Georgia Six, for real this time

It’s just before 10 PM EST and it is looking very much like, as predicted, the majority of voters in the district that gave us Newt Gingrich have united like Voltron behind Karen Handel despite the Democrats nationwide pouring more money into this race than any other Congressional race in history.  I’m not going to claim that Karen Handel is an amazing conservative standard bearer but next to pajama-boy Jon Ossoff she’s Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher’s love child.  Except that those two paragons of conservative principle would never have an illicit child, but one can dream.

I was listening to reports from Georgia Six about the wall-to-wall campaign ads going on there, to the extent that no other advertisers are able to get airtime, and I heard an ad put out by an anti-Ossoff group putting in plain terms that the people who cheered–cheered–for leftist would-be assassin Hodgkinson inflicting permanent wounds on Steve Scalise are also cheering for Ossoff to win.  It’s true.  It’s a fact the left is desperate to cover up.  And then the news interviewed someone whose insipid “buh-I-don’t-like-the-negative-ads-waaaah” response to this was, I kid you not, “I was like, dude, really?”

Um, yeah, “dude,” REALLY.  Do you people NOT get that there was an attempted political assassination last week?  That the party out there brimming with hate and screeching that the GOP is going to kill people and destroy the planet is backing this beta kid whose whole campaign platform is “let’s make Trump mad?”  That contrary to the efforts of the dinosaur media and the establishment, the people are LOVING what President Trump is doing, and the left cannot stand it?

And anybody notice that all the polls that had pajama-boy up for the past month suddenly shifted in the last week?  Funny how they do that EVERY SINGLE TIME.

In the time it took me to type this post it looks like the race has been called for Handel, who maintains a solid five point lead with 81% of the vote in.  Sorry “resistance,” but I’m not sorry.

Words that leftists should not use, chapter 1

Good Sunday morning to you and welcome to my new installment series.  As we are all aware, language is important.  If you control the language you control the battlefield of ideas.  The left is keenly aware of this, which is why they try to take words with established meanings and use them entirely incorrectly, and flood the zone with nonsense words and gobbledygook phrases that leave people unsure of what the hell they’re talking about.  In both of these situations the aim is twofold: to confuse the issue at hand, and to pretend that leftists are “smart” because they understand all this newspeak that the rubes and hicks of flyover country just don’t get.  The eventual corruption of the language is a mostly-unintended byproduct.  People like me who understand the importance of language try to fight and resist this whenever we can, whether it’s the perversion of a known term or the attempted introduction of a new buzzword–a great example is how conservative media and President Trump took the dinosaur media’s “fake news” and completely flipped it on them.

This series will look at words and a few phrases that leftists use that either don’t mean what the left thinks they mean, or don’t mean anything at all because the left just made them up, and either way lefties really ought not be using words that they don’t understand.  Please note at the outset, in no way whatsoever am I suggesting that any of these words be “banned” or that any sort of speech or thought policing ought to go on with regard to anyone, regardless of party or philosophy.  What I am saying is that if you’re on the left, you really shouldn’t use these words, they do not mean what you think they mean, and for anyone else, when you hear a Democrat start blathering these words in particular, it’s a big red flag that they’re feeding you a line of bullcrap.

So, to kick off the series, today’s word is “Hate.”  Taking the definition from dictionary.com, the noun form of the word hate is defined as intense dislike, extreme aversion, or hostility.  Merriam-Webster expands the definition to mean that aversion results from fear, anger, or sense of injury, and common parlance generally places a lot of emphasis on the fear and anger aspect in implying that “hate” is in most respects an irrational emotion.  Please note, that definition does not include “expecting a person to obey the law” or “not wanting to support a certain grievance group cradle to grave” or “not rewriting your beliefs and religion to not just accommodate but celebrate things that are incompatible with it” or “putting your own nation’s interests first” or “acknowledging facts.”  All of which are ways in which the left defines “hate.”

In reality, as the left burns cities and threatens speakers and guns down congressmen while staging assassinations and beheadings of politicians they dislike, they are the ones exhibiting the irrational fear-and-anger driven style of hate, and justifying it by means of claiming the “sense of injury.”  But much as they misuse the word, and “hate” is one of the starkest examples on this list, it continues to be one of their very favorites.  I mean really, a guy went to shoot up a “hate group” and smear Chik-Fil-A in their dead faces because the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is, in point of fact, a hate group by definition, promoting intense dislike and aversion by fear) said they were a “hate group.”  Sounds all peace and love to me, except not at all.

In essence, when a leftist uses the word “hate,” it means “something I don’t agree with, doesn’t matter why, because my philosophy is about love and acceptance because it just is so anything I don’t like is bad and evil and Nazi.”   And so they attempt to use a common term to mean something it does not mean at all, in order to use its understood connotations and actual meaning to smear the left’s opponents as irrational, cruel, uncivil, and dangerous.  When a leftist uses the word “hate,” they’ve lost the argument.  They really shouldn’t sling it around so much, but seeing as how more and more people seem to be waking up to the fact that the left uses this about as freely as they use the word “racist” to try to shut up opposition, I’m all for them continuing to discredit themselves.

Tune in next week for our next word that the left ought to stop using.

Win most, lose a couple

President Trump is in Miami today announcing that Whatshisname’s unilateral lifting of restrictions against the tyrannical Cuban government is being undone.  Cuban-Americans cheered President Trump to the rafters for it.  Pajama boys on Twitter sputtered and whined and tried to tell any Cubans who could hear them that “Trump doesn’t care about you.”  Um…in the real world, where these people have been trapped in the 50s (and not in a good way) for over half a century, nobody cares if you “care about them.”  Whatshisname snuffed out the beacon of hope for thousands of Cuban dissidents and today President Trump lit it again.

So that was the good news.  The not great news was that in a much quieter manner, the Trump administration announced they would be leaving DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program intact, slowing or stopping deportation of the so-called “Dreamers.”  While I’m not thrilled with this decision and I want to hear some good reasons why it was done, I can think of a few possible motivations off the top of my head, and I am not overly broken up about it.  I have no sympathy for “Dreamers” but lots of other people do, and I can see why taking one of the more emotionally-charged but less problematic groups of illegal aliens off the table at least for now could be a good move.  I’m a bit more concerned about why this ended up being done without getting any concessions about other illegal alien issues, but again, I don’t know all the rationales or details just yet.

We’re still light years ahead of “win some, lose some” at this juncture.

Also, reports are Steve Scalise remains in critical condition and has had at least three surgeries.  And the attempted assassination has already fallen off the dinosaur media playlist.

Gamechanger

By now the nation and the world are familiar with the events of this morning, June 14, where Republican senators and congressmen practicing for a friendly baseball game in Alexandria Virginia (some out with their children) were fired on by a Bernie Sanders backer who specifically asked shortly before the shooting if the guys on the field were Democrats or Republicans.  The Democrat goon fired dozens of shots and injured several people, including a Capitol Police officer who defended the congressmen and of course House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, both of whom are currently in critical condition.  The shooter, a 66 year old aging hippie from Illinois, was wounded by good guys with guns to bring the attack to a halt, and has died.  Word is that were it not for the presence of Representative Scalise, who had Capitol Police along because he is in a leadership position, the death toll could have been much higher, as of course gun control laws would not allow the congressmen to carry firearms themselves in the ball park.

I was hoping that maybe the intellectual dissonance between “OMG gun violence!” and “the Republicans are Nazi terrorists out to kill sick people and burn the whole planet!” might short-circuit the lunatic left for at least a few minutes but no, they launched into both lines of attack without flinching for a second about the blatant inconsistency of their retarded blatherings.  Some striking examples of idiocy have even expressed fear of a “backlash against Democrats” over this as many others laugh themselves silly over what they perceive as karma.  There are countless leftists out there today who are literally cheering for this.  Steve Scalise may be crippled for life or worse and that doesn’t stop the left from revivifying a long-disproven story about him having connections to David Duke and making obscene suggestions while he fights for his life.  No, Paul Ryan, right now I think Steve Scalise has bigger things to be upset over than the fact that he can’t play in the baseball game–things like the fact that he was shot and maybe he won’t ever walk again.

Christ, my guys get shot at and our leadership cracks jokes.  God help us.

The dinosaur media is of course referring to this as a “mass shooting” and while technically speaking that term does apply, this was not a mass shooting in the common parlance sense.  This was not some random nutjob like Jared Loughner (registered independent who leaned Democrat) or Adam Lanza (Democrat) or James Holmes (Dem again) going out, finding a soft target, and just hurting a whole bunch of people because he was crazy and evil and knew they couldn’t fight back.  Nor was it some Islamic terrorist screaming “Allahu Akbar” and proceeding to mow down infidels again more or less at random.  This was an attempted assassination and to treat it as a random act of violence is dangerously dishonest.  The shooter was NOT crazy any more than millions of hyper-indoctrinated useful leftist idiots are crazy (which they are, don’t misunderstand me).  He was a politically active loud-mouthed Bernie-backing Whatshisname-loving Trump-hating Russian-collusion-believing socialism-pushing tax-the-rich terminate-the-Republicans far left extremist.  He is not alone.  He was not random–he traveled all the way from Illinois to eastern Virginia and specifically confirmed that he was in the right place to waste some Republicans before he opened fire.

In other words, this was not a random act of crazy.  Are we getting this, people? Are we understanding that one of the lunatic left, NOT a random nutjob but one of MILLIONS of these indoctrinated useful idiots out there, OPENED FIRE ON US?  Coming from the side that has been wailing for months about “attacks on our democratic system” based on nothing more than they didn’t win an election they cheated hard for, we have an actual honest-to-goodness attack on our system of government and the people we have elected to represent us–and the left’s response is to make excuses or outright cheer.  One of these little bastards decided he was going to go out and punch some Nazis and the rest of them are not saying they were wrong to tell their demented followers that the GOP is out to kill everyone, they’re trying to claim on one hand that they actually give a care that this happened while on the other they are literally saying “well, I can certainly understand resorting to violence individually but you’re going to have to organize if it’s going to be effective…”  I wish to God above I was making that up.

It was not enough for them to plan to bomb the Deploraball and poison outspoken Donald Trump supporters.  It was not enough to burn Berkeley and hurl bricks and explosives at a free speech rally.  It was not enough for them to bash people in the head with bike locks and set women’s hair on fire.  I said a while ago, these freaks will escalate.  They mean it.  We have been involved in a “cold” civil war with these people for decades now, and now that they have finally lost the political argument they are getting desperate.  We are sitting on a powder keg people.  Do not dismiss this as a random act by a lunatic, because the left has bred legions of lunatics and they’re evidently getting more deranged by the day.

You know the sickest thing about the morons who are out cheering on this monster like he’s some kind of folk hero?  They don’t give a rip that he made them all look even worse.  He discredited everything he believed in (not that any of it was worth an iota of credit to start with) and they don’t care.  They’re still cheering.  They’re actually out there justifying if not praising his actions on social media and telling like-minded fools “hey, that was pretty good, but if you REALLY want results you have to organize!”  And by “results” they mean “violent revolution and dead Republicans.”

Meanwhile there are people like me watching this with a feeling of nauseating dread.  We don’t want to interrupt our regularly scheduled lives to fight a civil war, in large part because although we have all the necessary military advantages (strength, intelligence, no irrational fear of guns), we have two tremendous weaknesses.  One, we built the world that would be brought to ruin overnight if such a collapse were to happen, we’re invested in it and want to preserve it and have already gone to great lengths just to keep the peace.  Tragically, like negotiating with terrorists or giving in to screaming toddlers, our great forbearance has only emboldened these animals to the point where they cheer for a gunman shooting congressmen.  And two, we really don’t like hurting people.  We don’t.  Contrary to the Democrats’ “edgy” remarks, we in fact DO “give a s**t.”  While they fantasize about lining old white Christian men up and carving swastikas into their foreheads with rusty knives while their families watch, we don’t even want to think about what the consequences would be of finally being forced to fight back.   To paraphrase Stefan Molyneux, we desperately want to use words rather than swords.

The left has lost the war of ideas and is finally being pushed back.  But the left departed the battlefield of ideas a long time ago.  I believe it was Thomas Paine who said that attempting to use reason and logic on someone who has abandoned them is like administering medicine to the dead.  It seems that the left’s endgame has been in order to ensure that the hearts and minds of their devotees can never be won by facts and reality, that they must simply excise their hearts and minds entirely.  So they taught them not to think, and they taught them not to care–oh sure, they taught them to believe that giving away things that don’t belong to them is “caring,” they taught them that punishing people who have more than other people is “caring,” they taught them that useless virtue signalling and not being offensive are “caring,” and in the process they taught them that all of that “caring” is or ought to be the responsibility of the government.  You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who have neither.  The heartless, idiotic praise and happiness from these barbarians all over social media in the wake of this assassination attempt demonstrate that they have neither.  Now they are reacting like rabid animals after losing their last great bet and going all in on the last election, and watching everything they have tried to do in the United States for the past quarter century undone (and their work over the past hundred years even threatened).

I hope, pray, and deep down I believe that it is not too late to push this back peacefully.  But in order to push this back, we have to keep pushing.  Part of that is to call this what it is, an attempt to assassinate the people’s elected officials and strike a spark into the powder keg.  What happens after today will determine whether we can turn the tide through the political process, forge onward and refuse to let these monsters intimidate us, or whether in the hopes of just forestalling confrontation a few years more, we let them keep right on playing with fire as the sparks keep landing closer and closer to the gunpowder.

So it begins.

While everyone was watching the Comey tent collapse…

James Comey’s colossal nothingburger with a side of nothing now has him being compared by feminist writers to a victim of workplace sexual harassment.

James Comey, the six-foot-eight-inch former director of the FBI, the onetime head of the toughest and most respected investigative force in the world, is apparently now getting honorary victim status.

Okay, fine.  While all the special snowflakes were off watching this and waiting for the other shoe to drop (it didn’t), the Senate parliamentarian made a very important ruling.  The Unaffordable Don’t-Care Act, having been passed by budget reconciliation in the first place, can be repealed by reconciliation.  The fires of Mount Doom that made it can be used to un-make it.  This means that a bare fifty votes are needed to pass a repeal.

This means that not even all the Republicans have to vote for repeal–brainless Susan Collins or feckless John McCain can go vote against it all they want and Mike Pence will still be able to cast the tiebreaker.  I’m honestly surprised and more than a little impressed the GOP might actually be capitalizing on the perfectly good nonsense distraction the Democrats served up.

Annnnnd that’s game

Remember what I said about checkmate a couple weeks back?

It’s that time.

The only bombshells James Comey dropped were on Billy Jeff and Loretta Lynch.  Or maybe himself for demonstrating what a vindictive partisan hack he always was.

It’s time we stopped dignifying this nonsense by responding to it.

Reforming Islam

The religion of peace has been very busy spreading its unique brand of cultural diversity these past couple of weeks.  The latest attack took place when three women yelling “Allah!” drew knives and went after another woman working in a nursery.  Again, this happened in the United Kingdom.  As if they needed more reasons to remember in the next couple weeks why they voted for Brexit.

The frequency of attacks has just continued to increase and increase, the body count goes up, and the left (Euroweenies in particular) just steadfastly refuse to get it.  I believe it was the mayor of London who shrugged and said “eh, terror attacks are just part of life in a big city of the world like this!”  Echoing that sentiment are leftists on both sides of the Atlantic, bleating about love and hugging it out and how going about your life and refusing to be terrorized is how you defeat terrorism.  Except when they say “refuse to be terrorized” they mean “don’t act like it’s a big deal, don’t blame Muslims, don’t blame all this wonderful diversity, just go about your business and accept that this is the way the world works and you actually kind of deserve it for being a white westerner.”  That’s not, in fact, refusing to be terrorized.  That is inviting more terrorism.  Meanwhile when President Trump gets up and uses strong terms to describe what everyone knows and can see is going on, he’s ripped and criticized and accused of being “un-presidential” by people who are more afraid of this “backlash against Muslims” which practically never happens than they are of nail bombs going off in crowds of teenaged girls.

But my point today is not to talk about the left’s reactions to Islamic terror.  I could go on, I might some other time, but that’s not what I wanted to discuss today except in one context, and that is the practice Western apologists for Islam have adopted of asserting that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the terrorists “do not represent Islam” and that “not all Muslims” are terrorists.  Well, on that last point, they’re right…mostly.  However, on the other two, not at all.  There is nothing in Christianity or Judaism that calls for the murder of nonbelievers (no I do not care what overzealous conquistadores did when they “converted” American Indians at gunpoint, they were not acting on any Biblical orders) but you can’t say that of Islam.  Islam’s holy book outright calls for infidels to be beheaded, sanctions lying to nonbelievers, and promises paradise to the faithful who die carrying out jihad.  It is expressly a religion of violence.

Now I am sure there are verses and passages in the Quran and other Islamic holy books that talk about peace and harmony and loving your neighbor and things like that.  That’s great–but they can’t coexist in any sort of intellectual or philosophical way with commands to eviscerate people who don’t share your religion.  Looking back to things like the conquistadores and the Spanish Inquisition (which was really not nearly as big a deal as people like to believe), we know that the Catholic church had a period of time where using force and violence to “evangelize” Jews and heathens and other nonbelievers, and at that time the church was basically synonymous with Christianity, but you also have to look at the historical context.  The Catholic church of the Dark Ages was as much or even more a political institution than a religious body.  Mass was held in a language nobody understood and the people were forbidden to read the Bible for themselves (nevermind that most of them couldn’t read their own language anyway, much less Latin).  Popes commanded armies and crowned emperors both directly and indirectly.  This went on until something happened: the Protestant Reformation.  I won’t go into too much detail but the almost immediate result of the Protestants splitting off from the Roman Catholic Church was not only the end of the Dark Ages, not only the creation of numerous sects of Protestantism that form the basis for the denominations we know today, but it also triggered a reformation within the Catholic church itself that led to the modern Catholic church.  With that came the final configuration of the Bible as we know it today and the excision of what is known as the Apocrypha, books that were once included in the Bible that are not there any longer.

In other words, we had a reformation, cut some stuff out of the holy book, kept the basic principles intact, and wouldn’t you know it, the Dark Ages ended.

Islam has never had such a reformation.  And they still live in the Dark Ages.  Sure, they have smartphones and cars and high-speed internet and automatic weapons, but aside from the trappings of modern life that they “culturally appropriated” from the West (and we’ll talk about how they acquired all that stuff another time) they’re still living in medieval conditions under medieval laws.  Hence, those parts of the Quran saying cut people’s heads off in the name of Allah are still there, still every bit as much of holy writ as John 3:16 is part of the Christian New Testament.  Hence again, the terrorists who kill in the name of Allah and jihad are indeed representative of Islam.  The peaceful Muslims who coexist with Western infidels?  They are “not representative of Islam.”  A Muslim woman once showed me a documentary where a homosexual Muslim went to talk to imams about how Islam views homosexuality and the guy was very direct, the penalty for being gay is death and the only difference between Islamic sects on this issue is the manner of death that is prescribed.  It’s what their book and the guys who know it best say, people.

Now let me stop here and be very clear, that I do NOT believe all Muslims are corrupt, bad, evil people.  That’s absurd.  I think they’re very WRONG and have a few choice thoughts about their religion and its founder but that’s beside the point.  I’ve known plenty of decent, friendly Muslims personally and while I know that is just anecdotal it does bring the point home.  Hell, I actually knew someone from Benghazi, Libya before Benghazi became a household word, and in a lot of ways it looked like a decent place before Dr. Pantsuit helped turn it into a craphole.

My point is that Islam itself is the problem, and that unless and until Islam is reformed, it is and can only be a religion of express and unapologetic violence, oppression, and barbarism, and that every Muslim until that point, EVERY ONE, who does not actively advocate for reform is either complicit in the violence or is a hypocrite.  I am sure that the peaceful, friendly Muslims out there either rationalize away the negative parts of the Quran or find some way to make peace with them, while others let those passages simmer in the back of their minds or boil over into practice.  But as long as the Quran and the teachings of Islam and Sharia law remain as they are and are thus incompatible with the modern world, Islam will remain in its own Dark Ages and will permanently be at odds with the West.  Western apologists cannot fix Islam by making excuses for it or ignoring its ugly parts.  In truth, nothing the West can do can fix Islam for them.  We can, however, destroy it.  Sooner or later we will be forced to do so if things do not change.  People will not tolerate the deaths of innocents forever nor will we heed the cries of “well you deserved it” and write it off as even, and the simple fact is the countries that sponsor this are stuck in the Dark Ages.  Anyone who remembers the Gulf War knows that despite the hand-wringing of the media about the “world’s fourth largest army” and the “elite republican guard” we pretty much walked up to Baghdad.  If we take a mind to eradicating these barbarians, there won’t be a cave deep enough for them to hide in.

Once again, let me be crystal clear: no one wants that.  Or at the very least, I don’t want that, most rational people don’t want that, and those who DO want that typically have very good reason for it.  Yeah, there are some outright racists who’d love to pave the Middle East but for the most part the folks who want to make the sand glow have lost someone to terror.  But the point stands that the civilized world clearly has the power to exterminate Islam, and clearly does not want to do so.  The problem is we are looking at a new type of Cold War, where one side is waging asymmetrical warfare and their soldiers are not only not afraid to die, but many of them are actively seeking death in battle.  Mutually Assured Destruction will not work against a nation that believes that as long as they nuked you first then your retaliatory strike is just their express ticket to 72 virgins.

But if that happens it WILL NOT be the fault of the West.  The only way to prevent this future from coming to pass is to reform Islam much like Christianity was reformed, and obviously the West can’t do that for the Islamic world.  If they truly wish to be a religion of peace then they’re going to have to go in and excise parts of the text that do not fit that description.  They’re going to have to remove the concept of jihad entirely.  They’re going to have to rewrite Sharia to at least acknowledge the existence of secular authority (or in the alternative, they’re going to have to stay in their own countries where their laws are enforced).  They must renounce the declarations of the Ayatollah of Iran where he said “America is the great Satan” and frankly knock it the hell off with the “Death to America” stuff.  And Israel for that matter.  In short, they’ve got to shape up their own act and demonstrate a willingness to be part of the civilized world, or the civilized world is finally going to have enough of them and do something about it.  If they’re all convinced that their god demands the death of all the infidels, well, sorry cupcake, but these infidels aren’t on board with that plan, and if you make it clear that it’s us or you, I’m not betting on you guys being the ones still standing when the dust clears.  You don’t want that, and I don’t want that.  Seriously.

I know that what I am suggesting is not going to be a quick or easy or peaceful process.  When jihadists run out of infidels to behead or blow up they turn to apostates and agnostics and other Islamic heretics (little known fact: Muslims kill other Muslims over religion more than they do “infidels,” think about that).  I am under no delusions that the reformers will not be met with bloody and violent opposition.  More than a few Protestant leaders met their end burning at a stake.  And again, I want to be clear, I’m not cheering for this, I will mourn with the world when the reports come in of a moderating voice being killed by Islamic purists.  As much as I think the road will be long and difficult, I do see a glimmer of light in that I honestly think the Islamic world is ready for such a reformation.  I think leaders like President Al-Sisi of Egypt are sterling examples of West-friendly moderates who would be supportive of reformation efforts if not leaders of such efforts themselves.  It’s not a moment too soon.

Look guys, if you really believe in your hearts that Allah wants you to blow me and my family up, I get it.  I understand being devoted to your religion and committed to the point of martyrdom.  But here’s the thing: you may be willing to die for your faith, but I am not willing to die because your faith says to kill me.  Neither is most of the West (some guilty liberals may differ, I suggest they give you all hugs so they absorb more shrapnel that way).  If you make us make that choice…well, let’s just say, DON’T make us make that choice.  You have a hard road ahead, with one path leading through difficult times to what promises to be a new golden age, the other one still pretty rocky and leading to extinction.  I can’t choose for you nor can I walk the path for you.  But one way or the other, I and the Western world will be waiting for you on the other side.

Things that should give you pause

When you’re trying to argue that Dr. Ben Carson, a man who lifted himself out of poverty to become one of the foremost pediatric neurosurgeons in the world, is “stupid,” you might want to step back a second and consider what you’re saying.

When you’re trying to argue that North Korea, a nation where political dissidents are fed to dogs and they’re trying desperately to figure out how to build a rocket to nuke California, has the moral high ground because they agree with YOU, you definitely want to step back and rethink your life.

Unless you’re a lunatic leftist in which case this all just goes right over your pointy head.