Friday, June 16, 2017

Those Terrorists Aren't Islamic.... (Unless You Try To Ban Them From Entering The Country, That Is)


Did you ever notice that when you talk about the violence that is inherent in Islam, when you see the killings of innocents at the hands of violent Muslim extremists, when you see the reports of unspeakable horrors committed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, etc., the Muslim community, politically correct politicians, and the left in general begin screaming “That's not Islam. Those people committing those acts, even if they do quote the Quran and scream “Alahu Ackbar”, they're not Islamic. Islam is a religion of peace. Don't lump all of Islam into the same category with these groups.”

And yet, when the President of the United States issues a travel ban from six countries known worldwide to harbor and promote Islamic terrorism; a means of preventing at least some members of these violent groups from entering the United States without an extreme vetting process in place to protect American citizens from the dangers that terrorists will bring into the country, suddenly all of those same people stand in solidarity and say “You are trying to ban all Muslims from entering the country!”

According to what I've read, there are about 100 Muslim majority countries in the world today. (In 2010 there were only 62.) That leaves 94 Muslim countries from which travel to the United States will still be allowed. So for my left-leaning friends who call it a Muslim ban, could you try to explain how 6% actually equals 100%? Perhaps it's Common Core math but I'd really like to understand.

Wednesday was the one year anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, Florida, by an apparently radicalized Muslim named Omar Mateen. There is no mention in any of the news articles I've read about the incident, not even Fox, that says anything about Mateen other than he was the shooter. It's as if his statements, his ties to Islam, his visits to radical Muslim web pages on the internet, no longer exist. Today he is but “the gunman.”

Political correctness under the Obama administration has caused many Americans to simply overlook the Muslim connection when it comes to terrorism. Whether or not Obama believes radical Islam to be Islamic, the terrorists believe it. And they use it to justify the senseless and brutal murders of tens of thousands of innocent people a year. (The growth of ISIS has greatly raised that number.)

We have Muslim clerics going on international television calling for the overthrow of the Western world. There are places in Europe that have become “No Go” areas – places within cities that police do not enter because of Islam and Sharia control of the areas. And Dearborn, Michigan, is close to having one of those.

Thank God we finally have a President who refuses to coddle Islam, refuses to bow to political correctness, and refuses to bow to the will of the left - who calls Muslim terrorism what it is.

There is a story in the “Clarion Project” that says one of the perpetrators of the recent bridge attack in London was radicalized by listening to the hate filled, radical rants of Ahmad Musa Jibril, a Muslim cleric right here in the good ol' USA. Jibril lives and preaches in Michigan but puts his radical ideas online. Radicalized mosques in the United States, once identified, should be closed.

Political correctness will be the death of the United States of America. If one takes a good, hard look at Europe with open eyes they will see what will one day happen here if we continue to coddle Islam in the name of political correctness.

Democrats Remorseful Following Wednesday's Shooting.... Not


When Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at a public event in Tucson several years ago the left-wing media, Democrats, President Obama, and the left in general blamed right-wing rhetoric, even singling out Sarah Palin for her comment about reloading instead of retreating if things got tough. Obama addressed the nation and said we needed to "tone down the rhetoric," meaning the shooting was the fault of the Republicans because of their statements.

Fast forward to 2016. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate said during the campaign that Democrats need to "fight Republicans in the streets." So far in 2017 we've had a 'comedian' pretend to behead President Trump,  a rap  star pretending to shoot the President, a play in New York showing Trump being killed by his own staff, and countless celebrities denouncing Trump - some saying he should be taken out and one saying she wanted to "blow up the White House."

So on Wednesday, when a crazed Democrat, armed with a rifle and looking for Republican House members, went on a Republican shooting spree it was nice to see the leadership on the left take responsibility and tell their constituents to tone down their rhetoric that could be fueling the violent acts being committed.

Yeah right... in a perfect world. In reality, leaders on the left blame Donald Trump and the Republicans for the violence the left is wreaking on the right. Nancy Pelosi is apparently outraged by the fact that Republicans are, in part, blaming Democrats for the violent rhetoric coming from the left that certainly could be a factor for the shooter on Wednesday.

So when a Democrat gets shot (by a registered Democrat) the left blames "right-wing violent rhetoric." And when a Republican gets shot by a Democrat, who has voiced his hatred for Trump and the Republican Party very clearly, the Democrats blame Trump and Republicans for the left-wing violent rhetoric.

Sure, that makes sense, right?

Yesterday, CBS anchor Scott Pelley blamed Donald Trump's tweets about the main stream media for the violence. Pelley cited one tweet in particular.

"The FAKE NEWS media (failing , , , , ) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"

How Pelley decided that this tweet made a crazed Bernie supporter want to shoot Republicans is beyond my grasp.

Disgraced former South Carolina governor turned U.S. Representative, Mark Sanford, also blamed Trump. He cited a statement by Trump during his campaign when Trump said he'd like to punch a protester in the face. Sanford, who suffered through a rocky governorship when it was discovered he had a mistress, also said Trump's statement about paying a supporter's legal bills if one of them punched the protester in the face. Again - how did that influence the shooter in any way?

More likely the shooter was influenced by the rhetoric from the left and by some of the internet groups he followed.

James Hodgkinson's choice of Facebook Groups are telling. He followed:

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans
Join The Resistance Worldwide!!
Rachel Maddow For President 2020
The Democrats

He was also a member of the group "Terminate The Republican Party" and "I Hate Donald Trump."

I'd say that's enough reason to believe he was influenced by his own kind rather than the Republicans.

Twitter erupted with left-wing hatred following the shooting, with many liberals not only supporting Hodgkins' actions but praising him and voicing their wishes that he could have wounded or killed more Republicans. Tweets such as these below went on throughout the day.

The Only Good Fascist is a Dead One.”

“That’s a Shame but babies blown to bits at Sandy Hook was worse and Scalise takes money from the @NRA”

“If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP leadership considered self defense?”

“If KKK support Steve Scalise dies, the shooter deserves a holiday, true leadership. Now the trumps, kush, & miller need to be transitioned.”

One Republican representative has even received death threats via letter.

Hey liberals... hate much?

It seems the Democrats in Washington have backed off of the rhetoric for now. But I have yet to see them call for their constituents nationwide to do the same. They just don't have it in them to say "The violent rhetoric on our side may have influenced the shootings on Wednesday and we need to stop it and return to civility. We are all Americans."

Not going to hold my breath for that...



Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Big Brother Is Watching In Canada



Ontario Province in Canada recently passed a law that gives the state the authority to remove a child from the household if parents refuse to acknowledge and/or accommodate the child's gender identity or gender expression.

Let that sink in. If a 2 year old boy decides he wants to wear his sister's clothing and act like a girl, parents in Ontario must allow and encourage it or the child can be taken from them by the government.

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently” said Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau. Coteau introduced the bill.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

If you're a parent in Ontario and your child says he or she identifies as the opposite gender, you can't even consult a mental health professional since that would be showing disagreement and lack of support for your child's expression. I wonder if mental health professionals are now bound to report any parents who present their child for mental health evaluation following an expression of different gender...? It seems logical that the state would go that far if they passed this law.

Under the old law parents were encouraged to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.”
The new law greatly restricts the actions of parents as it emphasizes a “child’s identity and allows parents only to “direct the child or young person’s education and upbringing, in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

In other words, the child now gets to tell the parents how they will raise him/her.

Not everyone agrees.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history, says Jack Fonseca, political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition. “Make no mistake - Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

And talk about Big Brother. In April, child services in Ontario, Canada, got made headlines when they removed to young girls from their foster home because the Christian foster parents refused to lie to the girls and tell them that the Easter Bunny was real.

Derek Baars, one of the foster parents, said they were told by the agency that they must lie to the girls, ages three and four, because the Easter Bunny is part of Canadian culture. When the Baars refused to comply the girls were removed from the home.

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before these types of things happen here. It won't happen under the current administration but if liberals ever take control of the government it's inevitable. After all –it's Hillary Clinton who believes it takes a village to raise a child.


https://heatst.com/culture-wars/canadas-new-law-lets-government-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-their-gender-identity/


Thursday, May 18, 2017

Sologamy... What If It Doesn't Work Out?


I may lose friends over this, or perhaps they'll simply allow me my opinion and either agree or disagree. Either way – I feel compelled to say something about the latest ridiculous trend in the US (and the world?).

That new “trend,” as they call it, is called Sologamy. That's a manufactured term for a manufactured situation in which a person marries.... himself or herself.

How stupid is that, you ask? I can't begin to describe it.

The United States of America (and the world in general) has become a place where self-pleasure and self-gratification have become the objective of the majority of people. We are so rapidly moving away from Biblical principles, morals and decency that it's difficult to remember how different things were just 40 years ago.

Mental illness is embraced today. Embraced and encouraged. Allowing preschool children to decide their gender and encouraging them in their grossly immature and irrational choices is parental mental illness. Gender dysphoria, once treated as a mental disorder, has now been declared by some as a normal medical issue – to the point where the government has stepped in to say you can be whatever gender you wish to be at any given time. And we have psychologists saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than a mental illness and a crime.

So now we come back to marrying oneself. One person recently in the news said she married herself because she got tired of people asking her why she was still single. I've got news for her. No matter what ceremony she had or whether or not she donned a wedding ring – she's still single!

The acceptance of sologamy as normal is just one more example of people living out a mental illness. Sure, this one is probably harmless – at least to others. But the harm one inflicts on themselves when they believe something to be real that is not can be devastating in the future.

I don't have a psychology degree. I don't know the innermost workings of the human psyche – although I do have experience working with the mentally ill. But I do know enough to know that pedophilia is sick behavior and enough to know that if you decide to marry yourself and think that's really marriage you're missing a few screws.

The definition of marriage has been changed by the liberal progressives of the world but even today the accepted definition of the term is: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife. : a similar relationship between people of the same sex. : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other.

Either definition involves two people. If you walk down the aisle to express your vows and you are the only one standing there to hear them, and giving yourself a ring, you're not meeting even the latest, most liberal definition of marriage. And whether or not you're happy being alone, it's truly sad that you believe you must participate in a “marriage” ceremony to secure that for you.

If you love yourself for who you are, why do you need a wedding ceremony to prove it? Get over yourself. You've resigned yourself to be alone. Why do you need to make it official?

I am curious about the concept of self-marriage. If you one day meet that special someone and decide you want to marry an actual partner will you need to get a legal divorce from yourself first? Suppose you get angry at yourself and decide you no longer want to be married. Who has to move out and who gets custody of the personal property and/or any children produced by the marriage? And what happens to life insurance policies and/or pensions following the divorce? Just things to think about before entering into this unholy agreement....

Trump Obstructs Justice? Comey's Memo Says Otherwise...


For those Trump haters who are chomping at the bit to see President Trump impeached for “obstruction of Justice,” here is something you might want consider a little more closely.

According to all sources I've seen, including the New York Times and Washington Post, what Comey alleges the President said to him was "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

I don't have a law degree. I don't even have a college degree. But I worked in law enforcement long enough to know that language, wording and comprehension matter.

Expressing a hope that something happens does not add up to telling someone to stop an investigation. “I hope you can let this go” is not the same as “I hope you can let this go or your job is on the line,” or “I need you to let this go,” or “I want you to let this go,” or even “Let this Flynn investigation go.” It's that simple. Saying “I hope” is a wish, not an order.

If someone says “I hope you die,” that's not a threat. It might be crude, or perhaps evil, but it's not a threat. Not legally.

If Trump did express his hope that the Flynn investigation could be dropped it's just that – a hope... unless, of course, Comey can prove that he was threatened or felt threatened by the words “I hope.” Feelings are subjective. But if the Director of the FBI felt threatened by the words “I hope” then he really didn't need to remain in his position. And since Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe has said no investigations have been stopped or even interrupted by events that have occurred (Comey's firing) there is no case for obstruction of justice.

As I said – I'm no lawyer or judge and I may one day be proven wrong. But in this day where every word people say is under scrutiny, the word hope is just that – hope, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the feeling of wanting something to happen and thinking that it could happen.”

I hope Hillary Clinton never runs for public office again. That's a desire that I cannot control. And it's not illegal. And neither was Trump's alleged statement. Of course, only Trump and Comey know what was really said that evening... unless Trump has a recording...

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Cultural Worse Than Academic Failure?

This article was written by my father-in-law. I thought I'd share.

The total of one’s experience is education, especially the part that is remembered.

It is general knowledge that American students lag at least 30 other of the most ‘advanced’ nations in academic achievement, while ahead of all others in self-esteem (we like ourselves dumb?). I would caution all, that academics is not necessarily education’s greatest failure. America once had cultural and institutional teaching of patriotism, morality, honor, self-reliance, personal accountability, economics and the total meaning of our founding documents (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). In addition, boys were taught how to be men and girls were taught how to be women. We had an admirable American culture.

If you find any of our children today who exhibit proficiency in the above subjects, it is because their parents took the place of all other previous sources, bent over backwards, and jammed it into their heads. Schools, churches and (wholesome) entertainment no longer are getting the job done. Most homes are also failing.

This is not another attempt to finger black culture: read Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 – 2010” to decide how far downhill we’ve come.

In the 60’s, 86% of married women polled believed that it was wrong to have sexual relations with one’s fiancĂ©. Today, comparative numbers of white people under age 50 that are no longer living in former marriages has more than doubled to 27%.

The ‘greatest generation’ grew up storming Normandy Beach and fighting the Japanese across the Pacific, while today’s millennials of the same age feel “unsafe” if someone they disagree with speaks at an event they don’t have to attend on their campus. There went freedom of speech and the ordinary tolerance of it, especially in seats of education.

We formerly declared and taught that an act was absolutely either right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral, either based upon the nature and result of the action, and/or based upon a stated code of behavior as a moral order. This required judgment on the part of the individual. This presented a challenge to the contemporary politics that depend upon those who would prefer not to be told that their choices are bad and that their lives are not virtuous.

How can millennials not lean to the left when liberalism is constantly shoved down their throats by their schools, their favorite musicians, (rappers are not singers, but are entertainers) and Hollywood? We should not be surprised that at least 51% of them (millennials) do not support capitalism when their professors are known to be communists extolling socialist gutters like Cuba and Venezuela? Everything liberals teach to our kids is backward from reality.

Liberalism punishes the good or virtuous accused of some unfair advantage while rewarding the evil and/or lazy who claim to be victims of forces out of their control. Instead of trying to build rocket ships and going to the moon, their professors have them trying to figure out their gender and which bathroom they should be using. The victimhood snowflakes think they are entitled to whatever they want for the gratitude we should have for their very existence.

Conservatives must challenge the victim mentality liberals push onto our kids. Never feel sorry for yourself, or seek pity or play the victim. The wait for someone else to solve your problem will always be too long; and if you do get help, you won’t like it, because it will be on the terms of the helper. Cut off funding to institutions that discriminate against conservatism; Support all action for freedom of speech and the first ten Constitutional amendments; Support capitalism, patriotism and morality; these built America and the original American culture.

JIM N. TAYLOR 

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

White Girls Told Wearing Hoop Earrings Is "Cultural Appropriation"


White female students at Pitzer College in Los Angeles have been told by women of color (African-American and Latinas) to stop wearing hoop earrings because to do so is cultural appropriation. According to a Latina group on campus, white girls wearing hoop earrings exploits black and brown cultures. Really.

When questioned about [the art work above] by one confused student, Alegria Martinez, Jacquelyn Aguilera, and Stefania Gallo-Gonzalez addressed the school in emails explaining the problem.

“The black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings, (and other accessories like winged eyeliner, gold name plate necklaces, etc) are typically viewed as ghetto, and are not taken seriously by others in their daily lives, Martinez wrote. White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” she added.

Martinez, who is a member of Latinx Student Union, sent an email to the entire student body of Pitzer College explaining why she feels only women of color should be allowed to wear hoop earrings.

“The art (photo above) was created by myself and a few other women of color after being tired and annoyed with the reoccurring theme of white women appropriating styles...that belong to the black and brown folks who created the culture.

“The culture actually comes from a historical background of oppression and exclusion.

“The black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings, (and other accessories like winged eyeliner, gold name plate necklaces, etc) are typically viewed as ghetto, and are not taken seriously by others in their daily lives.

Because of this, I see our winged eyeliner, lined lips, and big hoop earrings serving as symbols as an everyday act of resistance, especially here at the Claremont Colleges.

“Meanwhile we wonder, why should white girls be able to take part in this culture (wearing hoop earrings just being one case of it) and be seen as cute/aesthetic/ethnic.

“White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” she explained.

I guess it makes sense to her.

One cannot help but wonder if Martinez and her fellow activists wear jeans to school. Perhaps that's a practice that she should cease since their creator, Jacob Davis, and his partner, Levi Strauss, were white guys. Or is cultural appropriation another of those things only white people can do?