Reflections From a Murky Pond

For the past several decades the Liberals and their minority tenants have been repeating the same old, tired mantra that states:

When a minority succeeds it’s despite America’s endemic and systemic racism, and when a minority fails it is because of it.

And they’ve had more than their proper share of success with this tactic since, if you repeat a lie often enough – especially if you repeat to children during their formative years – it will eventually be believed.

So, of course, they followed near to the the tenets of their spiritual godfather, the neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky and applied this same mantra to their other agenda items, hoping to have similar or even greater levels of success.

With a very limited repertoire at their disposal, it makes perfect sense for the Liberals to stick with this singular tactic.

This is a classic example of faithful – orthodox even – adherence to Alinsky’s 2nd Rule for radicals seeking to destroy a society:

Never go outside the expertise of your people – When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat….

Naturally, when the Heirophant of Global Warming, Al Gore started his doomsday cult these Liberals realized it was a good vehicle for promulgating their neo-Socialist, ethno-guiltist agenda and applied the same mantra to it:

Any cooling trend, no matter how long or general, is despite Anthropogenic Global Warming, and any warming trend, no matter how brief or localized, is because of it.

And they failed! The loyal citizens of the Civilized World, Americans especially, rejected them and the Warmists’ cult of AGW largely because these Liberals used this same tired mantra to argue the point.

We had in the intervening years realized the falsehood of their earlier claims about race and racism and weren’t going to believe those same false arguments again just because the nouns had been shifted around to fit a new methodology of achieving the Liberal agenda.

These Liberals, obviously not quite as literate and educated as they want us to believe, forgot Alinsky’s 7th Rule for Radicals:

A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag – Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….

It was an Alinskyian Failure of global proportions and one that each and every citizen of the Civilized World should be thankful for. Which is not to say that we shouldn’t stay alert for a resurgence of this cult and be ready to crush it again by and and all means at our disposal.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉

Some things in life – and in the life of a society – are unavoidable. Some examples would be Death, Taxes … and Jessica Rabbit dressed in a Princess Leia Slave Girl costume. 😯

In A Galaxy Far, Far Away A Hutt Just Exploded

The convergence of Jessica Rabbit and the Princess Leia Slave Girl costume was utterly and completely unavoidable. Fandom had to do it sooner it later – or actually meet, talk to, and seduce actual women. Now that’s a science fiction plot 😉

Just kidding…Have fun, gentlemen.

Some Americans have made a number of disparaging comments about how President Obama has been and still is spending an inordinate amount of time golfing as opposed to dealing with any of critical matters of state that currently piling up and awaiting some form of response from him.

Some now equate Obama and his golfing habit with Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

An Apt Comparison But One Foolish To Make

While this is arguably an apt comparison between the two men, I think it’s foolish to publicly make such a comparison between Obama and Nero.

Do you really think it would be better if he did his job? At least on the golf course the amount of harm he can cause is somewhat limited!

One of the more serious problems facing society is Islam’s monopolarity. The Civilized World has been forced into a war against Radical Islam and has chosen to court Moderate Islam but there is never any mention of and rarely any thought of Conservative Islam.

[Missing] <—- Moderate Islam —-> Radical Islam

The Moderate is not the antipode of the Radical; in these terms the Conservative is such. The Moderate is the middle ground who has some level of sympathy towards the goals and means of the Radical end of the spectrum but who is not wholly in agreement with them.

Moderates make poor allies in a war against Radicals. They’re already in partial agreement with the enemy and courting them means that you’ve already surrendered half the field as it were since any final resolution short of total elimination of the enemy will be pre-skewed towards the radical end of the spectrum.

But where are these Conservative Muslims? To listen to all the rhetoric surrounding the jihad we’re fighting against it would seem that they don’t exist or do not exist in such numbers as to be useful allies.

Rick Santorum has once again infuriated America domestic enemies by speaking unpleasant truths. This time the former House Representative (PA 18) and Senator (PA) unequivocally declared that Jihadism was evil and that Shari’a was incompatible with both America’s laws and our Constitution.

Naturally these truths have infuriated the Left, who are quick to equate truth with racism and/or fascism when it is unapologetically spoken by an American, especially a White, Christian American.

Rick Santorum speaking at Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan Dinner in Durham, NH said:

DURHAM, N.H. — Rick Santorum on Friday asserted that Sharia law has no place in America.

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” he said at the Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan dinner, remarks that show how the former Pennsylvania senator continues to establish himself as the candidate most-aligned with the Republican Party’s conservative base.

“We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”

Santorum, invoking New York Rep. Peter King’s hearing this week on the alleged radicalization of American Muslims, said that the “vast majority” of Muslims don’t want to it either.

“They left because of Sharia law,” he said, referring to why he believes Muslim immigrants left their home countries to come to the United States.

Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”

The audience loudly applauded.

Jihadism is evil; that is an incontrovertible truth within the context of the modern age. Whether it is the violence and terrorism of Jihad as-Sayf or the words of Jihad bi-al-Lisan and Jihad bi-al-Qalam which inspire it and/or seek to use the laws and courts to further Muslim goals when those goals are contrary to Americans’ goals.

Shari’a is more than just religious tenets and obligations. It is both civil and criminal law, as well as regulating individual conduct of both personal and moral natures, and the specifics of those laws are not just incompatible with civil code of the United States; they are often antithetical to it and the core values of America.

That so many Liberals decried Santorum’s speaking of clear truths shows America – once again – what side the Liberals are on.

Where Santorum Is Wrong

On one point Mr. Santorum is wrong. That point is the common mistake born of hubris of believing that Muslims immigrated to America to be free of Shari’a. Most Muslims came to the United States, just like all the other immigrants, seeking our wealth and economic opportunities and they brought their desire to live under Shari’a with them.

On another point Mr. Santorum is, while not wrong, too limited in his thinking. Shari’a is not just incompatible with America’s civil code. It is incompatible with Democracy, as even the European Court of Human Rights realized a few years ago.

The Court concurs in the Chamber’s view that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, as set forth in the Convention:

Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements, which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole. It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts. … In the Court’s view, a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention.

— Refah Partisi v. Turkey
European Court of Human Rights, February 13. 2003

Shari’a is incompatible with democracy and human rights! To allow it to be enacted or practiced in America would be a gross injustice and an act of indefensible and unassuageable evil – even if it was only practiced by- and enforced upon Muslims within our borders.