In the Meme Time

Another Leftist meme to come crashing down in flames. Unlike many Leftist memes, this one doesn’t have a hint of truth. But it does try to play with your emotions instead of facts. But it’s totally off the mark.

This meme depicts two women. One is a Christian Nun. The other is a Moslem woman. Both are wearing a head covering which is the focus of the meme.

The meme states that if you are not bothered by the Nun’s head covering and you are bothered by the Moslem woman’s head covering. Then you are a bigot.

At face value (the emotional side), the meme would be correct. But there is a huge difference between these two women and why they are wearing these head coverings.

The Christian Nun is an ordained member of the clergy. She has taken various oaths that go along with her call to the religious life and she lives within a religious community, often closed to the outside world. The habit and wimple she wears is an outward sign of those oaths and her commitment to her Faith as a Bride of Christ Jesus.

The Moslem woman is not a member of the clergy nor is she ordained. She does not live within a religious community of sisters. The hijab she is wearing is a sign of submission and required by Moslem culture which places women to be, at best, property. It is enforced by Moslem laws with strict punishments, including death, if violated.

These are not the same head coverings and they are worn for vastly different reasons. To be bothered by a woman in hijab is a good thing. Not a sign of bigotry as the meme suggests. But a sign that you care about the rights of women which are suppressed within Moslem culture.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know Christmas is over, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about holiday traditions. For some, it’s caroling and eggnog. For others, it’s decorating the tree and driving around to see all the houses lit up and decorated.

For Leftists, it’s telling conservative Christians they’re not following Jesus.

This year, though, the Left put a little twist on their annual airing of grievances not directly connected to Festivus. They outdid themselves by making so many bizarre and illogical statements about one third of the best power trio that isn’t named Rush.

So, grab yourself your cousin’s killer eggnog made with lighter fluid and prepare for a trip from the ridiculous to the sublime…ly ridiculous.

Jesus

What the Left thinks it means – a possibly fictional figure worshiped by rubes who can’t even follow his teachings

What it really means – a religious, possibly historical, figure who Leftists still can’t figure out

Leftists are of two minds (or would that be brain cells) when it comes to Jesus. Many don’t believe He existed. Others think He was a progressive. Others think He was a socialist. He was black. He was an immigrant. He was gay.

And just when you thought they couldn’t add more, the Left found a few more. This year’s additions are Jesus was Asian, a Palestinian refugee, technically Palestinian, had a “trans body,” and even had a CNN religion reporter claim He would have been buried under rubble if He were born today.

Give them a year and they might say Jesus was a gender fluid wheelchair bound crossdressing furry who believed sex with minors was okey-dokey.

And people wonder why I laugh when Leftists say they’re smarter than us?

I will admit I’m not a theologian (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but you really don’t have to be to understand who Jesus was. For those who believe, He is the son of God who died for our sins. For those who don’t (and not a flaming Leftist), He was a man whose influence is undeniable and provided a decent guide to living a good life. For those who pretend to believe, He’s a good source of cash.

I’m looking at you, Joel Olsteen.

So, how do Leftists get it so wrong when it comes to a simple Jewish carpenter? A part of it is how they view Jesus, not as a religious figure, but as a tool to bash believers. Some of this is easy to understand, as the Left’s main religion is bureaucracy. When you put your faith in the size and scope of government, you don’t want competition, especially not from the Son of God.

But the Left doesn’t need to believe in Jesus for Him to be useful for their needs. That brings us back to an old friend, Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals.” In particular, let’s look at Rule 4:

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

When Leftists bring up how they believe Jesus would have acted, they’re using Rule 4 with the expected outcome being the conservative Christian either shutting up completely or giving a defensive answer the Left can then use against him/her. (Spoiler Alert: still 2 genders.) That’s why they keep making up stories about who Jesus was: they need Him to be their religious tofu and take on the traits the Left want Him to espouse.

The problem with this tactic is two fold. First, these are interpretations by people who may or may not have studied the Bible closely enough to be knowledgeable (which, surprise surprise, goes against Uncle Saul’s second rule “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”) As such, saying Jesus was gay because he hung out with 12 disciples, for example (all the while ignoring the women who also followed Him), shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Therefore, why give credence to a group keeps getting facts wrong in an attempt to shame you into becoming a Leftist?

This second one relies more on logic, namely we can read what Jesus said. Granted, there are language translation and theological/political issues that make a straight one-to-one interpretation harder than figuring out why people care Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce. Having said that, you can compare translations and get the gist of what He was saying. Even if you aren’t a Christian and/or conservative, you can still read the Bible and compare it to what the Leftists are saying to figure out they’re full of…well, since this Lexicon entry is about Jesus, I’d better not swear.

The way the Left keeps reinventing Jesus reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Kevin Smith’s “Dogma.” In the film, the Catholic Church “retires” the Christ figure they used for centuries and replaced Him with a friendlier version. This winds up backfiring, causing two fallen angels to bring back God’s vengeance on humanity. I won’t spoil the movie in case you want to see it, but I encourage you to watch it with a careful eye and ear because Smith brings up some valid criticisms of how modern Christianity is practiced.

Still looking at you, Olsteen!

In the interest of fairness, I admit the Right uses Jesus in a similar way, suggesting he’s fair skinned and closer to Edgar Winter in hue than Bishop Desmond Tutu. Where the Left and Right diverge is in sheer volume of attempts to use Him as a political cudgel. Where some members of the Right will smack you with the Son of God once in a while, the Left uses Him as a cat-o-nine-tails. And if you remember the Crucifixion, you know why that analogy is fitting and quite possibly will get me a one way ticket to Hell.

Speaking for myself, I’ve always seen Jesus as apolitical. He wasn’t concerned with who won elections or how the government should use the power the people gave it. His eyes were always on something more substantial: being a sacrifice for all of our sins. Any politician who tries to tell you he or she can make you a better deal is a liar, but I repeat myself

The greatest irony in all of this is the Left wants Christian conservatives to live up to rules they either don’t believe in or have no concept of how to follow. And that’s the one lesson they always get wrong: we can never be like Christ completely because we are flawed. We mess up all the time, unlike Jesus who was perfect from conception. The best we can hope for is not to mess things up too badly, and even then we are forgiven. It’s the simplest of truths to believers, and the simplest of things to disregard if you’re not down with the divine elements of that concept. Just don’t use Jesus as a theological Louisville Slugger, okay?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Although the combat in Gaza right now is like the Hatfields and McCoys with artillery capabilities, tensions on the home front here in America have also taken a turn for the toasty. As we’re finding out (or in some cases reaffirming because we’ve been paying fucking attention), there are some people here who are sympathetic to the plight of those in Gaza to the point they’re willing to minimize or wave away the horrible actions of Hamas.

Like The Squad’s Rashida Tlaib.

Seems Rep. Tlaib has been repeating an oft-used phrase with regards to Palestine’s demands of Israel: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” And Leftists have been twisting themselves more than a hot yoga studio that doubles as a pretzel oven trying to tone down what this phrase means.

And if recent media spin is any indication, we’re gonna be hearing “Well, Ackchyually” from the Left for weeks to come just over the “from the river to the sea” bit. Well, Ackchyually…I mean actually, the definition of the phrase is much simpler to grasp.

from the river to the sea

What the Left thinks it means – a complex phrase that can mean any number of things, mostly peaceful statements of a desire for Palestinian freedom

What it really means – a simple phrase calling for the eradication of Israel

See? Told ya it was simple!

The phrase originated back in the 1960d, eventually being adopted as a slogan by those lovely, peaceful people who never wanted to destroy Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization. For any Leftists or the historically illiterate (I know, I know, I’m repeating myself) reading this, that was sarcasm. Although it’s been interpreted within historical context as a desire for a democratic state of Palestine, it’s been taken up by antisemites like the PLO and Hamas to mean the total destruction of Israel.

Wait a minutes…the PLO and Hamas want Israel to go the way of the latest Marvel movie flop? Who could have seen that coming?

Again, sarcasm.

Since the most vocal and the most violent Palestinian elements in Gaza appear to be of this mindset, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’re not really pushing for a democratic state called Palestine. And judging from the way they’ve acted since October 7th, that’s a pretty safe bet.

Of course, the Left and the media (repeating myself again) know this deep down in their core, which is why they have to lie about the phrase through conflating the more peaceful meaning with the more prevalent current meaning. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Leftists know shit about fuck when it comes to foreign affairs.

Second, they’ve spent years building a narrative about how those mean old Israelis are tormenting those poor Palestinians, and if you disagree, you’re an islamophobe. For more information on islamophobia, and so I can throw in an absolutely shameless plug for a previous Leftist Lexicon entry, check out this link.

Third, the Left sees political opportunity in supporting the Palestinians, considering The Squad includes two Muslim members and the entirety of The Squad tend to be the whiniest bitches this side of “The View.” With more Muslims coming to America (and voting for people who share their faith), the Left sees dollar signs and votes. Fuck the optics! These Muslims need the Left to advance their agenda!

Then again, given the Left’s position on abortion and their blatant hatred for Jews, I guess it’s not that much of a leap for them to want to abort Israeli children no matter what trimester it is.

Fourth, if you piss off Muslims enough, things tend to get…explodey.

And fifth, Israel holds a special place in Christian hearts, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, the Left has to take a contrarian view. And the fact is already feeds into their bigotry is icing on the cake.

Hence, the whitewashing of “from the river to the sea.” Ironic, considering how much Leftists hate white people, don’t ya think?

The problem with this approach is it’s bullshit, hypocritical, and utterly stupid. I mean, there are several problems, but these three pretty much sum up my feelings on the matter at hand. I’ve already explained why it’s bullshit, so that leaves hypocritical and utterly stupid to go.

Unfortunately for Leftists, I loaded for bear.

With “from the river to the sea,” the Left is giving Palestinians the most generous interpretation of the phrase, so much so I wouldn’t be surprised if they would try to write it off on next year’s taxes as a donation. Compare this to anything a Republican might say. You know…like, oh I don’t know…Donald Trump referring to “very fine people on both sides.” Yeah, that turn of a phrase was treated worse than David Duke at the NAACP Image Awards, even though the context was clear that Trump wasn’t referring to the white nationalists at the time and said so repeatedly. And I say this as someone who is not a Trump fan, partially because of the way he tends to mangle the English language over topics that would be a slam-dunk for anyone else. Well, except for Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris, but you get the idea.

And it’s not just Trump who’s been the victim of Leftists taking the worst possible interpretation of what anybody to the right of Nancy Pelosi says. Glenn Beck, Fox News, and Newt Gingrich just to name three off the top of my head have all been victims of intentional smears by the Left through mischaracterization, taking statements out of context, or outright fabricating “dog whistles” that “prove” the Right’s racism.

Of course, if the Left can hear these “dog whistles” wouldn’t that make them racist?

Never mind.

The point is the Left treat communication as both a weapon and a shield depending on what side of the political aisle you’re on. The fact the Left is willing to go to bat for people who would kill them at the drop of a bomb vest but not a fellow American who disagrees with them politically speaks volumes to the utter intellectual and depravity we’re dealing with here.

And I think that last sentence covers the utterly stupid part I mentioned earlier.

Look, it’s cool if you think Palestine should have its own country, and if I had my druthers and could reasonably expect the leaders of this country wouldn’t use said druthers to set up base camp for Holocaust II: Electric Boogaloo, I would push for that to happen. The problem is I don’t think we can trust that to happen due to the number of Islamic extremists within the pro-Palestinian movement. Their holy doctrine allows violence against non-believers, and these kids tend to take the Quran very seriously/literally. And considering that same doctrine says it’s okay to lie to non-Muslims…well, let’s just say I’m going to pass on the Trust Fall with these folks.

That brings us back to “from the river to the sea.” I know this is going to surprise you, but I’m not going to be as generous with my interpretation as the Left is. Given the nature of Muslim extremists like those in Hamas to lie and play people for fools, there is no wiggle room here for me. They want to turn Israel into a parking lot, possibly made of glass if Iran supplies them with nukes. Anyone who says differently is an idiot.

Or a Leftist. But again, I repeat myself.

And, no, that’s not sarcasm.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Since the Gaza Strip turned into a war zone, there have been a number of disturbing events. Violence against Jews has risen. Acts of anti-Jewish vandalism are rampant. Leftist strongholds have let the mask drop to show how they really feel about Israel.

In response to this, the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration swung into action. With their fingers fully on the pulse of the nation and how Americans feel about Israel, they gathered their best minds and announced a national initiative to combat…islamophobia.

Remember, kids, this idea came from their best minds.

Since the Left brought it up, I figured we should revisit islamophobia in the current context and have a few laughs in the process.

islamophobia

What the Left thinks it means – irrational fear or hatred of Muslims, currently fueled by high emotions over the Gaza situation

What it really means – a term used to deflect legitimate criticism of Muslim extremists

Let me make something perfectly clear. I don’t hate Islam anymore than I hate anything else. The customs and practices are different, but that’s not a reason to start stringing up Muslims. Just like with Christianity, there are different belief systems under the Muslim banner, some more uptight, others more relaxed. Regardless, I extend that offer of kinship until such time as it gets revoked because I would like the same for my beliefs.

Having said that, Islam has a problem, namely there are some really uptight assholes ruining it for the rest of the faithful. As much as Leftists like to paint people like me as radical extremists destined to lash out with violence, I don’t see that many Amish drive-bys. Mainly because they tend not to have cars, but the point’s the same. Christianity is not by its nature violent. You could count on the two hands of the world’s worst power tool demonstrator the number of Christians who have acted violently in the past century or so. And last time Christians did act violently on a wide scale (i.e. the Crusades), it didn’t work out for them.

Islam, on the other hand…well, let’s just say they have a ways to go in the non-violence workbook. And it’s for this reason people are a little skittish about completely trusting our Muslim brothers and sisters. When Christianity gets radicalized, you tend to get Amway-level aggressive proselytizing. When Islam gets radicalized, you tend to get explosions. They are not the same.

Naturally, the Left has found a way to weaponize prudent caution by shaming people into ignoring it through shame. Islamophobia works in the same way “racist” does with the Left: take any less-than-positive statement, put it through their intersectionality prism (with a quick consultation of their Oppression Decoder Rings), and turn it into hate. You know, just like The Squad!

With regards to the fighting in Gaza, the Left has ramped up the islamophobia rhetoric to paint Muslims as being persecuted by Israel. And, just like clockwork, the squawking points went out for Leftists to recite without self-reflection. Although there are Muslims affected by the current situation, the Left has pulled a bit of a switcheroo.

Take any current Leftist statement about islamophobia, for example. Notice there is one name that never gets mentioned in the same breath as decrying islamophobia. That’s right, kids. I’m talking about Hamas. By only mentioning Muslims, Leftists don’t have to deal with the fact there are Muslims like Hamas running around out there. And they use Israel’s military strength to create a David vs. Goliath where the Muslims (i.e. Hamas) are the underdogs.

That same approach works with islamophobia, too. By painting Muslims as the victims, the Left has made it next to impossible for any legitimate discourse on whether radical Islam is a problem. (Spoiler Alert: it is.) So, all of Islam gets a whitewash and the Left can keep avoiding a major blind spot it has regarding it. A win-win!

Well, except for all the people who are injured, kidnapped, or murdered by the radical Muslims like Hamas, of course.

There is legitimate hatred of Muslims out there, but it’s not nearly as widespread as the Left wants us to believe. But this gives the Left an incentive to pump up the numbers by making any slight against Muslims islamophobic. And I do me any slight. The problem becomes separating the real islamophobia from the bullshit and being unafraid to call it out when it happens.

Guess who I trust least with doing any of that.

Maybe it’s me, but it’s almost like the Left is so focused on fighting islamophobia as an apology of sorts for our response to 9/11, which was to…go after Muslim extremists and their proxies. Even though there were examples of dumb people treating anyone with darker brown skin like a terrorist, most of the anger was directed at those who supported the attack on America.

To the Left, this was a black stain on our history, so they made it a central point of their platform from that point on to reject the idea there are bad Muslims, just good Muslims being persecuted by evil nasty poopyhead Right Wingers.

Wait…isn’t that the same rationale the Left used with illegal Mexican immigrants?

And wouldn’t that be a great strategy for people who want America to be destroyed to exploit? But I’m sure that would never happen, right?

That insinuation may make people call me islamophobic, and I don’t care. The term has lost all meaning for me because it’s been oversaturated like the Travis Kelce/Taylor Swift relationship. At that point, I enter Don’t Give A Fuck Mode. The fact the Left continues to pretend islamophobia is rampant, especially at a time when Muslim extremists are responsible for killing people who were at a fucking music festival, is troubling. How many more people are Leftists going to allow to be killed or hurt just to protect their feefees?

If the media coverage of the war in Gaza is any indication, as many as it takes.

In the meantime, it’s incumbent upon us to keep cooler heads and not treat every Muslim how Leftists are treating Israel right now. We have to encourage Muslims to feel free to express their opinions, even if we disagree with them, and show them love. As the late Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” If we want to end hostilities towards Muslims (or any group for that matter), we must start by mending fences.

Of course, once those fences get blown up by people who prefer to kill us than be neighborly, only three words need to be uttered.

Game on, bitch.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


In case the 25/8 (because Common Core math) news cycle hasn’t talked about it enough, there’s a bit of a war going on in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. Seems some members of Hamas decided to attack an Israeli music festival on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. This attack left several dead, and others held hostage.

Since then, Israel has been fighting back, which has garnered a schizophrenic response from the Left. Oh, the usual suspects on both sides of the conflict have made statements or in some cases like Rep. Rashida Tlaib waited a while before issuing an incredibly tone-deaf response. But the Left is of two minds on the subject, and both of them are more critical of Israel than of Hamas.

Since Hamas is the elephant in the war room right now, I figured it’s time we give equal attention to them.

Hamas

What the Left thinks it means – Palestinians fighting to regain the country they lost to Israel

What it really means – a terrorist cell given international legitimacy by fucking idiots

Hamas started out as the political side of your friends and mine, the Muslim Brotherhood, in Gaza. You know, where the strip is. And where there is an ongoing land struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. Think the Hatfields and McCoys but with a greater possibility for nuclear fallout. Palestinians have had settlements on the Gaza Strip for years, and Hamas has made it a point to attack Israel through various means, which meant Israel responded with force and, in doing so, made Leftists throw their intellectual heft being the Palestinians.

Granted, it’s not much, but it’s something.

Of course, the Palestinians love us for…oh, wait, they hate us because we insist on helping our ally in the region, Israel, defend itself against outside forces wanting to destroy it. You know like…Hamas. And that hate isn’t exclusive. No, Hamas is totally inclusive in wanting as many Americans dead as possible, too, up to and including America’s destruction. With friends like these, who needs enemas?

Well, I can tell you one person who needs one to get his head out of his ass, and that’s Puddin’ Head Joe. Remember this is the guy President Barack Obama tapped as his Administration’s foreign policy guru because…we’re not sure yet, but I’m sure it had something to do with being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since God took a day off. The previous record holder, of course, was Strom Thurmond, who beat Puddin’ Head Joe by six days.

And thanks to Puddin’ Head Joe, Hamas has a new sugar daddy: Iran. See, back in the 70s, America froze Iranian assets in response to Iran taking American hostages, and that freeze was in place until…Obama and Puddin’ Head Joe came on the scene. After making a foreign policy blunder that even Ray Charles could see (because, you know, he’s dead and all), we turned $6 billion over to the Iranians…who then said they would do what they wanted with the money, which was to give it to Hamas to attack Israel, only to pull it back shortly after offering it. Fucking brilliant!

Now, when you consider Hamas is fond of using primitive weapons against Israel so they can appear to be the victims (with the help of Leftists in the media, but I repeat myself), that $6 billion might last Iran and Hamas a while. When you are winning the PR war, you don’t need tanks and bombs. You just need to convince as many people as possible that the other side is bad and you’re just fighting for all the right reasons.

Hmmm…where have I heard that before, and not that long ago as it turns out? And to the tune several billion dollars to boot! I’m sure our new international bestie Volodymyr Zelenskyy could tell us in between bouts of counting our…I mean his money.

Of course, Hamas does provide a bit of a problem for Leftists trying to paint them as innocent victims. Namely, that they’re terrorists who treat their own people as badly as they want to treat Israelis. Hamas is notorious for using civilians as human shields and buildings where people are to drive up the body count for their PR war. And the Leftists eat it up like it was a responsibly sourced free range veggie and tofu hot dog.

Which poses another problem for Leftists: how do they walk the fine line between being anti-Israel and still shilling for Jewish donor dollars. Some like the members of The Squad try to play both sides with vague statements that downplay the seriousness of what’s going on while showing support for those poor Palestinians. Others don’t even pretend to hide their contempt for Israel, which puts them in direct conflict with Leftists who still hold onto the notion Israel should exist (if only to keep getting Jewish donations).

Regardless, Hamas is a real problem for us, albeit one a few well-placed rocket attacks could remedy…provided we get the courage to do it. After the War on Terror, many Americans lost their taste for fighting terrorism or even calling it out when it’s blatantly obvious. This is because the Left has done a masterful job in controlling the narrative and removing the stigma from being a foreign terrorist by calling anyone who sees the screamingly obvious racist.

Except when it comes to domestic terrorists. But that’s a bullshit narrative for another time.

Which brings us to another bullshit narrative, that being how cold-blooded Israel has been with the Gaza settlements. Not that Leftists would give us the whole story, but Israel gave the settlers a 24 hour window before they started a counter-offensive to allow time for Palestinians to flee to safety. Those bastards!

Seriously, this should tell you a lot about how Israel treats Palestinians who aren’t trying to kill them. These Palestinians have positions in the Israeli Parliament, enjoy economic and personal freedoms, and generally have a better life than they would under Hamas. And that’s one of the real tragedies in this war. The fact so many Palestinians are being used as pawns in a war between Hamas and Israel on both sides of the conflict doesn’t exactly make humanity look that good. Even so, a Palestinian has a better chance at a better life within Israel than an Israeli or even a non-Hamas Palestinian has. Israel has a ways to go, but they’re already further down the road than Hamas.

And let’s not make the same mistake Leftists make and lump Palestinians and Hamas together. Not every Palestinian is connected to Hamas, nor should we think that way. Unfortunately in this case, most of the people living in the Gaza Strip support Hamas in this conflict. Even so, just like when the Left tries to justify illegal immigration by painting them all as asylum seekers or women and children, they do that as a means to appeal to our emotions.

Because the facts make Leftists look like assholes on a much grander scale.

In the meantime, Hamas is still out there, but they’re finding out after fucking around with Israel. Until one side is wiped out or the two sides can forge a more positive outcome together, we’ll be seeing more of this Mass Warfare Tango for years to come.

Let’s just say I’m more hopeful the Sweet Meteor of Death hits us in 2024 than I am the Hamas-Israel fight ending anytime soon.








Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the Republicans taking control the House of Representatives at the beginning of this year, there were bound to be some changes, not the least of which to committee positions. Well, let’s just say the same folks who complained about Donald Trump not accepting the results of an election have their collectivist panties in a bunch over who is being removed from some committees.

Enter Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who just happens to be black, Muslim, and a member of the Squad. For those of you unfamiliar with the Squad, they’re like the women on “The View” but with the power to spend your money and make new laws they’ll exempt themselves from at their earliest convenience. Prior to the Red Ripple this past November, Omar was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but was kicked out by Speaker of the House Kevin “No Relation to Joe” McCarthy.

Let’s just say she and her fellow Leftists didn’t take this well, even by Leftist standards. Several colleagues, including fellow ousted Democrat Eric “Fang Fang’s Bitch” Swalwell and fellow Squad member Rashida “Not Cool Enough to Have a Nickname” Tlaib took to the floor of the House to protest Omar’s removal. And by “protest” I mean “bitching and moaning.” But the pièce de résistance (which is French for “We surrender! Do not burn the Louvre!”) was when Omar’s media supporters (but I repeat myself) called the decision to yank her from the Foreign Affairs Committee Islamophoba.

Hoo boy. Get ready for a trip into the stupid.

Islamophobia

What the Left thinks it means – the irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims

What it really means – the modern ideological equivalent of the word “literally”

It pains me to say this in 2023 when we were supposed to have flying cars and were building towards a future that would make “Star Trek” look like a Rob Zombie hellscape, but to be perfectly clear, I have nothing against most Muslims. This is because the ones I’ve met personally have been nice, hard-working people with the same needs, wants, and hang-ups as the rest of us. They only difference is their faith. And I’m willing to bet most of the Muslims you meet are the same way.

Having said that, there are some fucking nutjobs out there who just happen to be Muslim. Granted, there are some fucking nutjobs out there who just happen to be Christian, but there’s a big difference in how Muslims and Christians are treated. If you call out a Christian extremist (real or imagined), you’re “speaking truth to power.” If you call out a Muslim extremist (real or blown up), you’re branded as Islamophobic regardless of whether said extremist is literally saying “I want to kill all Americans.”

That brings us back to the real definition of Islamophobia, literally. It seems the term gets tossed around with the frequency of Vox posting something stupid. In some cases, it’s appropriate, but in most cases…it’s less appropriate than letting Hunter Biden guard your crack cocaine stash. Yet, if we call out the inappropriate use of Islamophobia, we get called Islamophobic. And if we don’t obey what the Left tells us is acceptable behavior towards Muslims…you guessed it, we’re Islamophobes!

Welcome to the Kobiashi Maru of Salem Witch Trials. You’re guilty until proven guiltier. And there’s no way to beat it.

The reason for this is because people aren’t conditioned to try to offend or push away people. Well, except for my Uncle Jim-Bob who smelled of old cheese curds, Pabst Blue Ribbon, and skunk, but that’s not important right now. Psychologically, humans have a need to be socially accepted, which can be used to condition us to act, speak, and think a certain way.

Now, who do we know that would use our psychological needs to obtain political and personal power? I mean, aside from Disney. I’m speaking of Leftists, of course! They will play with our emotions to get what they want, but unlike Disney, we don’t get much entertainment out of it.

Islamophobia is one of those emotionally-charged terms that is designed to get us to adopt a position we may not necessarily agree with just to go along with the crowd. What started with homophobia (another term that’s been overused like a Kardashian) has become a cottage industry specializing in outrage and offense. And business is booming.

And our current salesperson of the year is Ilhan Omar. But much like her attempts to explain away her previous statements against Israel, her use of Islamophobia to complain about getting kicked off the Foreign Affairs Committee is weak. I’m Sheldon Cooper handshake weak here.

Omar has a bit of a history with making inflammatory statements about Israel. Considering the US and Israel have pretty close ties, having someone like Omar dealing with foreign affairs is a recipe for disaster. Even though the President sets the foreign policy agenda, a loudmouth with a penchant for pissing people off makes that job a lot harder.

Oh, and openly criticizing the guy who hands out committee positions? Fastest way to get kicked off any major committee and busted down to the Get the Speaker of the House’s Coffee Committee. Or in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s case, vodka.

Now for the really fun part. Pelosi’s actions with the previous session of Congress kicking off Republican committee members and rejecting McCarthy’s suggestions for members of the January 6th Commission made Omar’s rejection a thing. She was warned this was a bad idea, and she went ahead with it anyway.

Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it, Leftists?

If anything, Pelosi’s actions had more to do with Omar getting the boot than any ill will McCarthy had against Omar’s religion. It’s true he hasn’t exactly been a friend to Muslims, but with the mitigating factors I’ve mentioned, it’s hard to say Islamophobia is as much of a factor as Leftists want us to believe.

In this way, Leftists use Muslims like they use any minority on their side: like bunting on a parade float. The sole purpose Leftists trot out people like Omar is to tell the world “Look at how diverse and caring we are!” Yet, what exactly have Leftists done for Muslims that help them in any meaningful way?

If you guessed nothing, you’d be right. And if you bet the under, go see the cashier to pick up your winnings.

Minorities of all stripes within Leftist ranks are treated equally…bad. (But, hey, at least it’s equally bad!) By adopting the “do what we say or you’re an Islamophobe” approach, Leftists make it harder for Muslims to be treated as anything other than a mystery, an “other” if you will. Even if you won’t, it’s a recipe for disaster to continue thinking that way.

Even though I don’t fancy being killed by Muslims who hate my guts, I’ve found it’s easier to build bridges when you treat people different than you the way you would want to be treated. (Offer void for anyone who are really into the Marquis de Sade.) By ignoring our differences and seeing each other as human beings, it gets a lot harder to “otherize” each other since we have an established relationship, i.e. we know the people behind what we see.

So, Representative Omar, I reject your assertion of Islamophobia and insert a reality of my own. Namely, the reality the bullshit you’re pushing to explain away why you were kicked to the Congressional curb for being a loudmouth asshat doesn’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. But since you’re a reliable Leftist who checks off a number of spaces on the Oppression Bingo Card, nobody on your side will call you out, and everybody on your side will call me Islamophobic. See if I give a fuck.

Oh, wait, I lost all my fucks investing in cryptocurrency. Now what? You’re gonna call me an Islamophobe again? Still no fucks to be given.

That’s what undercuts Leftists like Ilhan Omar. If you don’t care what they call you, they hold no power over you, and that gives you power over them. But remember, Omar isn’t representative of the average Muslim. She’s barely representative of a higher mammal. I’ve been insulted worse by better people.

So, Representative Omar, take your Islamophobia and shove it up your…turban. Which is on top of your head, which is shoved so far up your ass you can taste what you had for lunch.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When you think about it (and I do because I really have no life), the English language has a lot of words and phrases that come from combining two words or concepts. Some of them work, like “ginormous” which combines gigantic and enormous which are synonyms for “big.” Others, like “jumbo shrimp” or “House Intelligence Committee,” don’t work so well because they contradict each other.

This week the Left rolled out a new phrase to describe a threat they see underneath their beds, that being “Christian nationalist.” Whether this phrase is the next “ginormous” or “House Intelligence Committee” has yet to be seen, but I think it warrants a deep dive to give us a better perspective on this new turn of a phrase.

Christian nationalist

What the Left thinks it means – the newest threat to our democracy, conservatives who believe Christianity should be the primary inspiration for our government

What it really means – a turn of a phrase that shows the Left knows nothing about either

Although Christian nationalism has only recently come into focus, the concept has been around for a few years. In fact, the Leftists at the New York Times have linked it to the rise of Donald Trump, mainly because it seems the faithful and the nationalist in America flocked to his message. Which, of course in the hivemind of the Left, makes them domestic terrorists in training. In fact, if Christian nationalists aren’t stopped now, we could find ourselves in the midst of another rise of Hitler…or is the The Handmaid’s Tale this week? In either case, it’s bad.

Or is it?

I won’t pretend there isn’t the possibility of bad outcomes with Christian nationalism, mainly because there are people willing to twist Christian doctrine towards political ends because, let’s face it, there are some asshats out there. Having said that, I’m not sure Christian nationalism is as much of a threat as the Left would lead us to believe. Imagine that. Leftists overstating a problem to whip up hysteria and fear for political gains. Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, we need to look at both parts of the phrase to understand what the Left is trying to portray as a threat and whether the threat is credible. First, let’s look at Christianity as a whole. After all, nothing like pissing off as many people as possible, right?

Although individual faiths and mileage may vary, the Bible is pretty clear on matters of governance: governments are established by God’s will, as outlined in Romans 13:1-3:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended

Notice something that’s missing in that passage? A reference to nationalism. Well, that, and a good meatloaf recipe, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Although God teaches us to follow the law, there is still an acknowledgement of the possibility of wicked men and women getting into positions of power and making laws that go against the Word. And, remember, this was before Las Vegas was built. As a result, Christians are also taught to focus not on the world of Man, but on the world of God because we are taught Man is sinful and imperfect. And anyone who has followed politics in the past few decades can attest to both being true.

So, where does nationalism come into play? As noted above, the Bible doesn’t mention nationalism, which puts it clearly in the world of Man. The best way to describe it is what you get when you inject steroids and PCP into patriotism. It goes beyond merely loving one’s country and into a belief the country itself is the best in the world under any and all circumstances. The only problem with this idea is it assumes the country cannot make mistakes and always does the right thing. Again, see the past few decades of American politics for proof this ain’t the case.

When you combine Christians and nationalism, you get…a confusing mess. On the one hand, the faithful are to accept the government we have because God put the elected officials there (that, and the dead voters in Chicago in Illinois Democrats’ cases) and Man is imperfect. On the other hand, nationalists believe the country we have is perfect and should be the model for everyone else to follow. Maybe it’s just my weird way of looking at things, but wouldn’t nationalism mean its proponents put the country, ruled by imperfect people, above God? And wouldn’t that make Christian nationalism contradictory?

Why, yes. Yes on both counts.

But the Left doesn’t want us to think that hard about it. Just accept Christian nationalists are super-duper dagnasty evil and be done with it. There’s a tiny problem with that, however, and it stems from how the Left sees religion as a whole.

The religious have been stereotyped in pop culture as being so uptight not even WD-40 could loosen them up. Oh, and that each one is a super goody-two-shoes who are also flaming hypocrites on any and all subjects. Of course, if you are a person of faith who just happens to vote straight-ticket Democrat, you’re doing right by your Lord and by your party. Hmmm…didn’t Jesus say something about not being able to serve two masters?

Why, yes. Yes He did. Matthew 6:24 for the people praying along at home:

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Although the verse specifically mentions money, the same principle applies to politics, which also involves money these days. Even so, the point remains. You cannot serve God and Man at the same time without running into the kind of theological and moral quandaries only Man could invent for ourselves. And you thought Elon Musk was clever!

However, this doesn’t prevent the Left from perpetuating the stereotypes they’ve spent decades perfecting. They rely on it to make any openly Christian politician look two-faced and phony, and it works for the most part thanks to tactics from what’s become a Bible of sorts to the Left, Rules for Radicals. One of the rules boils down to making your opponents live up to their own standards, which gives Leftists plenty of political fodder to use when the opponents don’t. By building the “Christians are moralizing hypocrites” strawman, the Left have an easy way to knock down people of faith.

Then, they put a little more English (that’s spin, not the language) onto it by lumping Christians in with nationalists to create a Frankenstein’s Strawman of undesirables. And linking it to Donald Trump? That’s your trifecta of fuckery there, kids!

Here’s the funny thing, though. The Left’s knowledge of Christianity and nationalism don’t go much beyond the stereotypes they build. I’m as shocked as you are to learn Leftists are lazy thinkers, but I think we can overcome the surprise and disappointment.

Christianity is much more than an ideology or a political faction. It is a way of life. The faithful take God’s Word to heart and try to live their lives in a Godly way while knowing they will fail. And it’s not a cult mentality, either. If you stop and get to know Christians, you’ll find they’re not that different from most regular people (which excludes Leftists since, well, they ain’t regular). They worry about the future of the country like we all do from time to time. They want to be able to put food on the table and roofs over their heads. And, yes, they want politicians to represent their interests in office.

But does that mean Christian nationalists are evil? Not really. Maybe confused or unclear about what the Bible teaches, but not evil..yet. There are Fred Phelps types out there who have no problem twisting the Bible into hateful rhetoric, and here’s the part Leftists don’t get: Christians are taught to look out for these types and not follow. And given the Westboro Baptist Church has fewer members than Republican hosts on MSNBC, I don’t think they’re as pervasive a force as they and the Left think they are.

Which leads us to question whether Christian nationalism is a problem. Well, this is going to shock you, but I’m going to say they aren’t. We’re not dealing with a massive movement that attracts people on a daily basis, but rather a few cranks who think their combination of Christian faith and nationalism is the only way to go.

And the Leftists who are giving them more attention than they warrant.

That’s right, kids. The Left has a vested interest in getting people to worry about Christian nationalists, and it boils down to money, power, and division. Just like with mass shootings, Leftists need there to be unrest caused by people they deem undesirable to gin up nightmare scenarios that never seem to come true. Remember, these are the same Leftists who told us Donald Trump would get us into a war with China. And as we found out recently, apparently that was Nancy Pelosi’s job.

Regardless of what, if any, faith you follow, it should concern you Leftists are working so hard to make you afraid of a theocracy that has been threatened for decades, but has yet to materialize in any way. What are they trying to hide or divert our attentions from, exactly?

Oh, yeah. Leftists suck at governing.

If your track record was as much of a flaming bag of dog shit as Joe Biden’s, wouldn’t you try to invent an enemy to bash?

No Communion for You

Back in May, the Archbishop of San Francisco, the Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, issued a public statement concerning a prominent member of his archdiocese; Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

After making numerous attempts to have a private meeting with The Speaker and being denied at every turn. The Archbishop did the only sensible and correct thing under Canon Law. He denied communion to her within his archdiocese.

This is a simple corrective measure used by the Church to bring attention to the matter to a wayward member. This isn’t political or the weaponizing of the Church. It has been used for centuries to correct errors.

Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic in public, as do many other politicians. But she doesn’t follow Church teachings and doctrine when it comes to abortion and other sins. And her refusing to have a meeting with her own Archbishop clearly shows she is unrepentant in this matter.

Some say that communion or the Eucharist is for everyone. This is not true at all. It is for the body of believers not to the ungodly. And even within a Catholic Mass, communion is offered only to other Catholics, not to Protestants who may be attending.

At the end of June, The Speaker was traveling abroad and she attended Mass at the Vatican. There she received communion from the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis himself.

This snub against one of the Pope’s archbishops doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. I have written many times about Pope Francis and his Marxist roots. He is a full blown serpent in the heart of the Garden of Christendom. A false teacher, an anti-Christ, and a Leftist.

Row v. Wade Overturned

On Friday, the 24th of June in the Year of Our Lord 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic opinion.

The overturning of the 1973 opinion of Roe v. Wade. Stating that the United States Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to an abortion.

This opinion does not outlaw the practice of abortion. It does return it to the Several States where it rightfully belongs to be legislated.

Abortion was never a right. And the US Supreme Court and lower courts have a long history of implying rights under the Constitution that just aren’t there. There is no right to an abortion.

There is a right to privacy of course. This is protected in the US Constitution. But that doesn’t mean that any person can end the life of another yet to be born child without cause.

What is an exceptable cause? That is for the States to determine. Because the right to Life and due process are protected by the US Constitution.

There maybe some instances where abortion is necessary. This does not diminish the fact that it is ending another life in the womb. It just should never be preformed for trivial reasons.

Of course the idiots on the Left are shouting that this is only the beginning. And think that the High Court will also issue other opinions such as removing the right to vote from women as well.

This absurd and shows the ignorance of those who believe such nonsense. The right to vote is clearly written in the US Constitution. And the High Court cannot simply issue an opinion removing it any more than they can issue an opinion voiding the 2nd Amendment.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Leftist losing streak at the US Supreme Court continued last week, much to the consternation of Leftists used to getting their way through judicial fiat. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court ruled the government (and any extensions of it under current, and quite wrong, interpretations) could not prevent an individual from personal prayer. To anyone who can read the First Amendment, this was a simple case to decide.

To the Left, it was a violation of the Constitution, more specifically the separation of church and state. Granted, we may have covered this topic before, but the fact the Left continues to bring it up tells me they didn’t learn the first time. So, strap in, kids. We’ve gotta take another swing at this.

separation of church and state

What the Left thinks it means – religious matters have no business in government matters

What it really means – the government can’t establish an official religion

For as smart as the Left claims to be, they consistently get the Establishment Clause wrong even though it’s pretty clear. Here goes:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

There’s more to the First Amendment, but the purposes of this sketch, this section is the relevant part. Notice the first four words, “Congress shall make no law.” Those four words put the Establishment Clause into a specific framework, one where, well, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that meets the specific criterion outlined in the First Amendment.

At least, that’s the way it was until Leftists told us what James Madison wrote isn’t really what he meant. Thanks to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Establishment Clause has been expanded to include any entity that gets federal funds, such as public schools. Although I have yet to see Mrs. Miller’s first grade class draft legislation, I’m willing to entertain this line of logic.

But with one caveat the Left doesn’t want to grant: using the entire Establishment Clause. Remember, under the Left’s thinking, a public school is an extension of the federal government, so praying in schools would be a violation of the First Amendment. However, the Establishment Clause also states the government can’t stop someone from exercising his or her religious beliefs, which means public schools aren’t allowed to stop someone from praying.

Checkmate, bitches.

What’s worse, the entire concept of the separation of church and state doesn’t even exist verbatim in the Constitution. Oh, it exists as a concept, but nowhere in there will you find “separation of church and state.” That turn of a phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and, surprise surprise, the Left used to extrapolate a simple concept into a gross misapplication.

And even then, the Left doesn’t apply their own standards equally. I know, I was shocked when I realized this, too! Anyway, the Left has used the separation of church and state primarily against Christians to curtail their religious expressions. These restrictions go from the ridiculous to…well, the more ridiculous. But when it comes to, say, Muslims, those restrictions aren’t even considered. If anything, Leftists will tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to state teaching about Islam in public schools isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state because it’s being done purely as an educational exercise.

But a high school coach quietly praying after a football game without requiring anyone else to join in is a Golden Gate Bridge too far?

No matter how far you follow the Left’s thinking on separation of church and state, it will eventually lead to an intellectual dead end. You know, like “The View.” It’s not without reason, though, and that reason (oddly enough) is an appeal to emotion. The Left wants us to believe any outward show of Christian faith is forcing religion down people’s throats which creates a victim, albeit often an unwitting one. Thanks to the ACLU, people putting up a Nativity scene in a public square is an affront to all religions, so communities either have to dump the Christian imagery (their unstated preference) or allow all religions to put up holiday decorations (a nightmare for city maintenance workers). Because the latter is so labor-intensive (and the ACLU is more sue-happy than an injury lawyer working straight commission), communities opt to forego any religious icons on public property.

And remember, kids, this is all based on an idea that’s not actually in the Constitution itself.

Although the separation of church and state is a no-brainer for Leftists, it actually creates a series of problems. Imagine that! Leftists not thinking ahead! Anyway, if the Left really wants there to be no intermingling of church and state under any circumstances, we’re going to have to remove some laws from the books. Granted, they’re not major crimes like murder or theft, but…oh, wait. Yes they are! It’s hard to deny the religious influence on some of the laws we have, but that doesn’t stop Leftists from doing it or outright ignoring the issue altogether.

Then, there’s the matter of representation. Sure, instituting pure separation of church and state will get rid of Christians, but it will also get rid of…many members of “The Squad.” After all, Islam is a religion, right? So, buh-bye Ilhan Omar! So long Rashida Tlaib! Oh, and let’s not forget government officials who believe in the Jewish faith. Shuffle off to Buffalo, Chuck Schumer! Bid farewell to Bernie Sanders! It would get to the point only atheists would be in office, and given some of the hardcore atheists I’ve seen online, we might be better off governing ourselves.

Even if Leftists aren’t listening to reason, we should encourage them to really push for separation of church and state at every level. You know, just to see their faces as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden will have to resign. In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to know your rights. That makes it easier to fight for them when the time comes and to know when others are trying to undercut them.

And this last part is really fun, too. Leftists expect Christians to shy away from letting other religions celebrate on public grounds. To be fair, there are some Christians like that, but most of us tend to be pretty open to letting other faiths have their time in the sun (especially sun worshipers) because we realize freedom of religion is a two-way street instead of a cul de sac (which is French for “sac of the cul). It doesn’t have to be either-or. In fact, I have four words for any Leftist who demands all religions get equal time in public schools.

Your terms are acceptable.