Three minutes and fifteen seconds into Chuck Todd’s unedifying exchange of niceties with the left’s favorite Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Imam Graham imparts that Islam isn’t the problem; he’s not afraid of The Faith, as most Muslims practice it as it ought to be practiced. (Doesn’t he enjoy a security detail, too?) If indeed, as this liar asserts, “there is a war [of reformation] going on within Islam,” it is the most silent, uncontested intellectual war ever. The truth is that no Muslim jurist of note—and no, Pakistani cleric Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri’s fatwa is deceptive, too —to date, in any recognized center of Islamic learning, has canceled out the authentic Islam outlined in the Quran, supplemented by The Hadith and practiced by ISIS.
As to Graham’s foreign policy promises if elected by MSNBC: ISIS did not exist in the region during the Golden Age of Saddam Hussein. ISIS is a creation of American foreign policy. Yet the stuff that gave rise to ISIS—the American military’s overthrowing of secular leaders in the middle East—Graham wants revisited and intensified, not to mention more foreign aid to spread “our values” and build schools. Obama and Bush before him have done plenty of that stuff; billions worth of it, but I guess the American public has forgotten how well that went.
I wonder how the poor of South Carolina and America feel about Graham’s expansive mandate?
“HEY, it’s me, Salah Abdeslam. Did you see the attacks across Paris? Bismillah, may we have many more like them. Brothers Brahim, Abaaoud, myself and others pulled it off. I’m still in Paris. I need a ride back to Brussels. Come get me.”
After executing 130 people in Paris, Nov. 13, and maiming many more, Abdeslam called his compadres in Belgium to ask for a lift home. I can’t vouch for the precise wording of the telephonic exchange between Salah Abdeslam and his contacts in Belgium. But the call took place, as BBC News reported. And it must have been quite a relaxed one, circumstances considered.
Still on the lam, Abdeslam knows he has nothing to fear. The French authorities were on heightened alert. The Kufar’s telephones had all been tapped. Yet Salah’s faith in the French fools was unshaken for a reason.
Without court orders, as The Guardian tells it, François Hollande’s socialist government taps phones and emails, hacks computers, installs “secret cameras and recording devices in private homes”; infects French Internet and phone service providers with “complex algorithms” designed to “alert the authorities to suspicious behavior.”
Yet it all—the French Surveillance State—amounts to naught.
Like gun laws, spy laws oppress only law-abiding, harmless individuals.
As in all western democracies, France’s Big Brother surveillance apparatus is as useless as it is oppressive.
France’s “protectors” knew nothing of the conversations taking place under their noses. … Yes, Salah knew all too well—still knows—that offensive speech French authorities would diligently prosecute, all the more so when uttered by a “white supremacist.” But a suspicious looking swarthy supremacist like himself, hellbent on killing his hosts, would not so much as be stopped for an inquisitive chat. …
UPDATE: PLEASE, I never want to hear Michael Savage’s nonsense about liberalism being a mental illness repeated to me, not by my readers.
There must be no medicalizing of stupidity and misbehavior in this space. This is a gross error of logic. To do that, as Savage does, is the heights of leftism and confused thinking. By that logic, any erroneous thinking is rooted in misfiring neurons, except that there is ZERO evidence for the organic basis of bad thinking and bad behavior. None! A stupid, malevolent person is responsible for what he does and for what he believes. There is no disease process behind liberalism. Readers who repeat this nonsense are hereby assigned the entire Mercer works archived under psychiatry, pop-psychology, and especially “Psychiatry and The Therapeutic State.” Longtime readers who repeat this error must carry added guilt of knowing that they broke my heart today. I expect a thorough familiarity with the thinking of my beloved pal Professor Thomas Stephen Szasz, RIP, on so-called mental disease.
I can see why women—biologically programmed to like powerful men who can take care of them—would find Muslim men more attractive than the West’s soft, repulsive, liberal men. Indeed, from this Jerusalem-based imam comes excellent locution and logic to describe an emasculated, feminized West, primed for a muscular, masculine Muslim takeover. His “Europe has become old and decrepit” is three minutes and 11 seconds into the supremely reasoned sermon.
So where are the West’s manly leaders? “I have a blond wife, a blue-eyed child and a … shotgun,” said one European, residing near a refugee encampment, to InfoWars’ correspondent. But he (and his hearsay) is but one (and if he defended his fair flock; he and European males like him would be jailed). Most men just hand their women over. Yuk.
And by the way, the Imam strikes a better pose than, say, Father Michael Pfleger and the prototypical white, liberal, male preacher. Be honest: Who looks better? The ascetic-looking Muslim in his white flowing robes, speaking in that deep manly voice, or this emasculated thing (which is what the West’s religious leaders generally look and sound like):
The Western, radical liberal preacher:
The Muslim Manly Preacher:
To follow on the report of Paul Joseph Watson, InfoWars’ young correspondent (some four minutes into the broadcast): Indeed, if you accept and want the growing “superstate bureaucracy,” you accept and want its imported populations. I’ve debunked the demographic argument, which is an extension of the argument from statism:
… Exemplified by Mark Steyn, Wilders’ worthy supporters in the US make sure he knows they love him for standing tall for speech, women, and individual rights—no-brainers all. Like Steyn, they generally steer clear of addressing the perils for their own country of mass, third-world immigration (legal and illegal).
I am told that I don’t understand Mr. Steyn of the dooms-day demographics. So I listened to his “End of Europe” lectures, in which he vividly describes the multitudes of Muslims going forth to North America and Western Europe to be fruitful and multiply and push for Islam. Their Pan-Islamist identity trumps their new assumed identity. Because of numbers, Mark asserts, History is on the march in the Muslim direction. By 2030 much of what we think of as the developed world will be part of the Muslim world.
Here Steyn hits a brick wall. Other than making babies at home and total war abroad, Steyn used to propose nothing much at all. Oh yes, if you’re not already fighting (futilely, in my opinion) in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can show your marbles by publishing offensive cartoons, making rightwing movies, and writing right-wing text.
The “One-Man Global Content Provider” is wrong. Demographics need not be destiny. The waning West became what it is not by out-breeding the undeveloped world. We were once great not because of huge numbers, but due to human capital — people of superior ideas and abilities, capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy.
Declining birth rates—and their antidote; the mass immigration imperative—are the excuses statists make for persevering with immigration policies that are guaranteed to destroy western civil society and shore up the State.
It would be productive if Steyn were to also demand, asap, as this writer has, the implementation of an immediate, defensive, libertarian, negative-rights, leave-me-alone strategy: don’t let the homie Jiahdis who hold western passports back in. Government-issued papers do not a natural right confer. Citizenship is no natural right; staying alive is.
Just as I thought the left-liberal “enemedia” could surprise no more, I tuned into CNN and MSNBC to watch their coverage of the San Bernardino shooting; perhaps Chris Hayes had ferreted out more information than Sean Hannity’s lame, prolix reporter?
What do you know?! The androgynous creatures in trendy eye-wear had decided to “treat” the shooting as a case of what the left calls “gun violence.” (The logically correct term is goon violence.) You can just imagine a quick editorial meeting in which, speaking in hushed but fussy falsettos, our anchors arrive at a decision to misreport reality just a tad, go with a certain angle, and NOT TO MENTION THE CAMEL IN THE ROOM. Rather, the murder of 14 people and the wounding of 17 or more would be used as a “teaching moment” to push more gun laws.
France allows its law-abiding citizens no guns. Somehow, the country’s Jihadis found a way to pull off a couple of mass murders this year. (Now Europe’s left-liberals are blaming “Europe’s open borders.” Wait a sec; don’t they like open borders? The stupid are so confusing.)
It’s true. Liberals are stupid. Arguments from freedom are based on reason. Arguments from statism rely on emotion: “If I get Uncle Sam to ban guns; fewer bad thing will happen to me.” Dumb, right? You can’t fix stupid, said comedian Ron White. “There is not a pill you can take, not a class you can go to. Stupid is forever.”
Columnist Jack Kerwick’sreductio ad absurdum best illustrates the absurdity of the “gun violence” speak:
Imagine if, while discussing the Holocaust, we spoke about ‘gas chamber violence,’ or while discussing Islamic State mass beheadings, we talked instead of ‘machete violence.’ Or suppose that discussions of the lynching of blacks were peppered with references to ‘rope violence.’ None of this would sit well with decent human beings, for it is clear, or at least it is thought that it should be clear, that such descriptions miss entirely that which is fundamental to the phenomena being described—the perpetrators responsible for these wicked deeds.
