Of course, the point is to push for greater and greater rules for confiscation and disarming the American public.  As long as the US citizenry is armed, the worst oppression of the left are stymied.

And it is the same thing every time, because it’s the only chance the left has:

For as long as Obama and co. can conflate the question “Do you want more gun control?” with “Are you upset about what just happened?” they are able to win the day. But, once the two are separated, they lose – and badly. Why did we hear the same calls throughout yesterday’s saga, regardless of the forthcoming facts? Because, to the zealots and the bores, a mass-shooting news-cycle does not represent a source of perpetually changing information, but a static propaganda battle to be fought and won. It was only a matter of time before fortune put his hostages out on parade.

Among other things, the media’s mass shooting count is mostly bullshit.  Interestingly, numbers I heard yesterday from a right-leaning source that took leftist data and compiled it differently found that while the US dwarfed most European nations in mass shootings, with the US at roughly 330 since 2001 and individual European nations far behind it, if you combined most European nations to represent a much more similar population 500 million for the whole EU (though I think they took most populous nations instead), you get a much less crazy sounding US at 330 and EU at 360.

On the flipside of the coin, one of the other issues that has been brought up is the problem of lack of enforcement of existing laws.  The gang violence half of killings in the US comes in no small part from people with clean records becoming straw purchasers and buying guns illegally for someone else (again lying on the 4473) – a crime that is rarely prosecuted.

…data from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent — or 76,000 — were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally.

“If the prosecution of people lying on forms is really a priority for the president, then all he has to do is say, ‘I want my federal law enforcement officials to prosecute these kinds of cases,'” former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Fox News. “Obviously there is a different level of priority given to these type of crimes in this administration compared with other administrations.”

Could just enforce the laws.  That would slowly make a difference in the day-to-day violence in the country.

But for a final piece from the media, rather than some reasoned comments, let’s go to what usually happens after a mass shooting – idiots masquerading as experts and making the public stupider:

It’s downright moronic the whole time he’s talking, but the worst is around the 1:30 mark.  Shorter version here.

“Manufacturers are allowed to build them that way with what’s called a bullet button and it’s just a – you take the tip of a button – a bullet and you press a button and it turns your semi-automatic legal weapon into an illegal assault weapon.”

This is so absurdly wrong, and would’ve taken three seconds to learn about.

In normal states, you can press the mag release button with your finger to drop the magazine from the firearm:

ar mag release button

But California has a patchwork of ridiculous gun laws.  Without wading into them much, among them are limits on what firearms can have detachable magazines; as detachable magazines count as a “feature” towards being an illegal “assault” weapon to the state of CA.  Magazines that have to be removed with a tool don’t count as detachable, so a manufacturer solution was to come up with a mag release button that requires a tool… in this case, using a bullet as a tool to remove it.

bullet button armalite

Then you could have mostly the same rifle in California, even though you couldn’t change magazines quickly.  It has nothing at all to do with changing a rifle from semi-auto to full-auto.

But it sure has something to do with the media being stupid.

Ezra Levant points out the problems Sweden has acquired as they’ve welcomed a swarm of immigrants who do not share their values at all.

“They are so liberal that they’ve welcomed in a half million illiberal people.”

 

There are still brain-dead liberals, possibly infected with white/western guilt to the degree that they really feel justified in inflicting suffering on their own communities.  They see the world as either oppressors or victims, and with their modern leftist guilt over being successful, they feel they that their nation must’ve been the oppressor and so they must kowtow to immigrants who don’t share the values of their nations.

The really disturbing thing is that somewhat like the Rotherham rape case that Ezra Levant’s video mentions – it’s painfully politically incorrect to discuss rejecting unwanted refugees, and so goes without being discussed by most people.

In the US, we have the advantage of being a nation that in ideal is united by creed and dedication to founding documents.  We’re a nation of ideas, not a nation of an ethnicity.  If you’re from the US, you can be any color and have any history – and as the ideal you’re an American citizen due to virtues.

If you’re an Irish citizen, in all probability you’re Irish by race, ethnicity, and blood.  If you’re a Spanish citizen, you’re probably Spanish by race, ethnicity, and blood.  Same for most nations.  Wars in Europe, and in fact most of the world, are often fought over one nation-state’s ethnic group having ethnic group members in a neighboring nation-state they feel the need to intervene with; or nation-ethnicities within a nation-state angered about their treatment.

In the US, there’s been such intermixing that it’s not much of an issue.  Those are old world problems we left behind.

That said, the reason so much of the current immigration/illegal immigration issue in Europe is difficult to discuss is that for a nation to reject people coming into their country, it has the optics of an ethnicity-nation rejecting another ethnicity.  It smacks of racism to the European.  If France rejects refugees, it’s very, very easy to say “the French are racist” – just as easy as it is to say the white British Rotherham police are racist when they target non-ethnically-British criminals (regardless of the merits of the case).  Taking in terrorists as refugees is wrong for the French, and allowing men to rape little girls is wrong for the British.  They know it’s wrong – they’re just afraid to say so.

It leads to a consequence where the people who’d like to bring up the issue – that it’s not about race, it’s about the culture and values that those unwanted invaders bring with and how it will change a nation – have a lot of difficulty broaching the subject.

Then of course, there are also some who really are racist ethnic-nationalists.  With the problems that unwanted immigrants bring in – some fall into that camp slowly because they have an actual bone to pick – but they’ve retracted from rational thought and don’t allow themselves to see that the issue isn’t a color or an ethnicity, it’s a behavior and value set that’s incompatible with western values.   Others are eager racists who readily jump on the issue.  And having the racists stacked up in one camp, with brain-dead liberals ideologically blinded to the problems the immigrants they embrace bring in – it’s a narrow path to walk trying to talk sense to both sides.

To the stupid racists – the problem isn’t that those immigrants look different than you – the problem is they hold values different than the rest of your society and they’ll bring their Third World problems to you.  Stop being racist dumbasses.  You’ll alienate actual refugees who would like to hold your nation’s values.

To the actual racists – you’re not superior.

To the leftist idiots – the problem is that those immigrants hold illiberal values antithetical to the freedoms you espouse – they’re not weak children in need of protecting, they’re individuals with agency of their own and they’re using you for the stupid handouts you’ve guilted your people into taxing themselves for.  Every time you tell off the regular right in your nation* you end up reinforcing the idea that you want to bring in people to harm your nation – and you drive more people to become stupid racists.  The racists say you’re committing (insertcolorhere) genocide, when you’re really killing off all the positives of your society – they equate ethnicity/race with good values because you leftists keep bringing in shitbags from the Third World with tyrannical ideologies who hate your nation and that’s their stupid simple answer.  When you invite people in who want to murder gays and treat women as property, you are not helping anyone be more free.  When you say that’s their culture and let them beat their wives, have forced marriages between little girls and old men, and bash your gays, you’re not worldly and sophisticated, you’re enabling monsters to terrorize your nation.  You’ve become so open minded your brains have fallen out.

To the ideological true believer leftists – you’re going to implode your own society and no matter how much you think that’s a “good thing” because you’re so self-loathing, anything you actually do like about your nation will also go with it.  You probably won’t understand how destructive you really are, and you won’t get it until you find out that all your machinations have led to the new powers you helped install deciding that you’re a problem that needs to be dealt with.  After the revolution, there’s no more need for revolutionaries.

And yes, I’m calling out you on the left a lot more, because you leftists have to be retaught lessons that even the asshole racists still understand.  You don’t starve your own kid to feed someone else if you want to continue living – even if it’s somehow noble, that noble act dies with you and your kid, because that person you saved who survives doesn’t have the same worldview as you at all – they’re using you.  Their ideology views you as someone to be conquered and destroyed, and you’re helping them do it while patting yourself on the back for embracing diversity.

You can discriminate between values that people hold and whether those values are good or bad.  Start learning to judge things that need to be judged, because taking paths with your eyes intentionally closed and intentionally rejecting concerned directions from people with their eyes open trying to help means you’re liable to walk off a cliff.

 

*Noting that the right in Europe are traditionalists usually believing in ethnicity=nation to some degree; and the right in Europe being so far ideologically left that it’s worlds apart from the US’s concepts.

Via AEI, a study from the Arab Center for Research and Policy studies:

ISIS poll syria 1511

…a disturbing subset of 13% of Syrian refugees say their view of ISIS is “positive” or “positive to some extent.”

Yeah, I’d say that’s disturbing.  That’s 1 out of 8 admitting they have a positive view of ISIS.  I’d wonder what the actual numbers are, because the poll may well be tainted by skepticism of the pollster.  Saying “yes, I like ISIS” to a pollster you don’t know could be an easy way to get your house hit by a drone strike, so I suspect the numbers are probably lower than reality.

On the other hand, an important nuance of this is that there may also be some in the “positive to some extent” category who hate Assad more than they do ISIS, or who loathe Sykes-Picot and the effects of it enough that they don’t mind ISIS breaking down borders.  They could also be the kind of people who think that ISIS is justified in their terrorist attacks, like US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Either way, 1 out of 8 admitting to positive views of the Islamic State should be a warning to any nation opposed to the Islamic State that it’s unwise to bring in swarms of Syrian refugees.

That’s yet another example of why so many people in the US are opposed to importing Syrian “refugees”.

The Democrats have taken this opportunity to use it to push their favorite agenda – disarming the American people.

Via HotAir:

It looks like Senate Democrats are going to try to attach a new gun law onto the Republican bill trying to do more oversight on Syrian refugee entry into the U.S. Washington Examinerreports Democrats may try to slip that in the refugee bill next week.

The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of Nov. 30. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to decide whether he’ll allow it.

Of course.  They never stop.

The Democrat idea is that anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list should be disallowed from owning a gun.  Which sounds great, until you consider that it’s depriving someone of their Constitutional rights with no recourse, no trial, no conviction, and no knowledge of what’s happened or why.

The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

You don’t get told you’re on the list and if you’re a person of normal means you can’t get off the list.

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list in 2004 and it took him a month to get off the list – and that’s as one of the most connected, influential people in the US at the time.

U.S. Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government’s secret “no-fly” list. …

“That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list — it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list,” said Reginald T. Shuford, senior ACLU counsel. “Someone of Senator Kennedy’s stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He had to call three times himself.”

A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays. After the first few incidents, his staff called the Transportation Security Administration, which maintains the no-fly list. But even after those discussions about getting his name removed, the senator was stopped again, according to Kennedy spokesman David Smith. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finally called to apologize about the mix-up, and the delays stopped in early April, Smith said.

“If his name got on the list in error, is that happening to other citizens and are they experiencing such difficulty in resolving the problem?” Smith said.

Good luck to the average citizen if they find the secret system has secretly chosen them for targeting:

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists…

This is an issue where the Democrats can scream that anyone opposed to their “common sense gun control” scheme is supporting terrorism, when really we’re just opposed to the idea of a totally unaccountable secret government system that disarms the citizenry with no recourse… which is exactly what they’re asking for.

And of course, as is pointed out at the Federalist, the government could already stop terrorists from buying firearms legally:

All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorist certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm.

But this isn’t about going after terrorists (as one example, otherwise the Tsarnaev brothers would’ve been kicked out of the country after Russia warned us about them being terrorists), this is about going after you.

As a heads up for more sensitive readers, there are photos of terrorist attacks in this post further down.

Obama was just on TV and radio this morning saying how “we cannot” stop taking in refugees into neighborhoods in the US that Obama and his political donors and cronies will never live in, and the usual bleeding heart political BS that’s supposed to make people feel guilty for not taking in diseased strays.  Much of it is probably in response to governors across the country saying “no more refugees”. (Edit: In the time it took me to write this, another governor – a Democrat – was added to that list refusing “refugees”.)

If Obama hadn’t abandoned actual success in Iraq, the Middle East wouldn’t be producing the swarms of refugees that have invaded Europe and that he wants to bring here.  We already fought the bad guys over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here, and so their people could live free there (including the actual refugees in the bunch).  There wouldn’t be an ISIS for them to run from but for him.  He’s the one who lost the war.

Like most politicians, he has the objective of building his party, and as a hard leftist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” the US, he’s doing his best to turn us into a third world hole.  In the last couple years there have been the swarms of teenage “children” from central America who knew how to game the US immigration system and who were allowed to stay as “refugees”, even though they were just opportunists taking advantage of a president who actively wants “social justice” through redistribution of American capital to the rest of the world.  If we’re brought down from inside and made miserable in front of the world, in his mind that would begin to make up for the fictional oppression that he believes the US must be punished for.  It’s first world guilt that manifests as self-flagellation and self-destruction, and doubles as political power-building when he imports people who will vote Democrat forever.

When more moderate people begin to look at the problem of Islamic terrorism and say “why do you want to bring in the kinds of people who bring in terrorists with them?”, the left with Obama as its mouthpiece declares that’s racist and islamophobic and everyone needs to shut up.  Meanwhile France, the nation that Obama said “represents the timeless values of human progress”, has discovered common sense and decided to seal its borders and take in no more so-called “refugees” because at least some of the terrorists that attacked Paris were those “refugees”.

This inevitably leads to the “not all Muslims are terrorists” argument, which is true.  One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.  Except that saying can still be horribly wrong in practice.  One person sick from e coli or listeria will have a responsible business shut themselves down or have the FDA on them a heartbeat later to shut them down.  If only 1% of your food is liable to be dangerous, you don’t get to keep putting it on the market – it’d be wildly irresponsible.  If only 1% of 100,000 people you import support terrorism, then you’ve imported 1,000 potential terrorists.

If you care about your nation, you don’t bring in people who wish to do it harm.

Hollande is a French leftist, but is still French.  He understands that protecting France is a priority.  I haven’t heard him say he wants to “fundamentally change” France (at least not on this topic).  He also seems to understand that if you have an outbreak of terrorism, it might be worthwhile to look at the vector that terrorists are using to attack you, and the populations they come from, especially when so many of them are military-aged males.

Most are coming for free stuff given away by brain-dead-liberal western democracies.   They aren’t coming to assimilate to their new countries, they are far from peaceful, and they bring their animosities and wars with them.

These are not the poor tired huddled masses seeking escape from despotism and yearning to breathe free.  If they really wanted freedom they’d be fighting for it in their homelands.  They’re bypassing nations that don’t give handouts to make it to the ones that do.  They’re not looking for a place to be free of oppression of Islamic states and cast off the miserable lot they had and work to become citizens of their new nation, they’re looking to exploit the naivety of brain-dead-liberal societies – and then there are some who are looking to expand those Islamic states.

islam will dominate

So you start with a group that demands that other nations give them things simply because they’re there.  They demand asylum and they demand the necessities of life because someone else has them and they want them.  Those are the regular “refugees”.  The brain-dead-liberal west thinks that we’re somehow obligated to take care of people out of some “common bond of humanity” or some such nonsense.

Thing is, within that population of “refugees” is still the “radical muslim minority” like the would-be dominators pictured above.  And it’s not exactly a small number.

Ben Shapiro did a good breakdown on the myth of the radical muslim minority last year.  It’s good to assess what the numbers say:

At 4:40 he looks very briefly at numbers in France.

“France: 4.7 million muslims live there.  A 2007 poll showed 35% of French muslims said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.  That’s 1.6 million radical muslims living in France.”

From Pew Research, and a favorable poll (and you can find plenty of such polls):

pew research muslim terrorism poll 2011 suicide bombing

If you take those numbers and read what they actually say, you have 20% of American-born muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified – and believe it to the point that they’d admit it.

The question is “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies.”  Would you say it’s “often”, “sometimes” or “rarely” or never justified?

If you answer with “rarely”, you’re still saying that once in a while it’s okay to murder a bunch of Parisians at a concert who have nothing to do with world conflicts aside from being Westerners.

So in order to “defend” Islam from it’s “enemies”, 20% of American born Muslims – and much higher numbers in other countries – think this is okay at least every once in a while:

2015 paris attack

And that this is acceptable:

kenya attack 150406 2

kenya attack 150406

There is no reason for any nation to invite that inside their borders, because it’s a predictable result of importing populations that harbor terrorist tendencies.

For the US and the coalition countries who fought overseas to shut down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist groups, many of which converged as the Islamic State, there is no reason ever to import the same mayhem that we fought against overseas with the intention to prevent having to fight it stateside.

It’s especially offensive as the interpreters (mostly muslim themselves) who helped us in mid-east conflicts aren’t being allowed into the US.

Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’ve already put their lives on the line – and often their families’ lives and friends’ lives as well – to show who they stand with.  They’re struggling to do everything the legal way and they’re being left hung out to dry, or killed trying to dodge vindictive terrorists overseas while US bureaucrats ignore their paperwork.

They really are the people who fought the hard fight to protect their homelands as best they could, they’re the people who saw western virtues as something that could help them, they’re the people who’d integrate into western society, and they really are the ones yearning to breathe free.  They’re the ones who aren’t looking for handouts, just looking for a safe place to live and become productive citizens.  They’re the ones who paid their dues in advance, actively fighting against islamic terrorists – and they’re the ones being ignored.

Over 10 years ago we were told what Al Qaeda had planned.  “The Base” knew what their objectives were, and they’ve been working towards them steadily.  ISIS and their attacks are right on schedule.

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist (Fouad Hussein) writes, “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies (including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Seif al-Adl) to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists’ blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

I’m going to use quotes from the Long War Journal’s assessment in 2005, because I’m also going to include their assessments:

The First Phase Known as “the awakening” — this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby “awakening” Muslims. “The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”

The Second Phase “Opening Eyes” is, according to Hussein’s definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the “Islamic community.” Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

The Third Phase This is described as “Arising and Standing Up” and should last from 2007 to 2010. “There will be a focus on Syria,” prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and — even more explosive — in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida’s masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that “the creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida.” At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Long War Journal’s assessment of 3 and 4:

The Third and Fourth Phases can essentially be condensed. The potential spread of jihad and instability to Iraq’s neighbors of Turkey, Syria, (and while not mentioned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait) as well as Israel highlights the importance of an American victory in Iraq. Iraq, as a failed state, would provide al Qaeda a base to create instability in bordering countries, setting the stage for overthrow by the Islamists.

It should be noted that Syria is playing a dangerous game by allowing al Qaeda to use its soil to conduct operations in Iraq. The jihadis are developing contacts, networks and obtaining recruits, which can eventually by turned against the Asad regime.

That part’s pretty clear.  Long War Journal was dead on about it, as was Fouad Hussein.  Al Qaeda set their goals and managed to acheive them.  2010 to 2013 saw the “Arab Spring”.

arab spring map

After Mubarak was overthrown, the Muslim Brotherhood was ultimately ousted in Egypt, but not before demonstrating that the West wouldn’t get involved, and would instead sit around handwringing and neither coming to aid of allies nor trying to stymie enemies.

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half million Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.

Long War Journal said this (again, with the original article in 2005):

Phases Five, Six and Seven are merely the dreams of al Qaeda, as the prospects for al Qaeda’s success in phases One thru Fourth are looking grim at the moment. Despite media portrayal of defeat in Iraq, the Iraqi people are fighting the insurgency and the Anbar region is set to be reduced as an al Qaeda rear area. The jewel of al Qaeda, Afghanistan, fell almost four years ago, and al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have not come even close to retaining control.

And yet, Phases One through Four were successful, and the Fifth is successful because there is an Islamic State.  There has been a growing strength for Al Qaeda and those groups that it spawned.  Iraq is losing to the Islamic State, and Afghanistan is another forgotten war where the national strategy has become “cut and run”.

Long War Journal finished up with this, which seems like a strange coda from a different time before microaggressions against transgendered headmates triggered national outrage:

However, in the event of the United State loses its political will and pursues a policy of isolation from the Muslim world, an inevitable showdown with al Qaeda would ensue. Open confrontation with the West, as well as the possibility of a nuclear armed Caliphate, would bring the full military might of the Western World (those who value their freedom). The current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Southeast and Central Asia and within the borders of Western nations would be tame in comparison to what would come. The Japanese, Germans and Italians discovered in World War II the price of wakening the American military psyche.

The US lost its political will when it elected a hard leftist whose objective was to fundamentally change the US through domestic force and culture war.  There won’t be a showdown with Al Qaeda or ISIS when we’re led by people who think ISIS only exists because of global warming, or because terrorists don’t have good jobs with a $15/hr minimum wage.

The West would basically have two options: (1) blitzkrieg 21st Century style – the full mobilization of its military and an accompanying sweep of the Islamic crescent, without regards for Politically Correct warfare; (2) nuclear war. Both campaigns would be designed to fully eliminate the Islamist threat, and the Muslim infrastructure, which allowed for the rise of al Qaeda’s ideology.

This would require first acknowledging there is an Islamist threat, not spouting counterfactual gibberish that the Islamic State is not Islamic.

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.  ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

isis not islamic cartoon

I find the “ISIS is not Islamic” to be the same kind of nonsense spouted by leftists in the US who say the USSR wasn’t really socialist or communist.  The left likes socialism and communism, so they don’t want their chosen ideology to be tarnished with the mass murder of 94 million human lives.  They embrace multiculturalism where Islam is an exotic ascetic discipline of exotic desert men they wish they could be as suave as, rather than acknowledging it for what it is – the exact antithesis of everything they claim to hold dear in their home countries.

Saying they aren’t a state because you don’t recognize them is as simple as recognizing them to change that.  The Taliban aren’t “a state”, either, but they’re being recognized and negotiated with.

The Russians living on the Volga probably didn’t recognize the Mongol Horde as a state, but it didn’t matter when the mongols took over.  Whether some posturing man in a suit half a world away recognizes ISIS as the authority on the ground really doesn’t change that ISIS is the authority on the ground.

Lara Logan hit this nail on the head three years ago:

This is terrorism.  It’s a completely and utterly different fight from anything we have faced in our history…  Our way of life is under attack – and if you think that’s government propaganda – if you think that’s nonsense – if you think that’s warmongering – you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fightIn your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t.

There is an ongoing effort to rewrite the script from the White House – it’s government propaganda of the “everything is fine” variety.  ISIS is the junior varsity team.  Nine hours before the Paris attacks Obama claimed ISIS is “not getting stronger” and “we’ve contained them”.

By reading that, and by listening to John Kerry talk about how the US stands with France and we’ll have some peace talks in January, or maybe 6 months, and that’ll solve that whole Paris terrorist attack thing and that ISIS thing, there is clearly one more option that Long War Journal didn’t consider 10 years ago – that option is to lose.