Why We Hate You: Guest Post by ISIL

156635-ISIS-largeSeems to be a lot of discussion about this. How about we simply do them the courtesy to read what they say. They’re not, after all, hiding it.

Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their trah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense. Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!

Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.

There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative. As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet again – why we hate you and why we fight you.

Like the linked post, we’re going to mostly list reasons, or we’ll have a short book here, instead of a post.

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah.

Some godlet that, believe in me or die, you know, just like the old days in Rome.

We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted.

Back to the 7th century.

In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.

As I said on the last point, and in addition that wasn’t exactly what Christ taught me, doubt it was you, either. Christians have acted like this, but we learned better almost 500 years ago. Hognose says this, “Their beef here seems to be superficially with gay rights, but “alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury” all come in for dishonorable mention, and they blame it all on what they think is the underlying crime: “you separate between religion and state.”” He’s not wrong.

We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.

Mostly they hate us because we make fun of them, I think. Well, that’s life.

We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war….

Well, my experience says it’s the kids that act out that get spanked. Sometimes they eventually learn, but most kids don’t try to kill the adults, that puts a new spin on it.

We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out.

Well, fair enough, I suppose, but have you  heard what happens when we get angry with each other? Right now you’re annoying, I’d suggest you don’t make us angry.

dabiq-cover-breaking-the-cross-150x211-213x300From the linked article:

The whole article is on pp. 30-33 of the terrorists’ magazine, Dabiq, issue 15, “Break the Cross.”

This magazine is available at this link on the Clarion Project’s website.

While this is the most recent issue, they have an archive of every issue of Dabiq there, as well.

I see no particular reason not to believe them, and no, I can’t say I fear them either. They need to be watched and likely put down, like, as others have said, a rabid skunk, although perhaps speaking better Arabic and/ or English than most skunks.

And perhaps I should note here that if you happen to be gay, a woman, or any other not completely male group, including a musician, for heaven’s sake, you might want to think about you is likely to defend you.

I’d further note that while these fools are not all of Islam, not even close, they are Islamic, and that is what they base their crackpot theories on.

Envy and covetousness is a sin for a reason, after all.

via Why We Hate You: Guest Post by ISIL | WeaponsMan

And you know, even if our governments have lost whatever manhood, self-pride, whatever one could call it, I suspect there are quite a few in the west yet, that will not go quietly into the night. I suspect we’ll find out.

Naval_Jack_of_the_United_States.svg

Spin Cycle

As always, a heaping helping of truth.

 

This is the truth, whatever one thinks about Donald Trump.

I’m not the problem, by Dave Miller |

image-4From Leavenworth Street, the best of Nebraska political blogs. He said it, but I wish I had!

Dave Miller is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St. He is a former talk show host and has done every media job in-between. He is perfectly aware his personality and opinions are keeping him out of the Nebraska Broadcasters Hall of Fame.

He can be found on Twitter @DaveMedia_LNK

It’s so disheartening. In fact, it’s beyond that, it’s infuriating! It’s hard to believe the American primary process, hell politics everywhere, is just a giant dirt clod fight. Even in Nebraska, Ben Sasse having to stand up to the Republican party and explain why he is #nevertrump seems other worldly. Seriously? You have to explain why? I find myself aligned with Ben Sasse mostly out of sheer principle, and I’m pretty sure I know what I’m doing when it’s time to vote. But why in the world do I need to explain myself, or Ben to his party, at all?!

Let me explain why I can’t see the path to Trump, then maybe someone can explain why he should be considered. Here is a man with NO political experience or foreign policy experience, who has wanted for nothing in life, ever, and Donald Trump wants to fight for me in Washington? Now, given the fact he is a misogynist on a nuclear level, can’t hold his tongue, treats competitors like he is in a grade school booger flicking fight, and thinks any criticism is “unfair”, I am less than likely to vote him into anything. He reminds me of a Batman villain that should be locked up in Arkham Asylum. Now I have laid out why I can’t stand th e name calling, petulant, side show of a nominee. What I don’t have is a good reason to vote for him.

I have friends that give me the argument, “well you can’t vote for Hillary, and a vote against him is a vote for Hillary”. Is it now? Well if you believe there is a one for one equivalent we can have that conversation. If you believe that your single vote matters, we can have that conversation, and I’ll invite the electoral college in to explain why the conversation didn’t have to happen. Here is the problem with that argument: Voting for Donald Trump doesn’t let the GOP know I hate what they are doing. It’s hard to believe 2 years ago the GOP let the media get away with burying the biggest lead of all American voting history. In 2014 the sentiment in the country, and the votes that were cast in November, were the referendum on Washington that the GOP had been crowing about for 6 years. GOP turn out and taking the house and the Senate was a YUGE deal. And what did they do with that victory? They squandered it. Left out in the sun to rot, it withered and spoiled, showing the American people when you vote, we don’t care what the message is. Dems didn’t flinch, and the GOP laughed and ordered another drink, drunk in the celebration of hollow victory for those trying to change the status quo.

I’m tired of the elected officials, all of them, including at the local city and state levels telling US what they think we voted them in to do, after they have voted the way we didn’t want. I’m tired of the same people acting like we are so lucky to have them around to do what’s best for us, when they should listen and work FOR us. Lastly, I’m tired of leadership within any party scrapping like it’s a Michael Vick dog fight, only to keep doing the same thing they’ve done for 30 years, not fix things.

via I’m not the problem, by Dave Miller |

And yes, it would be hard to disagree with him, and I don’t. As he ended:

#never2016

The Immorality of Guaranteeing Minimum Standards of Living

184I’ve had times over the years when I thought Erick Erickson was the greatest thing since canned beer, and I’ve had times when I swore he burned down the brewery. Life is like that, we don’t always agree, and we got where we are by different routes. But the other day he wrote about the so-called living wage that the Democrats prattled on about last week. He’s completely right and here’s an excerpt.

The Democrats have discovered a new right. It is the right of people to live a certain lifestyle at a certain income if people work forty hours a week.

It sounds like a wonderful idea. Why shouldn’t Americans be guaranteed a certain level of income for hard work? If you disagree with the idea, you might just be a cruel and heartless person. Well, put me in the cruel and heartless camp. The bumper sticker idea will have long range and terrible consequences.

First, life is not fair. The Democrats are championing this idea to gloss over the fact that their ideas have caused economic stagnation. Instead of allowing the private sector to thrive, they just want to raise taxes from the successful and give to those who are not successful. But life is inherently not fair. Some people will always have better jobs and some people will make better life choices.

Second, this is welfare disguised. By the 1990s — when Bill Clinton was president — we learned that some people could get comfortable living on a welfare check and checked out of work. Their children spiraled into a cycle of dependency and poverty. In Genesis, God put Adam and Eve to work in the garden. There is something soul nourishing about work. When we all get to Heaven we will all have jobs. Getting people comfortable not working sucks their souls away and destroys their families.

But putting people to work and guaranteeing them a lifestyle does much the same. It encourages complacency and saps the desire to get ahead for many people.

via The Immorality of Guaranteeing Minimum Standards of Living | The Resurgent

Boy, he said a mouthful there. If you’re willing to pay people enough to live somewhat comfortably without working, people are willing to not work. Well, Duh, who’d a thunk it!

Along the same line, know what else doesn’t work? Pricing labor above its level. Steven Hayward found a report that the City of Seattle commissioned on how their new $11/ hour minimum wage is working out.

So it’s fun to notice this morning that the city of Seattle, which threw out both shoulders patting itself on the back for raising its minimum age to $11 an hour last year, is finding the results are . . . not so good. Seattle commissioned a study by a group of economists, who reported in a few days ago:

Yet the actual benefits to workers might have been minimal, according to a group of economists whom the city commissioned to study the minimum wage and who presented their initial findings last week.

The average hourly wage for workers affected by the increase jumped from $9.96 to $11.14, but wages likely would have increased some anyway due to Seattle’s overall economy. Meanwhile, although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase. Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

Accounting for these factors, the average increase in total earnings due to the minimum wage was small, the researchers concluded. Using their preferred method, they calculated that workers’ earnings increased by $5.54 a week on average because of the minimum wage. Using other methods, the researchers found that the minimum wage hike actually caused total weekly earnings to drop — by as much as $5.22 a week. . .

If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase, workers’ total earnings could decline. . .

They attributed a wage increase of about $0.73 an hour for low-income workers to the minimum wage, and another $0.45 an hour to the improving economy. After the increase, Seattle’s workers got about seven more hours in a quarter. Workers’ hours increased even more in other parts of the state, however, leading the researchers to conclude that the minimum wage reduced the number of hours worked quarterly by 3.2, roughly 15 minutes each week.

Those figures do not include workers without jobs. The economists estimated that the minimum wage decreased the share of workers with jobs by about 1.2 percentage points.

As Glenn Reynolds likes to say: Unexpectedly!TM

via: Minimum Wage, Maximum Ignorance

Unexpectedly™, indeed. Unexpectedly,™ every conservative and every economist who said this would happen, was right still again.

Unexpectedly™ still again who did the liberals, Democrats, and media (Yes, I know, I repeated myself twice there) hurt the most?

Why, of course, the poor and the jobless, it’s what they do best!

Unexpectedly! ™

Party of the Rich (and Privileged)

583828184-former-new-york-city-mayor-michael-bloomberg-gestures.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2An interesting article and the author may well have several points here. Some of what he says, I agree, and as usual, some of it I disagree with. But it’s undoubtedly true that the Democrats have become the party of the rich, especially the newly rich, who got that way on the back of the taxpayers.

There are very few endorsements that are going to matter in this presidential election, but Michael Bloomberg’s might be one of them. On Wednesday night in Philadelphia, the three-term mayor of New York City called on his fellow independents to vote for Hillary Clinton. “I am asking you to join with me not out of party loyalty, but out of love of country,” Bloomberg said. Why? Is it because he’s so enthusiastic about her many virtues? Nope, it’s because a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster: “He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence in the world, and make our communities less safe.” Ouch. […]

Well, much of that is BS, at least in my opinion. Trump is not likely to be good for small business, no statist really, let alone a protectionist is, but he’s at least arguably better than Clinton. Nobody, at least since Reagan, has really been good for small business, although Bill Clinton’s term wasn’t terrible, but this is not the 90s. Clinton will be absolutely terrible, her support comes from the big business, cronyistic, corporatist bloc whose income depends on Washington, not real serving of the customer. That is also the weakness of Gary Johnson, his is a rather peculiar Libertarianism. Continuing:

It turns out Bloomberg wasn’t alone in this regard. There are millions of voters like Bloomberg—call them the “Bloombourgeoisie”—who might have voted for Romney if not for his stances on social issues, just as there are millions of voters who never would’ve voted for Romney if he hadn’t flip-flopped on abortion, and if he’d supported an amnesty for unauthorized immigrants. Republicans have built a coalition that is a far better fit for culturally conservative working-class whites than it is for the Bloombourgeoisie. If Donald Trump is any indication of where the GOP is heading, that trend will continue in the years to come.

Recently, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the think tank New America, argued that Democrats have replaced Republicans as the preferred party of America’s wealthiest voters. In 2012, Barack Obama won a larger share of the vote of households earning $220,000 or more than Mitt Romney, the first time since 1964 that voters in the top 4 percent of household incomes backed a Democrat over a Republican. It’s a safe bet that many of these well-off voters chose Obama over Romney for the same reasons Bloomberg did: RINO Romney was just too right-wing for their tastes. And if these voters couldn’t warm up to Romney, you can only imagine how they’d feel about Trump. […]

After all, it’s bankers’ bonuses that keep cab drivers, doormen, and servers of all kinds employed.

Where Bloomberg parts company with let-them-eat-cake types is in believing that low-wage workers should be provided with Medicaid, SNAP, and high-quality charter schools for their kids, because it’s the right thing to do and because, to be blunt, it’s an insurance policy against a reprise of the French Revolution. It’s not an entirely crazy political philosophy, and it’s shared by a decent number of upscale urban liberals and suburban moderates. Bloombergism is not far off from the progressive Republicanism once represented by Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. What it’s emphatically not is Sanders-style socialism, which holds that the chief threat to democracy is the outsized power of “millionaires and billionaires” like, well, Michael Bloomberg.

via Michael Bloomberg’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton shows the Democrats are the party of the rich.

I can’t speak for you, of course, but none of these candidates speak for me. I, and likely you, have a fair idea of which level I’ll pull, but it will be in no sense a celebration, and may well be the wake of ‘my America’ to the world’s detriment. We’ll simply have to see.

Hat tip to Cranach

‘Mad as hell’?

Mad as hell

There is a palpable anger in our politics on both sides of the Atlantic. Here in the UK, one Labour MP was shot recently, and others have been threatened. This verbal violence is happening in the Labour Party, which preaches equality and social justice. It did not happen under Miliband, Brown and Blair, but it does under Corbyn, who, of course denounces it, but seems incurious about why it is happening on his watch, and quite unable to stop it. One of the problems with being a social justice warrior seems to be that the end justifies the means; demonise your opponents, and then you can treat them as demons; it is not a good way to do politics. There were some ugly scenes and the RNC last week, and there will be at the DNC this week. Meanwhile across the Channel, there have been attacks in Nice, Munich and other places, and the authorities, presumably trying not to stir things up, play down any religious motive in them, which, alas, simply makes ordinary people even more suspicious about what is going on. All of this increases the sense many ordinary people have that politics has become a place where the elites enrich themselves at our expense – and to steal a phrase, it makes many ‘mad as hell’ and they ‘don’t want to take it’.

In the UK the opinion formers and the media were confident that ‘Remain’, their side, would win, and as a ‘Remainer’ I hoped it would. But they ran an ugly and negative campaign, mainly around economics, warning us of the consequences of failing to vote the right way. What they failed to understand was that millions already feel penalised by the system, so they didn’t really see it getting much worse for them personally; the alienated, the simply fed up and grumpy, and the ardent ‘leavers’ were sufficient to overturn conventional wisdom and the predictions of the pollsters, and so the ‘Remain’ side lost.

This time last year we were confidently being told Trump would not survive the summer; then it was the autumn he wouldn’t survive; then it was ‘Super Tuesday’ that would bury him; then it was an agreement among his challengers which would finish him off; then he became the nominee. The media don’t ‘get it’. He does not follow the Clinton playbook. We shall see, with Hillary whether that one still works, but it does not work with the millions who are sick to their back teeth of self-serving, venal and lying politicians. Sure, Trump’s a load mouth, sure he’s rich, but the Americans have never minded rich men, it is politicians enriching themselves to which objection is taken; Trump’s riches mean he can’t be bought; if Hillary were a listed company she’d have a who board of directors running her.

Here in the UK, the new PM, Theresa May, came in talking of her sense of public duty and acknowledging that many people felt they were being left behind; these are good words, but they need to be followed by delivery. There is a palpable sense that the anger currently felt begins to threaten the system itself. The political system is not an end in itself, but it seems to have become one for the politicians and the lobbyists; unless it begins to fulfil the ends for which it exists – the public good  – the public may decide to end it – and if that happens, it won’t be pretty. We need to rediscover a sense of duty and morality in public life – we have gone on too long as though those were mere words – well words alone no longer suffice.

%d bloggers like this: