A journey through Trumpkin Land

What fresh hell is this?

TrumpSockpuppetTwitter1

That’s a fascinating statement, made all the more fascinating since it was retweeted by “Mr. Trump.” There isn’t a single person on the face of the earth with whom I always agree. I worry for the sanity of anybody so completely in the tank for a candidate, assuming she is sincere.

But wait, there’s more!

TrumpSockpuppetTwitter2

Hmm. Well. Alrightee then.

TrumpSockpuppetTwitter3

Interestingly, she invokes sockpuppets, a topic she probably knows a bit about:

TrumpSockpuppetTwitter4

Her timeline is quite a read.

Perhaps “Mr. Trump’s” Twitter crew should take a quick glance at Twitter accounts that they retweet.

My Year In Review

TheScream2

Items of interest

Random whatnot:

George F. Will, with a provocative piece, “The foolish ‘theism’ of government enthusiasts”:

No one…anticipated that when Gutenberg made printed books affordable, increased literacy would create a market for spectacles, which would lead to improved lenses and the invention of telescopes, which would produce the discovery that the Earth orbits the sun.

Some guy, getting just about everything hilariously and incoherently wrong:

The GOP doesn’t have many philosophers that support their ideology. They have people that they identify as intellectuals like Milton Freidman [sic], and for some reason they also claim ownership of the Founding Fathers. But the only philosopher that they claim to be their own is the novelist Ayn Rand.

Stumbled upon during a random perusal of Gutenberg.org:

This reminds one of a story of an old man who stood in a highway, leaning on his staff, and crying, in a feeble, croaking voice, “Stop thief! stop thief!”

“What is the matter, sir?” inquired a fellow, approaching.

“O, a villain has stolen my hat from my head, and run away.”

“Your hat!” looking at the bare head; “why didn’t you run after him?”

“O, my dear sir, I can’t run a step. I am very lame.”

“Can’t run! then here goes your wig.” And so saying, the fellow caught the poor old man’s wig, and scampered away at the top of his speed.

Another fun quote (well, maybe “fun” isn’t exactly the right word, since it is all too fitting, on far too many levels)–this one from Fritz Leiber, in a 1950 issue of Galaxy:

“Fourth,” he went on, “it’s my belief that when an intelligent species begins to retrogress, it tends to destroy, or, rather, debase all the things it has laboriously created. Large buildings are torn down to make smaller ones. Machines are broken up and worked into primitive tools and weapons. There is a kind of unraveling or erasing. A cultural Second Law of Thermodynamics begins to operate, whereby the intellect and all its works are gradually degraded to the lowest level of meaning and creativity.”

New York Times headline, via Google News, states the obvious:

“UN Sets Syrian Peace Talks as Fighting Complicates Task.”

Forerunner to Bronies?

The Tale of Pony Twinkleheels, by Arthur Scott Bailey, Illustrated by Harry L. Smith.

From The Lost Princess of Oz, by L. Frank Baum, Illustrated by John R. Neill (with some editing by yours truly):

OzFrog3

And another, this time with no major editing:

OzFrog5

Notable Quotes, 2015

As the year winds down, the competition is getting fierce with late-arrivers pouring in:I wouldn’t keep any school open that wasn’t doing a better than average job.” —Hillary Clinton

Our favorite village idiot gets in at the last minute: “The Repub Base sucked it up for McCain and Romney, the Estab. can suck it up for Trump. If not, we’ll know who the real demagogues are.” —John Nolte

A late arrival whose genius should be acknowledged: “Not sure how many people understand, our ‘right to bear arms’ is not in our constitution–it is an AMENDMENT to the document.” —Doug Gottlieb

Forgot to include this gem: “Twitter is like a pool of piranhas waiting for a bloody cow to be thrown into the water.” —Carl Gustav

“What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?” —Katrina Pierson

“We’re going to get rid of the insurance companies.” —Donald Trump (and every other idiotic thing to issue forth from DJ Sir Barks A Lot’s pie hole)

“Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” —Hillary Clinton

“Their beef isn’t with the Republican Party, it’s with the whole American system of government. Their enemy isn’t Mitch McConnell. It’s James Madison.” —Robert Tracinski

“I had a Muslim informant risk his life to tape BlindSheikh call for attack America. Have you AllMuslimsSuck guys managed anything like that?” —Andrew C. McCarthy

“The first thing totalitarians try to take over is the dictionary.” —David Burge

“Go to hell. I don’t need to look that up commie fucking scumbag.” —some asshole

“‘Orwell,’ Postman reflected, ‘feared those who would deprive us of information.’ Huxley, by contrast, ‘feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.'” —Charles C.W. Cooke

“Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.” —Daniel Hannan

“These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.” —Columbia University’s Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board

“We are often asked how we can just give our kids away to strangers. We are seen as uncaring, as though choosing to give them up so they can have the life we could never provide, is something to be ashamed of.” —@Sweet_Me_Lissa

“The difference [between Ron and Rand Paul] is purely in implementation. If you had a philosophical discussion on what the world should look like, there would be no difference.” —Ronnie Paul

“Also, note that the over a quarter-million CEOs, per BLS, is nearly 1,000 times larger a sample population than is thrown around by the Left–and thrown around in such a way as to leave the casual reader with the impression that they are talking about the average CEO.” —me

“When you win the culture, you win the extraordinary power to say what things mean — you get to declare the angle of vision that assigns the “correct” meaning.” —Shelby Steele

“The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar…Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS listening to this.” —Anjem Choudary

Trump: ‘We’re going to get rid of the insurance companies.’ (updated)

Video source is via Powerline. Partial transcript below begins at 42:46. I’ve excerpted the audio from the verbatim section below, here.

Your, your deductibles are through the roof. You practically have to be dead in order to collect a deductible. Right, right? Stand up, stand up. Are you right? Stand up, ma’am. Right? OK, everybody wants to stand up, ’cause they’re all saying yes. The, the rates have gone up, the deductibles have gone up–I don’t mean two percent, I mean gone up–rates have gone up 35, 45, sometimes over 50 percent. And on top of it, it’s no good. And what we’re gonna do is we’re going to come in with a fantastic system of private. We’re gonna get rid of the insurance companies. By the way, the insurance companies have done really well. They have made such a fortune. And guess what? They contributed big league to Obama, OK? Gimme a break.

Oh.

Update:

A Twitter commenter said, “that’s a bs partial quote. he went on to say allow Ins cos to sell policies over state lines.”

I asked, “If he said he was going to nuke Iran, and later said he was going to contain them, would the nuke quote be newsworthy?”

The commenter responded, “in this case, I think he just didn’t finish his sentence. but who knows with him.”

OK then, Trump went on to say:

We’re gonna get rid of the artificial lines. ‘K. This is a case where we’re going to open up the borders, OK? We’re gonna take those lines–yunno, If I, if I have, if I go out to bid, I have a lot of employees in a lot of different states. But if I go out to bid on something, in a state, let’s say I’m in New York, and I want, let’s say South Carolina, a company to bid, it’s almost impossible, it’s almost impossible. Because they all have their little monopolies. And in South Carolina they have their monopoly, and everybody– Now here’s the nice part: All of these companies have given a lot of money to every candidate. And if that candidate wins, they’re going to keep their lines, they’re going to keep their monopolies, and the rates are gonna, yunno, it’s gonna be no good. ‘Cause Obamacare is going down, with or without Justice Roberts. Obamacare is going down. You understand what I mean by that. (applause) And I will tell you this: Justice Roberts really let us down. He really let us down. What he did with Obamacare was disgraceful. And I think he did that because he wanted to be popular within, inside the Beltway or something. Because he did it the first time, he should have never done it. And that would have killed it. It would have been so badly wounded the second time that it would have died even faster than it’s already dying. But Justice Roberts should never–there was no legal reason–he’s a great legal scholar–he knows it better than any of us. There was no legal reason why he should have not ended Obamacare the first time, or the second time, but in particular the first time. But the second time was even clearer. So when we talk about Supreme Court, when we talk about Supreme Court judges–he is so disappointing to me. But. But. With that being said, I hope I don’t have a case before the United States Supreme Court any time soon, but that’s the way I feel, I don’t care. We have to get rid of the lines, so that we have many companies bidding, we have many companies. You’ll end up with plans–there are things in Obamacare you just don’t need. You don’t want it, you don’t need it. It’s so crazy, things you don’t want that in theory it’s all being paid for. You will end up with so many options, so many plans–and the insurance companies are going to have to be sharper, and smarter, and they’re not going to have the monopoly like they have. But you get rid of those lines, and you watch what happens. Your numbers will come down, your plans will be fantastic. And it’ll be a beautiful thing.

Etc.

A few points:

First, those “artificial lines” that Trump talks about are state lines, not artificial ones. Every GOP candidate that I know of advocates the ability of healthcare insurers to sell across state lines, but there is nothing artificial about a state’s Constitutional right to order its own affairs when doing so does not conflict with the Enumerated Powers of the Federal government, or with the rights of that state’s citizens.

Secondly, Trump is outright smoking crack when he calls intrastate healthcare insurers a monopoly. I’m not even going to bother to source a refutation of that asinine assertion. Trump is full of shit. (None of which is to downplay the industry consolidation that ensued as small ensurers and small brokers were driven out of business, or lines of business, because they didn’t have the clout to have a seat at the table when groundwork was being laid for Obamacare.)

Third, if Trump’s intention is not to “get rid of the insurance companies,” whom he clearly has nothing but contempt for, then why did he say what he said? Am I supposed to discount that part of his speech because he contradicts it later? Why does one part of the speech have more veracity than the other, when the supposedly exculpatory part of the speech is completely full of shit?

Fourth, the man can barely form coherent sentences. If you needed an Advil after reading the second part of the speech, you were not alone.

If you want to argue that he misspoke, go ahead. He said it. So add it to the endless list of asinine crap that issues from his piehole that he later equivocates on. It’s a very confidence-building argument–go with that.

Calling out the bigots

There is an evil afoot in the conservative community.

That evil is anti-Muslim hate.

(I say “conservative community” knowing that most people who espouse that hate are likely CINOs–conservatives in name only. Conservatives are supposed to be the Reality-Based Community, is what I always thought. But the Muslims-Are-All… folks are not reality-based.)

Those who indulge that easy hate far too frequently fancy themselves informed on things Muslim, but they are as ignorant of Islam and Muslims as any brainwashed Islamist (or militant atheist) is of Christianity or Judaism.

Maybe they’ve read the Koran, or maybe they haven’t. No matter. Axes will be ground–must be ground.

Virtue-signaling chest-thumping keyboard-warrior shit must be shat.

They never tire of channeling, blissfully deaf to the sick irony, what boils down to an Islamist interpretation of Islam, and of Muslims: That only a fundamentalist, reductionist, literal interpretation of the Koran is the correct Islam, and that those who do not subscribe to suchlike are betrayers of True Islam–or just taqiyya liars like Hamas front-group, and perennial go-to of lazy journalists, CAIR.

And what do these supposedly Christian keyboard warriors propose? Surely not to make common cause with legitimate reform-minded Muslims–because, they are quick to point out, the laughable Religion Of Peace narrative (and yes, it was a laughably binary narrative that should die a painful death) requires one to conclude that any peaceful Muslims are the exception to the rule, that all (or at the very least, the overwhelming majority of) Muslims are, in their heart of hearts, Islamofascists.

This post will not change a single mind. I realize that. The haters have concluded that a war on 1.8 billion people, be it ideological or military or both, is a foregone conclusion. They welcome it. They rub their hands in glee for it. They pose and preen behind the narrative. They would rather make war on Muslims, ideologically or militarily, than adjust their ignorance to acknowledging the perverse modernity of Islamism:

Daniel Pipes breaks it down:

Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see World War II and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

I’m done with bigots. Done as done can be.

Split the difference. Let’s say half of Muslims want nothing to do with the Islamist death cult. Does that speak well of Islam that the other half finds some succor in Islamism? Of course not.

But surely you can grasp the fact that we should leave nearly a billion Muslims out of our easy, bigoted generalizations.

No, you can’t.

Which is why I am done with you.

 

 

 

 

 

A Real President Addresses the Nation

My fellow Americans:

Radical Islamism long ago declared war on the civilized world.

We are at war with radical Islamism.

We will win that war. We must win that war. The future of civilization depends on it.

We did not invite that war, welcome that war, or cause that war–notwithstanding the arguments of those who will always blame America and the West for the world’s ills. But we will finish what radical Islamists have started.

Radical Islamism is a subset, not the totality, of Islam.

Repeat: Radical Islamism does not represent the totality of the Muslim world. It does not speak for all Muslims. I would argue that it does not even speak for most Muslims.

Radical Islamism’s primary aim is to combine, in terms understandable to the West, church and state–it seeks to bring about by unspeakable violence what we in the West might call a theocracy.

Radical Islamism makes war on all those who refuse to submit to its aim: Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists–and most frequently, fellow Muslims who balk at radical Islamists’ savagery

Radical Islamism is a death cult. It is antithetical to all that civilized people hold dear, whatever our other differences.

We are not at war with Islam. In the words of Daniel Pipes,

Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see World War II and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

Those who argue that Islam is all one thing–and therefore march in lockstep with the arguments of radical Islamists–simply betray their ignorance of Islam, and perversely mimic radical Islamists’ claims to be the true representatives of Islam.

I am not talking about some “religion of peace” nonsense that attempts to detach radical Islamism from Islam generally–as I said, radical Islamism is a subset of Islam. I am talking about the reality of diverse opinion and behavior within the Muslim world.

The fact that all too many radical Islamists position themselves, with the help of a lazy and compliant media, as “moderates” (a particular Hamas front-group, always at the ready to engage in dishonest narratives, comes to mind) does not mean that genuinely moderate Muslims do not exist, or are so few as to be the exception to the rule; it simply means that the media has been complicit in the deliberate confusion of Islamism in particular with Islam in general, to the detriment of reasonable voices within Islam.

We cannot prevail in the war against radical Islamist barbarism until we understand what it is.

Let that understanding begin today.

We will prevail.

Goodnight.

 

 

Re Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say ‘radical Islam’

This Week transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You put — you’ve also been reluctant to say we’re fighting radical Islam. And I wonder why not.

Isn’t it a mistake not to say it plain, that the violence is being pushed by radical elements in that faith?

CLINTON: Well, that’s a different thing. Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions, I’m fine with that. I say it all the time and I go after Islamic, too.

So “Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions” provides more clarity than “radical Islam” (or even more focused and on-point, “radical Islamism”)?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what’s the problem with radical Islam?

CLINTON: Well, the problem is that that sounds like we are declaring war against a religion. And that, to me, is, number one, wrong but…

Actually, the failure to differentiate radical Islamists from garden-variety Muslims is what makes it sound like we are declaring war against a religion.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though the qualifier radical is there?

CLINTON: No, because, look, that — you know enough about religion, you’ve studied it. And there are radicals, people who believe all kinds of things in every religion in the world.

The Left never tires of this idiotic false equivalence. The most virulent and widespread current form of religiously-based extremism, radical Islamism, is based in Islam–is a subset, not the totality, of Islam–not Hinduism, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, etc.

I don’t want to do that because, number one, it doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people.

First of all, be careful comparing American Muslims, who overwhelmingly reject radical Islamism, to Muslims elsewhere (and even in the latter case, there’s a lot of variation, region to region).

Secondly, the failure to clearly differentiate Islamism in particular, from Islam in general, associates the latter with the former by default, which Ms. Clinton employs such tortured verbiage supposedly trying to avoid.

Those who pretend that Islamism is a mere mutation of an otherwise benign religion, like any other, are no more thoughtful than those who pretend that Muslims are All One Violent Thing–and that Islam invariably descends into Islamism (which latter view perversely dovetails with the primary argument made by Islamists).

In other words, the Religion of Peace crowd are just as cartoonish in their global pronouncements as the Religion of Pieces crows.

Number two, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying we’re in a war against the West. You must join us. If you are a Muslim, you must join us.

Blah blah blah, keep hammering on that Rubio reference like it makes your argument more coherent.

The primary recruiting tool of radical Islamists is an idiotic denial of reality by Western leaders–a refusal to clearly state that we are at war with radical Islamism because radical Islamism long ago declared war on us; that, and our stupid insistence that, contra reformist Muslims, Islam is not really undergoing an existential upheaval brought about by the Islamofascist strain of Islam. Instead, we in the West only need to alter our language to magically create the world that we wish to exist, goes the clear implication of Ms. Clinton’s words.

No. If you’re a law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim, you need to be with us against those who are distorting Islam.

Let me be clear, Mrs. Clinton:

Your interpretations of Islam are neither here nor there. The one thing you do need to understand, though, is that Islam is many things throughout the world. And radical Islamism, which you play such tortured word games to avoid identifying, is just as at war with “law-abiding, peace-loving” Muslims as it is with the West.

And you, Madame Secretary, are just squirting out rhetorical squid ink trying to avoid the cruel reality that exists outside your wishes and assertions. In doing so, you ensure that many more in the Muslim world, and in the West, will have their lives ripped apart by what you are so squeamish about identifying.

Bush v. Trump: Team Jeb’s Wet Dream

Called it (on Trump helping, or being thought to help Bush, anyway)!

Politico: “Jeb Bush is convincing donors the polls are wrong: His team is selling a Trump vs. Bush vision that relies on big-money backers ignoring public data”:

According to another source close to Right to Rise, Murphy has been floating another tactical shift to potential supporters, suggesting that he might spend the bulk of the $75 million to carpet bomb MarcoRubio, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Chris Christie — everyone but Trump. The thinking: Making the race into a binary choice between Bush and Trump might be the only way a majority of primary voters go with Bush.

Starting in August, I repeatedly noted that Bush’s best bet was as a safe bet vis. Trump, and that Trump helped Bush by making donors and voters more risk-averse.

What I didn’t anticipate was that Bush’s support would become exceedingly weak; far from being a The Fix Is In For Bush! thing that the garment-rending anti-“RINO” hysterics regularly predicted (and which I knew, in normal circumstances anyway, was horseshit), Rubio started picking up steam, Rand Paul headed for the basement, and Jeb floundered in an epic way.

Nevertheless, I more or less predicted the broad parameters of what Team Jeb’s ultimate strategy would likely boil down to, if Trump didn’t implode early (read from the bottom up):

bush-trump1

bush-trump2

bush-trump3

bush-trump4

bush-trump5

Nothing Whatsoever: Hillary Clinton’s ‘No True Scotsman’

Hillary Clinton, last week:

The bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win. Let’s be clear, though, Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization, or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.

Let’s take this one sentence at a time.

The bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win.

No, we are at war with radical Islamism, which long ago declared war on us. “Contest of ideas” plays into it, insofar as we seek to dissuade would-be jihadists from joining the ranks of, or otherwise giving aid and comfort to, those waging war on the West, but this is not a Presidential primary debate–it is war.

And if we are to win that war, as Clinton says we must, then we should (1) understand that it is a war, and (2) understand who and what we are at war with.

Let’s be clear, though, Islam is not our adversary.

If Ms. Clinton were seeking clarity, she would not rely so heavily on weasel-words, like “adversary.” But yes, let us be clear.

What Ms. Clinton might have said, if she were inclined toward clarity rather than obfuscation, was that we are not at war with Islam, but this would have left the impression that we are at war with something else–perhaps with an “ideology of hate,” as she put it.

But no, we are apparently trying to win a “contest of ideas” against an unspecified “adversary,” the latter being a word that can mean anything from an opponent in a chess match, to a foreign invader hell-bent on committing genocide on your group.

So yes, let’s be clear, Ms. Clinton: We are at war with global radical Islamism–Islamism being a subset, but not the totality, of Islam. Put simply, then, we are at war with radical Islamism, but we are not at war with Islam per se.

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Nonsense. On stilts.

A better way to state the reality:

  1. Many Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
  2. Many Muslims are intolerant, but have nothing to do terrorism.
  3. Many Muslims are intolerant and support terrorism, but do not participate in it directly.
  4. Many Muslims are intolerant, support terrorism, and participate in it directly.

In other words, Islam is not all One Big Thing. Anyone who says it is One Big Thing is lying, or is a moron. The Religion of Peace narrative is just as specious and unsupported by reality as the All Muslims Are Terrorists (or terrorist sympathizers) narrative is. A pox on both narratives.

The facts are that Islam is multifaceted, and its adherents’ behavior ranges from benign to evil–all of which behavior can be justified by their particular (and sometimes, largely regional) interpretation of Islam.

If you doubt the diversity of Islam, check out Pew’s “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” (2013).

And a footnote: There are moderate (and liberal) Muslims, and then there are fake moderates like the favorite go-to Muslim spokespeople of the media (and Hamas front group), CAIR. When the media consistently holds up obvious wolves like CAIR as sheep, it’s little wonder that some people conclude that the term “moderate Muslim” is a fantasy–but it is not.

The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization, or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve.

Ms. Clinton may have meant to say “civilizations,” plural.

Obsession? OK, Ms. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Lady. :-D

I dislike the term “clash of civilizations,” if only because it confuses what’s actually going on. Islamism is at war with the West, but it is also at war with what it considers illegitimate, “apostate” regimes in the Muslim world. For example,

[Abu Musab] Al-Zarqawi started [Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which evolved into ISIS] with the intention of overthrowing the “apostate” Kingdom of Jordan, which he considered to be un-Islamic. After toppling Jordan’s monarchy, presumably he would turn to the rest of the Levant.

As for “the obsession…with repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism” being a “distraction,” Ms. Clinton is, as they say on the Interwebs, FOS. As I noted earlier, if we are to win the war that Ms. Clinton calls a “contest,” but nevertheless says we must win, then we should (1) understand that it is a war, and (2) understand who and what we are at war with. Repeatedly attempting to force Leftists to stop playing word games is not an obsession on our part, so much as an obsession, on the part of Leftists, with avoiding speaking the plain truth.

Ms. Clinton resents the fact that murderous jihadi Islamists are motivated by their particular interpretation of Islam. I’m sure that millions of Muslims the world over are similarly exercised. But an Islamist who is motivated by a particular interpretation of Islam is still a Muslim, and still part of Islam. To state the obvious, this is Islam’s problem, not Christianity’s, or Judaism’s, etc.

Playing word games about what motivates radical Islamists does nothing to help anyone other than Islamists; denying their religious motivation is an absurd exercise.

It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.

Playing the Religion of Peace game is what hurts moderate and liberal Muslims.

Nobody with half a brain hears about a Muslim homicide bomber praising Allah before he blows up innocents and thinks, well this obviously has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is a Religion of Peace.

But when the obvious fact that an atrocity was motivated by Islamist fervor is denied out of Western squeamishness; when the proverbial No True Scotsman card is played; when the intellectual towel is thrown in, and we pretend that Islam is in no need of reform, because “terrorists” are mere “criminals,” and are not Muslims–that’s when, as the saying goes, “the terrorists win,” because Islam and Islamism–Muslim faith versus Muslim theocracy–are lazily assumed to be one and the same.

Playing word games get us nowhere. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, we will likely be subjected to eight more years of such word games, and the consequences will be deadly for many.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers