A Tacky Cartoon Event in Texas Brings Jihad Stateside – Religions Routinely Target – All Religions

What amounted to a small gathering of those who, in the name of free speech (and shock most likely given the recent disaster in Paris), has made headlines (in certain respects), as two Isis morons decided to blow up the event. They managed to wound a security guard before being killed by overwhelming force. Isis took credit in some social media posts, and of course, there were plenty in the US who were opposed to the event to begin with. (Daily Mail UK). It goes without saying that religions in general are a target in the US based precisely on our right of free speech to express ourselves (with limitations – i.e. fire in a crowded even where no fire exists). Given the lampoons and downright disgusting portrayals of Christian, Jewish, and other religions, all without one smattering of violence or extreme protests, it would be assumed that regardless of what the religion decrees, (Islam), there is no room for reprisals on American soil, given our laws.

If one cannot recall any instances where events unfolded that many may have found “jihad” worthy, there was the Feces covered Madona as an art exhibit(Mt. Holyoke College) – No one blow up. There were the cartoons, not all complementary of the Pope (Jason Bach Cartoons) No one blown up.

The things we find offensive are just that, but not cause of murder, unless of course, that is the tenant of a religion based on an aggressive world domination basis. History in seconds. Mohammed, prophet or not, was a general who, being somewhat of a visionary, decided the only way to build up the ranks to do battle and unit all those myriad fighting tribes, he would form a religions. He borrowed heavily from the Jewish texts, and before one knew it, he had conquered Jerusalem, marched his armies across Africa, and made it all the way to Spain (Of course, deceased and legened by that point). What is missing from today’s history, if it is taught at all, is the reality of a religion based on a general understanding that the masses will follow eh name of Jihad and the Ruling class will amass a fortune, while controlling the world – just isn’t’ – a religion of peace. It may have evolved, somewhat in the past 5 centuries, but the vestiges of medieval thought still cling to many who simply do not wish to jump forward and join the rest of the world – in peace, and in prosperity.

Therefore, although much can be said of scam religions (and there is much that has, from Catholicism, to Judaism, to Buddhism to Mormonism) and although there has been violence in the name of religion (most notably and most recently the Irish Catholic – British Protestant debacle in the UK) one might note it is based most entirely on political loss or political gain, having nothing whatsoever to do with actual – religion.

None-the-less, there is no place in the US for this type of BS where a cartoon cannot be drawn without death threats, or worse, events cannot be held without pounds of security in the event one might be offended and decide to blow up, behead, or otherwise practice a religion which should have died out in the 1400’s (instead of actively pursuing the slave trade in African, in league with the Dutch, and later causing a much ballyhooed civil war in this nation. (This blogger suggest taking advanced history course, if one is any longer available).

So much for reality – and plenty of backslapping for blowing up two would be ISIS terrorist in a suburb of Dallas.

The solution is simple, lock down the borders, close all of their social media accounts and start teaching the world, exactly what this religion consists of – in fact, not just this religion all religions – as part and parcel of history, for good or for ill, they should all be taught in schools. The reality of the said religion and not the practice of said religion.

Might go a long way to opening the eyes and ears of a nation clearly undereducated and swayed more by political correctness than reality.

Clinton Announces 2016 Candidacy – GOP to add Rubio to the Roster this week

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy via social media this weekend in what the Washington Post dubbed: “A long awaited announcement”. Apparently, Clinton is going to strike a populist tone.

If there was a do-over and 2008 was the year, that would have been the time to forward Clinton as the candidate of choice (she was the popular candidate of choice, she was not the candidate of choice for the Super Delegates), unfortunately that did not happen. At that time, there was as choice between Clinton, McCain and Obama, it was a no-brainer for the women of America, both Independents, Democrats and yes, some Republicans’. Unfortunately that was not to be, we can’t turn back the clock, and despite best and worst intentions of the media – it may not be the best time for Clinton in 2016. Martin O’Malley is running as well, and he strikes a younger more attractive tone vis a vis the aura of Dynasty that hangs about Clintons Neck.

On the GOP side, polling suggests according to Bloomberg, that Rand Paul and Jeb Bush may have problems in the primary, although, Bush more than Paul, while other conservatives such as Ted Cruz will fare better. (Bloomberg). One might suggest that a robust primary, sans the attack ads at Paul (first) and second whoever does not fit the Beltway image of what is right for the nation, is what does the primary a disservice. Let the duke it out in the debates and the same should hold for the Democrats. Several news sources site that Rubio will announce this week – adding to a decidedly “youthful” cadre of candidates.

A note on those dark and menacing political ads – those should be pulled – one by Ron Paul, a candidate which this blogger finds more than worthy of support, is exactly the type of negative ad, dark, foreboding, that turns back on the candidate. Having watched so many good politicians go down in flames due to bad ads, the anti-Hillary ad is just that. Highlighting differences is fine in this opinion, helping the competition is not. Humble opinion notwithstanding, this general election primary is shaping up to be one of the most interesting - a lot of smart people are running, and there is nothing that the country needs more than a fresh face with a brain.

Rand Paul and the Hungry Press

The New York Times complains that Candidate for the GOP Nomination, Rand Paul, has become “testy” in interviews. Apparently, over the past several years, the press has been wearing a leash, and suddenly turned aggressive, when Paul took center stage. In a few interviews, the earnest journalist spluttered furiously at the Senator with a barrage of questions – and was surprised when he has the unmitigated gall to appear somewhat authoritarian..

Can one blame the press? After all, they haven’t had a real interview in years with a political figure of merit, so, they are somewhat unchained for what seems like the first time, and never being pushed back, are aghast that someone might do so. To the press: “welcome to the real world”.

In the instance where the media is full of tomes on the Senator’s sexist demeanor to two female reporters, they must have failed to listen to the painful manner in which they phrased (using that word politely) what should have been a question, but came across as a litany of nagging, shrill and senseless jargon. Regardless of the fact that they should have used the opportunity for a “gotcha moment”, they were either wasting both their time and the Senators for one of two reason, the first, being incompetence due to the inability to reign in a desire to get the man, and the second, by design, so that the mighty female demo might just buy into the “mean and cranky towards an idiot equals sexist angle.

Difficult to tell.

Either way, the words “unfair” have been uttered by those women who don’t normally follow Politics other than the evening news. This bodes well for Paul, as those who are furiously condemning him for having a “short temper” may be missing the bigger picture. Paul, who is no dummy, merely points to the press the majority either ignore or despise, with a few tolerating and fewer applauding the very same.

It would be refreshing to see this same journalist treating say, a political opposition candidate in the same manner. But that would endanger one or even both of the following: their ideology or their job.

As a feminist, it galls me to hear something that should be called out as ridiculous on the part of the screamer, what it is, she lost control, instead of pointing the “sexist” finger at the target, girls, get a grip. Had a man been in the same seat, and acted in the same manner, perhaps he’d get the same push back from the Senator. Merely look at the difference in the mannerisms of Sean Hannity, who in the Times article was said to receive a ‘testy” answer, but, apparently the author did not watch the interview, Hannity moved on and the interview was “cordial. Compare to Savannah Guthrie, who asked not one, but a never take a breath, barrage of questions – unprofessional, and sadly lacking. She deserved what was dished out.

They may call the Senator Cranky – but the base, and one might suggest the general public is not buying it. It appears, after watching years of a benign and shackled press, that they are the ones being the bully. Go figure.

As the next announcement is made, be in from a Democrat, or yet another GOP candidate (and there will be plenty) Savannah will have the opportunity to either barrage them both in a bi-partisan manner or make it extremely plain that she favors one party over the other, losing credibility. Perhaps when she has the next opportunity – she might review some tapes of Barbara Walter.