You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘religion’ category.

Who the heck is Josh Duggar? Sorry, I don’t cruise the dial on the sewage pipe that often, basically I stick to old westerns, documentaries or the history channel. I can’t switch the channel fast enough when I see one of these unreality shows; seems like they’re always about some oddity, a spectacle for the feeble-minded. Not sure what’s worse, the fact that there are people like this out there, or that there are people who make them millionaires. Geez, if I could just develop some behavior more bizarre than my almost normal (?) routine, I might be able to dig myself out of the financial black hole. Unfortunately, I don’t think I’d look that good with man-boobs or a silicone pumpkin-ass. But I digress.

Just a man groping with his faith?

Just a man groping with his faith?

So Josh is a member of a devout Independent Baptist family whose apparent claim to fame is the fact that Mom and Dad only have one hobby. One that they are obviously pretty darned good at. So are people watching this show for its uplifting message, its family values and its weirdness factor or were they just hoping for the eventual train wreck? Beats me, but I don’t go to the idiot box for morality lessons or someone else’s skewed vision of “reality.” I guess entertainment is a pretty broad concept. Hey, I still watch the Stooges so what the hell do I know.

However, one can’t get through a show without an infotainment blurb about “what the Duggars are saying now” or “what’s next for the Duggars”, etc, etc. The story is crowding out real news, like what cup size is Caitlyn? Yeesh. So I just hadda take a peek to see what the fuss was all about. Fuss indeed.

Mr. Duggar seems to have violated four of his younger sisters when he was a young teen himself. How sweet. And Mom and Dad, taking a limited break from their own copulation, apparently tell the local authorities that Josh admitted to “fondling the breasts and genitals of several victims while they were sleeping in the family’s home and that similar incidents happened for or five times.” Months later, Josh admits to his parents that again, he fondled another victim while she lay asleep on the family couch. And he continues, nine months later molesting one victim as she sat in his lap.

Question; what kind of idiot continues to expose the vulnerable to the predator? Maybe I’m old school, maybe its hyperbole or maybe I don’t really know what I’d do in that situation and I’m blowing smoke; but my gut tells me that my son would be immediately enrolled in some type of institution, both arms in casts. So I’m not giving Mr. and Mrs. Procreation a pass here. One can debate where Josh learned this behavior from in the first place, but anything beyond one chance is enablement.

Sickening enough was the act. Now we get the follow on chatter about the evils of religion, or maybe the evils of no religion, or forgiveness or how the hell can you forgive this, yaddi yaddi yadda. How Josh “admitted” his mistake, his sister-victims forgave him, his parents were anguished, his wife stands by him. It’s all still noise to me. He’s a sick individual, period. Said the same thing about the wonderful Ms. Dunham when she admitted to “finding” her toddler sister stuffed full of pebbles. Twisted people, in need of help. Can people like this ever be cured? I seriously doubt it. Can they ever be forgiven? If the victims wish to forgive them, fine. If they believe that whatever God they worship forgives them, I’m good with that too. And it’s not like they need to seek forgiveness from me which is a good thing, because I know I couldn’t and I’m not even involved. I guess forgiveness helps with the healing. Only the victims can say and they’re the ones who have to rebuild their lives, trying to recover something that is lost forever.

Just as sickening is how society at large looks at this. Maybe I’m making too sweeping a generalization here, but it’s “your side” versus “their side” over this issue, marginalizing the damned perverted act in the first place. The deeply religious were offended by Ms. Dunham, quite sure that her lifestyle was related to her lack of morals, her upbringing, and her permissive views; the left see nothing but hypocrisy in the religious who tout family values and morals, with neither side willing to admit that evil, horrifically disturbed people need no creed, religion, viewpoint or party on which to base their deviancy. But this is the game today. Let’s not worry about the act, let’s see if we can pin it to something I disagree with; my side wins! The left is quite sure that there is a cover up going on based on the Duggars’ religion; maybe their beliefs fostered this behavior; it certainly sought to hide it. Even though Duggar admitted his behavior, that’s not enough; although at seventeen Ms. Dunham continued to masturbate in bed next to the wiry body of her younger sibling and that was just peachy from their point of view. Exception’s all around, no matter what side of the spectrum you’re on. If Josh wasn’t religious but still a famous reality star, maybe Whoopi would have said it wasn’t real “fondling-fondling.” Or heck, maybe if his name was Polanski he’d have a much better career path than the one he has now. All he’s left with is a possible book deal, and a career giving motivational speeches at camps for wayward religious youth. All is forgiven.

You can pick and choose sides over any issue and relate it to the superiority of your viewpoints, or the inferiority of those you disagree with; but be careful. All you’re doing is marginalizing the seriousness of that issue. This has nothing to do with politics; nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with a young man who was twisted enough to find sexual gratification at the expense of his own minor sisters. Until we can all agree that it’s hideous and it occurs everywhere, far too often, we’ll never come to any agreement on how we should respond to it or prevent it.

As long as my side can score points, the act has a perverse value and the victims are nothing more than collateral damage. And society is nothing more than an old Jerry Springer re-run.

I hope the Stooges are on……


I refuse to watch the video. I usually like to see things for myself, although one needs to be careful in today’s world of digitally altered propaganda. However, the ISIS video of the immolation of their captured Jordanian pilot should probably be viewed by every person on the planet. If one can get beyond the horrific suffering of Moaz al-Kasasbeh, you can hear the expressions of glee and triumph in the voices of the soldiers of Allah in the background. Of course, they aren’t doing this in the name of Islam. Unless that is, you ask them their motivation. It doesn’t really matter to ISIS how you refer to them. Labels and the fear of offending someone (or being offended) are concerns that only paralyze the west. Those who follow a religion that celebrates death and martyrdom over the sanctity of life are looking for greater rewards than an apology for being photographed naked at Gitmo. While we tie our hands over the strategy we should pursue to defend civilization, they tie the hands of women and children before forcibly removing their heads from their bodies. Shooting these barbarians from a distance gets one labeled a “coward.” Such is the complicity of the progressive left of the world.


The greatest victory of the progressive left in its war on western values to date is probably best remembered in the image of the last chopper taking off from the rooftops in Saigon. A stark statement to be sure, but no less true. The war was lost at home, lost in the classrooms of major centers of “learning,” where young minds were taught the moral relativism that elevates the left’s romantic affection for communism and socialism as a more enlightened concept than the individual freedoms espoused by western society. Once Saigon fell, the wonders of communism gave us the killing fields of Cambodia where the communist regime murdered almost two million of its own people. Back then, we were racist as well, seeking only to conquer and kill “the yellow man,” according to Springsteen.

Fast forward to 2015 and the left is still on its march to destroy the foundations of the western world in the name of “equality,” “justice,” “diversity,” whatever. The battle still rages on campuses everywhere, teaching our best and brightest future leaders of the world that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The cultural elites of the left will hashtag their asses off to show solidarity for one day, exclaiming “Je suis Charlie,” then protesting against Israel the next, chanting “Allahu Akbar” in the faces of Jewish students and decorating their frat houses with swastikas. In a macabre twist of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the left does its best to make sure that we do not identify the political ideology posing as a religion, lest we insult the “moderate majority” of Muslims. Interesting phrase that; moderate Muslim. Of course, we are told that we can’t paint the whole Muslim world with the actions of a few. How many is a few? What is the definition of a moderate Muslim? If there are close to two billion Muslims in the world and the radical extreme makes up only a tiny portion of that number, one would have to logically assume that radical Islam would not be an issue at all. Maybe we can’t paint them all with a broad brush, but the circle of people who surrounded the gay man executed by ISIS this week seemed extreme. Or were they moderate? Are there really that many people who would come out to the town square to throw moderate stones at a man just because he was gay? Maybe if their moderate beliefs told them to. Someone supports the radicals in their midst; funds them, feeds them, occupies the rug next to them, hides them. Not sure but from where I stand, it looks like radical Muslims will kill you in an effort to impose their beliefs on the world. Moderates will stand back to watch as radicals kill you to impose their beliefs on the world. Same goal, different tactic?

Once this plague has been released into the wild, does the left hope to contain it? Either they are too stupid to realize the danger, or they too are using the twisted ideology for their own end game. Who visited the State Department recently? It wasn’t Netanyahu. No, the white house is actively trying to destroy his re-election bid in Israel. It wasn’t Egypt’s al-Sisi, the man who was in the forefront of battling the Muslim Brotherhood on the streets of his own country. No, it was the very same Muslim Brotherhood that the State Department cozied up to, then lying about the meeting to the press. The administration is working with the Brotherhood to oppose al-Sisi. Make of that what you will.

No one wants war. Clarification; no one who values life wants war. Those who were bred into an ideology that celebrates suicide and the death of anyone who does not follow that same orthodoxy love war. They are instructed to do so. They hide their weapons in hospitals, mosques and school yards, watching as the west flails about, tearing our hair out over collateral damage. They bring their warfare into the heart of their own cities, killing anyone, Muslim and non-Muslim who doesn’t further the end cause, their world caliphate. This will not end with drones. You can’t target them from miles away with smart bombs. Like the cockroaches they are, they scurry back into the population of moderates, people who won’t stop feeding them, people who won’t stop funding them, people who won’t point them out, people who won’t kill them in their midst. What’s worse is they are using the same tactics in the west, beheading people in Oklahoma, bombing delis in Paris. And all we have are leaders who caution us not to defame the religion. Leaders who for some reason cannot bring themselves to utter Islam and terrorist in the same sentence. The same collectivist mindset and tactics that brought us the fall of Saigon and all the other massacres associated with socialism and communism in the twentieth century are now being employed to destroy the west in the twenty-first.

After they covered the smoldering remains of pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh, once the last stone struck the gay man in Syria, one could imagine the evening call to prayer where the faithful, moderates and otherwise, came to give thanks to Allah, having struck another blow in their quest for worldwide domination.

Get used to that sound. It’s a sound you can hear all over the United States. It is the sound of the coming storm. It is, after all, “ of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.”

Josh Earnest had a hard time being eloquent last week. He tried his best to make sure that he closely followed the administration’s six year old script, avoiding the word Islam except where he could refer to it as a religion of peace. In fact, he had a hard time at first describing it as an act of terrorism, exclaiming that we should certainly wait for all the facts before labeling it as such. Maybe facts such as the nut-jobs screaming Allahu Akbar as they sprayed the innocents with bullets didn’t quite make it to his desk. Who knows. But he assured us that Islam is a religion of peace. At least three times. Remember, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  It just may however, belong to those who slaughter in the name of the prophet of Islam. Just don’t mention the “I” word.

Not wielding a 5 iron...

Charles: Not wielding a 5 iron…

The press did their best to seem outraged as well by the attack on freedom of expression. In solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, they made it a point to print grammatically correct descriptions of cartoons that Charlie had published in the past. How courageous. You need to understand, one would guess, that the liberal editors in the mainstream press determined that there was certainly no need to inflame Muslim passions around the globe while defending one of the cornerstones of western civilization. Hell, it’s not like Abhu Graib, where they were falling all over themselves to publish horrific images that would support their agenda of informing the world of just how evil the west and the United States really are. Ah, those were the days. Quite sure that they were hoping that French authorities would capture one of the oppressed freedom fighters. They would have done their level best to make sure that no one got water boarded, that’s for sure.

Over a million people marched in Paris on Sunday; possibly double that number marched around France to show solidarity for Charlie, the French people and freedom of expression. It’s probably fitting that president Obama was a no-show. After all, the United States used to be thought of as the leader of the free world, warts and all. The current administration of course has always focused on the warts, unabashedly ashamed of the US and her legacy. But this is on the surface, quite telling; an insult to the French people and an embarrassment to the United States. Remember, the first world leader to visit the United States after 911 was French President Jacques Chirac. The boy king could find no solidarity with the French people, or any of the other fifty-plus world leaders who marched in Paris? I’m sure he could have found at least one person to bow to, at least one aggrieved group he could have apologized to for the evils the US had visited upon them. Maybe he had a great tee-time. Or maybe as he has said in the past, “if the political winds turn ugly I will stand with the Muslims.” Go ahead, claim that I’ve taken this out of context if you’d like. I know when he said it and why. But no one has even suggested that we inter American Muslims; and yet the political winds are blowing ugly and they’re blowing from mecca. They blew straight into the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Parisian Jewish Deli.

If our Muslim educated president is concerned that Muslim Americans might suffer the same fate that Japanese Americans had, he need look no farther than the suburbs of Paris. Or Dearborn Michigan. Or Minnesota. Or Lewiston Maine for goodness sakes. When the Muslim populations reach density, they start isolating themselves, declaring their neighborhoods “Muslim” and off limits to others. Self-interment one could call it. A silent invasion to be accurate. If there were over seven hundred white enclaves in Paris where people of color were not welcome, Eric “the not-so-great” Holder would have found time while in Paris to visit with any aggrieved person denied access to the restricted blocks, likely inviting Al Sharpton in to perform his ritual cleansing through extortion.

Maybe our next president will take this threat more seriously. Maybe not. We seem to ordain men of little courage let alone character. The main stream press does it’s best to ensure that those principles that don’t support a march toward socialism are the only things labeled “terroristic.” Everything else is “workplace violence.” And what of the financially strapped Hillary? If she was president, she’d make sure that anyone who produces a video that inflames passions around the world would be the guilty party of the violence that ensues. The pen is mightier than the sword; but it must be a politically correct ink. Of course, the press doesn’t feel the need to explain to her that she too seeks to crush freedom of the press, a freedom that they should be the most sensitive to. But here we find a press possibly complicit with, but most certainly sympathetic to an ideology that seeks to destroy the very institutions and over-all fabric of the United States. An ideology that is deeply rooted in most of the socialist governments of Western Europe. That any government should allow “no-go” zones with separate laws within their sovereign borders is only less frightening than a press that would willingly ignore it to help these governments remain in power, with no questions or concerns about the freedoms they are slowly allowing to die in the name of what they all believe to be the “greater good.” Jake Tapper’s feigned embarrassment is the best they could muster.

Had I the financial means, I too would have walked with the free Frenchmen in Paris. I would’ve asked them why they didn’t march right through one of these “no-go” zones. You wish to take back your county; you can’t do it from a distance. You can’t do it with the politically correct mentality that these seventh-century zealots use to their advantage. You’ll need to march through the streets of France with the spirit and determination of Charles the Hammer. Is there a new Martel anywhere in Europe?

You have been invaded. It’s time to act like it.

Was treated to the “usual” chorus of garbage last night concerning the war crimes that occurred in Paris yesterday. Didn’t even have to hunt for the idiocy to find it; it was on many channels and all over the web blogs. By garbage, I mean the verbal spew by people of various religions and affiliations trying to make arguments of moral equivalencies with the practice of Islam displayed yesterday in Paris. While a majority of people were arguing back and forth over what to do about “radical” Islam, there were many posters commenting on how evil the west is; how Christians have hands just as bloody, how the Bible is filled with the same exhortations to kill the non-believers as is the Koran. Believe it or not, many were repeating the same lines (paid on-line posers?) about how Timothy McVeigh and James Holmes, the Colorado Theater gunman, were Christian extremists, no worse than the three suspected French radicalized gunmen in Paris. I kid you not. Then of course, I stumbled upon good old Howard Dean, extolling the virtues of Islam, insisting that the three gunmen involved can’t be considered Muslim, their cries of “Allahu Akbar” notwithstanding. Of course, on all things Islamic, I always refer to Mr. Dean.

practicing the faith...

practicing the faith…

Sorry Howard, but I’d rather take my cues from someone who doesn’t have his head firmly encased in his lower colon. Like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Maybe many of you have never heard of him; as chief of the Egyptian military, he played a key role in overthrowing Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt. Maybe it’s because our own administration, in the same physical contortion as Howard Dean, so fully supported Morsi and the Brotherhood that you might not have heard his speech on New Year’s Day. Speaking before the ministry, Sisi was very clear on what is causing the radicalization of Islam. You really need to read his speech. Howard, please take note:

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

Placing the blame squarely where it lies may be a new concept to many people today. So Sisi may be a man ahead or behind his time; you decide. But he’s calling out the clerics who inspire this type of radicalization all over the world. And while we debate how many people James Holmes killed in the name of Christianity (none), Sisi makes it clear that Islam cannot surely believe that the 1.6 billion Muslims of the world want or need to kill the other seven billion inhabitants of the planet just so they can survive. In fact, in 2013, twelve people in the west died from terrorist attacks; however, twenty-two thousand people in non-western countries died from Muslim terror. Did any of these die because of a cheesy satirical cartoon or obscure internet video? Islam is far more dangerous to its adherents than it is to the rest of us.

The greatest export from any of these Muslim countries is the immigrant, much touted and revered under the scheme of diversity and tolerance. And they bring not only their Muslim faith with them; they bring their radical Imams as well. Sorry to paint with the broad brush, as many of you who follow me know I hate to do; but what turns a moderate Muslim radical? Is it the largess of the host country? The freedoms they come to experience? Or is it the constant droning by these Imams five times a day of how evil the west is, how they need to bring the infidels to their knees, subjugate their women and impose their version of Sharia on the new host country? If they fully succeed in bringing the new Caliphate they so desire, do they realize it is they who would then be the infidels, dying in greater numbers at the hands of other Muslims at the behest of these same Imams?

And what of the west and western civilization as we know it? Are we too weak in the knees and in our convictions of what civilization and humanity look like to defend it? For some strange reason, Europe has already ceded large swaths of their sovereignty to this twisted ideology. Why should there be sections of Paris that even the local police fear to go, blocks allowed to be ruled separately by Muslim authority? Probably the same rainbows-and-unicorns-everything-is-equal type of thinking that allows radical Imam Anjem Choudary of London to remind us all that the good folks of Charlie Hebdo knew what the consequence would be for their freedom of expression. Howard, you may want to pay attention to this guy too;

“Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

In a nutshell, here’s a leader of the cult of Islam telling the free world that Muslims, yes, even those wonderful moderate Muslims we hear about so much, have the divine right to kill anyone they feel demeans their prophet, whether the offender is a Muslim or not, whether the act occurs in a Muslim theocratic state or a western country. Nice that. And in most of Europe and in parts of the United States, this opinion is considered valid. We must be tolerant of others’ beliefs that they have a divine right to kill us anytime we piss them off. Because all religions are equal you know. (Except in certain parts of Dearborn and Paris.)

Not sure why this is so hard to understand; when someone punches you in the face, you’re in a fight. Whether you like it or not. And when someone declares war on you, you don’t get to say “nu-uh.” Islam has declared war on the west. In fact, it has declared war on civilization. You can deny it; you can wish it away. You can continue to appease, welcoming the enemy into your homes under the inspired liberal doctrines of diversity and multiculturalism, even going so far as to cordon off whole sections off your house you’re no longer able to inhabit unless you submit. But the religion of peace will always be a totalitarian theocratic political system bent on world-wide subjugation and implementation of a seventh century belief system that’s utterly incompatible with modern civilization. Once you figure that out, losing your right to publish a sarcastic, spiteful, silly cartoon in a mediocre publication should be the least of your concerns.

Our hearts go out to the good folks of Canada. Unfortunately, Canada too is not immune from the effects of the laissez-faire attitude the world takes when dealing with the “religion of peace.” We’d rather cut our own throats than admit to ourselves that Islam unchecked is a violent political ideology, no less dangerous than other fascist ideologies that we’ve seen in the less than recent past. We twist ourselves into all sorts of contortions to avoid insulting, embarrassing or bruising the tender sensitivities of those we label as “moderates;” those billion plus Muslims we are told, who have nothing to do with the radical off-shoots in their midst, wishing nothing more than to live their lives peacefully among us, victims too of their own ideology.

Vickers Looking like a very unlikely hero...

Vickers Looking like a very unlikely hero…

The common threads among the liberal press and those on the left are that all religions are good, or all religions are bad; take your pick. That’s a neat trick that they won’t apply to Islam. All Muslims are good or all Muslims are bad? Nope, doesn’t work that way. Only some Muslims are bad; those that sit next to flaming jihadists in their local neighborhood mosques listening to the heated rhetoric of the warriors for Allah or the Imams who entice them, are simply victims in their own right, at the mercy of those with deeper, more violent passions of their shared beliefs. Of course, if you are a practicing Muslim, leaving the faith is a death sentence; not sure why anyone would decide that, hey, that’s the religion for me. Nor can I understand why any rational woman would decide that she’d love to be owned by her father or her husband, just itching to get into that black head-to-toe sleeping bag designed purely to obliterate her identity as an individual. Or a person for that matter.

Of course, I’m no scholar on Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I just find it quite confusing that there seems to be no scholar among them either. There would appear to be a great number of Muslims who find peace and inspiration from Islam; and there are also many who feel that Islam instructs them to throw acid in the faces of their own women. Of course, authorities were quick to condemn the attacks but not the motive behind them, as one of the police chiefs in Tehran stated; “All the victims were sitting in their car waiting at a red light, the attackers approached on motorbikes and threw acid on them through the car window,” he said on national television. “Most of the women were not dressed appropriately,” the statement added, in reference to the country’s strict morality laws that require Iranian woman to wear all-enveloping veils covering their hair and body.”

Yes, she shouldn’t have had acid thrown in her face, but she had it coming. One would think that with billions of peaceful Muslims around the world, this type of thinking would be eradicated. One would be wrong. The forces of radicalism far outweigh any thoughts of reformation or enlightenment. So the west had better get used to this type of acquiescence as we import more Muslims into our small towns in rural Canada and the US, into the crowded tough streets of our cities. This is the fruit of the diversity we so cherish, the multiculturalism that we worship in hopes that we too can be enlightened by cultures we deem to be far superior to ours.

All religions have their fringes, as do those groups who have no faith at all. Why then, do we excuse this one religion from its violent tendencies while at the same time deriding others, faulting them for their beliefs in the deceitful dance of moral equivalency? Not sure how many Buddhist monks flew planes into the twin towers; remember those nuns who slit the throat of the “Piss Christ” artist? Me neither. And who can forget those radical Mormons placing their death-filled pressure cookers at the finish line of the Boston Marathon? Of course, the argument is always “well, such and such a religion did such and such a thing hundreds and hundreds of years ago.” Even-Stevens I guess. Yet we continue to allow thousands and thousands of Muslims into our culture without question, with no expectation of assimilation and when something like this happens, we grasp at any excuse we can imagine to avoid stating simply that Islam was at the heart of the matter. At least prime Minster Harper doesn’t suffer from the Madrasa-induced paralysis of our President as he clearly stated this was an act of terrorism, not “work-place violence” or the administration’s famous “man caused disaster.” Bravo Mr. Harper. The question remains however, what are you going to do about it? I don’t think you’ll keep your fellow Canadians safe by watching the comings and goings at the local Tim Horton’s. I think you may have to take the drastic step of peeking into some of these Mosques. Of course, we can’t have that, that’s discrimination. We’d have to peek into every house of worship, run our hands through the magic undies of the Mormons, peek under the Turbans of every Sikh, all because we wish to believe that every religion is just like every other religion.

I guess that now as I reread this, I’ll be accused of being an Islamophobe, a hater, painting with a broad brush, etc, etc. I just accused every Muslim of being a terrorist, guilt by association if you will. So be it. I can’t get over the concept of Taqiyya, can’t get past the thought that there are billions more moderates than radicals, yet they still allow their religion to be defined by be-headings, stoning of women, strapping bombs to their own children and yelling Alluha Akbar as they gun down soldiers standing guard at a war memorial in Ottawa. My distrust, my doubts, will be seen as hateful and repudiated, not even a blip on the grand scale to be sure, but I am not alone. Muslims everywhere need to ask themselves; In this century, in this point in history, do I truly believe I am a citizen of a greater world where all citizens worship as they please, governed by laws that protect their individual rights, or should those citizens of the greater world conform to my beliefs, and only my beliefs, under laws that are imposed by the few, not agreed to by the many? And is it far nobler to die for my beliefs, or kill for them? Will I allow any atrocity in the name of my religion, whether I was actively involved, or will I bear any guilt for being silent while women and children are being slaughtered for not wearing the correct color headscarf?

The death of western culture will be laid squarely at the feet of progressive thought and unbridled liberalism where everyone is equal, there is no good or bad and individualism really means taking your proper place in line for your government rations. They can parse it anyway they want, but tearing down the culture that was built in the western world of free thought and opportunity has been forever diminished by efforts to make us all look the same, speak the same, believe the same and live the same. No dissent will be tolerated, people are not allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits; outcomes will be decided by those in charge. Once this type of mentality is accepted, institutionalized in our entitlement-minded society, how can anyone expect an all-encompassing political ideology masking as a religion not to flourish? Or how can we expect those who are totally incapacitated by their own self-imposed shackles of “political correctness” to stand up to such an ideology, one that will surely target them first?

Harper went on to address his country later in the evening, saying “We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated.” One can only hope he’s true to his word. The west continues to be cowed, not by sociopaths in black masks, but by our own elitists who assure us that it’s all our fault anyway and we should be ashamed of ourselves for what would normally be considered rational suspicions; the shame that forces us all to be groped at the airport while these miscreants develop their hatred for us in our own backyards. Maybe Canada will lead the way; or will she wait for yet another episode of workplace violence at the hands of a truly peaceful religion?

Enter your email address and I'll let you know when I post!

Join 279 other followers

hey, pick a topic

Other stuff you gotta see…


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

Chicks On The Right

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

PJ Media

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

The Gateway Pundit

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

Just another site