We must return to a brilliance in the basics of independent principles. We must never settle for a dulled sense of security in lieu of liberty. We must be willing to pledge our lives and our sacred honor to re-establish a strong Republic defined by free minds and markets and defended by an engaged citizenry who thinks and acts on principle.
Here is the link to the US Department of State (DoS) travel guidance on Saudi Arabia. The most notable section is the one titled "Local Laws and Special Circumstance" :
Note that the DoS page was last updated on September 26, 2016. The date is important.
Contained in the "Local Laws and Special Circumstance" section, there is a link to the 2015 International Religious Freedom Report published by the DoS Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Similar to the travel guidance, the information given is quite revealing.
In
looking at the reports, it is important to note
that intolerance of non-Muslims and oppression of women and homosexuals
is not behavior limited to jihadists, the kinetic arm of Islamist ideology. Instead, the Obama-era DoS guidance surrounding travel to
Saudi Arabia reveals how the most important Sharia-governed official state on
the planet generally does business.
As this war progresses, it is critical that citizens in the West begin to grasp the basic structure of our opponents. To this end, the below article from Brookings is a great primer to understanding various shades of Islamism, as well as how to define Salafism and Jihadism.
1)
The job of Saudi
Arabia's Mutawwa (religious police)
is to enforce the laws which generated warnings in the DoS travel guidelines. If you were head of the Mutawwa, how would you view Western liberal society's stance
toward homosexuals, women, and non-believers?
2) For decades now, there has been a lot of talk about the war on terror
as being a struggle in 'good vs. evil.' ISIS has been characterized as being of an evil nature. The Hisbah is a group which serves as religious police for the Islamic State. In your opinion, does the Hisbah's likely view the United States as good or evil? Why?
3) Clearly indicate whether
you think the Mutawwa's view of the United
States is substantially different from that of the Hisbah.
4) Fill in
the bank by selecting from the choices below:
Many people think U.S.
foreign policy has been bad for a long time. The U.S. is widely disliked
by many Muslims around the world, and many people think this is because of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore, a case can be made that U.S.
foreign policy is to blame for _____________________. (Think about the religious identity of the people or landmarks destroyed in each of the attacks listed below)
General Motors is alive, Al Qaeda is dead. Isn't that how it goes, Mr. President?
Sure, and those troops Romney wanted to keep in Iraq wouldn't have helped to stop the advance of the Islamic State (IS). You know, those JV guys who took off their Al Qaeda t-shirt one day, and put on a IS t-shirt the next day - their worldview really changed a lot the moment they changed shirts, right? Yes sir...What a person calls themselves is really what matters, actions and beliefs are secondary. And just so we're on the same page, after this tremendous overnight worldview transformation, all those IS boys were there - waiting in the wings - JV style - and they started calling some numbers in their Rolodex because they had only recently decided to initiate the formation of a country. Indeed, it's not like the lineage of those IS kiddos had been calling for an Islamic State since the fall of the Ottoman Empire - fuck all, that's hearsay right?
And Russia. Eh, fuck it, right? That line about the the 1980's wanting it's "foreign policy back" made for a great fuckin' sound bite. Those 27 year old staffers are so gal darn witty. They're brilliant, and have been their entire lives. They come to work each day, latte in hand, ready to deal out snark and unearned moral superiority to their fellow Americans. Pompous assholes of the world, unite!
Either all that is true, Mr. Obummer, or you might just be an empty suit masquerading as a leader.
Rather than be a recurring victim to the daily buzz stories forced upon by 'news' progams, over the years I've tried to receive information while maintaining long-term, large-picture perspective. To be sure, most of the supposed news stories can be disregarded. Whatever remains, then, is added to the list of things being mulled in the back of my mind, a place where I try to understand the interrelatedness of things that matter.
Life of the party or not, if not this approach, what other are the other effective options? From my perspective, there are none. For me it is incredibly depressing to simply be a reactionary serf of society, joining the many who are disjointedly frustrated at the pompousness of the untouchable power elites.
No leader amongst us with any sort of power is seeking to unite the clans. The powerful elite only seek to divide. The world is on fire.
In response, I fear that long ago too many smart, capable people have simply chosen to focus their lives around insignificant activities in protest of decades of poor leadership. For example, how easy has it become to shirk our responsibilities as citizens and tune to some form of rancid reality TV, Cosmopolitan Magazine Et al., or an NFL fantasy league (Cosmo for men. *Side note, I have always been perplexed by sports fantasy leagues. I've always wondered how it's possible to give a fuck about such things. I do my best to only negativity judge those participating if they take it too seriously while simultaneously not being able to find the Middle East on a map).
What are the implications for a society that is drunk on alternatives to an engaged citizenry? I think we're seeing that play out in a daily basis. Society is in degradation. Perhaps we're all waiting for the return of fireside chat radio - ready to receive any voice of leadership. But for too long we've received nothing in transmission.
Which probably why I am compelled to dodge fantasy leagues and instead use much of my time turning to the horizon, staring, thinking about very different players in a very different and more serious game. There is a clash of civilizations upon us. What are the possible motivating factors? Separate the attention-seeking idiots from the relevant players. The relevant players are playing a longer game than the others, what is it? Who among the relevant players is maneuvering as sole proprietor, and who is aligning themselves with a movement with longstanding history?
A recurring and fascinating consideration of mine is the level of concern shown by American political camps toward the plight of progressive Muslims. The fascinating part is that the concern shown by American conservatives is so much higher than the concern shown by American progressives.
Spirituality so often shapes the foundation of a movement. When it comes to progressives, however, deep-rooted elements of their spiritual ideology seem to run contradictory to the political stance they've taken in a post-9-11 world.
As a general rule, no one knows more about how to make reforms to an institution or ideology than those who have had inside exposure. This is what made Martin Luther a good candidate to play a role in reforming the Catholic Church in 1517. And it is what could make moderate Muslims (and those who've left Islam) good candidates to comment on the current agenda of radical Muslims.
While a segment of progressives seem to be rather enthusiastic about their atheism, a majority still espouse some form of spirituality. Some remain in acceptance of more formal spiritual organizations. Increasingly many embrace an alternative definition of spirituality. But regardless of flavor or formality preferences, Progressivism sees itself as a force for pushing back on longstanding social limitations
imposed by religion.
And I'm okay with that. In fact, I support it, so long as the tactics used are not underhanded toward honest and decent folks. I often see religious reformation as a good thing.
But under that definition of Progressivism - that being a force for pushing back against social limitations imposed by religion - which individuals fit the profile of a progressive Muslim?
In any rational world, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jassershould be considered a progressive Muslim. He speaks out regarding the dangers of Sharia and the limits it imposes on the liberties of many people, women in particular. Dr. Jasser is also adamant that Sharia can never be allowed to replace American law. He notes that many European courts have made the mistake of allowing Muslim immigrants to self-rule through Shariah courts that operate outside of the mainstay European judicial system. He has referred to political Islam and Sharia as being like a bad drug - that it is certainly not a step toward a more modern society. So why, then, is he so routinely attacked by progressives?
One answer is that progressives want nothing more than to appear
the public moral victor. With this type of social currency in hand, it is more difficult for their opponents to pin them down in a debate. Consistent morality is a more distant concern to them. One useful tactic to achieve the appearance of moral victor can be seen in the progressive incessant desire to control the use of certain language. They routinely make it clear that they alone are the authority to the use of certain terminology. Those who do not conform to their 'patent use restriction' face character assassination.
For example, progressives decided they would control the word 'Sharia' and spread the idea, for instance, that the Islamists practicing Sharia pose little threat to gays. This required them to ignore the persecution and execution of gays in the Middle East. Because the Sharia buzzword had been added to the umbrella of progressive brands, anyone who had the audacity to question the brand became a target. This ensured that, at cocktail parties, progressives could retain their appearance as more worldly - the defender of other cultures. It didn't matter that the culture they chose to defend has in modern times continuously displayed widespread viciousness towards women of a severity that would make most people weep. Such things can be swept under the rug. What's important to progressives is the outward-facing, tidy, stay-on-message piece of the social transaction: "we defend other cultures against imperialism."
Which is why even moderate concern about Islamism is portrayed by progressives as being akin to McCarthyism. While ignoring Dr. Jasser's genuine concern for the well-being of gays in the Muslim world, progressives wish to socially signal to all watching that Islam is their bitch, and no one is allowed to criticize it - or care for it - other than them. Not even other Muslims. So sorry, Dr. Jasser, even your diverse sounding name cannot save you from the monsters. But watch out for Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, he poses a hateful threat to gays.
Such obliviousness can largely be attributed to mid-level progressive supervisors whose job it is to muddy the waters and get the lemmings to sway in unison. This is how the mind-numbing contradictions of progressives are made possible - the minions allow it because they have been conditioned to allow it for decades. For if they don't, somewhere in the back of their minds, they know they will be eaten by the monster they helped create.
So the minions do what they're told. Stickers are affixed to vehicles and laptops, and feigned outrage hashtag campaigns ensue. Gold stars are issued to those who show the most creativity in agreeing with the party line, and the holder of gold stars receives enhanced currency to assist them with their social maneuvering. Obedience is virtually
lockstep, fixation of facts and honest debate be damned. The pressure to goosestep while smiling is overwhelming. Better a fake smile than face being called an Islamophobe, xenophobe, bigot, insensitive, yada yada. Right? The summary message to progressive lemmings is this: drink the Kool-aid, vote, don't complain, ask no questions, and remember that the end justifies the means. Saul Alinsky, you're my boy.
And what about increasing our Muslim population here in the U.S. via mass refugee immigration? Is the average citizen right to be moderately concerned about the details of the vetting process?
The progressive answer is no - you are not allowed to be concerned about it. Questioning how the west can possibly co-exist with people who believe that 15-year old girls should be forced to marry makes you a bigot.
What if the question is, should the United States enact laws to criminalize the denunciation of Muhammed? Some progressives have suggested - yes! Some have concluded that insulting Islam is akin to shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. They have argued that these key elements of free speech are actually hate speech and thus should be banned out of a concern over safety.
Arguing against the freedom to criticize Muhammed's teachings is not progressive. That is, not in the logical world. But in the world of a true Piss Christ fan, pissing on Jesus is fine, but criticizing Muhammed should totally result in prison time, dude. It's because Muhammed came from somewhere other than Western culture, you bigot.
Of course we must acknowledge the "in the name of public safety" argument often posed by progressives. Is violence resulting from a Muslim's reaction to blasphemy as much a threat to the public as, well, actual fire? Do Muslims have the same amount of choice in responding to insults as fire does in responding to fuel and oxygen? Wow. Because that's really scientific! And low expectations, anyone?
Let's take another example, Aayan Hirsi Ali. One would think that a Somali-born female human rights activist who courageously left Islam
would be a progressive darling. Alas, this is not the case. Because Aayan ruins the progressive narrative with her plain criticism of Islam, they shout her down. Perhaps even more than Dr. Jasser, if Aayan-the-feminist-religion-critic can't be
considered progressive, then how valuable is the term, really?
Progressives are so absolute in
their focus on achieving power that they end up abandoning people around the world that are in vital need their help. The progressive orchestrated narrative matters so much that moral heart strings to speak truth to evil remain flat even in the face of unspeakable human atrocities. When Muslim women are treated worse than dogs for religious non-compliance there is silence, but don't forget about Hobby Lobby's war on women over its stance on birth control (Hobby Lobby agreed to supply women 16 forms of birth control, not 20. Burn those backwards fuckers at the stake).
There is but one thing that can explain the selection of progressive allies: Muslims desire the destruction of capitalism and western influence as much as progressives do. It's a companionship based on a desire to change the existing order of the world. A main objective of radical Islam, for example, is to undo the Sykes Picot agreement.
Checkers or not, there is no doubt progressive leaders understand that Islam has power. Of the kinetic type. 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide is a lot of people. And it appears they have been attempting to harness that power into a needle and inject it into the bend of their arm like a heroine addict.
Those of us that have pledged our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend free minds and free markets need to better understand the alliance that has formed between Islamists and progressives. If the alliance is successful the endgame is totalitarianism and that is bad. The truth is that radical Islam is as diametrically opposed to the lifestyles of American progressives AND American conservatives AND moderate Muslims AND all women as one can possibly imagine.
Just finished watching a new made-for-TV series: L'enfant. It is the best four-part series I've ever seen (besides Lonesome Dove).
An Indie Drama out of Yale, L'enfant earns four stars by my review, although the film did receive some harsh criticism The only critical feedback I can suggest is for this guy to be been cast in a lead role next season, as L'enfant occasionally needs more supporting acting.
Time to
grab some popcorn, pour a few fingers of the good stuff, sit back relax
and enjoy the show! Enjoy!
At approximately 3:30 p.m. on August 13, 2016, a Milwaukee police officer shot and killed 23 year old Sylville Smith during a traffic stop. From the time the officer emerged from his vehicle to the time he shot Smith, 25 seconds transpired. A brief foot chase had ensued, and Smith was seen (later confirmed) to have a gun in his hand. After initially running, he turned toward the officer. The officer fired two shots, hitting Smith in the arm and head.
Riots erupted.
An officer was hit in the head by a brick, causing a major loss of blood. Several police cruisers were set on fire or completely smashed. Rioters set fire to a BP gas station, an O'Rielly Auto Parts store, BMO Harris Bank, and a beauty supply store. All were totally destroyed. Random gunfire kept firefighters from attending to the buildings. A grocery store was looted. Rioters then turned to attacking journalists and photographers. On Sunday night a 19 year old white man was shot in the neck and could only be carried to safety by Policemen using an armored assault vehicle.
At a community gathering on Sunday, two of Sylville Smith's sisters spoke to the community with cameras rolling:
“At the end of the day, acting out ain’t gonna solve it. Ain’t gonna
solve nothing for Sylville. The city went crazy (Saturday) night over
Sylville. We tired of it. We tired."
~ Kimberly Neal, sister of Sylville Smith
“I lost my brother. I can’t get him back. Never. Never. That’s pain. I can’t look him in the eye no more. Burning down shit ain’t gonna help nothin’! You’re burning down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs! Burn that shit down! We need our shit, we need our weave! I don’t wear it, but we need it.”
Back to local news coverage. Good ol' selective editing is alive and well, eh @Fox6Now?
At 9:20 p.m. Sunday night, Fox6News published an online article which quoted Sherelle Smith as saying only “I lost my brother. I can’t get him back. Never. Never. That’s pain. I can’t look him in the eye no more."
And that ..."in the eye no more" would be where Fox6News stopped the quote. Authors Madeline Anderson and Katie DeLong chopped that lil part about how suburbs would be a better place to burn shit down. Madeline and Katie did manage to throw in the article how the sisters "encouraged
peace in Milwaukee." Which technically could be construed as being true. Er. Uh. 70%-ish or so true. Maybe? And stuff? If you're a Clinton and the word 'is' has multiple definitions?
What about that other 30% of the truth that was withheld? Can the young lady authors please share that with us?
Nope.
C ho p q uote. Q uo t e ch o p.
I used to think that the Wayne's World drive through ordering thing was funny. Well...who am I kidding? I still think it is.
So Fox6News authors Madeline and Katie, my advice is to keep that selective editing bullshit for the cinema. Editing out the full truth isn't gonna help the truly downtrodden in this world, the ones that 'keep it real.'
One more thing, what the fuck is wrong with you? Knock off the puppet show. Your journalism smells like shit.
Isn't
it odd how the same totalitarian lefties that passed this helmet
law (and other laws) are, at the same time, not able to figure out that this will create more interactions between the police and the population? Yes, totalitarian lefties, police are actually required to go out and enforce your
nirvana agenda.
What would be the alternative to enforcing the law once its passed? Are police not supposed to carry out the law? Are they supposed to receive the orders to enforce a helmet law and then decide, on their own, "no, I'm just not going to enforce this one." What if officers were given guidance to not enforce the helmet law in minority neighborhoods, while officers of a more affluent precinct were directed to continue enforcing the ordinance? Or vice-versa? The law is supposed to be blind and enforced objectively.
Double standards just don't seem to lead America to a very nice place. The world over they've never led any society at any point in history to a nice place. The suggestion that there should be a deliberate unequal application of the law due to top-down social caste tinkering is dangerous.
Any attempt to legislate nirvana will
inevitably result in more police interaction with citizens. And more interaction inevitably means more
potential for negative interaction, at least if the laws of statistics
apply. People tend to push back when they feel they are overly bothered by government:
The extent to which there are dishonest law enforcement officers (overzealous district attorneys, anyone?), there is currently too much room afforded in the United States to legally maneuver against citizens. Laws are used too much as a weapon; a big fat playbook to oppress and one that is only getting thicker. Add progressives are the culprit for much of the thickness (Progressive Republicans, too).
Extreme example: Eric Garner in New York. Killed by a policeman. Originally pulled aside for questioning over suspicion of selling loose cigarettes. Who cares if he's selling loose cigarettes?
