Islam Is Islam

     As Recep Tayyip Erdogan once said, there is no “moderate” Islam. And now Rashida Tlaib, the newly elected Muslim Congressvermin from Michigan, has confirmed that verdict:

     Tlaib deleted the tweet swiftly...but not swiftly enough to prevent the Internet, with its inexhaustible memory, from capturing it.

     Rashida Tlaib is plainly anti-American. The Michiganders who put her in office are equally anti-American. Islam is anti-American, which is why Muslims were forbidden to immigrate to the United States under the terms of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act. And the rest of the country needs to know it.

     I shall repeat myself:

     No further immigration of Muslims can be permitted.
     Every Muslim in the U.S. must be expelled.
     All mosques must be demolished.

     Wake up, America...before you wake up dead.

Why No Wall, DEMOCRATS?

     The old gag that “You can tell when a politician is lying because his lips move” has a lot of truth to it.

     You can also tell when a politician is growing desperate. The desperate politician won’t stand his ground. He keeps changing his reasons for being for or against whatever issue is most prominent in political discourse. You can see this right now in the Democrats’ attempt to thwart the border wall.

     First, they claimed it wouldn’t work. Shortly after that it would be “too expensive,” indicating that it would work. A little bit later it was derided as “unnecessary,” which suggests that it might not be too expensive after all. Then came the denunciations of a wall as “racist,” which implies that a wall would be necessary, affordable, and effective. Today the Democrats are denouncing the wall as “immoral.” From that we can infer that it wouldn’t be racist at all. But what would make it immoral? No one will say.

     The public wants the wall. We elected President Trump largely for that reason. The Border Patrol wants the wall, plus additional measures to buttress its effect. Other nations that have erected physical barriers on their borders have reaped large benefits. Israel is perhaps the best example.

     But the Democrats are adamant that there shall be no wall. They’re willing to “go to the wall” to prevent it.

     I claim that the jury is in on this issue: the Democrats are against the wall because President Trump and a solid majority of the Americans polled on the subject do want it.

     Among other things it would complement the wall on Mexico’s southern border. Think about that.

Don't Know Much About History

Or anything else, it seems.

AOC is tweeting about her style-setting gold hoops and red lipstick.

It seems that she doesn't know much about the famous women who preceded her.



Or, to be more accurate, much of anything.

#AOC

Drug Legalization? I'm On the Fence

In part because, as a public school teacher, I know what legalization will bring. The dealers will lose legal-age customers. Oh, Noes! What's an enterprising Scumbag to do?

Move down in age, and target the younger ones - who will NOT be able to partake harmlessly without penalty. You're not cleaning up the problem, you're just moving it to a new demographic.

Raconteur Report agrees - click here to read the perspective of a nurse on this 'victimless crime'.

He may go a little far with the punishments. But, they have to be made severe enough that the prospect of being caught is a deterrent.

No, it's not victimless. The poor kids that grow up in a house with an addict are some of the most wretched victims. Society hasn't the guts to pull them out of there, except for a few. By the time the social workers stop falling for the tearful "I'm going to change my ways, don't take my kids!" line, the kids have been damaged by their parents' crap, and are less likely to be adoptable.

What I think?

Pull them out the first time for 6 months. Return is based on both a clean urine/blood sample AND a job. Not school - a job.

The second time, put them up for adoption. All parental rights severed for good. Do NOT let the grandparents take them - in many cases, they're the ones whose failed parenting contributed to their kid's screwups. With that threat, grandparents will work harder to keep that kid straight.

This all started when Elite, monied, connected parents found their kids were drug users. They could not bring themselves to cut them off from support if they continued using, nor to allow them to face the legal consequences of their acts.

So, they started this 'victimless' idea. They argued for leniency in the courts, publicly-paid-for rehab centers (more like hospitals, really, with amenities and soft-spoken people to tell the addict that it wasn't his fault), and misdemeanor status for first offenses (and further offenses), or 'only a user, not a dealer' offenders.

It largely worked - for them. They kept their kid out of the system, managed to use their money to deal with the health, legal, and addiction problems, and often managed to get little Courtney or Kurt back on track eventually.

For the less wealthy, less connected, it was a disaster. For them, for their families, for their neighborhood. They used in public, had to deal to afford their own drugs, and screwed up their own, formerly stable, but poor, neighborhoods. Multiple generations were screwed up, intellectually, academically, culturally, morally, and religiously. Those are the kids that are scoring at the bottom of the scale, often turning to drugs themselves, and often sexually exploited by the lowlifes coming and going from their homes, or others in their neighborhood who took advantage of their parentless situation.

Today's addicts? More of them are now driven by doctor-facilitated pain meds, then refusal to prescribe more, because "you'll get addicted'.

Get addicted? They ARE addicted. And, it's the medical establishment, AND the drug companies that profited from their addictions, that has a responsibility - morally and legally - to clean up the mess they made.

So.

One year of serious addiction treatment for any addict that wants it, including clearing up their legal messes, as much as can be done.

After that carrot, the stick. jail time - 2-5 years, NOT to be forgone because of expensive lawyers or another round of treatment. Yes, they will have a record. After 5 years of clean living on the outside, they can apply to have it wiped out, and restore their voting rights, ability to work around kids, etc.

That 'clean living' thing? Includes alcohol use, ANY further rehab visits, and any violent crime.

Second time, they're incarcerated for a decade or more.

Third time, life.

It's tough love, guys. It's the only thing that's worked. Consequences, no acceptance of their B$, and a willingness to have them face the mess they've made of their lives, and the people they've hurt.

Discovered on Mars: Dam and Spillway.

Me? I find stuff like this both fascinating, and scary. Were they LIKE us, or are we them? Are "they" that did this there trying to do it again?

The Anti-American Dream

This man is British. So were we, by and large, until we became AMERICANS. Pat Condell rocks.

Had a bit of a revelation

Watched "Smallfoot" this afternoon.

If you haven't, please do.

The last 15-20 minutes really made my hair stand up.

If you don't see what I saw, it's still a lot of fun.

If you do, you'll know what I'm saying.

News Updates: Q Song, Weaponizing Congress, Cohen, Liberal Lunatic

This is awesome. Not just about awesome, but stone awesome. Yes, you have to listen to the credits before the music, but it's well worth it! Damn!!!!!!!!!!!

FINALLY A Comedy Sketch Against Liberals! 'Armageddon' Comedy Sketch Spo...

To tell you the absolute truth, this PoundMeToo trash probably could end up this bad. #MeToo? Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What Must Be Done Dept.

     I was doubly affected by this story:

     The range is packed. Everyone got new guns for Christmas and wants to shoot them. There was about an hour wait for a stall. I sit down and start reading as I wait my turn. In a few minutes, a young girl sits down to wait in the chair next to mine. She’s by herself and appears to be in her early 20s. She’s the only black person in the room and one of the only women. She seems nervous as she fiddles with the gun case in her lap. She’s obviously uncomfortable.

     Uncomfortable people with guns in their hands shooting in the stall next to me isn’t what I like to see. I decide to talk to her. Keep in mind that no one at this range knows me or knows what I do for a living. That’s why I like shooting there; I have complete anonymity and can focus on my own training rather than teaching others. I rarely talk to anyone, but something told me that I needed to talk to this girl.

     “It’s a long wait, huh?” “What kind of gun did you bring to shoot?”

     She smiles and seems visibly relieved that someone was being nice to her. She says “It’s just a 9mm. Nothing special, but it’s the only thing I could afford.”

     We keep talking. I find out she’s a single mom with two kids. Her house has been broken into three times in the last two months. The last burglary attempt occurred while she was in the house with her kids. She has never shot a gun, but she recognized that she had a duty to protect her family. She went to a gun show and bought a Jimenez Arms JA-9. She asked all her male friends and family members to go to the range with her, but all of them turned her down.

     She tells me that she has a bad feeling that the robbers are coming back tonight to get the x-mas presents she bought for her kids. She doesn’t know anything about guns and doesn’t know anyone who can teach her. She’s signed up for a CCW class, but no one teaches classes on the week of Christmas and she can’t find an opening until January. The problem is that she thinks the robbers are coming TONIGHT. A January class isn’t going to help.

     Please, PLEASE read it all.

     I was affected first by the kindness and insight of the narrator. That sort of generosity with one’s time should be celebrated. It’s more than merely heartwarming to read such a tale; it’s what makes Americans – gun enthusiasts especially – unique among the peoples of the world. Had I been there, I’d have bought him the handgun of his choice.

     But the second stage kicked in immediately afterward: The scenario portrayed in the tale could not have happened in New York or several other, equally firearms-averse states. The young woman would have been left defenseless by New York State law.

     If there’s any sort of law more unjust than one that disarms only the law-abiding, I can’t imagine what it might be.

It’s time for Second Amendment Absolutism!

Not Ubiquitous Tech - Appropriate Tech

Too many schools fall into that trap of 1:1 computing. The idea is every student needs to have a laptop/tablet, or there will arise a "digital divide" between the rich and the poor.

To this end, schools cooperate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft to bring in technology that is linked to those products. A captive audience, that will provide - at little cost - a ton of info on the browsing habits, interests, academic success, and socio-economic status of thousands of young people. That data collection is embedded into the framework of the "gift" or purchase. The schools get the tech at a discount.

The real cost is to give tech companies access to your kids.

That access also helps the software/hardware companies to teach - seamlessly embedded into the curriculum - kids how to use their products. In effect, paying the tech companies to let them hook your kids into use of their products - for life.

There are open-source or lower cost alternatives for Office Suite (LibreOffice), Google (DuckDuckGo), the OS (Linux), Chrome (Brave), and other applications. But, if the kids are first taught how to use the branded product, they will be less likely to change in the future.

The fact is, some classes will use computers very little, or only limited applications. For others, it's more essential.

In Social Studies, Math, or Languages, tech apps might be used, but having every student with their own device is simply not necessary. A shared laptop cart may well be sufficient to handle the limited needs of those classes.

For homework, a check-out system for laptops/computers to augment access for students without a home computer would be sufficient. Much of the work that is needed could be accomplished with a Smartphone. There is generally access (thanks to Obamaphones) in even the poorest households.

In Science is where the technology is needed - and, most of that is for the Physical Sciences. There are Biology and Earth Science applications, but most teachers don't use them. In the Physical Sciences, the data collection probe systems justify the technology purchase. Not necessarily a laptop for each student, but at least a classroom set.

I'm a big technology user. But, I've seen classrooms use technology simply as a replacement for paper and pencil activities. The downside of that is teachers spend an inordinate amount of time re-directing students off games, shopping for shoes (it's a FAR bigger thing than you would believe), or watching videos (yes, they are SUPPOSED to be blocked, but kids collaborate to get the work-arounds).

We should not be aiming for Ubiquitous Tech, but Appropriate Tech.

RIVETING! Deep State Neutered The War Was Over Before It Began - Victo...

I do love me some James Red Pills America. Just hold on...

If you go to You Tube

Look up X22 Report. This guy has an AWFUL lot of really good stuff. Try this one, for example:

https://youtu.be/nuGkGg8Ke9Q

Brilliant.

A Quick Thought For Christmas Day

     A question that was once posed about the Christian faith, posed seriously despite its seeming irreverence, runs thus:

     “If one day you were haled into court and compelled to face the charge of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

     Just now, here in the Land of the Kinda-Sorta Free, that’s not a realistic scenario, though there are other nations where such charges are laid against ordinary men and women, often with the possibility of execution as the stakes. But the question was meant in a non-legalistic way: i.e., to illuminate how we live.

     In a court proceeding that goes by evidence, no one could be convicted of Christianity on the basis of what he believes. That door is locked from the inside. The only relevant evidence would be the accused’s behavior. In other words: does the accused’s behavior comport with what Christians proclaim as the Christian way of living? And just what is that, anyway?

     Many persons are made uncomfortable by such a query, not because there’s any real ambiguity about the Christian way of life – the Nicene Creed, the Two Great Commandments, and the Ten Commandments of the Book of Exodus lay it out plainly – but because they aren’t quite sure what they believe it to be.

     Christmas Day commemorates the birth of Christianity’s Founder. That makes it an appropriate day on which to ask oneself: “What do I believe is the Christian way of life? What did Christ command? What did He forbid? And on what basis do I believe this?”

     Come to think of it, those aren’t bad questions to ask oneself on any day of the year. But on the Feast of the Nativity, they deserve special attention.

     May God bless and keep you all.

If You Follow Twitter...

     ...which I don’t, I’m sure you can find lots of nonsense over there. I understand a lot of “journalists” use Twitter as their primary publicity organ. Myself, I’d think the publicity available from this sort of “tweet” is more likely to be negative:

     That doesn’t qualify as hyperbole. Indeed, it would get many a non-“journalist” an involuntary trip to the local sanitarium for a “check-up.” Here’s a sober assessment:

     Once again: Indeed.

Telling It Like It Is

     I think very highly of Senator Rand Paul (R, KY). My admiration for him goes still higher when he expresses himself as clearly and forcefully as this:

     MARGARET BRENNAN: You've been on a tweet storm this morning saying, President's decision to pull out of Syria and cut our troop presence in Afghanistan in half, you said "the entire foreign policy establishment of Washington, DC, who two years ago were swearing Trump was going to start multiple nuclear wars. Now they're mad because he is stopping two wars. How about you just admit you hate the President, love war and have been wrong for the last twenty years on every part of foreign policy?" Who are you referring to because the defense secretary and the top diplomat handling ISIS both resigned over these decisions?

     SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, I think that we should look at some of the statements of the people who are advocating that we stay in Afghanistan forever and that we also stay now in Syria with no sort of determined end. General Mattis, even General Mattis said that there's no military solution to Syria, and he's also said there's no military solution to Afghanistan. How do you think our young soldiers feel? I have members of my family that are going over there soon, how do you think they feel being sent to Afghanistan when your generals are saying there's no military solution? So I think the burden is really on Mattis and others who want perpetual war to explain why if there is no military solution we're sending more troops....

     We've been there seventeen years. We think now we are going to take one more village and we'll get a better negotiated deal?... That was the strategy of Vietnam for years after year after year in Vietnam was to take one more village and we'll get a better negotiated deal. No, they waited us out and the Taliban are going to wait us out. They know we will eventually leave and leave we must. I mean I don't think we have enough money to be paying to build and rebuild and build and rebuild Afghanistan. The President is right and I think the people agree with him. Let's rebuild America. Let's spend that money here at home....

     I couldn’t have said it better – and I was once in favor of the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s time for those of us who were so inclined to admit our mistakes.

Awakenings

     Let’s have a little C. S. Lewis:

     “Yes,” said Weston at last, “and I will begin with a frank admission. You may make what capital of it you please. I shall not be deterred. I deliberately say that I was, in some respects, mistaken — seriously mistaken — in my conception of the whole interplanetary problem when I went to Malacandra.”

     Partly from the relaxation which followed the disappearance of the pistol, and partly from the elaborate air of magnanimity with which the great scientist spoke. Ransom felt very much inclined to laugh. But it occurred to him that this was possibly the first occasion in his whole life in which Weston had ever acknowledged himself in the wrong, and that even the fake dawn of humility, which is still ninety-nine per cent of arrogance, ought not to be rebuffed — or not by him. (From Perelandra)

     A Swedish theologist has publicly denounced Islamism. A couple of detractors have leaped on her act of considerable courage with comments to the effect of “It’s about BLEEP!ing time.” This is small minded told-you-so crap that decent persons should condemn. An awakening to and admission of one’s own errors is not to be derided!

     The Swedes are awakening to their danger. Many others remain asleep. Don’t pour contempt on the first flickering sparks of wisdom reborn.

Why No Wall?

     I found this today at Cold Fury:

     Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Republicans need to “abandon” border wall funding if they want the government to reopen, just less than 24 hours into the partial shutdown....

     The New York senator also said Democrats are “open to discussing any proposal as long as they do not include anything for the wall,” showing Democrats are not willing to compromise on border wall funding.

     It is painfully clear that the Democrats are terrified of the Wall, that they consider an open southern border to be indispensable to their electoral future, and that any “we support border security” talk they emit is pure blue smoke and mirrors. They do not want America’s borders secured. But there’s worse:

     A substantial number of Senatorial Republicans don’t want the Wall either. They’re using their Democrat colleagues as an excuse for why they can’t (meaning won’t) fund it. We need an explanation for this.

     One possibility is “follow the money:” that the big-money donors whose support for a Senate candidate is vital don’t want the Wall. Federal politicians are among the most expensive whores in the world, but many billionaires consider them a worthwhile investment.

     Another is “keeping the issue alive:” the border crisis provides a candidate something to tout at election time. It proved potent for Trump, so some Senators might hope to exploit it for their re-election...as long as they can pose as being pro-Wall while never actually delivering.

     A third is dislike for President Trump and contempt for those of us who voted for him. Given the number of supposed “Republicans” and “conservatives” who routinely denounce the president and hope for his downfall, surely that needs no further exploration.

     One thing is clear: Present trends and modi operandi continuing, we won’t have a secure southern border any time soon. Will that make anyone angry enough to actually do something? Maybe a few hundred thousand “Yellow Vest” marchers around the Capitol, for openers?

Trump Treason List Arrests Iminent;Rothschilds,Bush,Chaney,George,Bill,H...

You can't go wrong with SGT Report. This one is very good indeed! A little long, but good.

Top 5 Things Every Gun Owner Needs To Know

Unfortunately, this is a truth. Self defense is often not plain and simply recognized. Sometimes yes, most times no. Say nothing. If you must say anything, it has to be "I was in fear for my life". THEN STFU. Nothing else. Nothing. Those might not be the exact words you use, but something like them.