Beyond the Orange Jumpsuit Videos

Acknowledging the rise of a new islamic caliphate has, only recently, gained main stream media acceptance.

We are currently at a juncture where we need to pause and reflect on the situation. How did we get to this point? Our reflection must include the Progressive voices of three years ago, who claimed that the definition of fear mongering was to simply report the facts of a developing situation.

In the case of the restoration of the Khalifah (islamic caliphate), Progressives said that the definition of fear mongering was to use the public, video-recorded statements of various forces in the Middle East who were in the process of taking action to restore the Khalifah.

But that is not the end of the story. Progressives took their rhetoric further and said that even floating the idea of the new Khalifah was 'dangerous.'

 

In my view, when Progressives play the 'free speech is dangerous' card, they are really just conforming with their party's long-held historic platform - one that seeks to ban things for which it disagrees.

Never mind that in the case of the islamists coveting the notion of a new caliphate, there were huge amounts of readily available information which clearly staked out the issue. I would go so far as to say that keeping the words of the caliphate-backing islamists from the American public has to be one of the most grand media deceptions of the last century. The evidence is everywhere. No research needs to be done. All that is needed is to replay the the islamist's own words.



Rather than debating openly and honestly, Progressives target anyone - commoner or otherwise - who doesn't sign on to the Progressive world view. Those who refuse to march in lock-step with the Progressive's chosen PC terminology of the day will, in turn, have their character targeted for assassination. And then the three-day news cycle repeats. And repeats again.

It is in this sense that Progressives champion elitism, all while claiming to be fighting against elitism. It is really fucking unbelievable how many people don't see this contradiction.

Do something really PC-unfriendly that garners a lot of attention - well, Progressives will probably take steps to silence you. In some cases, they will use the force of law. Let us not forget that the maker of the now famous 'Innocence of Muslims' movie sat in a California prison for a year after we discovered that the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Progressives even touted the notion that legitimate 100-year-old laws are already on the books that could be used to prevent a citizen from disrespecting the prophet mohammed.

Reality check: if the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater law' were really used that way, and the state restrains a serf from speaking out against religion (Islam), wouldn't the state, then, be promoting that religion? Where is separation between religion and state? If that happens, would we really be Citizens anymore, or only mere serfs with limited rights in free speech?

Let's recap. While Progressives promote a separation between church and state, they simultaneously want the government to sensor free speech against Islam. No contradiction there.

And while they talk about the Catholic Church's war on women, they basically remain silent on the actual war on women in the Islamic world. 'Culture must be respected,' they say. Okay. Agreed. But if you follow up by asking Progressives where the line between culture and human rights is located, they'll probably answer with, 'it depends' or something like that.

This is why, in my view, Progressives seem to be confused by very simple concepts most of the time. They don't apply their logic evenly, and they are wholeheartedly ashamed to apply it universally. As a result, they must remember a hundred different definitions of the same thing, you see? And so, in the end, they really don't stand for anything, other than a very ambiguous relativism.

What about how progressive women have no problem covering their hair while traveling to predominantly Muslim countries, yet crucify Western culture for promoting societal gender norms?

Got all that? Makes perfect sense, right? I digress.

Eat shit...I mean...eat this video, hypocritical Progressive idiots. People living in the real world saw ISIS coming a long time ago.

Shame on you for your elitist mocking of what eventually came to be true. I guess that's our fault too, right?

We are a Nation of Laws, Not Men

What does mob rule look like?

This is what mob rule might look like: https://vine.co/AntonioFrench

I say 'might,' because, so far, this mob hasn't exerted rule over anything, other than the airwaves.

For now, they have few tangible results, other than a visit from a self-described 'activist' U.S. Attorney General, and a Federal investigation into the August 8, 2014, shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

But if local authorities are ultimately pressured into arresting Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, without sufficient evidence of his guilt, only then does the mob become truly dangerous.

We already know that many in our Country have long-since embraced the notion of 'trial by media.' The shooting death of Michael Brown is just the most recent example. 

But if trial by mob actually exerts influence to the point where evidence no longer the paramount item in an investigation, it means that Mr. French's videos will no longer simply depict a jeering gathering of folks expressing their First Amendment rights. It means that the mob, and whatever meandering sense of justice they propel forward at any given moment, will have actual legal traction.

I don't pretend to know what will ultimately happen in this case. I hope justice is served, that's all. What I do know, however, is that the Federal authorities doing  the 'independent investigation' into the shooting of Michael Brown need to stay in their lane and stick with the facts. They must use facts only, and all of the facts. They cannot be selective in which facts they implement.

If the Feds decide they want to prosecute Officer Wilson, and local Ferguson prosecutors disagree with the Feds based on evidence or lack thereof, but are overruled, it means that the mob will have gained far more legal traction than it could have ever dreamed of on its own.

My thoughts turn to Ben Franklin. As he exited the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he responded to a woman who asked him, "Sir, what have you given us?"

He said, "A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

If Mr. French, his mob, or the left-wing media gets what they want in the end - which is a total disregard for real evidence - we will have the answer to Mr. Franklin's insinuated question. We will no longer be Citizens in a Republic.

And if the act of removing the blindfold from Lady Justice becomes routine procedure at the federal level in the coming years? What then? What do we do?

Answer: arm yourselves. With knowledge, wisdom, principles, and very solid restraint.

The Dumbest Media Segment I Have Ever Seen

This was run through the following number of stupid filters: zero

Remembering 9/11; Dusting Off "The Third Jihad"

As ISIS carries out its savagery across Iraq and Syria, Western citizens have increasingly become aware, at least very generally, of the situation. They appear to be concerned of the threat posed (finally). The poll numbers show it.

I am happy to welcome these people into my camp. I have some marshmallows for them to roast around my campfire. But, before we squish the gooey goodness onto the chocolate bar, I have one question for them: where the fuck have you been?

A few American journalists recently have their heads lopped off on video, and the serfs are suddenly surprised? 'How could this happen?'...they say.

I'll tell you how we got to this point. Lopping off of heads tends to be a problematic thing in the Islamist world. In fact, there was a string of events that happened over almost a decade of conflict in Iraq: foreign worker executions. Hundreds of them.

Where were the serfs and the poll numbers when hundreds of third country national (TCN) workers were being executed in Iraq from 2003 onward? Many of those executed were Filipino, Sri Lankan, or Nepalese truck drivers - who are some the best and most humble dudes you'll ever meet.

But those good dudes got the same orange jumpsuit treatment, and the same barbaric manner of death as our American journalists in 2014. Why not a mega-uproar then, back in the early days?

Are we really that political as a society? Answer: yes.

Are we really that umbilically tied to mainstream media, who gives us selective, low-information reporting? Answer: yes.

I'll tell you where I was in the early days: It was February 2005. I was just south of Baghdad. My squad and I were taking the home of a Iraqi male and flipping it upside down. Said Iraqi male was a suspicious looking fuckstick. I had found his jack-off video in a bedroom drawer. The video showed about a dozen Filipino workers getting their heads lopped off one by one. I was watching him smirk when we played the video in order to qualify what kind of guy he was. Then, I was slamming his head into the wall and kneeing him in the peroneal nerve, cuffing him, and taking him back to base for questioning.

What were the serfs doing in the same time-frame? Playing fantasy football? Reading Cosmo on the elliptical? Talking at Starbucks about how the United States brought the war on terror on ourselves?

Pause. Take a deep breath.

It is no matter what the serfs were doing then. Whomever is with me around the campfire at the present moment is welcome. I'll even teach my new guests how to shoot - and shoot well - all for a low low price of $free.99. But to understand islamism, they'd better have an attention-span above that of a second grader.

Let's back up. Before even coming to see me, they'd better pass by the front desk of the campground to trade their politically-correct ramblings in exchange for some critical thinking skills where there are no limits on free speech. If they they show up without having completely shed their adult-child persona, I will be forced to torture them (first-world-style) by giving them a latte with lactose in it (after all, I am not ISIS).

End rant on the dangerously low expectations society has for American adult-children when it comes to current events knowledge.

As we remember the victims of 9/11, let us also remember that folks (other than the elliptical Cosmo readers) that have kept the torch of true enlightenment lit since 9/11. They've authored all kinds of educational videos and books in an effort to sound a warning of the coming threat of islamism. They have loads of critical thinking skills, tremendous maturity, humility, and, I might add, a large amount of courage. The real kind.

Today, my thoughts turn towards those true Patriots, the ones who've seen it as their duty to stand guard against the threat posed by islamists, and who repeatedly articulate their knowledge publicly. Zuhdi Jasser, Frank Gaffney, Aayan Hirsi Ali, and Nonie Darwish immediately come to mind. And there are others. To all these folks, I say thank you.

Let us remember that the full length below, The Third Jihad, was made in 2008, while Obama was pre-writing his 2009 Cairo speech.

Let us also acknowledge the criticism the video received, and where that criticism came from.

Response to SOFREP Article: Transgenders in the Military Exist

Reading: http://sofrep.com/36747/transgenders-in-the-military-exist/

Reaction:

I agree with Brandon Webb in that holistic thinking must be kept close at hand when contemplating this issue. I also agree that in the society as a whole, transgenders deserve respect, tolerance, and we should move forward as a society to learn how to better understand them. They should give respect in return, and should avoid portraying minor issues as if the Taliban just attacked them.

I say this in light of exhibits A and B:

 

 

Of course, everyone in this Country is free to express themselves as they see fit. I believe so strongly, in fact, in regards to free expression, that I'd give my life in defense of transgenders from a violent attack, no matter the motivation of the attacker. America should not be tolerant of intolerance, and that ethos needs to extend in all directions.

Having said that, Brandon appears to believe (additionally) that holistic thinking on this topic means the military should reflect the holistic values of the entire society. Well, with all due respect, I have some news to share: the entire society believes a bad day is when the mall closes early on Sunday. It is not a proper analogy, Brandon.

If the military was merely modeled after society's values, we'd be overrun. What works for society doesn't mean it will work in the military. Ya'll get the premise and understand why, correct?

I saw a T-shirt recently in a shop that had a US flag on it and it said "back-to-back world war champs." I didn't buy it, but nonetheless, the t-shirt means something. It means that what we have/had for a modus operandi in the military isn't broken. We have been successful in combat without conforming to the standard of regular society. We have not, and should not, feel compelled as war fighters to chase society towards total relativism. The military exists to shoot bad people in the face. And to repeat without unnecessary delay until the enemy is defeated. That's it.

If you want a great business example of fixing something that isn't broken, research Coca-Cola's campaign of New Coke. Watch the brief intro to the video, then go to about 4:40.



I have about four years downrange, 3.5 in a combat environment. Those of us that were there know that men and women in the military fuck each other all the time in combat zones. 18 month Big Army deployments, are you surprised?

BIAP was basically a large city with MRAPS, cheesecake, yoga studios, and trailers where my estimate is that two out of every three women were getting nailed on a regular basis. By men from both inside and outside of their unit. Once, after arriving at FOB Falcon in South Baghdad, I had Joes from the 1st CAV tell me to "avoid the females" because there had been a few incidents of women extorting men for cash after some sort of sex act occurred between them (or it was threatened that they would sound the rape whistle). I took their advice, and steered clear.

I am sure the Army did an investigation of the above incident(s), but it is a clear example of how women, when co-deployed for long periods alongside combat soldiers and in close quarters, is problematic, and is an unnecessary distraction. America has won many wars without women in, or alongside, combat arms (different from happenstance combat, or isolated incidents of combat where it was unexpected, serving in combat arms means to live in an environment entirely dedicated towards finding, fixing, and destroying the enemy). Combat arms is an aggressive "mental place" to reside while one is in a unit.

If you refuse to believe this about our military, that this sort of fraternization happens, then just keep those American flag stickers stuck over your eyelids. The rest of us will sort through and deal with reality. Bottom line, while I was never in a unit with women, from stories I've heard this sexual fraternization dynamic fucked up unit cohesion something fierce. And that was with non-combat arms units, where a fucked up dynamic didn't mean life and death, at least as much as it does in combat arms.

The issue of females in a combat environment is relevant, because, as homosexuality is introduced into the combat equation, it means the likely scenario of additional group dynamic complexity to war fighting. This is not needed. After all, what happened to KISS principles? Especially in combat?

Bottom line, I believe holistic thinking does apply to transgenders in the military, but by way of understanding that the mission of the military is to keep the main thing the main thing. After all, we have a track record of success.

Let's stick with that.

Progressive Thugs: Attemping to Ban Beer (and Other Good Stuff) since 1920

http://host.madison.com/news/local/madison-only-latest-fight-for-uber-lyft/article_195b0e4e-9c09-5c88-a073-ab79328512e8.html

"Mayor Paul Soglin says the issue is a test of Madison’s commitment to racial and social equality, writing in a blog post that he wants to ensure access to on-call transportation for “every individual in every neighborhood.”

If Uber and Lyft are allowed to defy or cherry-pick regulations, they’ll gain an unfair advantage over taxis that follow the rules, Soglin said, threatening the companies that do provide equal access."

My commentary:

If we're being direct here.....my assessment is that Major Soglin is a thug. He's wielding mob tactics. 

Historically, mobs always had 'legitimate' businesses that they ran. If you wanted to come into their section of the city and put up a new building, you could do so, as long as you used the mob's builder. If you were okay with paying a higher price, everything was good.

But try choosing another builder, and you could end up dead and so could the other builder. Concrete shoes, anyone?

That is tyranny, especially when the city government knew about it and looked the other way (and in the hay day of mobs, they often did, because officials were on the take).

Does my metaphor mean that I am calling Soglin a mobster who uses physical brutality? Absolutely not, there's no evidence of that in the least. But today people on his side of the argument are making an argument for soft tyranny.

Example of soft tyranny: Have a better idea for a service that disrupts the relationship between government and its 'chosen' businesses? That's fine. You can proceed, but we're just going to tax you into oblivion and make you do years of paperwork, just so you can make an attempt at operating legally here in the city of Madison. Have a nice day.

And if the above argument wins, the legal monopoly, and soft tyranny, continues on unthwarted.

The issue of Lyft and Uber has nothing to do with racial and social equality, and Soglin knows it. He is deliberately obfuscating. That's Saul Alinsky 101: when you have a losing argument, pull back. Don't allow the public an extended opportunity to see your logic fail when debating your opponent. Instead, end the honest and factual debate as quickly as possible. Pivot towards attacking the character and credibility of your opponent. Repeat.

That is what Soglin's quote sets the stage for - he is prepping the coming narrative by using the chosen buzzwords of the day. All to get the idiot lemmings to begin their emotional journey of assembling to go attack the racists and the rich with pitch forks in hand.

Instead of having a factual debate being about the necessity of regulations and potential cost savings to the customers while getting a better service, Soglin is transforming the argument to one of racial and social equality. Bullshit, I say.

Why bullshit?

1) Because the main thing (in the debate) is not kept as the main thing. He's way off point.
2) The obfuscation is ridiculous, because evidence of potential inequality (his argument) is nil

3) Feigned racism really pisses me off because it detracts attention from real cries of racism

Nevertheless, the battle lines are drawn now....if you're for Uber and Lyft, you must not be for racial/social equality, or you must not be sophisticated/educated enough to understand the core of the issue. Got it?

Make no mistake, this is about preserving the partnership that organized labor has with government. It is an attempt at legalizing monopolies.

Unions came into existence for good reasons. Laborers of the past worked hard to overcome various labor-oriented injustices. Fast forward to today: progressives are exploiting the power gained by the honest efforts of past laborers in order to preserve current monopolies. And they are doubling-down on traditional taxi services: an outdated, over-regulated, often under-performing, and expensive service.

All in order to preserve 1) kickback funding for Democratic/Progressive political candidates, and 2) to continue their long-standing rubber-stamp messaging, which states that the only way a service can help the people is when government gets their hands all over it.

Not only is this immoral, it slows true progress because they are trying to kill a more modern, better, and cheaper service that could truly help the common person. Very ironic that progressives are trying to hamstring progress in this way.

For this reason, I think it will backfire on Soglin and his progressive friends. People are smarter than the progressives understand (well, most people anyway. The Kool-aid drinkers will still go into the jungle and repeat the ramblings of their master.) I hope the people choose to fight. I think they will. It is only a matter of time.

The progressives don't realize how much We the People don't need or want them to regulate our lives. After all, progressives failed at maintaining prohibition, and, shockingly, at foreseeing the backlash they ultimately created when they decided it would be a good idea to ban beer. WTF, right?! Morons.

Final witty comment: 'We know better than you' type-arguments are condescending and really fuckin' suck. There is a wave of Libertarianism coming, and it will sweep the Nation. Free Minds and Free Markets (Reason's Motto) will reign once again. Wait for it....wait....there it is! BOOM!

Now go get it. BOOM again!

The ISIS Blitzkrieg: Still Developing, Not Finalized, but....it 'Don't Look Good'

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/isis-battle-plan

It looks like hard-fought gains will have to be hard-fought for once again. It is currently unclear who will do it, since many in the Iraqi Army and police have abandoned their posts. I also don't know when it will happen, but eventually someone will have to fight. A lot of someones.

And a lot of them will die doing so. They'll either die or die trying, as they try to retake Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit. All of these cities have fallen to the islamic State of Iraq and the Sham. Samarra, home to the important shine to Shia Muslims, the al-Askari mosque, is also now under attack by the ISIS Sunni jihadis. That is also where Iraq's surviving security forces in the area have retreated. Time will tell.

As a result of the rapidly-evolving situation, someone else may have to draw new lines on a map - for example, the National Geographic Atlas team may have to make a few edits to line-work in the Middle East region. That is, if all those other someones died and were ultimately unsuccessful in trying to defeat ISIS, who has made huge territorial gains in northern and western Iraq as well as Syria.

Without the ability to exert influence on the regional outcome, all Americans can do is hope that Baghdad will not fall to ISIS. Let's hope that in six months time Baghdad will still be on the "better" side of a new map line. Let's assume that Baghdad will survive, and pivot to something specific in order to illuminate possible future realities:

Women, living in Baghdad, on the "good" side of a new boundary line, despite the territorial onslaught into their country by Islamic Jihadists, will hopefully find the courage to continue reaching for a western notion of equality in society. Women on the other side of the line, however, will not have the luxury to think about equality; they'll be thinking about their lives. They'll simply be hoping for much more basic things. For example, their main issue, beyond staying alive, might be that the new ISIS government secure a 5% conviction rate for men who pour acid on women for minuscule offenses of religious non-compliance. You see, they may be forced to accept that acid pouring on women for major offenses is legal, but might hold out hope for limiting such acts as punishment for lessor crimes against Islam. To them, such a compromise would be a new definition of 'progress' - similar to parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Such 'progress' was made possible 2 years ago by the Commander-in-Chief of American Progressives. That's Progressives for you - fucking over common people from which they publicly seek support and pretend to champion, yet privately loath, and the audacity to blame the other side of the political aisle for their own gross incompetence. Yep, they've been practicing pompous, out-of-touch elitism since 1912.

However, if their 'stupidity' remains unchanged despite the harsh realities of the results, which we will continue to see unfold in the months and years ahead, there must come a point at which it will become hard to argue that their 'stupidity' wasn't on purpose. See image of the stained glass window at the London School of Economics (birthplace of Fabian Socialism).

Heating up world up, so they can reshape it, by acting as wolves in sheep's clothes. If this is true, and their organization hasn't abandoned their founding principles, are they the ones at work in the Middle East at present? If so, are they working to benefit our interests.....or their own? Who stands to lose the most? One thing is certain - in the Middle East, women stand to lose the most. Men can retain their freedom so long as they nod and sway in approval of the ruling power.

And for us, western serfs, what will be our fate against forces which seek to heat things up? I argue the same thing as people in the Middle East. Political leaders seek to divide us more and more each day. We'll be fine if we nod and sway in approval of those in power.

But if we don't agree with their rhetoric, if we persist in our demand to be treated as citizens, refusing to live in serfdom, I think there will come a day when their costume comes off...and the Western ruling power elites begin to show themselves as the wolves they truly are.