Sunday, December 27, 2015
I've had a bad year. Actually, I've had a bad 15 months or so. I could go into the litany of lost jobs, car wrecks, illnesses, family emergencies, and so forth. I won’t, because specifics aren’t important here. Several times over the last few weeks, I've mentioned that I can't wait for 2015 to be over, because it's been a bad year, and hoping that 2016 would be better. If I can just make it to the end of the year, I tell myself, everything will get better next year.
Then the realist (some would call it the 'cynic') in me speaks up. "You can't know what's going to happen next year," it says. "You thought this year was bad? It can get worse."
I'm forced to admit that my realistic side is correct. It can certainly get worse. I've had enough stuff go on just in the last few weeks that brought that sharply into focus. It can always get worse.
Then, a week or two ago, while listening to our preacher give his lesson, something struck me. It pierced me to the core.
I have spent the last 15 months of my life resenting things that happened to me. Oh, I've put on a happy face, and certainly not everything that has happened in those months has been bad, but I have been letting the bad set the tone of my life. Everything seemed to come back to the bad things.
I have been using those bad things as a shield against personal responsibility. I'll pause for some of you to digest the irony of that statement; I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility. As it turns out, I'm not quite as huge a fan of it as I thought.
Not that I've been irresponsible in any of my temporal or social duties. I go to work, I hang out with friends, I try to be a good husband and father. My bills get paid, dishes get washed, and my house at least does not look like a disaster area. Usually.
But I have not taken personal responsibility for my eternal duties. Work is important for a variety of reasons. Being a good friend, husband and father are incredibly important. Being a humble, joyful, and above all *thankful* follower of Christ is much more important. I have failed in all of those.
I can wax eloquent on how God never gives us a command to "feel," but then when it comes time to choose, I never seem to. So today - now - I will choose joy. I will choose humility. I will choose thankfulness.
I will not resent the jobs lost (one for me, and one for my wife). I will thank God for the opportunities presented – a new job at better pay with better hours for me, and the chance to be a stay-at-home mom for my wife. I will not resent the car wrecks; I will thank God that no one was seriously injured, and that our insurance has handled things relatively smoothly. I will not resent the illnesses; I will thank God for our health, and that none of those illnesses turned critical (and they could have).
Here I can only repeat the prayer in the parable, and hope like the character I too “go away justified.”
“Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Monday, December 14, 2015
Second, go read this from Larry Kudlow, and then go read this from Ace.
I tend to be on Ace’s side here. The Republican Establishment has been too open borders for too long, despite the grass roots’ very specific objections that our border situation was a National Security concern. Either they are way too stupid to be in charge (for not realizing what us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise have realized for the last couple of decades), or they are simply trying to co-opt a position they don’t actually believe to make us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise a little less angry at them.
For over 14 years the Minute Men have been on the border between the US and Mexico attempting (voluntarily) to help US Border Patrol. They understood (as did many of the rest of us) the danger posed by an open border way back then. So is really that another terror attack on US soil finally got Larry’s attention, or is he trying to sound tough so that the grass roots will start trusting the Establishment again?
However, with all that said, I think Kudlow is an idiot even in his new hawkish opinion. He reminds me rather of C-3PO telling R2D2 not to shut down “all the trash compactors on the detention level” but rather, “No! Shut them all down!”
We don’t have a problem with immigrants or visitors from England, France, or Sweden. Not by and large, at any rate, and certainly not a recognizable terrorism problem from those countries. Why should we prevent them from coming here and, potentially, even further alienate our allies? Larry wants to pretend that this is not “about religion.” To do so, he has to pretend it’s about “immigration” more generally, and so the only option is complete embargo.
Note to Larry Kudlow and the rest of the GOP Establishment: It’s the Mohammedanism, stupid.
What is the common denominator among Iraq, Syria, Libya, Israel’s West Bank, and the rest of the Middle East? Mohammedanism. Who are the euphemistic “warlords” in Africa? Mostly Mohammedans. Who is throwing gays off of buildings, beheading Christians, and slaughtering innocents? Mohammedans. Who shot up a Christmas Party in San Bernadino, detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, and flew 3 planes into US landmarks? Mohammedans.
It would be really nice if Mohammedanism really was “a religion of peace,” as its apologists claim. It simply isn’t. Mohammedanism, is an evil death cult. Mohammed preached (and practiced) conversion by the sword, conquest, rape, and pillage. Today, a majority of Mohammedans world-wide believe that violent jihad is a valid form of Mohammedanism. A majority of US Mohammedans believe that Sharia Law, which has been called “completely incompatible with American Values, should be the law of the land.
Trump is certainly bombastic. He’s a carnival barker, a narcissist, and a whole host of other unsavory things. But between him and Larry Kudlow? Trump is the one who is right.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
If you’ve been living under a rock, you might not have heard about Donald Trump's “racist” (more on that in a moment) comment saying we should stop allowing Mohammedans into America “until our Representatives figure out what’s going on.” The reaction was predictable, and pathetic.
Most Republicans couldn’t distance themselves fast enough. Democrats pointed with glee at the “racist” comments and said it “disqualified” Trump from being President (this from the party of the KKK, the Black Panther party, and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others). Everyone reacted as if there was nothing of substance said.
Yes, Trump is circus clown. Yes, he’s a carnival barker. In many ways that’s what makes him so appealing to many. However, he’s not actually stupid. So let’s take a serious look at the facts behind the carnival barking.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Because f*ck Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush, that’s why.
Oh. You wanted the expanded version. I guess I can do that.
So, I’ve seen a lot on these here inter-tubez talking about “Trump supporters” this and “Trumpkins” that. Most of it is completely missing the point, so I’m going to try one more time. This is going to be incredibly cynical and self-serving. Also: long. I hope you’re ready.
First, a little history.
President George Herbert Walker Bush enacted a tax increase not very long after promising “Read my lips: no new taxes.” That betrayal of his word cost him the presidency far more than anything Ross Perot did. Here’s a hint: if you don’t want challenges from the Right, don’t move quite so far to the left. But remember those words and that tax law, we’ll get back to them later.
President Clinton was a slimy b-tard of a president, and actually pretty leftist. At least one self-described feminist offered him oral sex simply for “keeping abortion legal,” which says a great deal both about “feminism” and abortion – none of it good. Nevertheless he did sign a balanced budget and welfare reform. Sure, it was under duress, but he did so. Remember those bills, too, we’ll get back to them as well.
President George Walker Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 on “compassionate conservatism,” which, as far as I can tell, is Progressive Liberalism, but with more praying and less sex. Less beer, too, probably. He signed a number of bills with which he did not agree including at least one budget after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Bills he did agree with – indeed: fought for, included a Medicaid expansion, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind. He also famously “destroyed capitalism to save it.” Oh, and inflicted Karl Rove on the Republican Party for, apparently, the rest of eternity.
Enter Barack Obama. Barack Obama (notorious stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor) took office in 2009 with a Democrat controlled congress including 60 Democrats in the Senate (okay, that came shortly *after* inauguration, but not long). He rapidly passed a “stimulus” package which was nothing more than pay-day to his cronies, ignored written bankruptcy law to give GM to the UAW, and generally made a menace of himself. The entire time this was happening, the Republican Leadership of Mitch McConnell (hereafter: Yertle) and John Boehner (hereafter: Agent Orange) in the Senate and House respectively made excuses for their failure even to slow very much of this down. Given the headaches Democrats caused Republicans in 2001 – 2006, those excuses were a little limp, but I guess they’re all they had.
Then came Obamacare. Now, I want to be clear here, Obamacare was passed by Republicans as much as by Democrats. Sure, no Republican vote was needed for final passage of the Orwellian Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but Republicans had plenty of chances to stop, or at least slow, its passage. Had they done so, then Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have been installed in his Senator’s seat in time to help a procedural filibuster kill the bill dead. Instead, they opted for comity and show votes. The bill was over 900 pages when it was first introduced. A simple refusal to grant unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill would likely have stopped the thing cold. But Yertle and Agent Orange wanted to get home for Christmas.
Shortly after the passage of Obamacare, Republican voters swept the Republicans into office on a platform of “We’ll oppose Obama and repeal every word of Obamacare.” The echoes of their collective recitations of their oaths of office had not faded before Agent Orange started making excuses. The House was just “one half of one third of government.” I guess we were supposed to ignore the part where the House controls spending.
Republican voters gave them a pass, and in 2012, despite Obama’s reelection, Yertle became Senate Majority Leader. Surely now, we thought, with the full legislature under Republican control, we would get some things done. Hearings were called (remember Lois Lerner? Remember Hillary!’s “what difference, at this point, does it make? Remember Fast and Furious?). Much hot air was released. And. Nothing. Happened. No spending was cut. When it looked like spending *might* be cut, Republicans panicked and passed more spending. No, a budget “balanced” in out years does not cut, and a cut in rate of growth is not “a spending cut.” When a few Republican malcontents (Ted Cruz among them, but there were others) succeeded in forcing a meager and very partial shutdown, Yertle and Agent Orange couldn’t throw them under the bus fast enough, and quickly moved to authorize MOAR SPENDING!!!
All along the way we’ve had excuses. “We don’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.” “Obama will just veto it.” Remember those passed and signed bills I mentioned earlier? Funny how not having filibuster proof majorities in the Senate or veto-proof majorities in Congress did not stop Congress from getting Presidents to sign bills in the past. I guess there must be a new rule that says “If we’re not assured of success, we may as well not try.” I guess I missed that memo.
That doesn’t even begin to get to amnesty and illegal immigration failures and betrayals we’ve seen since the 1980s.
All of this is to say: “Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.” We have not had a two party system since at least 2006, and possibly as far back as 2001. There is no significant difference in outcome between having Democrats and Republicans in office. I mean, really, what’s going to happen if Republicans aren’t in office? Will Planned Parenthood be revealed as priests of Moloch selling the parts of babies butchered in (and sometimes just out-of) the womb for fun and profit and Congress won’t do anything? Will the Supreme Court overstep its bounds (again) and declare a constitutional right for homosexual partnerships to call themselves “marriage” while forcing those opposed to participate? Will the EPA dump great quantities of pollutants into a river in Colorado and face no consequences? Will the President make an unconstitutional Treaty with Iran virtually guaranteeing that they will gain nuclear weapons capabilities while ALSO promising to provide them protection from Israel?
When it comes down to actual outcomes, and not rhetoric, there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats. Just notice how fast Republicans pull out the race card themselves when confronted over their desire for amnesty. But our system cannot survive under one party. There must be an opposition – a real opposition acting against the majority. It is the only way to curb the excesses of the majority against the minority, and the only way to ensure that the Federal Government only uses its powers in ways guided by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting Liberty.
Therefore it is time for a third party. However, the game is rigged. Democrats and Republicans get on ballots automatically. Simply have the nomination of your party, and you show up on the ballot. How nice. Third parties have to have petition drives and hope they get enough signatures. Democrats and Republicans have advertising advantages and a national structure enshrined in law (or nearly so). Third parties must scrimp and scrape for every scrap of exposure they can get. A third party, in short, is denied access with the two establishment parties.
So we’re faced with a conundrum. Republican recalcitrance to be an opposition party means we need a new party. The party establishments have basically enshrined the two party system, so a third party is not a viable solution. What to do?
Destroy the party. Destroy its leadership. Destroy its ability to operate. And then conservatives might, possibly, maybe have a shot (but it would be a long one) at seizing control of the new power structures and returning the Republican Party – no longer controlled by the establishment and their Donor Class allies/masters.
But who can do such a thing? Not the seizing control part – conservatives will have to do that after the destruction part, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be able to do so. The best we can hope for is a chance. No, who can do the destruction part?
Answer – only someone not beholden to that current power structure. But how can we avoid that? How can one not be beholden to the current power structure. Well, first, he’d need to be self-funding, because he’s not going to get the big power donors like the Chambers of Commerce. And he’d need to have a lot of name recognition, because that power structure isn’t going to want his message to get out – so he’d need a way to get it out anyway. And he’d need to have some shred of credential to say “see, I’m a success” so that people can be convinced that he’d be a successful president.
Sound like anyone you know?
Now, if it looks like this defense of Trump has been short on what Trump will do or why I support him, it’s because it’s not a defense of Trump. I’m virtually certain Trump will be a terrible president (assuming he’s elected). I’m virtually certain he’s only in it for him, and is only conservative insofar as being conservative is a path to the White House. I’m pretty sure he’s saying what sells, and not really what he believes.
So be it. I’m not supporting Donald Trump. If there were someone else in the field who was self funded, had huge (or is that “yuuuge!”) name recognition, and the ability to sell himself as a success at something people respect, I would vote for that person instead. Donald Trump is a means to an end, and that end is already being achieved.
The Republican Party and its enablers in Conservative Media are busy telling everyone who is mad at the Republican Party that we’re idiots. We’re racists. We’re fools. And in so doing they are ensuring that many conservatives never vote for any Republican on the national level again.
Burn it down? Yertle, Agent Orange, Rove, Jeb, and all are doing that.
Scatter the stones? That will depend on the burn it down phase, but I’m pretty sure I can trust the hissy fit they’ll throw when they lose (and they will lose, one way or another).
Salt the earth where it stood? We’ll have to work on that.
No, I don’t support Donald Trump. But Donald Trump winning the Republican Party will suit my goals far better than if anyone else does.
Monday, July 13, 2015
I am the Committee Chair of a Cub Scout Pack. I knew this was coming. Nevertheless I find myself saddened not only by the decision, but by the fact that the decision was made public before it was disseminated to local Scout Leadership. Whether this lack of communication is a failure at the National Council or my local council I do not know, but I do know that it is a failure.
The bigger failure, however, is the decision itself.
On my Honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
A Scout Is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.
Whatever you believe about homosexuality, it is clear that homosexual behavior (separated by act of free will from homosexual urges or proclivities) is sin. Indeed, being “openly gay,” is an active choice to live in sin – to engage in that homosexual behavior.
Whatever you believe about homosexuality, you cannot be doing your duty to God, you cannot be morally straight, and you cannot be reverent if you are choosing to engage in homosexual behavior.
Whatever you believe about homosexuality, those three things: duty to God, morality, and reverence are part of being a Scout. It is one thing to allow openly homosexual children. I believe it is sick on many levels to assume that children of 12 or 13 can *be* homosexual in any meaningful way, but allowances can and should be made for Scouts. They are, after all, still learning about that duty to God. Leadership, however, must be held to the strictest standards.
The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages at scout functions. Why? Is it because alcohol is morally wrong? Is it because duty to God or Country requires one to abstain from drinking? Certainly not. The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages because it is unwise.
Openly homosexual leadership is beyond unwise. It is undermining the very Oath and Law we expect these boys to uphold. It is proving to them, in a way words will never be able to overcome, that the Oath and Law are “just words,” and have no meaning. It is proving to them that morality is based on convenience, and duty to God ends at doors of the church building.
What is worse about this decision is this: the homosexual lobby will not stop with this success. We already have proof of this. It will not be enough that religious charter organizations can decide about their own leadership. Ask Sweet Cakes in Oregon. Ask Memories Pizza. Ask any of dozens of photographers, bakers, and caterers who have been forced by the homosexual lobby with the assistance of the government to act in ways contrary to their consciences. Ask the homosexual lobby itself- the lobby already calling for the end of tax-exempt status for churches which do not support homosexual unions.
The Boy Scouts of America had won in court many times – as a private organization, they were under no requirement to accept homosexual leadership. Now they have thrown that away. Obviously the Boy Scouts of America no longer find it necessary to their charter to restrict homosexual parents to non-leadership roles. How much defense will local charter organizations and local packs have when the homosexual lobby comes again demanding acceptance?
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
So, a high school dropout racist loser shoots 9 people, and the country collectively loses it sh!t. Seriously?
I’m not even going to bother with the racism disclaimer. Assume it here.
The battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia did not cause this. The civil war did not cause this. Southern culture did not cause this. What caused this was a high school dropout racist loser deciding to vent his loser frustrations on the innocent. Since he’s a f*cking racist, he decided those innocents should be Black. But the cause was his racist loserdom, not any other external factor.
So just stop it already.
No, the Confederate Battle Flag does not need to be removed from the State House grounds in South Carolina or any other government building. Men fought and died honorably for a cause that is honorable – the right of self-determination, among other things. Yes, that also means they were defending the right of the States to continue slavery, and that’s bad, but Real Life is messy, and by current standards (the ones to which we’re suddenly holding the Confederate warriors) one of the most celebrated Union generals – William Tecumseh Sherman – was a war criminal. I won’t call him a war criminal (out loud) if you will similarly shut up about your belief that the CBF is somehow a “symbol of racism.”
No, monuments to various Confederate figures, including Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and others, do not need to be taken down. They were honorable men who fought against (as they saw it) an invasion. Go read some history, even if you don’t agree with them, at least try to understand why many Southerners still call it “The War of Northern Aggression.”
No, the CBF does not need to be removed from Civil War historical sites, museums, or stores. Even if I accept that it “represents racism,” which I don’t, that doesn’t change the fact that in America people have the right to be racist. You may not like it – I certainly don’t like it – but it’s the truth. And what the CBF does represent is a commitment to fight for Freedom from an oppressive central government. There may be a time when we want such symbols.
No, things that happen to incorporate the CBF do not need to be removed or forgotten. Not video games, not TV shows, not books, not anything. That is part of my culture you’re trying to consign to the flames.
Do you really want to have a “conversation about race?” Okay, let’s have a conversation about race.
Black on black crime is much higher, per capita, than any other demographic. Black on white crime is higher than white on black crime. White on white crime is higher than black on white crime. These are actual facts.
Do you really believe “Black Lives Matter?” I do. So how about we stop young black men from killing each other. That seems to be a much bigger danger to them than some high school dropout loser racist.
Do you really believe “Black Lives Matter?” I do. So how about we stop enabling a culture which encourages young black women to have sex and then have their babies murdered? Black women, even controlling for income and social factors, are much more likely than whites to have an abortion.
Stop trying to blame history for today’s bad choices. Stop trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist. Stop trying to minimize it and put into some box labeled “Racism.” Stop lashing out.
And start addressing the real problems.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
“If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?” – Abraham Lincoln (attrib)
So the Supreme Court decided that it could wave its hand and redefine marriage. Beyond the horrific precedent this sets, this is so flawed on its own (lack of) merits, that I find myself stunned in spite of the fact this is the exact outcome I was expecting. All over my FB timeline and in my personal life people I thought were sane are celebrating as though Christmas came early. I can’t call them “F*cking Idiots” to their faces, but perhaps I can explain, here, why this is so bad.
First we have to settle a question: is marriage something created by Man which could have been created however we want, or is it something that exists on its own whether we like it or not? Is it, in fact, mere custom, or is it a natural Law on the order of 2 + 2 = 4?
Let us see what we can discover.
Biologically, men and women are different. This is important, because it takes both a man and a woman to bear children. Further, for the time she is pregnant, the woman is especially in need of protection and care – protection and care which she cannot provide for herself. Once the child is born, the child also needs exceptional protection and care until he or she is old enough to care for him- or herself. If men impregnated women and then left them unprotected, child birth and survival rates would be low enough to jeopardize survival of the species. Since every species is compelled to ensure its survival, it seems likely that ours would adapt accordingly, and that men would have an urge related to the urge to procreate which would cause them to care for and protect, to some degree at least, the woman who bears their children, and those children.
Sociologically, it is true that every society of which we have any inkling of their practices has embraced the same, or at least very similar, definition of marriage- it is a union between a man and a woman. Without getting into the intricacies of polygamous societies, none of them have accepted or condoned homosexual relationships. Few have even accepted or condoned heterosexual relationships between adults and adolescents. This virtually universal definition of marriage served to protect women – protect them from violence, from poverty, and from abuse – and children, while providing the best chance for young single males to have a chance to procreate (and, thus, continue the species).
So it seems that there is good evidence that marriage is just a word we use to describe a natural phenomenon – the coming together of men and women to bear and rear children and thus propagate the species. If there is evidence that we “just made it up,” I am unaware of it.
Now, if it is true that marriage is something that exists in nature, then the following is a true statement: It cannot be redefined. You cannot redefine marriage any more than you can redefine gravity or 2 + 2. You can warp the language. You can ignore the truth. You can claim to believe a lie. But you cannot change what marriage is.
So for all of those who are going to rush to get “married” to their homosexual partner: You still won’t be married. You will never be married. You can call your relationship whatever you want. You can refer to your partner as your “husband” or “wife” or “potato.” I won’t matter. I am married. You are not. You cannot change that, no matter how much you wish it.
Friday, June 26, 2015
The United States flag is never to be flown upside down except in times of great distress or emergency. I believe we are in both. We are in a perilous time in which the Supreme Court has decided on the one hand that the plain language of a law is not binding – that the Justices can read the minds of those who wrote the law, and that the will of the People is not binding upon them. In short, the United States Supreme Court has just announced that we are no longer a Constitutional Federal Republic, that we are not even a Representative Democracy. We are an oligarchy ruled ultimately by unelected, unaccountable judges who can now dictate law and ignore the Constitution and the will of the People.
On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6 – 3 decision, decided that the words “Exchanges established by the States” meant “Exchanges established by the States or the Federal Government.” This was not because of any ambiguity in the language of the law, the Justices so deciding admit that the language says only State established exchanges are eligible for subsidies under the ACA. No, they believe they can divine the intent of the Congress by something other than their written and recorded words. Apparently this is some magic into which Justices are initiated after they are appointed to the court.
Today, the Court found, in a 5 – 4 decision, that the People of 30 different states on multiple occasions had “acted stupidly,” in rejecting attempts to redefine marriage from it’s natural definition to one that is unnatural. This was not based on the unconstitutionality of any law, and it was not based on any legal injustice; it was based on the fact that the way things were made 5 Justices sad.
These two decisions, between them, destroy the very fabric of our Constitution. The Rule of Law is now dead, replaced by the Rule of the Whim of Men.
Whatever your position on Obamacare or on homosexual relationships, you should be looking at these decisions and trembling in fear. If they can decide to ignore the plain language of the law and the will of the people, what can they not ignore? What regime can they not institute by fiat? How is this not tyranny?
There are few options left to those of us who believe in the Rule of Law. Perhaps the States will finally stand up for themselves and say “Then let them enforce it.” Perhaps an Article V Convention will be called in an attempt to reconcile Progressive’s desire to live in Utopia with Conservatives desire to be left alone. Perhaps Conservative States will petition, and be allowed, to peaceably secede from this failed Union.
But the Government is no longer legitimate. It no longer seeks to protect the Rights of Man. This situation can only continue for so long before violence – violence no one wants – results.
“I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” ~Oliver Cromwell
Thursday, June 25, 2015
After the Colonies rebelled against England and won their independence, they operated for a time under the Articles of Confederation. This first attempt at founding an association of free states proved unworkable, and a new Constitution was created. That Constitution enshrined slavery, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, and would not have been passed if it had not. At the time of its passage, the issue of slavery was already contentious, and one of the compromises necessary to see its adoption was that for a certain period, the new Federal government would not address the issue.
As time progressed, the northern states- largely industrial- became even less dependent upon slave labor (though many prominent Northerners still had slaves) and the South – largely agrarian – did not. As slavery became more repugnant to more people, it is perhaps not surprising that this caused a schism between the two groups. And perhaps this would have been handled diplomatically, but, for various reasons, it was not.
Now, it is important to understand that the Civil War did not start over slavery. Read the words of the people who were there. Even those in the North did not believe slavery was the reason for the war. Certainly it was a reason for the war. Certainly had slavery been abolished voluntarily by all parties, there would have been less reason for the war. But there still would have been reason for it.
The Southern States, already skeptical of the Federal Government, had 50 years of grievances about what they saw as Federal Overreach. The election of Abraham Lincoln and the still new Republican party – on a forced abolition platform – was a sign to the Southern States that the North no longer respected their sovereignty. They seceded. A war between the states was waged.
Now, this little history lesson is not a defense of slavery, which was and is a hateful institution. It is not a defense of the Republican party, which is and has been the party of Liberty and Union. It is a defense of Honor. Whatever you think of their motives – and, again, slavery in and of itself was not at issue – the Confederates were noble, honorable, and courageous. We in the south venerate those heroes who were willing to die for what they believed.
Fast forward to today. A crazy racist killed nine men and women in Charleston, South Carolina. A picture was found with him holding the flag commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag, more accurately referred to as the Confederate Battle Flag, and most accurately referred to as the Virginia Army Flag. And Progressives, some looking for anything to blame other than the criminal, others seizing main chance, immediately blamed the flag for the despicable act.
Showing an unfortunate lack of historical knowledge, Mitt Romney called for the removal of the flag from the South Carolina State House grounds. Reacting, I must hope, more on fear than on principle, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for its removal.
Were that all that had happened, this post would not exist, but it is not all that has happened. Since those two misguided announcements, the furor over the flag has grown. Stores like Wal-Mart and Amazon stopped selling renditions of the flag. Apple removed all games which contain the now-hated symbol from it’s app store. Apparently representing history is now a hate crime. People have called for the destruction of statues and monuments to Confederate figures.
This is sad and amazing to me. Forget the flag itself – the history lesson was only to show that there is proper reverence which can be shown for it – this “Ban All the Things” mentality is dangerous and un-American. Capitulation to these demands is even more dangerous and un-American. It sets a precedent – one I do not believe we wish to set.
Today it is a symbol which can honestly be viewed as a symbol of hate and racism (I do not deny that the flag has picked up those connotations). But more than that, it is calls to erase history. The Gettysburg museum has removed all of its merchandise with the symbol. Where does it stop?
For Progressives, it doesn’t. Today it is the flag and some monuments. What will it be tomorrow? There are already calls for more “gun control” laws, as though they would have done anything to stop this horrific crime. Karl Rove has said that the only gun control strong enough would be complete confiscation – and he is wrong, even that would not be enough.
They want to ban our Right to act on our beliefs.
They want to ban our Right to say what we think.
They want to ban our Right to defend ourselves – both from criminals and from tyrants.
The longer we wait to tell them, “no,” the harder it will be to do, and the more likely we will either be forced into silence, or be forced into violence.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
So earlier I discussed the Virtue of Charity- and specifically what is required to see a resurgence in its practice. Now I would like to turn to the idiocy among a certain segment of our population as it relates to the Indiana RFRA.
I am not going to explain what an RFRA really is- go over to the Ace of Spades HQ, we’ll probably be talking about it there if you’re really interested. Or [search engine of choice] Bill Clinton’s 1993 Federal RFRA.
I’m going to discuss Charity as it relates to the RFRA.
First- that there has to be an RFRA at all shows a failure of charity. Whether or not I agree with same sex marriage, my business is mine to conduct. If I do not wish to do business with you, that may be bad. In some cases it may be a failure of charity on my part (it normally is not, however). However, it is *certainly* a failure of charity, and a much worse one, to impoverish me and have the Government force me at the point of a gun to do business with you. Had everyone been charitable, then no RFRA would be necessary- wedding cake designers would not be having to make cakes for ceremonies they believe to be sinful, but would be as helpful as possible outside those bounds (in most cases, they are already fulfilling that second part). The government would not be seizing sacred objects from Indian tribes, and Indian tribes would not be bothering others with their sacred items.
Second- The RFRA is not a license for Christians to be uncharitable, and I have heard of no particular case where they have been. It is not uncharitable to say, “No, I do not wish to do business with you.” It might be uncharitable if my objection to doing business with you was something you could not control (your ethnicity, or gender)- but it wouldn’t necessarily be. It is certainly not uncharitable when my objection is to an action you are going to take because it violates my own moral code.
The Gay Lobby is either ignorant (or, more likely, does not care) of the fact that to Christians and Jews homosexuality is morally reprehensible. Considering that the wedding ceremony is specifically a Religious one, homosexual weddings are not just immoral; they are making a mockery of Christianity. And while that is not, no its own, a reason to make them illegal or even prevent them from having legitimacy in the eyes of the State, that is ample reason for a Christian to elect not to support one with his labor.
Do you want charity to rule in this case? I agree with you. So let’s all agree to be charitable. But at this point, there’s only one side that isn’t living up to that bargain.
In Mere Christianity CS Lewis points out that the “Christian” virtue of “Charity” is not simply “giving to the poor.” Rather, it is a classic term for love, or as he says, “Love, in the Christian sense.” Giving to the poor is part of it, certainly, but not even the greatest part.
The virtue of Charity (I believe it is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity broadens its scope) is about treating people nicely. It is kindness and gentleness. It is patience. Even pagan religions taught charity to one extent or another. “Love your neighbor as yourself” was an Old Testament teaching. Other groups at the time had similar directives. The uniquely Christian spin on the virtue was not that it was wholly new, but that Christ defined “your neighbor” as “your hated enemy.”
What does that have to do with today? Does anyone say we should not be charitable?
In reverse order: no, no one says we should not be charitable. Nevertheless people are not charitable. And their directives to be charitable are usually self-serving. *YOU* are supposed to be charitable to *me.*
So, in a very real sense, much of our society has abandoned charity.
What does that have to do with today? Well, it has direct consequences on just about everything. Are you moaning about how uncivilized our “public discourse” has become? Then it’s time to start calling for charity. Are you complaining about judgmental attitudes? Then it is time to start calling for charity.
But here’s the rub. If you are going to call for charity, you must practice it yourself. Otherwise it is simply self-serving sophistry (at best) and self-righteous hypocrisy at worst.
Friday, March 20, 2015
So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader). I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.
On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime." Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.
Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it). Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens. Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals. Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.
2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance
On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.
Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance. The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance. Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).
3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)
On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.
I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money. I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much). Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient. If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.
4: Social Security
On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.
One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA. Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's. For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan. Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.
I'll add on top of that:
5: TaxesA massively simplified tax code. Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today. I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment. Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).
A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country. Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).
What are your thoughts? Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst
--C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man
It is often said that Conservatives can't simply be "against" things, we have "to have a positive message." Many Conservatives then protest that we *do* have a positive message, it just gets drowned out because we have to oppose all the cultural rot, or the Progressive agenda, or whatever.
While there is a point there, it must be said that our message *does* get drowned out. So it is good, from time to time, to remember what it is we are for. But what are Conservatives for? What do we want to "conserve?"
I would suggest that Conservatives are for Virtue. Honor, Courage, Justice, Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry are character traits seemingly in short supply. Anyone who argues against government expansion, but does argue for personal virtue is arguing for chaos.
John Adams is quoted as saying "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
We have fallen into the trap C.S. Lewis mentioned in The Abolition of man. Every "advancement" of the progressive era has served to remove virtue. Welfare has assaulted industry and thrift. The Left's assault on self-defense (see also: Martin, Trayvon) is an assault on courage. Every HBO or Showtime show seems to be an assault on sobriety, and often justice.
The results have been predictable. A society which will not maintain its own virtue will require an ever growing government. A People which does not practice Honor and Justice will become a police-state. A People which does not practice Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry, will become one constantly on the verge of economic disaster.
Conservatives seek to promote Virtue. A People of Personal Virtue are a people who do not need a big government.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there. Read the whole thing, it's worth it.
So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too. The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty. They've made no attempt to hide that fact. The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor. No one has tried to hide that fact, either.
So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway). The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.
Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind. If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money. If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.
So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.
A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:
"Or to paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, 'They do not love the American people.'"
This is correct.
The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.
Please join us. Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party. The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.
It is time for a 3rd party. It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more." While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.
You must disassociate with them. You must form your own bloc, your own Party. If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow. You will be amazed at the support.
If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high. The cost will be so much higher if you do not.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Anyone who went over to the Ace of Spades HQ’s Sunday Book Tread, saw this:
Moron commenter AllenG is attempting to crowdsource his writing of a fantasy novel, which if I am reading his description correctly, will be called "Fire & Frost". It takes place on a world that is not your usual mountains-and-forests fantasy fare
Well, he is indeed reading correctly. I have written a novel, and started a GoFundMe page to pay for publishing costs- line editing, graphic design, and a publishing service.
You can click over there and contribute, but this is really a thanks to Ace & Oregon Muse for highlighting me on the Sunday Book Thread.
Thanks you guys.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
So I finally got to see American Sniper on Friday (I have an awesome wife: she took me for Valentine’s day). A lot of ink has been spilled, and a lot of pixels lit about this movie, so there’s not a lot I can add. But I do think there’s one thing- a something at the back of all the hate on one side, and love on the other, for this movie.
This is an exceedingly American movie. Heck, you could almost imagine it was John Wayne playing Chris Kyle. Okay, Bradley Cooper is a better actor than John Wayne really was (no offense to the Duke, but he cycled through about 3 characters), but the point stands. This wasn’t a “war movie,” it was a warrior movie. This was not about a soldier in Iraq. It was about a soldier in Iraq. And at home.
I think this is simultaneously what repels the Left and draws the Right. Chris Kyle is not portrayed as a good man. He is not some D&D Paladin. He is not Galahad. If anything he is Lancelot. And I think he’s more Gawain.
There were more “fucks” in the first ten minutes of the movie than I think I’ve heard in a year. Kyle is portrayed as the worst kind of cowboy (early on, at least), and later his violent nature overcomes him at a family picnic. No, Chris Kyle was not portrayed as a good man. He was, however, absolutely portrayed as a man on the side of Good.
It was clear in the movie, and is even more so in the book, that Chris Kyle took threats to his fellow servicemen, and to his country, very personally. He was a hero in every sense that mattered. And the Left hates the movie for it.
To the Left it lacks “nuance.” It lacks “even handedness.” It is “black and white.”
To the Right it lacks nuance, even handedness, and it is black and white.
In many both sides are separated by a common sense of the movie.
He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
I've been think about this, the Greatest Commandment, a lot recently. What does it mean? How do we obey it? How are heart, soul, and mind different?
We get a lot of advice on how to love one's neighbor as one's self, but not a whole lot on how to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. And, while I was thinking about that, I realized something. I'm fat.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not confined to a chair or anything. Many people would probably not give my weight a second thought. Sure, I look overweight, but in modern America, who notices that? We notice when people aren't far more than we notice when people are. Fat is just how things are, right?
But God recently hit me with the clue-bat. See, I have a family history of diabetes so I happen to know that one of the warning signs is being constantly thirsty, especially when you've been drinking water anyway. And this is where I find myself right now. Which is kind of scary.
But that got me thinking, in light of the Greatest Commandment, how have I been loving God with my strength?
And the answer came back: I'm not.
I will here stipulate that I do not think I can "lift weights for God." I don't think getting ripped like a certain Australian actor in a certain comic book movie about a certain Norse god is the objective.
Nevertheless I am convicted that being fat, unable to climb or descend stairs without breathing heavily, and so out of shape that even thinking of walking down to the park is exhausting is *not* what God intended.
I have already told some that I'm starting on a journey of small steps to a new me. This is a slow life-style change that I hope will get me into better shape. I had decided that before the clue-bat struck.
I want to challenge you to think on the same thing. I'm very cerebrial. I live in my own head a lot. Loving God with my mind is not difficult for me. I'm still not completely sure on the difference between heart and soul, but I find my passion for God growing every day, lately, so I'll chalk that up as a win. But in modern America, with our computers and cell phones and tablets and cars and... well, that whole "strength" thing doesn't mean as much to us anymore.
So I am committing to love God with my strength by first *building* my strength.
How are you loving God with your strength?
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. At today’s national Prayer breakfast, Barack Obama made some remarks. That’s surprising enough, really- he doesn’t seem to be too big on prayer- but it’s the contents of the speech that are so insulting.
After talking some time about Mohammedan terror, he went on to say this (quote taken from the CSPAN link above)
HUMANITY HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH THESE QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, AND UNLESS WE GET ON OUR HIGH HORSE AND THINK THAT THIS IS UNIQUE TO SOME OTHER PLACE, REMEMBER THAT DURING THE CRUSADES AND THE INQUISITION PEOPLE COMMITTED TERRIBLE DEEDS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. IN OUR HOME COUNTRY, SLAVERY AND JIM CROW ALL TOO OFTEN WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.
Take a look at that again. We should not “get on our high horse” about Mohammedan terror because “during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” also because “slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
You have to love the moral equivalence there, right? Because of things that happened 1000 (ish) years ago (the Crusades), several hundred years ago (the Inquisition- I presume he means the Spanish Inquisition), and decades ago (Slavery and Jim Crow) we should not “get on our high horse” and think ourselves better than Mohammedan terrorists.
Seriously, he could have saved some poor closed caption transcriber a lot of words by simply saying “Godwin” and sitting back down.
But. lest the historical inaccuracies continue to propagate, I felt I should address them. Let’s do it in reverse order:
Jim Crow laws (enacted by southern Democrats, mostly) were laws designed to keep blacks from doing a great many things, including vote. To my knowledge, never once was Christ invoked as a reason blacks should not vote. So while southern Democrats were, indeed, Christian, there is no indication it was their Christianity that excused Jim Crow laws.
Slavery existed long before the United States of America, and continues to this day (largely because of Mohammedans, in fact). Slavery as practiced in the United States (and other places) was a horrible evil. And, indeed, some people did claim that African slaves were slaves because of Noah’s curse on Ham.
However. It was precisely this nation’s foundation on Christian principles which lead many religious types to oppose slavery. Far more Christians (as Christians) were abolitionists than were slavery apologists. If you are going to claim that Slavery existed “in the name of Christ” it is only right that you also point out that it was opposed (violently, when that became necessary) in the name of Christ. Indeed, the Battle Hymn of the Republic states: “as He died to make men holy let us die to make men free.”
Apparently the President is unaware that there were numerous agencies which went by “the Inquisition.” The first- called the Medieval Inquisition- was created specifically to *stop* violence against so-called heretics. They used much more strict evidentiary requirements than kings of the day, and when heresy was found allowed the heretic to repent and rejoin society.
Eventually, Kings took over the reigns of the Inquisition. This lead to the now infamous “Spanish Inquisition.” But even there the reality is vastly different from popular belief. Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was a terror for a time. It was built on Jew hatred, and was used as a tool of political force. But not for terribly long. It was then reformed and became the most lenient and merciful court in Europe. The witch hunts which spread throughout Europe (and put thousands of innocents to death) did not gain foothold in either Spain or Italy specifically because of the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions. Indeed, almost everything you think you know about “The” Inquisition is likely wrong.
The Crusades were responses to Mohammedan aggression, pure and simple. It was only after Mohammedans took over several of Christianity’s Holy cities- and then began butchering pilgrims- that the first Crusade was declared. The second, third, and fourth Crusades were each called specifically to restore Jerusalem to Christian hands.
The thing about the Crusades was that they were *wars.* Wars fought in the middle ages were brutal affairs at the best of times. Yes, atrocities were committed by both sides. But where Mohammedans claimed such atrocities were justified, the Church opposed all such instances by the Crusaders.
In short, there is absolutely no moral equivalence between Mohammedanism, which really does preach death to the unbeliever and conversion by the sword, and Christianity, which teaches personal nonviolence (turn the other cheek, he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, etc.). To suggest there exists such an equivalence is insulting to Christians. Worse, it is a way to white-wash or soft-sell Mohammedan Terror.
If we are going to confront Mohammedan Terror, we must admit the truth: the writings of Mohammedanism teach forced conversion, death to the unbeliever, and jihad. Mohammedanism is an evil death cult, and it must be treated as such. These comments show, yet again, that the President is either unwilling or unable to understand that fundamental fact.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
The SCOAMT has been bragging about his economic numbers since before the SOTU. We were told that the economy grew at a 5% rate last year. We’re regaled with stories about the improving job numbers. Gas prices are down!
One of those is true. For the moment.
Shortly after the State of the Union, those numbers were revised. Whoops, not 5% growth in Q4. Try about half that.
And then there are the jobs numbers. Anyone paying attention knows that the numbers aren’t as rosy as the SCOAMT would have you believe. Now the CEO of Gallup- the poling organization- has written an editorial calling the number a lie.
There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.
And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.
Read, as they say, the whole thing.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
What philosophy espouses the following?
- “They” are out to get you
- Your problems are not your fault, but “theirs.”
- You can’t possibly be expected to better, because “they” have stacked the deck
If you answered “Progressivism,” congratulations! You’re correct!
If you answered “Mohammedanism,” congratulations! You’re also correct.
As terror attacks increase in frequency, and Liberals fall all over themselves to proclaim “That’s not Islam!” It’s important to ask ourselves why. And the answer is that they are fellow travelers. Their aims, at current, are the same. Both seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian Western culture which has seen so much progress. Both seek to undermine our institutions and proclaim themselves the only true rulers over humanity. Certainly that will cause problems between them in the future, but for the moment that makes them allies.
Mohammedanism is an evil death cult. They worship an evil god (who once went by the name Baal) and his evil servant, the pedophile Mohammed. It teaches that Jews and Christians are to blame for almost everything that goes wrong in the world, and that the only reason Mohammedans are not already ruling the world is because “they” (Jews, Christians, and even Western culture more generally) are conspiring to keep the Mohammedans down.
Progressivism is not an evil death cult, but it sure likes them (Mohammedanism, Communism, Fascism- these are all Leftist philosophies). It teaches that “the White Man” (a stand in for Western culture) is to blame for almost everything that goes wrong in the world, and that the only reason [Insert Victim Group Here] is not already ruling the world is because “Straight White Men” are conspiring to make sure no one else sees any success in life.
Both are evil. Both are predatory. They prey on the fear and even self-loathing of their victims, and convince them to do or support some of the most evil things. Mohammedanism convinces its adherents to, among other things, mutilate young girls’ reproductive organs, stone women for the crime of being raped, stone women for the crime of fighting back against rape, and kill random people in order to achieve “paradise.” Liberalism convinces its adherents to lie, cheat, steal, and murder the not-yet born.
Judeo-Christian Western culture opposes all of these things, and therefore both philosophies. Judeo-Christian morality teaches its adherents to show deference to, and defend, women. It teaches them to kill only in defense- and sometimes not then. It teaches them that it is better to fail or be defeated that to lie or cheat. It teaches them that it is better to do without than to steal (and that a man who won’t work shouldn’t eat). It teaches them that all life is sacred, but especially life which is defenseless- like the not-yet born.
Because these things resonate so with all people everywhere (because they’re True), Progressivism and Mohammedanism must destroy Western culture.
So while Progressives in the MFM safely tweet “Je sui Charlie,” and promptly scold Conservatives for the “backlash against peaceful” Mohammedans, remember this: the two philosophies travel together because they currently have the same goal.
And if you are a Progressive who so hates Western culture because of the evils you perceive in it, stop and think for a moment- Mohammedans hate all the things that you claim to support. Homosexuality will get you killed in a majority Mohammedan country. If you think UVa has a “rape culture,” wait until you see how the Mohammedans view things. And by the time you realize what you have done, it will be too late. They will turn on you and kill you or subjugate you.
And the “hard men with guns” you so hate today will not be there to protect you anymore.