Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….
Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!
Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….
Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!
Happy Belated 90th Birthday to the WORST US President…of the 20th Century! Yes, James Earl Carter, Jr. is still kickin’…and it’s time for those of us on the Right Side to leave any type of Birthday Greeting to a forerunner of who we have now.
Think of all the things he’s responsible for: The Misery Index, stagflation, high unemployment, military emasculation, the Iranian Hostage Crisis…and that’s just for starters.
Have at it!
Wars usually end only when the defeated aggressor believes it would be futile to resume the conflict. Lasting peace follows if the loser is then forced to change its political system into something other than what it was.
Republican Rome learned that bitter lesson through three conflicts with Carthage before ensuring that there was not going to be a fourth Punic War.
Germany fought three aggressive wars before it was finally defeated, occupied, and reinvented.
America defeated Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, inflicting such damage that they were all unable to continue their resistance. And then, unlike its quick retreat home after World War I, America occupied — and still has bases in — all three.
Does anyone believe that Japan, Italy, and Germany would now be allies of the U.S. had the Truman administration removed all American military bases from those countries by 1948?
This is an important point. We should have been prepared to have bases in Iraq for as long as necessary. Not for two years, or five years, but however long it took. Obama did not want to do this. He was intent on throwing away what we had gained in Iraq, essentially snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In contrast, examine what has happened when the United States pounded an enemy, then just up and left.
By 1974, South Vietnam was viable. A peace treaty with North Vietnam was still holding. But after Watergate, the destruction of the Richard Nixon presidency, serial cutoffs of U.S. aid, and the removal of all U.S. peacekeeping troops, the North Vietnamese easily walked in and enslaved the South.
It was easy to bomb Moammar Qaddafi out of power — and easier still for President Obama to boast that he would never send in ground troops to sort out the ensuing mess in Libya. What followed was a Congo-like miasma, leading to the Benghazi attacks on our consulate and the killing of four U.S. personnel.
We can brag that U.S. ground troops did not follow our bombs and missiles into Libya. But the country is now more a terrorist haven than it was under Qaddafi — and may come back to haunt us still more.
When Obama entered office, Iraq was largely quiet. Six prior years of American blood and treasure had finally led to the end of the genocidal Saddam Hussein regime and the establishment of a constitutional system that was working under the close supervision of American peacekeepers.
Then, for the price of a reelection talking point — “I ended the war in Iraq” — Obama pulled out every American peacekeeper. The result is now the chaos of a growing Islamic State.
This was predictable. Simple observation of the results of previous wars where we cut and ran after the cessation of hostilities would have shown us what we would get. I return to my central thesis: this was predictable. Obama should have known what would happen. Almost certainly he had advisers who would have told him what would happen. It is therefore logical to assume that he intended to get the results that he got. If he had intended a different outcome, he would have chosen a different course.
Apparently, Obama himself recognizes his error. When our troops were still monitoring the Iraqi peace, he and Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed Iraq to be “stable” and their likely “greatest” achievement. But when the country imploded after they had bragged about pulling out troops, Obama blamed the decision on someone else.
The unpopular, costly occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq were not, as charged, neoconservative fantasies about utopian democracy-building. Instead, they were desperate, no-win reactions to past failed policies.
After we armed Islamists to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1989, we forgot about the chaotic country. The Clinton administration periodically blew up things with cruise missiles there on rumors of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts. An al-Qaeda base for the 9/11 attacks followed.
After expelling Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait and leaving Iraq in 1991, no-fly-zones, a resurgent and conniving Saddam, and Operation Desert Fox followed. The aim of the second Iraq war, of 2003, was to end the conflict for good by replacing Saddam with something better than what we had left after the first war.
It is popular to think that America’s threats can be neutralized by occasional use of missiles, bombs, and drones without much cost. But blowing apart a problem for a while is different from ending it for good. The latter aim requires just the sort of unpopular occupations that calmed the Balkans, and had done the same in Iraq by 2011.
Obama now promises to destroy the Islamic State in Syria, solely through air power. And he assures that he will safely pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan at the end of the year.
More likely, Syria will remain a dangerous mess like Libya, and Afghanistan will end up like Vietnam or Iraq.
I think VDH is a bit optimistic here. He is assuming that air power will actually accomplish something to degrade ISIS. I don’t see that happening, if our actions to date are any indication of our future actions in this theater. We’ve accomplished nothing so far other than the destruction of a few empty buildings. We are bombing at night, when these structures are unoccupied, in a manner that appears to be intended to minimize casualties on the part of our enemy. This is useless military masturbation. ISIS has 30-50 thousand troops right now. We need to kill all of them. Obama’s bombings appear to be intended to kill as few of them as possible. In other words, as I predicted, he is simply trying to put on the appearance of doing “something” when in reality he is doing nothing significant. This bolsters my central thesis that he is doing all of this deliberately. That he is getting the results he wants, and those results are counter to the real interests of the United States.
The Progressive and Decepti-Con (alleged conservatives) media are all cheering the fallen god-king’s illegal bombing of ISIS in Syria. Obama has not asked for authorization of force and ISIS was not a threat to the US. The Jihadist/Saddam Baathist hybrid organization was only a threat to one nation Iran. Up until the Syrian revolution and the rise of ISIS, Iran through its puppet in Iraq which was installed by the US, Assad’s Syria and Hezbollah occupied Lebanon formed was called the Shiite crescent. ISIS shattered this crescent and has the Ayatollahs in Tehran quaking in their boots. In battles ranging from the Lebanese border, to eastern Syria and the gate of Baghdad, ISIS has defeated Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and the Shia Iraqi army. No Iranian allied force can stand up to ISIS in battle, but their fortune may change.
In what has to be the stupidest military act since we bombed Serbia, the United States is now bombing the one military force standing in the way of Iranian Shiite hegemony of the Middle East. Even worse, we have coordinated with Iran these bombings to help their proxies on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. told Iran of its plans to strike ISIS militants inside Syria in order to reassure them that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be targetted, a senior Iranian official has claimed.
The communication, confirmed in part by a senior U.S. State Department official, appears to signal a cooling in hostilities between the U.S. and Iran for the first time since a 1979 hostage crisis prompted Washington to sever ties with Tehran.
Iran is said to have voiced concerns for the safety of Assad, who remains the Shia Islam-dominated nation’s closest regional ally and the recipient of Iranian military support during a Syrian Civil War.
The Iranian official said Iran was informed separately in advance of the airstrikes launched by Washington and Arab allies against Islamic State positions in Syria for the first time.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — They are sworn enemies who insist they will never work together, but in practice, Hezbollah and the United States are already working — separately — on a common goal: to stop the extremist Islamic State from moving into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful military and political player and currently shares with Washington an interest in stability.
Weeks after Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group and political party, helped repel an Islamic State attack on the town of Arsal on the Syrian border, new American weapons are flowing to help the Lebanese Army — which coordinates with Hezbollah — to secure the frontier. American intelligence shared with the army, according to Lebanese experts on Hezbollah, has helped the organization stop suicide attacks on its domain in southern Beirut.
If you think this was bad, well it gets worse. The Obama Regime, Progressive media and the Decepti-Con media all claimed that there was some terror group called Khorosan ready to strike at America. This was a total lie and the presence of some al-Qaeda operatives with Nusra Front, was an excuse to bomb another enemy of Iran. Even better, the group does not exist!
Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.The who?
There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.
You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian–Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.
The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”
Once again, the evil 2 party plutocracy has committed the blood and treasure of America to commit a stretgic mistake. All this is being done to distract Americans, while the 2 parasite parties keep feeding the Militray Industrial complex. The only people we should be assisting against ISIS are the Kurds and Assyrian Christians. It is in our interest for ISIS and Iran to keep fighting. But, the 2 headed demon that runs America is being a sucker for the Ayatollahs in Iran.
Follow the money…always a good place to start:
What really drives anti-fracking zealots?
Recent news stories underscore the tremendous benefits brought by America’s fracking revolution.
- The shale oil production boom could boost US crude production to 9.5 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) next year, reducing America’s crude oil imports to 21% of domestic demand, the lowest level since 1968. Output from fracked wells represents 43% of all US oil production and 67% of natural gas production; “frack oil” could hit 10 million bopd by 2016, the Energy Information Administration says.
- The global economy saves $4.9 billion per day in oil spending because of the shale oil boom. Without it there would be a 3 million barrel per day shortfall and prices would likely be 55% higher: $150/barrel.
- Constantly improving hydraulic fracturing technologies continue to increase production. For example, Cabot Oil & Gas refracked a 2013 Pennsylvania well, increasing its output to 30.3 million cubic feet of gas per day; that’s four times the output from the best well drilled in 2003. Fracking is even being used in decades-old onshore and offshore wells, to keep them producing for many more years.
- Rust Belt cities and industries—from manufacturing, real estate and law to hotels, restaurants and many others—are rebounding because of drilling,fracking and production in nearby shale areas. In Ohio unemployment fell to 5.7% in July from 10.6% four years ago; oil output increased 26% just from the previous quarter, while gas production rose 31%—generating billions in state and local revenues.
- The US oil and natural gas boom means jobs and business for almost 30,000 companies within the industry’s vast and complex supply chain. Indeed, the petroleum industry accounts for nearly 10 million jobs and almost 8% of all domestic economic activity, including states far from actual drilling activities.
- The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers launched a new website to help veterans and other men and women find high-paying jobs in the booming oilfield, fuel and petrochemical industries.
Anti-fracking zealots: Follow the money—and the ideology
There are numerous other benefits, while the alleged risks are exaggerated or even fabricated. So what drives anti-fracking zealots who seem to materializeen masse whenever a new project is announced?
Follow the money—and the ideology. Big Green is big business. The US environmental activist industry alone is a $13.4-billion-a-year operation. It pours that money into determined campaigns to eliminate fossil fuels, gain ever greater control over our lives, reduce our living standards, and end free-enterprise capitalism. It drives its agenda with clever but phony crises: catastrophic climate change, unsustainable development, imminent resource depletion, poisonous frack chemicals and dozens of others.
Fracking obliterates its claim that we are about to run out of oil and gas—and so must slash our living standards, spend billions on crony-corporatist “renewable energy” schemes, and put radical green bureaucrats and activists in charge of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and remaining liberties. They are incensed that fracking guarantees a hydrocarbon renaissance and predominance for decades to come. They won’t even acknowledge that “frackgas” helps reduce (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide emissions.
Even √ºber wealthy celebrities get involved. Exaggerations and fabrications, confrontations and often callous disregard of other people’s needs are their stock in trade. In torrents of angry outrage and demands for totally one-sided precaution, they denounce any suggestion that fracking is safe or beneficial.
Whatever alternative technologies they support comply with their “precautionary principle.” Whatever they oppose violates it. They trumpet alleged risks of using fracking and hydrocarbon technologies, but ignore even the most obvious benefits of using them… and most obvious risks of not using them.
Anti-fracking zealots tend to be well-off, and largely clueless about the true sources of modern living standards. They assume electricity comes from wall sockets, food from grocery stores, iPhones from Apple Stores. You can count on one hand the farm, utility or factory workers they know personally.
They are dismissive about people who are jobless because of their war on affordable energy—and about poor rural New York families that are barely hanging onto their farms, unable to tap the Marcellus Shale riches beneath their land, because of an Albany and Manhattan-instigated moratorium.
They are equally uncaring about the world’s impoverished billions, whose hope for better lives depends on the reliable, affordable electricity that drilling and fracking can help bring. Worldwide, 1.4 billion people still do not have access to electricity including 300 million in India and 550 million in Africa. Millions die from lung and intestinal diseases that would largely disappear if they had electricity.
What the frack is wrong with this picture? This is not the same environmental movement that Ron Arnold, Patrick Moore and I belonged to decades ago. Big Green has become too rich, too powerful, too driven by perverse, inhumane notions of ethics, social responsibility and compassion. Their claims aboutethanol and wind power being environment-friendly are just as out of touch with reality.
Incessant claims that fracking contaminates groundwater and drinking water?
But what about their incessant claims that fracking contaminates groundwater and drinking water? Even EPA has not been able to cite a single “proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” A September 2013 report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences further confirms this. After carefully examining water wells in heavily fracked areas of Pennsylvania and Texas, researchers concluded that rare cases of methane (natural gas) contamination were not due to fracking.
Instead they resulted from improper cement and pipe installation near the surface, thousands of feet above the frack zone. The problem is covered by existing regulations and is preventable and relatively easy to correct. Petroleum industry and state officials are already collaborating to further strengthen the regulations where necessary, enforce them more vigorously, and improve well completion practices.
Moreover, some of the contamination resulted from water wells being drilled through rock formations that hold naturally occurring methane. Indeed, there have been very few cases of any contamination, out of more than one million wells hydraulically fractured since the first “frack job” was done in 1947, and out of 20,000 wells fracked in Pennsylvania since the Keystone State’s boom began in 2008.
Of course, none of this is likely to assuage anti-fracking factions or end their fictions. They are driven by motives that have nothing to do with protecting people’s health or environmental quality. In fact, what they advocate would further impair human health and environmental quality.
The great Irish statesman Edmund Burke could have been talking about these “fracktivists” when he said: “Because half a dozen grasshoppers make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle… chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that they are the only inhabitants of the field… or that they are other than little, shriveled, meager, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour.”
Unfortunately, these definitely loud and troublesome insects have also grown powerful, meddlesome and effective. So fracking supporters must continue to battle the anti-energy ideologues—by becoming better community organizers and persuaders themselves, to counter the anti-fossil fuel lies and insanity, and the destructive policies, rules and moratoria imposed by ill-advised or ideological politicians and regulators.
We fracking supporters are clearly on the side of humanity, morality, true sustainability and real environmental progress. We also know that—no matter how hard eco-activists despise it and rail against it—they cannot put the fracking genie back in the bottle.
America and the world have awakened to its potential—and to the critical need for this technology. Let us applaud this incredible progress, and champion it throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and worldwide.
From this morning’s drudge:
GARBAGE MARCH FOR CLIMATE…
VIDEO: Dicaprio loses his hearing when asked about his yachts…
GOOGLE severs ties with conservative group over ‘climate change’ stance…
VIDEO: RFK Jr. refuses to give up cellphone, automobile to save planet…
Skeptics ‘should be in Hague’…
BASTARDI: ‘Nature, not man, rules climate system’…
The remarkable truth is that few in the Middle East would be shocked. From Hamas in the Gaza Strip to radical armed movements in Syria, Qatar’s status as a prime sponsor of violent Islamists, including groups linked to al-Qaeda, is clear to diplomats and experts.
Qatar’s promotion of extremism has so infuriated its neighbours that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all chose to withdraw their ambassadors from the country in March.
Take Syria, where Qatar has been sponsoring the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In itself, that policy places Qatar alongside the leading Western powers and much of the Arab world.
But Qatar has deliberately channeled guns and cash towards Islamist rebels, notably a group styling itself Ahrar al-Sham, or “Free Men of Syria”. Only last week, Khalid al-Attiyah, the Qatari foreign minister, praised this movement as “purely” Syrian.
He added that its fighters had suffered heavy losses while combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), the group behind the murder of David Haines, the British aid worker, and which is holding John Cantlie and Alan Henning hostage.
Far from being a force for moderation, Ahrar al-Sham played a key role in transforming the anti-Assad revolt into an Islamist uprising. Its men fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, during the battle for Aleppo and they were accused of at least one sectarian massacre.
Instead of fighting Isil, Ahrar al-Sham helped the jihadists to run Raqqa, the town in eastern Syria that is now the capital of the self-proclaimed “Caliphate”. This cooperation with Isil happened for some months until the two groups fell out last year.
Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a “global terrorist”. The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to “al-Qaeda’s representative in Syria”, named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.
Suri has also been a senior commander of Ahrar al-Sham. If America was right to describe him as “al-Qaeda’s representative”, then there was an overlap between the leadership of the two groups.
All of these guys are in bed together. We have no way of knowing what kind of back-door deals they have with each other. They may “fight” among themselves, and even kill people, but remember that life means nothing to these people. Killing a few (or more than a few) people in the ranks simply does not matter if it advances the Jihad. They’ll butcher their own as long as it moves the Caliphate forward.
Who is going to gainsay them? This is why we can’t fund the “Free Syrian Army”. They are all just wings of the Jihad. They are all just aspects of the real confrontation. You can’t trust any of them.
We keep making the mistake of believing that our enemies have the same morals and values as we do. They do not.
They tell us this, and we wave that away as if it doesn’t matter. They can’t really mean what they say. They say they love death. They really do. They mean what they say. They aren’t even bothering to lie to us, because they know we will deceive ourselves into believing lies that they haven’t even told us. This is important.
Once again, we’ll start this one with a definition from the Webster Dictionary.
Ad Hominem -
appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
The second piece of reference I’d like to use as a preface would be rule 12 from Saul Alinsky’s, “Rules For Radicals,” which is the official play book of the political left.
RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions
Now, we’ll let Andrew Klavan tell you what those using the Chicken Hawk charge are really saying when they employ this tactic. This is as timely today as it was 5 years ago when he produced the video for PJTV.
The charge of Chicken Hawk is that anyone who has not served in our armed forces and advocates a foreign policy position that would see a deployment of our military, is a coward and a hypocrite. Simply put, only people who have ever served in our military should be listened to when any topic of appropriate usage of our military is discussed.
This of course, is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, dressed in fancy clothing, and trotted out as the same weak substitute for substantive debate. It does nothing to address the arguments that one may have given in support of military force, and even worse, the argument itself is a true sign of cowardice. Rather than engaging in the actual topic at hand, the employer of the ad hominem attacks the character of his debate opponent. We see this constantly from the political left, in fact, I’d call it the mainstay argument. Sarah Palin, despite being 100% correct with every statement she made during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, is stupid. Mitt Romney, despite being 100% correct about every statement he made during the 2012 Presidential Campaign is an evil plutocrat. Ronald Reagan was dumb. George W. Bush is dumb. Barry Goldwater was crazy. Richard Nixon was evil. John McCain is senile. Apparently, I’m a Chicken Hawk. This tactic is employed when the person using it feels incapable of substantive debate. In the case of the Chicken Hawk charge, the person employing it has failed to detail his position as to why military force would not be appropriate. End of story.
As you may have guessed, I was called out as a Chicken Hawk yesterday, because of this post. Now, it is possible that a counter to my argument exists, and I would be willing to consider that argument, but the Chicken Hawk cowardice is quite simply a cop out, or as Mr. Klavan put it so eloquently, nothing more than shut uppery. Why don’t we put that aside however, simply for the sake of argument. Let’s follow the charge, such as it is, to its illogical conclusion.
First, let’s think about the concept that only people with experience or expertise in specific areas of discipline be allowed to voice opinions on those areas of debate. When discussing tax policy, should CPA’s for example, be the only group of citizenry allowed to have input? Should Doctors and Nurses be the only ones allowed to vote as to whether or not Obamacare be adopted as the law of the land? In this, only-some-of-our-citizens-get-a-voice Universe, who gets to pick and choose what gravitas is necessary for an opinion? Will it extend to the ballot box?
There’s something else to consider. The person who employs this tactic also appoints himself the defacto spokes person for the military. This brings up another pet peeve of mine, argumentation devoid of any substance beyond an appeal to authority. This is the statement made during a debate in which the person debating will simply declare that debate is over, because he is an expert in the field. The problem with this on line of course, is that anyone can claim to be anything they want. You may remember for instance, when two middle aged white, and coincidentally male, college professors ran the two most popular lesbian blogs on the internet. They had dishonestly set themselves up as experts on all things related to the woes of lesbianism, and their word was accepted as gold, up until the two geniuses outed each other. If someone truly were an expert, than substantive debate should be an easy peazy lemon squeazy thing to bring off. Even more bizarre however, is that this defacto claim to speak for the military flies in the face that members of the military are able to speak for themselves. They may not according the the UCMJ be allowed to publicly advocate a political position on certain matters, but they speak through their vote. The military’s voting record as a whole, has been extremely tilted towards the conservative view point for a long time. This tilt has been about 80/20 since polling has been conducted. This disparity is in fact so large, that anyone who presents himself as a liberal veteran, while it may be possible, is immediately suspect in my estimation. More often than not, those calling out others as Chicken Hawks are usually people who by and large have real antipathy for the military, and are almost always advocating a position in fact which is 180 degrees out of sync with how most members of our armed services actually feel. In reality, those shouting Chicken Hawk are very often the same fine folks who spend vast amounts of energy and effort trying to disqualify the military vote in every national election, thus disenfranchising those for whom they claim to speak.
Let’s take it even further down this road. The Chicken Hawk argument, as stupid as it is, also pushes for something else. It is a demand for the military to be guided not by civilian control, as per Article II Section 2 of our Constitution, but to be placed instead under its own supervision and direction. The military of the United States has always, since the inception of our nation, been a tool of civilian political policy. This is one of the things which limits the military’s ability to make our nation a police state, not that I would accuse my fellow citizens of such intention, but the institution is in place for a reason. Military juntas do exist around the globe, and for the most part, the people who live in them are constantly trying to leave for a life in our nation, or some where else in a more free society. I find it ironic that people who mainly hate the military are the ones advocating for our nation to become a military junta. In fact, I find it down right hilarious.
As debate opponents go, I find anyone using the words Chicken Hawk to be the least worthy of my time, for the reasons stated above. It’s dishonest, foolish, cowardly, and does nothing to address anything even remotely related to a substantive point. In other words, it’s a typical leftist argument.
In this episode of EconPop, Andrew discusses the animated hit comedy The LEGO Movie. Subjects include emergent order, creative destruction, and central planning.
EconPop is the YouTube series that sifts through the haystack of popular culture to find the needle of economics within… and then stabs you with it!
Starring comedian Andrew Heaton, EconPop takes a surprisingly deep look at the economic themes running through classic films, new releases, tv shows and more from the best of pop culture and entertainment. Heaton brings a unique mix of dry wit and whimsy to bear on the dismal science of economics and the result is always entertaining, educational and irreverent. It’s Econ 101 meets At The Movies, with a dash of Monty Python.
A Production of http://emergentorder.com
Produced in Association with The Moving Picture Institute. http://thempi.org
Guest Post from Aussie Infidel:
I’ve come across an article that seems to distill a lot of diverse threads into a single all embracing idea. I found it quite insightful clever and profound and I wanted to share it amongst the denizens of The Blogmocracy. I think this article is powerful enough to have an outing with a thread of its own.
Ever wonder how a progressive refuses to condemn some 7th. Century head-chopping clone, when logically the secular left are the first to be slaughtered?
How about explaining how normally rational people, who are progressives, refuse point blank to even engage when evidence is placed in front of them ?
How do nominally rational political and religious elites, both progressive and even conservative, process information that causes them to suffer cognitive dissonance?
Have you even attempted to rationally debate a progressive face to face and have you been shocked by their emergent hatred that seems to come from nowhere ?
You can read the reasons why nominally sane people behave the way they do here:
I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.
There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.
You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.
You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.
Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.
The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.
Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.
Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.
If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.
The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.
When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.
Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.
Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.
The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.
And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.
The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until then they find it necessary to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.
website design was Built By David